HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog080
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Port ludlow Resort Plan Revision
Pre-draft. DraftSupplemental'Environmental
Impact'Statement
Jefferson .County Departmentot
Community Development
March .151 2004
. -, ITFIl. (l
LUl., ) 1 .~.IVl
,,' Y2Q
." (,
...r \./ ___---
,/aae \ of " u&
" -...---...-.- -
In) [E" if'\) I'-F' n ~\!J" t! i;c:l r"'-',
11\. ,", Ii " ,? H f Ii',' '.' I."".'
~t <~;t~l'::.t~' ~ ~~\~.
" I I" "
'-''\ I:" J 1
I , " :' r j ~
uru I MAR 1 6 2004 l0;
L_..".._.._..,..._...._._.~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table of Contents
PaQe No.
FACT SHEE T ......... ...... .... .............. ...... .... ..... ..... .................. ..... ........... ...... .......... ........... .............. ........ F S-1
DISTRIBUTION LIST. ..... ..................... ...... .......... ................ .............. .......... ......... ......... ................... D L-1
CHAPTER 1 - SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................1 ~ 1
1.1 PROPOSED ACTION.................... ....................... ............................................................. ................. 1-1
1.2 LOCATION OF THE PROPOSAL.....................................................................................................1-1
1.3 PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSAL............................................................................... 1- 1
1.4 PROJECT HISTORY .................... ...................................................... ..................................... ...........1-4
History of the Port Ludlow Community and MPR .........................................................................................1-4
MPR Development Regulations........................ ...... ........ .... ............................................. ................ ............. .1-4
SEP A Review ............... ................... ..............................:.......................................... ............... ..................... ..1-5
1.5 SUMMARY OF AL TERNA TIVES....................................................................................................1-6
Alternative 1: Proposed Project - 2003 Resort Plan....................................................................................1-6
Alternative 2: 1993 Resort Plan............................... .............. ................................ ...................................... .1-7
Alternative 3: No Action - Existing 1999 Resort Plan..................................................................................1-1
1.6 SCOPING NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS..............................................................1-11
1.7 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION ..........................................................................1-11
CHAPTER 2 - PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES..................................................... 2-1
2.1 Description of Proposal.................. ............ ......................................... ..................................... ...........2-1
2. I. 1 Name of Proposal............................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.1.2 Environmental Impacts............ ................ ........................................ ....;............................................ 2- 1
2.1.3 Mitigating Measures............................................ ....... ........................................... .......................... 2-1
2.1.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................,............................................................................ 2-1
2.2 Proposed Proj ect and Alternatives....................................................................................................... 2-3
2.3 Benefits/Disadvantages of Delaying Implementation ............................................... .......... .............. 2-12
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS,
MITI GA TIN G MEASURES ........................................................................................ 3-1
3.1
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.3
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.4
3.4
3.4.1
3.4.2
3.4.3
3.4.4
3.5
3.5.1
EARTH................................................................................................................................................ 3-1
Affected Environment...................................... ........... ........ ................. '" ........... ..............................3- 1
Environmental Impacts .................. ...................... ......... ............. ........ .................... ............ ..............3-3
Mitigating Measures......... ...... ................. ......... .......... ...................................... ................... ....... .....3-9
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts........................... ........................ ........................................ ..............3-9
WATER............................................................................................................................................. 3':1 0
Surface Water............ ...... .......................... ..... ...... ................. .... ....... .............................................3-10
Groundwater.... ..... .............. ... ......... ... ..... .... ....... .......... ... ....... ............... ...... ........ ... ... .......... ...... .....3- 1 5
PLANTS AND ANIMALS ................................................................................................................3-20
Affected Environment......... ............................... .... ..... ............................ ..... ................. ................. 3-20
Environmental Impacts ....................... ......... ....... .... ............ .... .......................................................3-26
Mitigating Measures........... .............. ............... .... .............................. ............................. ............... 3-33
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .......................... ............. ..... ................... ..... ... ................................ 3-35
LAND AND SHORELINE USE ...................... .................................................................................3-39
Affected Environment ... ....... .......................... ..... ................ ........ ............ .......................................3-39
Environmental Impacts.. ... ..... ..... ...... ... ...... ... ... .... .............. .... .... .......... .............. ... ............. ... .........3-42
Mitigation Measures............... .................... ..... ... ............. ........... ..................... ................... ..... ......3-51
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ..................................................................................... 3-51
LAND AND SHORELINE USE-RELATIONSHIP TO PLANS AND POLICIES .........................3-53
Affected Environment....................................................... ..... .............. ............. .............................3-53
DRAFT
i
March 2004
...
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.5.2 Environmental Impacts....................... ............ ............................................................................... 3-58
3.5.3 Mitigation Measures...................................................................................................................... 3-60
3.5.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .....................................................................................3-61
3.6 TRANSPORTATION .......................................................................................................................3-62
3.6.1 Affected Environment.. .................................................... ........................................................ ......3-64
3.6.2 Environmental Impacts........................... ........ ,........................................................................... ...3-72
3.6.3 Mitigation Measures.................................................................................................;.................... 3-91
3.6.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts..................... .~...... ... ....................... .................................................3-92
PUBLIC SERVICE AND UTILITIES...... ............................ ..................................... .................. ..... 3-93
Fire/Emergency Services............ ......................... .......................................................................... 3-93
Water Service........ ......... ........................ ........ ................... .... ....... ........ .................................... ......3-97
Sanitary Sewer Service ..... ............................... ............................................... ........ .......................3-98
3.7
3.7.1
3.7.2
3.7.3
Figure List
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map......... .................... .................................................................... ......................... ...1-2
Figure 2 - Location Map................ ....... ......... ....... ................ .................................................................. ...1-3 ~
Figure 3A - Alternative 1,2003 Resort Plan .............................................................................................1-8
Figure 3B - Alternative 1, Marina Expansion ...........................................................................................1-9
Figure 4 - Alternative 2, 1993 Resort Plan ........ .......... ........................ .............. ........... ...... ...... ............ ...1-1 0
Figure 5 - Alternative 3, No Action.........................................................................................................1-12
Figure 6 - Site Topography....................................................... ................................................................ .3-2
Figure 7 A - Section View Plan................................................... ...................... ................................ ...... ...3-5
Figure 7B - Section A-A.................................... ............ ......................... .......... ............ .......................... ...3-6
Figure 7C - Section B-B ................ ...................................... .............................. ...................................... ..3-7
Figure 8 - Basin Exhibit................. ....... ....... ......................... ............................. ......... .............. ............. ..3-12
Figure 9 - Principal Port Ludlow Area Aquifers .....................................................................................3-17
Figure lOA - Landscape Types and Figure Locations .............................................................................3-36
Figure lOB - West and South Side Lagoon .............................................................................................3-37
Figure 10C _ South Side Lagoon ..... .......... ............................... ......... ............... ...................... ................ .3-3 8
Figure II - Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations .......................................................................3-41
Figure 12A - Alternative 1, Building Layouts .........................................................................................3-45
Figure 12B - Alternative 1, Typical Elevations .......................................................................................3-46
Figure 13 - Alternative 1, Pedestrian Access Plan......................................................;............................3-48
Figure 14 - Shoreline Environment Designations.................................................................................. ..3-~7
Figure 15 - Expected Daily Traffic Volumes ..........................................................................................3~63
Figure 16 - 2003 PM Peak Hour Volumes (Weekdays) ..........................................................................3-67
Figure 17 - 2003 Estimated Weekend Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................................3-68
Figure 18 - Estimated Weekend Trip Distribution Alternative 1 ............................................................3-74
Figure 19 - 2010 Estimated Weekend Daily and Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Alternative 1..................3-76
Figure 20 - Estimated Weekend Trip Distribution Alternative 2 ............................................................3-82
Figure 21 - 2010 Estimated Weekend Daily and Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Alternative 2..................3-83
Figure 22 - Estimated Weekend Trip Distribution Alternative 3 ............................................................3-88
Figure 23 - 2010 Estimated Weekend Daily and Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Alternative 3..................3-89
Figure 24 - Existing Resort Utilities ........ ....... .............. .............. ................... ...... ...... ........ ........... ......... ..3-96
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
Ii
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table List
Table 1 - Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigating Measures...............................................1-14
Table XX - Comparison of Alternatives..................................................................................................2-11
Table 2 - Accident History ......................................................................................... ........................... ..3-66
Table 3 - Existing Weekday Levels of Service........................................................................................3~ 70
Table 4 - Existing Weekend Levels of ServiCe...,....................................................................................3. 70
Table 5 - Estimated Weekend Trip Generation Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)...................................3-73
Table 6 - 2010 Weekend Levels of Service .............................................................................................3-75
Table 7 _ Estimated Weekend Trip Generation Alternative 2 .................................................................3-80
Table 8 - 2010 Weekend Levels of Service .............................................................................................3-81
Table 9 - Estimated Weekend Trip Generation Alternative 3 .................................................................3-86
Table 10 - 201 0 Weekend Levels of ServiCe ...........................................................................................3-87
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix List
Jefferson Co. Ordinance No. 08-1004-99 Port Ludlow Development Regulations
Plants and Animals - Port Ludlow Resort Regional Conditions, GeoEngineers, March
2004
Landscaping Plan, Port Ludlow Resort
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Parks and Recreation and Shoreline
Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
Port Ludlow 2003 Resort Plan MERU Calculation
Year 2010 Background Traffic Volumes and LOS Base Conditions, Geralyn Reinart, PE
Fire District No.3 Correspondence
List of Acronyms Used
DRAFT
iii
March 2004
~
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FACT SHEET
Proposed Action:
The proposed action is a Major Revision to the Port Ludlow Resort Plan, consistent with Section
3.90 of Jefferson County Ordinance No. 08-1004-99/Development Regulations for the Port
Ludlow Master Plan Resort (MPR). The Resort Plan identifies the type and size of facilities to
be located within the Resort Complex/Community Facilities Zone within the MPR. The
proposed revisions to the Resort Plan will decrease the size of the remaining facilities proposed
to be located within the Resort area. The Resort will be oriented to serving the traveling public,
rather than serving as destination conference facility for large groups. New facilities are
proposed to include a new Harbor Master restaurant (relocated), a new recreation building, a new
marina office and store (retail), PLA offices within the former conference building, a new
maintenance building, 101 new residential units, a 100-slip expansion of the marina, a central
receiving dock, a new shoreline boardwalk/esplanade, additional off-street parking, open space
and trails, and associated infrastructure improvements. In 2002, a project-level Supplemental
EIS (Port Ludlow Marina Expansion SEIS) was prepared to address the 1 DO-slip expansion of
the marina.
Location:
The Port Ludlow MPR is located adjacent to and surrounding Port Ludlow Bay, Jefferson
County, Washington. Port Ludlow Bay is located on the west shore of Admiralty Inlet at the
mouth of Hood Canal (portions of Sections 9 and 16, Township 28, Range IE). Within the
MPR, the Resort complex is located north of the marina, between Oak Bay Road and Port
Ludlow Bay. The location of the project is shown in Figures 1 and 2.
Lead Agency:
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
Project Proponent:
Port Ludlow Associates, LLC
70 Breaker Lane
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
Responsible Official:
Al Scalf, Director
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
March 2004
...
DRAFT
FS-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Contact Person:
Michelle Farfan, Associate Planner
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Jefferson County File No.:
and SDPOO-00014, Shoreline Primary Use Substantial Development Permit
Authors and Principal Contributors:
This Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SEIS) has been prepared under
the direction of the Jefferson County Department of Community Development. Research and
analysis was provided by:
Reid Middleton, Inc. Document Preparation and Marina Engineering
728 134th Street SW, Suite 200
Everett, W A 98204
(425) 741-3800
Pentec Environmental, Inc. Analysis of the Marine Environment
120 Third Avenue South, Suite 110
Edmonds, VVi\ 98020
(425) 775-4682
GeoEngineers, Inc. Analysis of Upland Habitat and Artificial Lagoon
1550 W oodridge Drive SE
Port Orchard, W A 98366
Geralyn Reinart, P.E. Transportation Analysis
1319 Dexter Avenue North
Suite 103
Seattle, W A 98109
ESM, Inc. Upland Site Civil Engineering
720 South 348th St.
Federal VVay, VV A 98003
Architectonics, Inc. Upland Site Planning and Building Design
1018 Market Street
Kirkland, W A 98033
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
March 2004
~
DRAFT
FS.2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Required Permits and Approvals:
Jefferson County
. Major Resort Plan Revision, Department of Community Development
. Construction Plan Approval, Department of Public Works
. Plat Amendment, Department of Community Development
. Shoreline Primary Use Substantial Development Permit - Department of Community
Development and Department of Public Works
. Building Permit - Building Department
State of Washington
. 401 Water Quality Certification - Department of Ecology
. Coastal Zone Management Consistency Determination
. Hydraulic Project Approval- Department ofFish and Wildlife
Federal Government
. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 10 Permit - Docks and Pilings
Date of Issue of Draft SEIS:
Date Comments are Due:
Location of Draft SEIS for Review:
Copies of this Draft SEIS are available at the following locations for review:
Technical reports, background data, and other relevant information are available at the Jefferson
County Department of Community Development.
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
Port Ludlow Bay Club
120 Spinaker Place
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
Port Ludlow Beach Club
121 Marine Drive
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
Port Hadlock Branch, Jefferson County Public Library
Port Hadlock, WA 98339
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
FS.3
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Copies Distributed:
Applicant
Port Ludlow Associates LLC
Mark R. Dorsey, P.E.
70 Breaker Lane
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
Jefferson County Departments
Jefferson County Public Works
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
Jefferson County Natural Resources
615 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
State of Washington Agencies
Department of Ecology
SEP A Review
PO Box 47703
Olympia, W A 98504-7703
Department of Ecology
Shorelands SW Region
Jeffree Stewart
300 Desmond Drive
Lacey, WA 98503
Department of Natural Resources
SEP A Review
Dave Deitzman
1111 Washington Street SE
Olympia, W A 98504-3135
Department of Natural Resources
Jeff Schreck
411 Tillicum Lane
Forks, WA 98331
Department ofFish & Wildlife
SEP A Review
1111 Washington Street SE
Olympia, W A 98504-3135
DISTRIBUTION LIST
TribalCJovernment
Port CJamble S , Klallam Tribe
31974 Little Boston Road
Kingston, W A 98346
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
1033 Old Blyn Highway
Sequim, W A 98382
Port Ludlow Roster
LMC CJovernmental Affairs Com
Richard Smith
PO Box 65060
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
Port Ludlow Village Council
PO Box 65012
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
(2 Copies)
Local Organizations
Port of Port Townsend
333 Benedict Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
Olympic Environmental Council
PO Box 1906
Port Townsend, W A 98368
Port Ludlow Bay Club
120 Spinaker Place
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
Port Ludlow Beach Club
121 Marine Drive
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
Port Hadlock Branch,
Jefferson County Public Library
Port Hadlock, W A 98339
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
March 2004
~
DRAFT
DL.1
I
I Notice of Availability: Rae Belkin
Mats Mats Area Coalition
I US Army Corps of Engineers 900 Olympus Blvd
Seattle Regulatory Branch Port Ludlow, W A 98365
Attn: Susan Glenn
I 4735 East Marginal Way South Bert Loomis
Seattle, WA 98124 Loomis Properties
9500 Oak Bay Road
I National Marine Fisheries Service Port Ludlow, W A 98365
Attn: Shandra O'Haleck
510 Desmond Drive SE Paul Taylor Smith
I Suite 102 Nancy Taylor Smith
Lacey, W A 98503 63 Scott Court
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
I U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Attn: Lou Ellyn Jones Grant Colby
510 Desmond Drive SE Lori Colby
Suite 102 PMB 526, 2442 NW Market Street
I Lacey, W A 98503 Seattle, WA 98107-4137
Sally Smith D. A. & Sandy Routt
I PO Box 65435 87 Scott Court
Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Port Ludlow, WA 98365
I William G.Funke Peter A. Joseph
Diggie Funke Jeanne M.Joseph
75 Scott Court 6 Heron Road
I Port Ludlow, W A 98365 Port Ludlow, W A 98365-9300
Wendi Wrinkle Fred P. Delmissier
I 172 Hubbard Creek Darlene J.Delmissier
Port Ludlow, W A 98365 9514 NE 13th Street
Bellevue, W A 98004-3445
Ruth Altis
I 2408 State Avenue NE Donald S. Clark
Olympia, W A 98506 Anita J. Clark
8915 SE 56th Street
I Roger Larson Mercer Island, W A 98040
142 Resolute Lane
Port Ludlow, W A 98365 Janet L. Kennedy
I 26 Heron Road
Larry Lawson Port Ludlow, W A 98365-9300
10140 Oak Bay Road
I Port Ludlow, W A 98365 McCarry Family Trust
2 Heron Road
Jack Morris Port Ludlow, W A 98365
I Alice Morris
PO Box 650 Alton K. Lanterman
Maple Valley, WA 98038 221 First Avenue W, Suite 108
I Seattle, W A 98194
I Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan March 2004
Pre-Draft SEIS DL.2 ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Timothy J. Howard
Kazuko M. Howard
13129 Muir Drive NW
Gig Harbor, W A 98332-8897
George C. Hill, Trustee
Barbara F. Hill, Trustee
G&B Hill Trust 8-18-75
22 Heron Road
Port Ludlow, W A 98365-9300
Bernie J. Brown
20730 Bond Road NE
Poulsbo, W A 98370
William O. Master, Jr.
Judith L. Master
10 Heron Road
Port Ludlow, W A 98365-9300
Colleen J. Ferris
1619 Windermere Drive E
Seattle, WA 98112-3737
Burke F. Gibson
Dolores Gibson
89 Cascade Ky
Bellevue, W A 98006-1023
Bill Clark
10 Trader Lane
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
Vince Pace
211 Greenview Lane
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
Herman Voss
60A Fairway Lane
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
Clark Ruggles
125 Seaway Place
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
Dennis Madson
93 Driftwood Court
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
Carol Saber
P.O. Box 65487
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
Utilities and Services
Jefferson County Fire District 3
7650 Oak Bay Road
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
Olympic Water and Sewer Inc.
70 Breaker Lane
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
News Media
Port Townsend Leader
Copy Editor - Hearing
PO Box 552
Port Townsend, W A 98368
Peninsula Daily News
922 Washington Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
sjs\27pl\03\002\deis\fact sheet.doc
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
DL.3
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER1.SUMMARY
1.1 Proposed Action
The proposed action will be processed as a Major Revision to the existing Port Ludlow Resort
Plan and will result in the reduction of the scale of the resort function. The current Resort Plan
was approved in 1999 as part of Ordinance No. 08-1004-99/Port Ludlow Master Plan Resort
(MPR) Development Regulations; the approved Resort Plan is described in Section 3.901 of that
Ordinance.
The proposed revision to the Resort Plan ("2003 Resort Plan") will shift the focus of the Resort
from a conference facility serving large groups, to a destination resort for the traveling public.
The proposed revision will eliminate those features and amenities in the 1999 Port Ludlow
Resort Plan and associated development regulations that are designed to accommodate large
conference groups. The proposed revision will reduce the overall amount of resort development
at build-out and will include fewer commercial and public facilities, but it will include more
residential units than the existing 1999 Port Ludlow Resort Plan. This SEIS is designed to meet
the requirement set forth in Ordinance No. 08-1004-99, Section 3.902 and addresses project-
specific and cumulative impacts anticipated due to revision ofthe Port Ludlow Resort Plan.
1.2 Location of the Proposal
The Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR) is located adjacent to and surrounding Port
Ludlow Bay, Jefferson County, Washington. Port Ludlow Bay is located on the west shore of
Admiralty Inlet at the mouth of Hood Canal. The changes addressed in this SEIS affect the
marina and Resort Complex/Community Facilities zone of the Port Ludlow MPR. This zone is
specifically located on uplands adjacent to and north of the marina (portions of Sections 9 and
16, Township 28, Range IE). The location ofthe project is shown in Figures 1 and 2.
1.3 Purpose/Objectives of the Proposal
The objectives of the proposed revisions to the Resort Plan are:
· To respond to shifting market trends and reduced demand for large conference facilities
in the Pacific Northwest.
· To sustain the growth of the Port Ludlow community.
· To improve customer satisfaction with the condition ofthe facility.
· To upgrade and enhance services and amenities provided in the Resort
Complex/Community Facilities Zone.
· To minimize potential environmental impacts.
· To comply with Jefferson County development regulations.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
1.1
March 2004
~
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Port Ludlow Resort Plan DSEIS
,
\
,
,
,
"
"
,
to .,'
Shel ~9n );
'v/ i
:~
Project
Area
@
north
N.T.S.
Reid iddleton
I
I
r
I
I
~
~'
)
.,
~l
I
I
Port Ludlow
Master Plan
Resort
Boundary
1
1
- ......
Walker IA
, '~
!/.-.
is
CD
Cl
"0
~
~
~
o
"~: ~ "
~ "
~~'
~~
I
1
.1
1
I
r
\''-/
I..
'0
a:l
o
II:
/I)
01
:p
a:
~
.Q
B
-J
-.-,
1
1
L
,...-
'\
--- '\
/
Teal L,ake.l....'..............'.......
-\1
if
'f
.'if
'Z
,/
,1
@
.t
$
l:
.~
-
Reid iddleton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.4 Project History
History of the Port Ludlow Community and MPR
The Port Ludlow community was established in the mid-1800s as a logging, shipbuilding, and
sawmill town. Pope & Talbot purchased the Port Ludlow sawmill and adjacent property in the
1870s. By the 1880s, Port Ludlow was comprised of a sawmill, log dump, numerous houses, a
hotel and other facilities. The sawmill was permanently closed in 1935 and subsequently
dismantled. The existing homes were moved to Port Gamble.
Development of the current Port Ludlow Resort Master Planned Resort (MPR) was initiated in
the late 1960s. The multi-phase Port Ludlow MPR encompasses 1,800 acres surrounding the
inner portion of Port Ludlow Bay. The MPR as a whole includes residential, commercial, and
recreational/resort development, as well as significant tracts of permanent open space. The
original owner, Pope and Talbot, transferred ownership to Pope Resources in 1985. The MPR
was then managed by Olympic Real Estate Management, a subsidiary company of Pope
Resources until 2001, when Pope Resources sold its Port Ludlow assets to the present owners,
Port Ludlow Associates, LLC.
The Resort portion of the MPR is located on the site of the original Port Ludlow community-
along the north side of Port Ludlow Bay, between Oak Bay Road and Port Ludlow Bay. Resort
development of this area began in the late 1960s, with construction of the 285-slip marina, the
Harbor Master Restaurant, and the homeowners' Beach Club. A conference center building and
residential units were also constructed in the Admiralty I and II areas within the northeastern
portion ofthe Resort. The Inn at Port Ludlow (formerly known as the Heron Beach Inn) was
constructed in 1994, and adjacent townhomes were constructed beginning in 1994. The artificial
lagoon was first created in 1967 and expanded to its present size in 1994 in conjunction with
construction of the Inn and townhomes.
MPR Development Regulations
Jefferson County development regulations pertaining to the MPR have evolved over the last
thirty years, most recently after adoption of the 1998 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan as
required by the State of Washington Growth Management Act. Since 2000, development within
Port Ludlow has proceeded under the "Port Ludlow Development Agreement" and Jefferson Co.
Ordinance No. 08-1004-99 (an attachment to the Development Agreement), which sets forth
detailed development regulations for the MPR. Ordinance No. 08-1004-99 is reprinted in
Appendix A ofthis document.
Under the MPR regulations, the Port Ludlow MPR is divided into several zoning districts, one of
which is the "Resort Complex/Community Facilities Zone." Section 3.90 - "Resort
Development" of Ordinance No. 08-1004-99 describes the approved "Resort Plan" and identifies
the specific facilities (and their sizes) that are to be developed within the Resort
Complex/Community Facilities Zone. Changes to the Resort Plan that decrease the listed sizes
are allowed.
Under Section 3.90 of the MPR regulations, the Resort at Port Ludlow was envisioned to be a
destination resort for large groups, as well as the traveling public. The Resort facilities were
anticipated to encompass 498,300 square feet of development, not including residential
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEtS
DRAFT
1.4
March 2004
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
structures. Facilities were to include a 275-room hotel, two restaurants, resort retail, a
conference center, a recreation complex, museum or interpretive center, amphitheater, youth
center, an expanded marina, and public open space.
Since adoption of the MPR regulations, it has become evident that a destination resort oriented to
large conference grOUpS is not feasible for Port Ludlow and that the resort must be oriented more
to the traveling public. A change to the Resort Planas outlined in Section 3.906 of Ordinance
No. 08-1004-99 is therefore proposed.
In addition to the above market factors, the 1995 plat of Ludlow Bay Village (located within the
Resort zone) and subsequent construction of townhomes within this plat, has legally and
practically limited the ability of Port Ludlow Associates, LLC to site some of the larger facilities
anticipated by the MPR regulations. An attempted Redevelopment Agreement was proposed to
reconcile the conflicts between the MPR regulations and the plat, but this agreement failed for
lack of ratification. The failure of the Redevelopment Agreement legally and practically makes
implementation of the existing MPR Resort Plan infeasible.
SEPA Review
SEPA review is required for this project pursuant to WAC 197-11, SEPA Rules and Section 3.90
of Ordinance No. 08-10-1004-99. Jefferson County is using phased review, as authorized by
SEP A (W ACI97-11-060(5)(b)) and Section 3.902.1 of Ordinance No. 08-1004-99 in its review
of development projects within Port Ludlow.
Previous SEP A review for projects within the Port Ludlow Resort area has coincided with the
permitting process. In 1993, the MPR underwent a County permitting process for continued
development. Two EIS documents were prepared at that time - a programmatic document and a
project-level document. The 1993 programmatic EISfor the Port Ludlow Development Program
addressed the proposed build-out of the residential and commercial components of a Port
Ludlow Master Plan, including build-out of the Resort. The 1993 project-level EISfor the Inn at
Port Ludlow addressed proposed development within the southern portion of the Resort:
specifically, construction of the Inn at Port Ludlow (i.e., Heron Beach Inn), the addition of 72
residential units and 2,500 square feet of commercial space, construction of a Town Hall,
landscaping, parking for 400 vehicles, placement of riprap along the marina parking lot,
replacement of underground fuel tanks with partially aboveground tanks, expansion of the
artificial lagoon, and expansion for the marina and upland marina facilities (office, etc.).
In 2002, a project-level Supplemental EIS (SEIS) was prepared to address the 100-slip expansion
of the Port Ludlow Marina, an allowed Resort facility. This Supplemental EIS focused primarily
on issues associated with in-water construction in Port Ludlow Bay and was part ofthe in-water
permitting process which included the U.S Army Corps of Engineers, NOAA Fisheries, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, as well as
Jefferson County. The impacts identified in the "Port Ludlow Marina Expansion EIS" are
included in this SEIS to identify cumulative impacts as required by Sections 3.902 and 3.904 of
the MPR regulations.
The current SEPA process for the Resort is specifically addressed in Sections 3.902 and 3.904 of
Jefferson County Ordinance Number 08-1004-99. Section 3.902.1 states, "A project-level SEIS
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
1-5
March 2004
...
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
analyzing the resort plan is required prior to issuance of building permits for any new resort
development. Environmental review of the Resort Plan shall not be piecemealed or broken into
small segments...." One intent of this section was to assure that cumulative impacts of all new
development within the Resort area would be addressed.
Section 3.902.6 similarly provides, "Actual resort development may be undertaken in phases, but
only following completion of reviewand approval ofa full resort build-out plan through the
SEIS process." Jefferson County will not issue a land useor building permit for any resort
expansion until a project level SEIS for the full Resort Plan has been completed.
Section 3.904 identifies the preliminary scope of the required Resort SEIS or EIS.
1.5 Summary of Alternatives
The proposed revision to the "2003 Resort Plan" and two additional alternatives are evaluated in
this Draft Supplemental EIS. The two alternatives are based on two previous alternative
development scenarios for the Resort area - the Resort Plan as proposed in 1993, and the
approved 1999 Resort Plan. The 1999 Resort Plan is considered the "No Action" alternative; if
no change to the Resort Plan is made at this time, development would continue under the 1999
Plan, per existing County regulations and the existing practical constraints related to the plat of
Ludlow Bay Villge.
All three alternatives result in build-out of the Resort area, including a 1 DO-slip expansion of the
manna.
Alternative 1: Proposed Project - 2003 Resort Plan
The 2003 Resort Plan proposes that the Resort serve as a destination resort for the traveling
public, as opposed to large conference groups. This change will decrease the size of many resort
facilities identified in the 1999 regulations and will increase the number of residential dwellings.
Conferences will still be accommodated, but on a smaller scale and will be housed in existing
facilities such as the Inn at Port Ludlow, the Bay Club, and the relocated Harbor Master
Restaurant. At build-out, development within the resort area will include: ..
190 residential units (89 existing units within Admiralty I and II and Ludlow Bay Village
+ 101 new units)
Inn at Port Ludlow (37 rooms), including restaurant and loung~ (existing)
Harbor Master Restaurant - 5,000 square feet (relocated)
Private Recreational Facility - 7,500 square feet (new)
Private LMC Beach Club Recreational Facility (existing)
Marina - 380 slips (280 existing slips + 100-slip expansion)
Central Receiving Dock (new)
Permanent Emergency Helipad (new)
PLA Offices (within existing conference building)
Maintenance building - 2,900 square feet (new)
Off-street parking (expanded and reconfigured, with new elevator)
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
1.6
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Lagoon Landscaping (new)
Shoreline Boardwalk/Esplanade
Open space, trails (existing and new)
A conceptual site plan for Alternative 1 is shown in Figures 3A and 3B.
Alternative 2: 1993 Resort Plan
Alternative 2 is the Resort Plan as identified in the 1993 Environmental Impact Statements
prepared for Port Ludlow. This plan is similar to the Alternative 1 - 2003 Resort Plan, but has
slightly fewer residential units, new retail commercial space, a new town hall and marina
manager's office but no new maintenance or recreation facility. At build-out, the 1993 Resort
Plan would include:
186 residential units (64 existing + 122 new)
Retail commercial building - 2,500sq ft (new)
Heron Beach Inn - 37-room Inn, including restaurant and lounge (existing)
Harbor Master Restaurant - 5,000 sq ft (retained in its current location)
Town Hall- 1,850 sq ft (new)
Marina - 380 slips (280 existing slips + 100-slip expansion)
Marina manager's office (new)
Off-street parking
Open space, trails (existing)
The conceptual site plan for Alternative 2is shown in Figure 4.
Alternative 3: No Action - Existing 1999 Resort Plan
Alternative 3 is development of the Resort Plan as described in Section 3.901 of the existing
MPR regulations. No revision to the Resort Plan would be approved. At build-out, development
of Alternative 3 would originally have provided for 498,300 gross square feet of Resort
development, described as follows:
Hotel Guest Rooms - 275 rooms (37 existing, 238 proposed)
Restaurants - 59,000 square feet
One 200-seat, year-round restaurant
One 125-seat, seasonal restaurant, near the marina
Also includes hotel lobby & registration area, spa, kitchen offices, and storage
rooms
Lounge, 1 year-round, 125 seats - 5,000 sq ft (proposed)
Resort Retail - 2,500 sq ft (proposed)
Plus assoc. storage - 1,400 sq ft
Conference Center, associated with, and physically part of Hotel Building - 22,000 sq ft
(proposed)
Plus support areas and storage - 8,000 sq ft (proposed)
Indoor tennis courts - 26,000 sq ft
Indoor sports and pool complex - 13,500 sq ft (proposed)
Structured/underground parking -119,000 sq ft (proposed)
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
1-7
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 3A - Alternative 1
Port Ludlow Resort Plan DSEIS
2063 Resort Pian
r;--
7
7
>
<
m
~
o
...I
Q
:J
...I
I-
a::
o
a.
- --
- ~".,.
- -
- --
- --
- -
- -
Figure 4 - Alternative 2
Port Ludlow Resort Plan DSEIS
1993:ResortPJan
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Museum or Interpretive Center -7,500 sq ft (proposed)
Support Buildings - 12,000 sq ft (Maintenance, Warehousing, Housekeeping)
Youth Center - 4,000 sq ft (proposed)
Marina Expansion - 280 existing slips + 1 DO-slip expansion
Amphitheater - One (proposed)
Yacht Club - One (proposed)
FourSingle~Family Dwellings, 1- to 5-unit townhome(squarefootage not part of Resort
square footage)
All existing townhomes (1 single~family dwelling, 13 townhomes, 64 condominiums
units - square footage not part of Resort square footage)
An illustration ofthis Resort Plan is shown in Figure 5.
It is acknowledged that given the continued townhome development within the plat of Ludlow
Bay Village, this Alternative could no longer be fully developed as described above. If
townhome development were to stop, however, many features of this Plan could still be
constructed within the Resort area.
1.6 Scoping Notice and Request for Comments
The scoping period for this Draft SEIS extended from July 2 to August 31, 2003. Notice of the
scopingperiod was published in The Port Townsend and Jefferson County Leader on July 2,
2003. A public scoping meeting was held at the Port Ludlow Beach Club on July 16,2003.
Both written and oral comments were received. A full copy of the scoping comments is on file
with the Jefferson County Department of Community Development.
1.7 Significant Issues for Consideration
Major issues identified during the scoping process for the 2003 Resort Plan relate to:
1. Increased Residential Density vs. Reduced Commercial and Recreational Facilities
· The proposed 2003 Resort Plan increases the number of residential units from that
currently allowed and reduces the size and number of commercial and recreational
facilities to be constructed within the Resort. The current (1999) Resort Plan permits
87 residential units; the proposed 2003 Resort Plan would permit 190 residential
units. Additionally, the 2003 Resort plan would not include elements such as a large
hotel, an additional restaurant, resort retail, anew conference center, indoor tennis
courts, and a museum or amphitheater.
2. Alteration to the Plat of Ludlow Bay Village
· The plat of Ludlow Bay Village, a commercial and residential mixed-use subdivision,
is located within the southern portion of the Resort complex. This plat was recorded
in 1994, prior to adoption of the current MPR regulations. The plat created lots and
tracts for 53 town home units, five single-family units, the artificial lagoon, the Inn at
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
1-11
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 5 - Alternative 3
Port Ludlow Resort Plan DSEIS
1999 BesoriPJan --troAction
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
· Port Ludlow, the Harbor Master Restaurant (in its current location), open space, and
roadway and infrastructure improvements. The plat is not consistent with either the
currently approved Resort Plan, or the proposed Resort Plan revision, but continues to
be developed. To date, 25 townhome units within the eastern portion ofthe plat, and
one single-family dwelling, have been built.
In ordertodevelop the proposed Resort Plan (i.e., Alternative 1), PLA will submit a
request for a Plat Amendment for that portion of the plat owned by PLA. The
proposed Resort Plan, while similar in over-all character to the 1994 plat, provides for
increased residential density (i.e., 88 residential units, vs. 58 residential units in the
plat); this increased residential density within Ludlow Bay Village is of concern to
some existing townhome residents and property owners.
3. Parking and Vehicular Traffic
· The proposed 2003 Resort Plan, including the expansion of the marina, will create
demand for additional parking, especially in the vicinity of the shoreline. Will
sufficient parking be available during the peak summer months? Existing traffic
circulation in the vicinity of the Inn at Port Ludlow and the adjacent townhomes is
difficult for the townhome residents. Will the proposed development exacerbate the
problem?
4. Beach Access and Trails
. Access to public beach areas is currently not signed. There are no clearly defined
pedestrian trails through the Resort area. How will the new development address this
problem?
5. Stormwater and Water Quality
· What is the impact of additional development on the existing storm drainage system
and water quality?
Major issues related specifically to the marina expansion were identified during the scoping
processes for that project and are summarized below:
· Impacts of the marina expansion on adjacent properties; specifically - views, property
values, and impacts to ingress and egress to an adjacent dock;
. Impacts of the marina expansion to shoreline resources, wildlife habitat, and ESA
listed species; and,
. Impacts of the marina expansion on water quality.
Please refer to the 2002 Port Ludlow Marina Expansion EIS for a more detailed description of
these issues.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre. Draft SEIS
DRAFT
1.13
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 1 - SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACTS
AND MITIGATING MEASURES
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre. Draft SEtS
DRAFT
1.14
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 2 - PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
2.1.1 Name of Proposal
"Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort - Proposed 2003 Resort Plan "
2.1.2 Project Sponsor
Port Ludlow Associates LLC
70 Breaker Lane
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
2.1.3 Project Location
The Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR) is located adjacent to and west of Port Ludlow
Bay, Jefferson County, Washington. Port Ludlow Bay is located on the west shore of Admiralty'
Inlet at the mouth of Hood Canal. The changes addressed in this Draft SEIS affect the Resort
Complex/Community Facilities Zone and marina portion of the Port Ludlow MPR. This zone is
specifically located on uplands adjacent to and north of the marina (portions of Sections 9 and
16, Township 28, Range IE). The location ofthe project is shown in Figures I and 2.
2.1.4 Existing Project Features
The Resort Complex/Community Facilities Zone (RC/CF zone) at Port Ludlow is developed
with a mix of residential, commercial, retail and recreational uses. For purposes of discussion,
the northern portion of the Resort area is referred to as the "Admiralty" area, the central portion
is referred to as the "Ludlow Maintenance Commission (LMC)" ownership, and the southern
portion is referred to as, "Ludlow Bay Village". The "Admiralty" and "Ludlow Bay Village"
designations reflect the name of the underlying subdivisions. The LMC ownership is the
approximate five acre area administered and maintained by the LMC, whose members are
owners of townhomes in Ludlow Bay Village. This area is occupied by the Beach Club, tennis
courts, and off-street parking.
A detailed description of the existing project site follows:
Admiralty Area
Admiralty I and Admiralty II encompass a development of 64 stacked condominiums located in
the northeastern portion of the RC/CF zone. The condominiums were constructed in two phases
in the 1960's and 1970's, and were the first residential structures built in the RC/CF zone.
Th Admiralty ill area is an undeveloped approximate 11 acre tract lying immediately east of Oak
Bay Road, north of Heron Road. The northern portion of this area encompasses the original
conference center and associated parking; the southern area is now occupied by lawn.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-draft SEIS
DRAFT
2.1
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Conference Center
A 6,500 square foot conference center is located in the northwest section of the RC/CF zone.
This facility has off-street paved parking for 54 vehicles.
LMC Beach Club Recreational Facility
The LMC operates aprivate recreational club that is located in the central portion ofthe RC/CF
zone, alongthe shoreline and just south of the Admiralty I and II condominiums. The club is
open to members only, and provides amenities such as an outdoor and indoor swimming pool,
sauna, work-out facilities, outdoor tennis courts and squash courts, and the Bridge Deck - a
library/meeting room. The facility also includes off-street parking lots. Port Ludlow Associates
has a lease agreement with LMC that allows the marina to use 56 spaces in an LMC lot for
overflow parking.
Harbor Master Restaurant
This 5,000 square foot, two-story restaurant is located in the south central area ofthe RC/CF
zone between the artificial lagoon and Harbor Drive. The restaurant seats 120, and includes a
lounge known as the Wreck Room.
Inn at Port Ludlow
This 37 room Inn is located southeast of the lagoon on Burner Point, and within Ludlow Bay
Village. The Inn includes a restaurant and the Fireside Lounge, and was the primary subject of
the 1993 project-level EIS for the Inn at Port Ludlow. Vehicular access to the Inn is currently
from both Heron Road and Gull Drive. Parking for the Inn is situated between the Inn and
adjacent townhomes.
Ludlow Bay Village Townhomes
The 1994 plat of Ludlow Bay Village (LBV) provides for 53 townhome lots and five single-
family lots. To date, 25, two and three-story townhomes and one single-family residence have
been constructed. The townhomes are sited east and north of the Inn. Vehicular access to the
townhomes is via Heron Road and Gull Drive. The one single-family residence (the Pintail
House) is located at the west edge of RC/CF zone, along the shoreline.
Marina - 280 existing slips
An existing 280-slip marina extends south from the shoreline into Port Ludlow Bay. The marina
has side tie areas for an additional 20 to 40 boats, as well as a boat sewage pump out, dinghy
float, fuel float, kayak float, and public access to the water. The current mix of slips ranges from
24-foot slips up to side tie areas for boats in the 80-foot range. Upland facilities include a store,
rest rooms and showers, laundry, propane, parking areas, and waterfront trails.
Off-street parking
Paved off-street parking is located at each of the facilities noted above. Additionally, paved and
unpaved parking lots are located through out the RC/CF zone. Several paved and graveled
parking areas are centrally located south of Marine View Drive between the LMC Beach Club
Recreational Facility and Oak Bay Road.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-draft SEtS
March 2004
~
DRAFT
2.2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Open Space & Trails
Several areas of open space and trails are located in the RC/CF zone. Much of the area within
the Admiralty I and II area is open space and a playground is located along the central west edge
of the zone. A temporary, large open space used for special events such as weddings and
community gatherings is located along the shoreline in the Ludlow Bay Village area, between
the single-family residence and the artificial lagoon. Approximately half ofthesouthend of
Burner Point is designated open space and is developed with beach access.
2.2 Proposed Project and Alternatives
The proposed project is a major revision to the current 1999 Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan.
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 will each result in additional residential, commercial and recreational
development and full build-out of the Resort area at Port Ludlow (including a 100-slip expansion
of the existing marina). The alternatives differ in both the type and intensity of development
(hotel versus residential, etc.), and consequently the character of the Port Ludlow Resort.
Alternatives 2 and 3 are presented here as originally conceived in 1993 and 1999, respectively.
Elements of each alternative are labeled as either existing or proposed - this is meant to indicate
the condition of that element at the time the plan was written, i.e. as conditions existed at the
Resort in 1993 or in 1999. It must be noted that development and subdivision activity that has
occurred in Ludlow Bay Village since 1993 precludes full build-out of either Alternative 2 or 3
as originally conceived. While it would have been possible in 1993 or 1999, it is no longer
possible to construct some ofthe major facilities proposed in these alternatives because
development and lots platted in 1994 have reduced the size of available developable land.
Where a project element can no longer be built as proposed, a note has been added indicating
that this potential element would need to be revised (smaller, larger, different location, etc.) or is
no longer possible.
Section 3.4 -"Land Use and Land Use Designations" in the Draft SEIS addresses the potential
for build-out under Alternatives 2 and 3 given current conditions. Other sections within Chapter
3 also acknowledge this issue.
Alternative 1: Proposed Project - 2003 Resort Plan
The 2003 Resort Plan proposes that the resort serve as a destination resort for the traveling
public, as opposed to large conference groups. This change will decrease the size of many resort
facilities identified in the 1999 Resort Plan and development regulations, and will increase the
number of residential units. Conferences will still be accommodated, but on a smaller scale and
will be housed in existing facilities such as.the Inn at Port Ludlow, the Bay Club, the Beach
Club, and the relocated Harbor Master Restaurant. Large, outdoor special events will no longer
be accommodated. At build-out, development within the resort area would include:
. 190 residential units
The 190 units would consist of: the 64 existing stacked condominiums within Admiralty I
and II, the existing 25 townhomes withinLBV, the one single-family dwelling within LBV,
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-draft SEIS
DRAFT
2.3
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and 39 new tOwnhomes in the Admiralty ill area (32 stacked flats and 7, two-story
townhomes) and 62 new stacked flat condominiums within LBV. The 62 new units within
LBV will consist of 48 stacked flats, and 14, 2-story townhomes. Vehicular access to
existing townhomes within Ludlow Bay Village will be via Heron Road, and will be
separated from access to the adjacent Heron Beach Inn.
The new townhomes will maintain the existing architectural theme established in Ludlow
Bay Village (i.e., New England/Colonial) and will be 1,200 - 1,500 square feet in size-
smaller than existing townhomes in Ludlow Bay Village. The smaller size will allow for an
over-all variation in product type and price range.
· Inn at Port Ludlow - 37 room inn, including restaurant and lounge (existing)
The existing building will remain unchanged, however vehicular access to the Inn will be
modified. Vehicular access to the Inn and its associated parking will be restricted to Gull
Drive, and separated from access to the adjacent townhomes. The existing 36 stall parking
lot will be reconfigured to provide 55 spaces. Regarding interior improvements, the size of
the formal restaurant will be reduced to double the size of the Fireside Lounge.
· Waterfront Commercial Facility (proposed)
This I-story building will be located on the shoreline near the west end of the marina, and
will contain the Dock Master's office, the marina maintenance area, a store for marina
tenants and guests. This facility will be situated adjacent to the relocated Harbor Master
Restaurant. The building will maintain the New England/Colonial architectural theme.
· Harbor Master Restaurant - 120 seats existing/90 seats proposed
The existing restaurant building will be demolished, and the restaurant will be relocated to
the waterfront commercial facility near the marina. The seating capacity will be reduced
from 120 people to 90 people (inside seating for 60, together with outside seating for 30).
· Private Recreational Facility - 7,500 square feet (proposed)
This 2-story, indoor recreation facility will be located adjacent to the waterfront commercial
facility near the west end of the marina. The facility will include an indoor-outdoor
swimming pool, spa and a fitness center, and will be available only to residential property
owners within Ludlow Bay Village and their guests, guests at the Inn and guests at the
marina. The recreation building will also be designed in the New England/Colonial style.
· LMC Beach Club Recreational Facility and Bridge Deck (existing)
No changes to this private facility or its parking areas are proposed.
. Port Ludlow Associates Offices (existing building)
Offices for Port Ludlow Associates will be moved from their current location (off Paradise
Bay Road) to the old conference center along Oak Bay Road, in the north end of the RC/CF
zone. Approximately 30 employees will be located in this building.
· Maintenance building - 2,900 square feet (proposed)
This building will be used as a maintenance facility for the Inn and other Resort operations.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-draft SEIS
DRAFT
2-4
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. Off-street parking (existing and proposed)
All new residential units will include off-street parking for two cars. A total of 328 off-street
stalls will be provided in a series of paved parking lots for the marina, commercial, and
recreational uses in Ludlow Bay Village.
· Central Receiving Dock.(proposed)
A new approximate 1,000-square-foot central receiving facility will be located within an
existing parking lot on the north side of Harbor Drive.
· Open space, trails (existing and proposed)
A designated, signed trail system will be developed within Ludlow Bay Village to provide
for better pedestrian circulation and access to public portions of the shoreline. This system
will include an 8- foot wide wooden boardwalk along the shoreline that will extend from the
new recreation facility, east to the Inn. Existing open space along the south side of the
artificial lagoon will be retained, as will the open space at the end of Burner Point. Parking
for access to the public trails will be located at the upper community lot.
Vegetated slopes along the east side of Oak Bay Road and Harbor Drive will also be
retained. The southern portion of the Admiralty ill area will remain undisturbed at this time,
but ultimately may be used for additional parking.
. Designated Helipad for Emergency Evacuations (proposed)
A 20'by 20' paved helipad for use by Fire District #3. The pad will be located north of
Marina View Drive between Oak Bay Road and Olympic Place.
. Infrastructure Improvements
Storm Drainage - Within Ludlow Bay Village, the existing storm drainage system consists of
pipes from catchments to oil/water separators which drain to the artificial lagoon and
ultimately, Port Ludlow Bay. New water quality vaults will be added at each ofthe inlets to
the artificial lagoon to supplement water quality treatment.
Within Admiralty III, new storm water detention facilities, as well as water quality facilities
would be required. Upgrades to the downstream conveyance system may also be required.
Sanitary sewer and water service would be provided by the Olympic Water and Sewer
Company. New hook ups will be required but the capacity of the existing systems is
adequate to handle the increased use.
· Marina - 380 slips (280 existing slips + 100 slip proposed expansion)
The marina expansion is shown in Figure 3B. The proposed project adds 100 slips to the
marina by expanding the existing float system both westward and waterward. The proposed
configuration of the new floats/slips is as follows:
· D-Dock will be extended 120 feet to the west to accommodate an additional twelve
36- foot slips.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-draft SEIS
DRAFT
2.5
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. E-Dock will be extended 400 feet to the west to accommodate an additional 42 slips
(seven 50-foot, nine 60-foot, and twenty-six 45-foot slips).
. The east side ofE-Dock will be reconfigured to accommodate sixteen slips (eight 36-foot
slips and eight 40-foot slips, to replace 10 existing slips).
. A new F-Dock will be constructed waterward ofE-Dock. The newF-Dock will extend
700 feet westerly and 250 feet easterly ofthe central walkway. The new F-Dock will
accommodate 40 new slips (thirty 45-foot slips and ten 50-foot slips). F-Dock will serve
as a floating breakwater to protect the Marina.
The existing 1,600-sq. ft. timber kayak float will be replaced in the same location with a
2,850-sq. ft. float with light transmission capabilities. The existing 680-sq. ft. dinghy
float on C-Dock will also be replaced with three new floats totaling 960 sq. ft.
Please refer to the 2002 Port Ludlow Marina Expansion SEIS for complete details.
Alternative 2: 1993 Resort Plan
Alternative 2 is the Resort Plan as identified in both the project-level and programmatic
Environmental Impact Statements prepared for Port Ludlow in 1993. The 1993 Plan is similar to
Alternative 1 (2003 Resort Plan), but proposes four fewer residential units, new retail
commercial space, a new town hall and marina managers office and no new maintenance or
recreation facilities. New development along the shoreline is proposed as residential, rather than
commercial.
Note - Alternative 2 is presented here as originally conceived in 1993. Individual project
elements are labeled as either existing or proposed. This is meant to indicate the condition of
that element at the time the plan was written in 1993. It must be noted that it is not possible
today to construct some of the facilities as proposed in Alternative 2. The plat of Ludlow Bay
Village and townhome development that has occurred since 1994 has reduced the size of
available developable land. Generally, it is possible to implement this alternative and construct
the facilities, but the locations and sizes of the facilities would need to be adjusted. In these
instances, a note has been added indicating that construction of a potential element would need ..to
be revised (smaller, larger, different location, etc.) or is no longer possible.
At build-out, Alternative 2 would include:
. 186 residential units (64 existing units in Admiralty I and II + 122 proposed} units in
Admiralty ill and Ludlow Bay Village)
Within Ludlow Bay Village, residential development would consist of23 single-family
detached platted lots (11 along the shoreline at the west end of the marina and 12 north and
east ofthe artificial lagoon) and 49 multi-family units (20 townhouse units, 17 villa units, 11
units in mixed-use structures, and one "carriage house" unit). The average single-family lot
1 May require alternate location or size.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-draft SEIS
DRAFT
2.6
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
size would be 4,361 square feet; the average size of a multi-family unit would be 1,200
square feet. No architectural theme has been identified, but it is assumed the new units
would be consistent with the design of the Inn at Port Ludlow.
Further, 50 new townhomes would be constructed in the Admiralty ill area (in addition to the
existing 64 townhomes in Admiralty I and II). The size and architectural style of these new
townhomeshas not been specified.
. Retail commercial building - 2,500 square feet (proposedl)
Retail uses were to be located in the ground-floor space of a 3-story mixed-use complex
located in the northeast corner of Ludlow Bay Village. Anticipated retail uses included a
bakery/coffee shop and souvenir shop.
. Inn at Port Ludlow - 37 room Inn, including restaurant and lounge (proposed)
The Inn was initially proposed as a 3-story, 37 room Inn, in its current location. Access to
the Inn and its associated parking area was combined with access to proposed residential
development to the north and east.
. Harbor Master Restaurant - 5,000 square feet (existing)
The addition of a deck to the existing Harbor Master Restaurant was proposed.
. Town Hall- 1,850 square feet (proposedl)
A Town Hall, to be used for meetings and community activities, was to be located adjacent to
the mixed-use complex in the northeast portion of Ludlow Bay Village. The Town Hall
would be a maximum of 50 feet in height, with a footprint of 1,030 square feet and a total of
1,850 square feet.
. Off-street parking
Parking for 400 vehicles was to be provided within Ludlow Bay Village. Parking lots would
be provided in three general portions of the site, and smaller lots would accompany the multi-
family structures. Parking for single-family residents was to be on individual lots and
adjacent roads.
. Open space, trails
Within Ludlow Bay Village, approximately 10.5 acres would remain in open space. The
major open spaces included the southern end of Burner Point, and the expanded artificial
lagoon.
. Infrastructure Improvements
Storm Drainage - Within Ludlow Bay Village, impervious surfaces would cover
approximately 40% of the site. Stormwater runoff would be piped from catch basins to
oil/water separators, and ultimately to the artificial lagoon. After mixing with the lagoon,
water would be released into Port Ludlow Bay. A small portion of the runoff from shoreline
1 May require alternate location or size.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-draft SEIS
March 2004
~
DRAFT
2.7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
areas would not be routed through the artificial lagoon, but would drain through swales and
biofilters prior to release into the Bay.
Within Admiralty ill, new storm water detention facilities, as well as water quality facilities
would be required. Upgrades to the downstream conveyance system may also be required.
Sanitary sewer and water service would be provided by Olympic Water and Sewer Inc. (then
known as the Ludlow Sewer Company and Ludlow Water Company). New hook ups would
be required, but the capacity of the existing systems was determined to be adequate to handle
the increased use.
· Marina - 380 slips (280 existing slips + 100 slip proposed expansion)
This element is now the same for each alternative. See the description under Alternative 1
for more details of the expansion, or see the FSEIS for the Port Ludlow Marina Expansion
(2002).
In the original 1993 Plan, the marina would have expanded primarily to the east and west,
rather than out into the Bay. Dredging would have been required in a slightly less than one
acre area along the west side of Burner Point in order to increase depths and improve access
to inner docks.
· Marina Support Development (proposed)
A new 800 square foot marina manager's office and store would be constructed midway
between the Heron Beach Inn and existing marina buildings to the west. Marina restrooms
and laundry facilities would be housed in a new building at the location ofthe old marina
manager's office. Underground fuel and propane tanks would also be removed and relocated
to a partially aboveground containment bunker.
A conceptual illustration of Alternative 2 is shown in Figure 4.
Alternative 3: No Action - Existing 1999 Resort Plan
Alternative 3 is development ofthe Resort Plan as described in Section 3.901 ofthe existing
MPR regulations. It differs significantly from Alternatives 1 and 2 by proposing to fill two-
thirds ofthe artificial lagoon and develop a large hotel, conference center, amphitheater, several -
restaurants, indoor tennis courts, structured parking, museum, youth center and retail stores. The
recreation facilities would have served both guests at the conference center and residents of the
MPR.
Note - Alternative 3 is presented here as originally conceived in 1999. Elements of the plan are
labeled as either existing or proposed. This is meant to indicate the condition of that element at
the time the plan was written in 1999. It must be noted that it is not possible today to construct
some ofthe facilities as proposed in Alternative 3. The plat of Ludlow Bay Village and
subsequent townhome development since 1994 has reduced the size of available developable
land. Generally, it is possible to implement this alternative only with significant changes and
formal approval of a Redevelopment Agreement (requiring 100 percent approval of the Ludlow
Bay Village Homeowner's Association). In the absence of a Redevelopment Agreement, this
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-draft SEIS
DRAFT
2.8
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
would likely result in relocating and reducing the size of the hotel and conference center (with a
corresponding reduction in the resort amenities), and eliminating the amphitheater. A note has
been added to those items that would require relocation or adjustment, or elimination.
At build-out, development was to include:
. Lagoon Fill (proposed)
The western two-thirds of the artificial lagoon was proposed to be filled in to create an open
grass area.
. Hotel Guest Rooms - 275 rooms (37 existing, 238 proposedl)
A 238 room hotel was proposed to be located near the northeast edge ofthe filled section of
the artificial lagoon. The hotel, conference center and restaurant would be physically
connected to each other with enclosed breezeways.
. Restaurants - 59,000 square feet (5,000 Harbor Master + Inn Restaurant - Existing)l
One, 200-seat year round restaurant connected to the conference center and hotel
One, 125-seat year round lounge connected to the conference center and hotel
One, 125-seat seasonal restaurant near the marina
Also includes hotel lobby and registration area, spa, kitchen offices and storage rooms.
. Resort Retail - 2,500 square feet (proposed) with associated storage - 1,400 square feet
A marine/non-marine related retail store would be constructed near the shoreline at the west
end ofthe marina. This building would also contain the waterfront restaurant.
. Conference Center - 22,000 square feet (proposedl) with support areas and storage - 8,000
square feet (proposed l)
The conference center would be located between the hotel and restaurant on the north side of
the filled section of the artificial lagoon. The hotel, conference center and restaurant would
be physically connected to each other with enclosed breezeways.
. Indoor tennis courts - 26,000 sq. ft (proposedl)
Three buildings housing indoor tennis courts would be constructed in the southwest pori ton
of the resort, below Oak Bay Road.
. Indoor sports and pool complex - 13,500 square feet (proposedl)
One indoor sports building and an outdoor pool would be located south of the indoor tennis
courts, below Oak Bay Road.
. Structured/underground parking -119,000 square feet (proposedl)
I May require alternate location or size.
2 Cannot be constructed.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-draft SEIS
DRAFT
2.9
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CIl
~
;;.-
....
- -
l. ~
o =
~ l.
~~~
~~<
~O'"'"'
--0
~"O=
~ = 0
~....;lCll
....
1:: ;
o C.
~ e
o
u
e
Z
'-'
.l.
e Q,l
... Q,l '"
Q,l '" =
Z = ~
~ U
U
=
-
=
=
is::
t:
e
'"
Q,l
c:z::
~
~
~
-
=
=
~iS::
~t:
~ e
'"
Q,l
c:z::
M
Q,l
.::
~=
"'" e
Q,l .-
...'"
_ U
<<
=
=
is::
t:
e
'"
Q,l
c:z::
M
~
~
-
.l.
Cl Q,l
..~=
Z 5 ~
"'" u
u
=
-
N
Q,l
.::
...
=
=
"'"
Q,l
...
:;;:
=
=
MiS::
~t:
_ e
'"
Q,l
c:z::
=
=
is::
t:
e
'"
Q,l
c:z::
M
=
=
N
.l.
...~~
Z~5
~ "'"
U U
=
-
-
Q,l
.::
...
=
E
Q,l
-
:;;:
=
=
MiS::
gt:
N e
'"
Q,l
c:z::
'"
=
.S
-
:a
=
e
U
~
.5
-
'"
.>;
~
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-draft SEIS
J!lEl
'8 '8
:J:J
I I
00
I I
l1El
'8 '8
:J:J
00 ~
11"I \0
2l~
'8 '8
:J:J
~o
-11"I
+ +
",EJ
.-=: '2
:5:J
N~
r--=
~E!
'8 '8
:J:J
o 0'\
l""ll""l
+ +
",EJ
.-:: '2
:5:J
ool""l
00:2
J!l21
'8 '8
:J:J
00 ~
11"I \0
.c
]! d
"5 >'~
1l::s~
a.>
eo::
E
o
o
....
00
l""l
N
+
'"
E
o
o
....
11"I
r--
N
c?
'"
E
o
o
....
r--
l""l
I
o
I
E
o
o
....
r--
l""l
'"
E
o
o
....
r--
l""l
;:;
'0
:I:
'"
"t;5
a.>
ell
o
l""l
l""l
+
.::::
&
'"
o
o
o
N
N
+
'"
"t;5
a.>
'"
o
11"I
~
.::::
&
~.c
0:'=
O.'u
N '"
N~
~
a.>
Z
I
o
I
.::::
&
'"
o
11"I
l""l
00
+
EJ
'"
a.>
ell
o
N
-
8 +
~.::::~'":'
~ &:I: ct:
s:: '" E= .
oo~g'
UOoo
0llv:.~1I"I
.5 ~ ~ 00.
.~~-z~
><-
LiJCO
'"
"t;5
Q,l
ell
o
l""l
I
I
<:;>
ell
"t;5
a.>
ell
o
0'\
.1:'
~ ..2 :2: ,-..
:E U :I: ~
=-=ii.o.....
u '" :3 :3
~a.>ug
.co >.~
>< . '" eo::
LiJ]co
'-'
ell
"t;5
a.>
ell
o
N
-
>. ,-..
"'-
co lii
'" .....
a.>.o :3
:;: ..2 ~
::=Ua.>
~..ceo::
~~:2:
><cl'i:I:
LiJ . .0
s:: :3
s::-
cU
~
....
fi
'"
a.>
eo::
a.>
u
ii ~
~-;g
g'~
U~
DRAFT
2.11
.::::
&
'"
o
o
11"I
N.
+
go .... + .... '"
o ell 0 a.>
g o.~ 0 '':::
III -g .~ ~ =
~ ,- :;: :; 0
l""l':::: ~ 0 cS
+ ....
.::::
&
'"
o
o
11"I
N
+
.... . ..c
8S;3 .....
""0:30 '0
.:: ~ >- + 0
--:='1-0'" ~cu
q:::EBiio~
&+g:lE:;g
"'~.sua.>r--U
0.......- N
S;:=-a ><
.uS LiJ
~cS<
.::::
&
'"
o
o
11"I
N
+
o
I
.::::
&
ell
o
o
11"I
N
.....
'0
o
a.> a.>
-0 ~
:; g
r--U
N
><
LiJ
I
o
I
.::::
&
'"
o
o
11"I
r-:
+
I
o
I
. .....
ct: .c '0
&:.=0
(/)'u cu (1)
0"'- ell
0~~5
"'--a ,0
r--or--u
~""ON
z.s~
c?
.....
'0
o
a.> a.>
(5 ~
:I: 0
~u
N
><
LiJ
's
a.>
eo::
1::
o
'"
a.>
eo::
s::
o ell
.- a.>
~'';:
a.> '-
ti1:i
a.> '"
eo::~
.
'"
.9-
u;
o
o
+
'"
.9-
u;
o
o
ell
.9-
u;
o
o
+
'"
.9-
u;
o
o
-
ell
.9-
u;
o
o
+'
'"
.9-
u;
o
o
'"
.9-
u;
o
QO
N
'"
s::
'C
'"
:2:
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.3 Benefits/Disadvantages of Delaying Implementation
The SEP A Guidelines encourage permitting agencies to view each generation as a trustee for
succeeding generations. With this perspective, environmental review is encouraged to consider
whether approving/implementing a proposal at this time will preclude future options {W AC 197-
11-440(5)(c)(vii)}.
The benefits of delaying revision to the 1999 Resort Plan relate to preserving the option for
developing conference facilities for large groups (i.e., the No Action Alternative). If the new
Resort Plan is not approved, and Port Ludlow Associates ceases building new townhomes within
the Resort zone, some of the commercial/recreational facilities identified in the 1999 MPR
Regulations could still be developed if market conditions warrant such development. Expansion
of the marina could still occur under the No Action Alternative. Delaying implementation of the
proposed 2003 Resort Plan would not effect the provision of adequate public services or utilities.
The disadvantages of delaying revision to the Resort Plan relate to maintaining the economic
viability of the Resort. If the resort market cannot support the large conference and recreational
uses originally proposed, new conference facilities will not be built. In that case, Port Ludlow
Associates would likely continue to build out the plat of Ludlow Bay Village. It is unclear what
development would occur within the Admiralty ill area. It is not anticipated that undeveloped
properties would remain undeveloped over the long term, so pressure would continue to amend
the 1999 Resort Plan.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-draft SEIS
DRAFT
2.12
March 2004
~
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment, Environmental Impacts, Mitigating
Measures
3.1 EARTH
A detailed examinationofthe"Earth" characteristics for the marina expansion and the Ludlow
Bay Village areas can be found in the 2002 Port Ludlow Marina Expansion SEIS, the 1993 EIS
for the Port Ludlow Development Program, and the 1993 EISfor the Inn at Port Ludlow. A
more general discussion of the "Earth" characteristics for the RC/CF zone follows.
3.1.1 Affected Environment
Topography
The Resort area consists of terrestrial uplands and submerged lands in, and immediately north of
the inner portion of Port Ludlow Bay. Topography in the southern portion ofthe Resort area was
modified by progressive filling from the shipbuilding, logging, and sawmill activities that
occupied the site beginning in the late 1800s. Existing site topography is shown in Figure 6.
The uplands consist generally of a gently upward, south-east facing slope, ranging from 0
elevation at sea level and the shoreline near the marina, to an elevation of approximately 90 feet
at the northwestern boundary ofthe Resort. The upland topography can be broken into three
distinct areas; the flat lowland adjacent to the marina shoreline, which includes old fill; the
gently sloping upland plateau; and bands of steep slopes lying between the lowlands and
uplands. The bands of steep slopes (40+ percent) generally lie along the east side of Oak Bay
Road, south of Marina View Drive; one band of slopes also extends easterly and separates
existing parking and lagoon areas from property fronting Harbor Drive.
The beach slope above the existing Port Ludlow Marina consists of quarry spall and small riprap.
Further west, the beach steepens, and the 15- to 40-foot bank is covered with vegetation.
Property owners in this area have experienced problems with sloughing and erosion.
Within the marina, subsurface elevations range from -0 feet (MLLW) to -38 feet under the
outermost docks. Underwater slopes adjacent to the beach average 9 to 11 percent. Further
waterward, the bottom flattens with slopes ranging from 2 to 4 percent.
Port Ludlow Bay is a 2.2 square mile, J-shaped tidal basin, which extends from the mouth of
Ludlow Creek 3.5 miles to Admiralty Inlet.
The eastern approach to the bay is characterized by a submerged sill, which forms a submerged
basin open to the north. The average depth at the mouth of the bay is 78 feet (MLL W). From
this point, the bottom of the basin slopes upward for a di~tance of 0.5 mile to a depth of 48 to
54 feet. From here, the depth of the bay remains fairly uniform throughout most of its length to
within 0.5 mile of Ludlow Creek. The innermost 0.5 mile ofthe bay has a maximum depth of
40 to 42 feet.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre.Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.1
March 2004
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
.
I
I
.
I
.
.
,
.
.
I
.
.
I
.
I
J
J
.
I
I
.
.
.
.
/
I
PORT LUDLOW
/0
. .., / ' ..
/.> /1/ ,."",.
. _' 'J
. .
( IrY'
: ( ~-
\
.-..........---..-
\ 50205 f
~,_,____,__ ~250 I
~_...,_..-/
/
/
...-..-......//
v...--..---------___
0'.
-",j :;"
"',-,,,,.--,,-'"
.
~ /- . I
. ---.......... -.. -.. -.. -......... _.-
SCALE IN
~
100 0
FEET
I
100
j
200
-
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Soils
Upland Soils
The flat, lowland area above the marina contains fill material from the original lumber
processing and shipping uses. On-site soil investigations in this area were completed by
Shannon & Wilson in 1988, and by Landau Associates in 1991. These investigations found the
lowland area to be characterized by near-surface heterogeneous fill material, ranging from
imported native material to construction/demolition debris. Densities range from loose to very
dense, and portions of the area are very permeable. One isolated pocket of soil to the north of
the pond was found to contain trace levels of semi-volatile organic compounds. This soil was
removed in conjunction with expansion of the artificial lagoon in 1994.
Soils within the Admiralty area have been mapped as Swantown gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8
percent slope (SuB) and Indianola loamy sand (InC).
Marine Sediments
Landau Associates conducted subsurface explorations in the marina in 2001. Based on the
conditions encountered in seven borings, the area of the proposed marina expansion is generally
underlain by an upper unit of very soft, recent marine sediment over a lower unit of medium
dense/stiff, older marine sediment. Underlying the marine sediment is an upper unit of medium
stiff glacial deposits and a lower unit of dense/hard glacial deposits. These subsurface conditions
preclude the shallow anchoring of new floats.
Sediment sampling was conducted in 1987, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, and 1999. Metals tested for
include: arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc. Samples in
1995 were also analyzed for the content of organic carbon, fats/oil/grease (FOG) and pH.
Results of the sediment quality monitoring demonstrate that sediments in Port Ludlow Bay
contain low concentrations of heavy metals. The 1999 Report concluded" ...sediment quality is
comparable to other non-urban Puget Sound bays, metal concentrations are generally much
lower than in urban bays of Puget Sound, and sediment quality is not declining. "
Geologic Hazards
The 1998 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan includes maps depicting designated Critical
Areas. The Resort at Ludlow Bay is not shown as encompassing areas of Erosion Hazard. That
portion of the Resort along the shoreline adjacent to the marina is shown as "Landslide Hazard ~.
Low Risk", and the shoreline adjacent to the Admiralty I and II areas is shown as "Landslide
Hazard - Medium Risk." The flat, lowland area above the marina (i.e., area of fill) is shown as
an area of potential seismic hazard.
3.1.2 Environmental Impacts
Short.. Term Construction Impacts
Temporary, short-term impacts will result from construction activities. For all alternatives,
grading will be required for construction of building pads, reconfiguration of parking areas, and,
in the Admiralty ill area, installation of utility improvements. For the marina expansion,
construction work will also occur in and over water.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.3
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The upland erosion potential for this construction site is less than that for a typical construction
project because the construction activity will be spread-out in various "pockets" throughout the
larger development, thus reducing the potential for large amounts of erosion or erosion runoff.
Also, many of the areas being proposed for construction have already been cleared of their
existing vegetation through previous grading activities. This previous work will reduce the
current clearing and grading time and thus reduce erosion potential. Because of many
unforeseen circumstances such as a large unexpected rain. event. during construction or a longer
than expected construction schedule, erosion control measures will nonetheless be implemented.
No upland earthwork will extend below Ordinary High Water (OHW).
Construction activities associated with installation of new piles in Port Ludlow Bay will result in
a temporary increase in localized turbidity. A more detailed discussion of turbidity is included in
the 2002 Port Ludlow Marina Expansion SEIS. No dredging will be required for the marina
expansion in any Alternative.
Because of the quality of the existing sediments in Port Ludlow Bay, re-suspension and
movement of contaminated sediments is not considered a significant impact.
Long-Term Impacts
Alternative 1: Proposed Project - 2003 Resort Plan
Alternative 1 would require earthwork to reconfigure parking areas, construct new buildings, and
install new infrastructure in the Admiralty ill area. No major alterations to.site topography are
proposed. Except as noted below, existing steep slopes would remain undisturbed.
Proposed grading in the Ludlow Bay Village area will be relatively minor relative to the
development proposed. Parking lots will be placed close to existing grade, with a maximum
cross slope of 5 percent. Grading for the parking lots will require construction of one concrete
wall, a maximum of 18 feet in height, in the area of steep slopes north of the relocated Harbor
Master Restaurant. Grading for the residential buildings will also be fairly minor since many of
the buildings will be placed on pile foundations near the lagoon instead of a typical flat pad that
would require extensive fill. Residential units located on slopes will be built to accommodate the
slope by use of multi-stories with upper and lower entry-level parking. .
It is anticipated that total grading activities will result in comparable amounts of cut and fill and
therefore, import and/or export of material will be minimal. Sectional views of proposed grading
within Ludlow Bay Village are shown in Figures 7 A through 7C.
Grading activities within the Admiralty ill area will not be significant given the existing
topography.
Site soils are suitable for the proposed construction. Development within the Ludlow Bay
Village area will require ground improvement techniques to limit foundation settlement. To
date, the townhome structures built within this area (except those structures on the bluff above
the lagoon) have been constructed on piling. Each building site is evaluated on a case-by-case
basis by a geotechnical engineer to determine the requirements for foundation stability. From
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3-4
March 2004
...
Figure 7 A - Alternative 1
Port Ludlow Resort Plan DSEIS
E~
I
J
:i<:.
'--
~
~:r:-$
~'.....J tg~,
C.'....4~'~.'
u1l .
.. ."'1 ,..
... p;..
~'"'."!i?'="..'
"'7)':1' .
....~r:...~
<=] l:-~='__._.__
C
fa
-
D.
~
aJ
:>
C
o
--
.....,
v
aJ
'"
H.
--
-.
--
-.
-.
.H
..
h
Cl
Z t'l
W 0
0
_CD
Cl GlQ)
Z Gl<(
~~
~ .r:.:>. E
-' -Cll
~~ 0
t'l_ ~
.Cll '>
Z 1/)"-
Gl '0
0'0
C\lGl E
"u.. III
I Q)
~
==
==
o
N
o
IX)
o
v
\
\
\
~
Q::
o
IX)
+
v
Figure 78
Alternative 1
Port Ludlow Resort Plan
DSEIS
0
v
~ +
~ v
~
IX)
0
x 0
e> +
z 0 v
~ 0:::
D-
o::: D-
<{ <{
D-
o
co
+
I')
-----.------ .....
tt 0 <(
N I
.+ <(
I')
e> ..~I C
z " I 0
':;2 --
:0::: 0 ...,
......~ ~: IX)
II + U
N C1J
\n
-.
P.
.-
-.
ft_
-.
-.
..
..
i
n
C'l
0
0
_co
QlO)
Z Qlc(
~;:
.r:>. E
....I -0:1
~;: 0
C'l_ ~
.0:1 '5
IJ)~
Ql '0
0'0
CIlQl E
,...u. III
m Gl
si
==
0 ==
IX)
0 I:Q
0
O'g + I
v I:Q
N
C
O'S1 0
.-
0 ~
CO U
+
I"') C3J
N V\
()
0
N
+
I"')
N
ww
~t ~w
0 --
_w
w~
CO _w
+ W"
enf> ""
N "W
N cc ,.
w l!
we n
z
0 Cl
Z (')
V w 0
+ 0
N _<Xl
Cl GlC>
N z ~~
I- .c>. E
...J -111
~~ 0
::J (')- q
0 en .111 .S
Z cn~
0 Gl .0
0 0'0
+ NCIl E
N (J .....IL III
N I a>
~
0 0 0 0 0 ::
N co V v ::
I
o
co
o
v
o
o
v
I
o
N
..-
Z
LtJ
Q..
o
_ __ - u._ u~ ~J.:l
~~I\
o
co
+
L()
N
Figure 7C
Alternative 1
Port Ludlow Resort Plan
DSEIS
o
N
+
L()
N
o
co
+
v
N
o
v
+
v
N
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the past building activity and soil testing, it is assumed the new restaurant and recreation
buildings will be supported by steel or auger-cast concrete piling. Over-excavation of material
has not been used to date, and it is not anticipated that it would be used in the future. With the
use of piling, grading activity in these areas will be minimized.
Expansion of the marina will not affect geologic conditions in that area. Minor maintenance
dredging may be required at the northwest corner of the existing C-dock at some point in the
future, but the timing is unknown. Expansion of the marina to the west will increase boat
activity in the vicinity of properties that have experienced previous problems with erosion. It is
unclear whether past erosion problems were the result of boat wakes, storms, and/or upland
runoff. The western docks will reduce wave impact on the shoreline behind the floats.
A more detailed discussion of impacts associated with the marina expansion is contained in the
2002 Port Ludlow Marina Expansion SEIS.
Alternative 2: 1993 Resort Plan
Impacts of Alternative 2 on site topography and soils are similar to Alternative 1. Within
Ludlow Bay Village, more grading would be required within the steep slopes at the southwest
corner of the Resort (below Harbor Drive) to provide for the new residential development in that
area. No grading would be required, however, for reconfiguration of the upper parking lot south
of Harbor Drive.
Alternative 3: No Action -- Existing 1999 Resort Plan
Impacts to site topography and soils resulting from construction of Alternative 3 would be more
significant than with Alternatives 1 or 2, as the site would be more intensely developed.
Construction of Alternative 3 would require significant grading of existing slopes along the
eastern side of Oak Bay Road from the shoreline north to Marina View Drive in order to
construct the proposed parking and recreation facilities. In addition, the eastern one-half of the
existing artificial lagoon would be filled to provide required open space. It is also assumed that
the proposed amphitheater would not be constructed but that a conference center would be
constructed.
The original 1999 Plan envisioned the southern portion of the Admiralty ill area as open space,
in response to the more intense facility development within Ludlow Bay Village. If the area
were to remain as open space, no grading would occur. It is unclear, however, what would
happen to this area at this point in time given the less intense development in Ludlow Bay
Village.
Construction oflarge, heavy structures such as a parking garage (southwest corner of Resort) on
areas of existing fill would require extensive ground improvement techniques.
Impacts from the marina expansion would be the same as the impacts identified in Alternative 1.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.8
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.1.3 Mitigating Measures
Proposed (Alternative 1):
Short-Term, Construction Impacts - The following erosion control measures are proposed:
. Silt Fences -Silt fences will be placed around graded areas where vegetation has not yet
been established to prevent construction runoff from spreading sediment to adjacent
properties or Ludlow Bay.
. Mulching and Hydroseed - Mulch and/or Hydroseed will be placed on areas that have
been disturbed by grading and construction activity. Once placed and established, grass
and mulch help to prevent runoff containing high concentrations of sediment.
. Plastic Covering - Plastic covering will be used to cover stockpiles of soil on site, and
plastic may be used to temporarily cover slopes to prevent erosion before the
establishment of hydro seed or mulch.
. Interceptor Ditches w/Check Dams - Interceptor ditches will be used to direct stormwater' .
in the construction areas to temporary sediment traps and/or ponds. Check dams help to
reduce flow velocities and thus reduce the suspension of sediment in the stormwater.
Interceptor ditches may also be used to prevent stormwater from areas not under
construction from entering the construction area.
. Dust Control - Dust control management includes providing water trucks on site to spray
exposed areas during dry times where wind-blown dust is possible. Gravel construction
entrances and mulch also will help to prevent excessive dust.
. Sediment control facilities - Sediment ponds and sediment traps will be used to collect,
treat, and discharge stormwater runoff during construction. These facilities function as
small water quality facilities by allowing residence time for sediment to fall to the bottom
ofthe trap and discharging clean water from the top as water rises.
. In-water construction activities will be limited to the period between July 16 and
February 16 in order to minimize potential impacts to juvenile Puget Sound chinook
salmon, Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, and bull trout.
Long-Term Impacts
. Work in steep slopes will be minimized to the extent possible.
. New development will be designed to follow the existing topography to the extent
feasible.
. Site-specific geotechnical explorations will continue to be undertaken for each building
pad to determine construction recommendations.
3.1.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
No significant unavoidable adverse impacts to site soils or site topography are anticipated.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre. Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.9
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.2 WATER
3.2.1 Surface Water
The following information regarding surface water has been taken from the Port Ludlow
Development Program Draft EIS (1992), the Draft EIS for the Inn at Port Ludlow (1992), the
Port Ludlow Non-Point Monitoring Program 2002 Report (2003), the Draft Report..,..
Landscaping Plan, Port Ludlow Resort Expansion (2004), and information provided by ESM,
Inc.
3.2.1.1 Affected Environment
Water Bodies
No wetlands or streams are located within the Resort. A 2+-acre artificial lagoon is located
within Ludlow Bay Village above the marina. The Resort complex is surrounded by Port
Ludlow Bay on the south and east.
The existing artificial lagoon was first created in 1967 and then expanded to its current size in
1994. The lagoon is approximately 10 feet deep; a floating walkway connects the north and
south shore via a small island. Because the soils between the lagoon and Bay are porous, water
seeps out from the lagoon and pumps are used continuously to bring in saltwater via three short
waterfalls. Salinity of the lagoon water is expected to be similar to the salinity of the Bay
(approximately 30 parts per thousand), although the presence of freshwater from rainfall,
stormwater runoff, and any groundwater seepage, causes this level to fluctuate.
The artificial lagoon provides water quality treatment by providing residence time for stormwater
runoff prior to discharge into the Bay. The residence time allows time for suspended solids to
settle to the bottom of the lagoon, and improves the quality of water being discharged. Other
water quality parameters in the pond (i.e., dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and temperature) have
been reported to vary widely, which is common in small, shallow ponds.
Port Ludlow Bay is a 2.2-square mile, J-shaped tidal basin, which extends from the mouth of
Ludlow creek 3.5 miles to Admiralty Inlet. The location, geometry, and orientation of Port
Ludlow Bay is such that the strong offshore ebb-and-flood tidal currents in Admiralty Inlet
create a large eddy in the outer portion of Port Ludlow Bay that appears to reverse direction with
each tidal stage. Waters from Admiralty Inlet are drawn into the Bay under a wide variety of :'
tidal conditions. Current measurements, drogue observations, and salt balance calculations made
in 1984 and 1986 indicated that the outer bay eddy is accompanied by a complex pattern of
currents that exert influence into the central portion of the Bay. Significantly more water is
circulated into and out ofthe Bay due to eddies and currents than would be the case if only a
simple ebb-and-flood pattern existed. As a consequence, the Bay may be better mixed and better
flushed than many bays within Puget Sound. Mixing is further enhanced by vertical currents and
upwelling at the entrance and head of Port Ludlow Bay (Jefferson County 1993).
The Bay is flushed by tidal currents, fresh water from streams and rainfall, wind-mixing of the
surface water, and local vertical mixing. Salt balance calculations indicated that the volume of
water exchanged daily between Port Ludlow and Admiralty Inlet averages 39 percent per day
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.10
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and varies from 20 to 50 percent ofthe total volume of the Bay, dependent on the time of year
and prevailing tidal range. The time to exchange the water volume ofthe Bay, including the
innermost reaches, was estimated to be between 2 to 5 days. Localized portions of the Bay may
have longer or shorter flushing rates. The flushing time for the outer bay has been estimated to
be 9 hours on average (Jefferson County 1993).
Drainage
The Port Ludlow Resort complex is divided into five drainage subbasins, as shown in Figure 8.
Storm drainage systems have been constructed in Basins EX-I, EX-2 and EX-3 to accommodate
the Resort development to date. Runoffwithin Basin EX-l is collected and conveyed to a ravine
that outlets to the Bay in the vicinity of the treatment plant. Runoffwithin Basin EX-2 is also
collected and conveyed (via catch basins and pipes) to outlets to the Bay. Runoffwithin Basin
EX-3 is collected and conveyed to inlets on the east and west ends of the artificial lagoon. From
the lagoon, water is discharged directly into Port Ludlow Bay. Rooftop drainage within EX-3 is
connected (via downspouts) to this drainage system.
Water Quality
The Washington State Department of Ecology has classified all waters of Port Ludlow as Class
AA. Water Quality monitoring of Port Ludlow Bay from .1984 through 1998 has demonstrated
that overall water quality in Port Ludlow Bay is excellent, consistent with its Class AA
designation (Jefferson County 1993).
A program to monitor non:-point sources of pollutants to Port Ludlow Bay was initiated in 1989
to comply with conditions imposed by Jefferson County. Annual monitoring reports have been
prepared since 1990; the study design varies from year to year to focus on priority issues. In
combination, these reports have identified the chemical composition of storm flow and baseflow
from each tributary to Port Ludlow Bay, characterized stormflow quality from various
development areas, and established baseline sediment quality.
Potential non-point sources of pollution within the general area include septic tanks, roads and
parking lots, residential runoff, agricultural chemicals and waste, forestry runoff, golf course
drainage, marinas and boats, internal loading from sediments, atmospheric fallout, and exchange
of water with Admiralty Inlet. Inputs of water from Admiralty Inlet average 3,000 mgd and
dominate over the influences of all freshwater sources.!
No long-term upward or downward trends in constituent concentrations are evident for any of the
monitoring stations. Constituent concentrations, for the most part, have not been increasing
along with the increased population density ofthe watershed. Concentrations of most
constituents (e.g., fecal coliform) have been higher during storm events than during baseflows,
which is consistent with the findings of other watershed studies (Berryman & Henigar 1999).
1 Port Ludlow Non-Point Monitoring Program, 2002 Report
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.11
March 2004
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~t ~:
i~
ftft
Ul<f> ftN
N.
a: i
w
we n
z
CI
z (')
w 0
0
_co
CI Qle>>
Z Ql<(
~~
~ .t::.>; E
..... -Ill
:;) ~~ 0
Ul (')- ~
,Ill
Z (/)Qj 'S:
0 0'0 '0
(\jQl E
(J r--ll. Ul
I Q)
s:
;:
;:
\
\
I
I
I
i
i
~
\
\
\
\
\
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A point-source monitoring program for the Port Ludlow Wastewater Treatment Plant was also
conducted from 1989 through 1997 but was discontinued in 1998 due to the excellent
performance record of the treatment plant.
Marina - Gray and Black Water Discharge
The potential for the discharge of gray (galley, bath, and shower water) and black water (sewage
containing human body wastes and the waste from toilet and other receptacles. intended to
receive or retain body waste) exists within all marinas. Discharge of black water is illegal and
prohibited within the Port Ludlow Marina. Discharge of gray water is allowed under specific
conditions, consistent with State requirements. Please refer to the Port Ludlow Marina Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (2002) for a more detailed discussion of the
Marina's policies for controlling discharge of sewage and gray water within the marina.
Of particular concern is the discharge of sewage. The Washington State Department of Ecology
(Ecology) has established water quality standards for fecal coliform bacteria (Chapter 173-201
WAC). For Class AA marine waters, including Port Ludlow Bay, the fecal coliform standard is
a geometric mean of 14 organisms per 100 milliliters (mL) of water. This standard applies to
waters where edible shellfish are present. The U.S. EP A has established water quality criteria for
fecal coliform and enterococcus bacteria based on health risk to swimmers at both freshwater and
saltwater beaches. These criteria are geometric means of 200 and 35 organisms/l 00 mL,
respectively.
Current Port Ludlow Marina regulations require that all live-aboard tenant vessels must be
equipped with a Coast Guard-approved holding tank and that live-aboard tenants submit to
inspection of their vessels plumbing and mechanical systems to verify compliance with state and
local public health and safety laws. The Marina now provides one sewage pump-out station at
the fuel dock and will soon be putting into service a portable pump-out facility. Shoreside
restroom facilities are also available for marina patrons. As stated above, water quality
monitoring data for Port Ludlow Bay indicates no long-term upward or downward trends in
constituent concentrations for any of the monitoring stations.
Bilge Water
Another potential source of pollution in marinas comes from the discharge of bilge water, which
may contain a variety of chemical constituents, but predominantly petroleum hydrocarbons. Port
Ludlow Marina's Best Management Practices (BMPs) expressly forbid the discharge of bilge
water within the marina.
3.2.1.2 Environmentallmpacts
Short-Term Construction Impacts
Upland Development. The potential for runoff from erosion and sedimentation during
construction activities is addressed in Section 3.1.2 - Earth.
Marina Expansion. During construction, potential discharges to surface water include leakage
of petroleum products from construction equipment. These substances can enter marine water
directly or in stormwater runoff.
Few, if any, juvenile salmonids are expected in the action area during construction activities;
also, few adult chinook salmon or bull trout are expected in the project area during construction.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre.Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3-13
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Short-term and localized decreases in dissolved oxygen or increases in turbidity due to project
construction may result in avoidance of immediate work areas. Should this avoidance occur, it
would have only insignificant and unmeasurable effects on salmonids.
Long-Term Impacts
Alternative 1: Proposed Project - 2003 Resort Plan
Build-out of the Resort will increase stormwater runoffin Basins A, B, and EX-3. New
development in Basins A and B will require construction of a storm drainage system (including
detention and water quality treatment) consistent with the requirements of Jefferson County/Port
Ludlow Development Agreement. After detention and water quality treatment, runoff from
Basins A and B will pass through the existing conveyance system to the artificial lagoon.
New development within Basin EX-3 will be located within the Ludlow Bay Village area, where
an existing storm drainage system is in place. New impervious surfaces in this area will consist
only of rooftops. The existing drainage system has the capacity to accommodate the increased
runoff. Water quality treatment is not required for rooftop drainage.
In order to supplement water quality treatment within the Ludlow Bay Village area, Alternative 1
will include adding a water quality vault at each of the two inlets to the artificial lagoon.
No long-term direct or indirect effects to water quality are anticipated as a result of the marina
expansion. Although the marina expansion will result in increased boat activity, this activity is
not expected to significantly degrade water quality or impact any populations of shellfish that
may be present in the vicinity of the project area.
Alternative 1 does not include any filling or dredging within any body of water.
Alternative 2: 1993 Resort Plan
The impacts of Alternative 2 on surface water would be similar to Alternative 1.
Alternative 3: No Action -1999 Resort Plan
The impacts of Alternative 3 on surface water would be similar to Alternatives 1 and 2, except
that the western half of the existing artificial lagoon would be filled. In addition, the more
intense use ofthe site would result in increased impervious surfaces, increased vehicular traffic,.
and an increased need for water quality treatment for road and parking lot drainage.
3.2.1.3 Mitigating Measures
Proposed (Alternative 1):
· Erosion and sedimentation control plans would be implemented as described in Section 3.1.3.
· The existing storm drainage conveyance system will be evaluated to determine if sufficient
capacity exists to accommodate runoff from Basins A and B (post-development).
· New water quality vaults will be installed at the east and west ends of the artificial lagoon.
· The Non-Point Water Quality Monitoring Program will be continued.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.14
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
· At the Marina, a hazardous material spill clean-up kit will be available on the fuel float and
on one of the expanded docks, and crews will be trained in the use of this kit.
· The Port Ludlow Marina will continue to educate users of the marina regarding BMPs.
· Port Ludlow Associates will educate Marina users regarding the effects of discharging gray
water and will strongly discourage such discharge.
· Port Ludlow Associates is committed to ongoing enforcement ofBMPs at the Marina; the
BMPs will be enforced via fines and/or revocation of marina use.
· Two portable boat sewage pump-outs will be installed at the Marina, providing further ability
to pump out sewage from vessels.
3.2.1.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
No significant adverse impacts to surface waters are anticipated.
3.2.2 Groundwater
3.2.2.1 Affected Environment
Four principal aquifers have been identified in the general vicinity of the Resort at Port Ludlow.
These aquifers are shown in Figure 9.and are known as the:
. Well 1 Aquifer
· North Aquifer
. South Aquifer, and
. South Valley Aquifer
Olympic Water and Sewer Inc., which serves the Port Ludlow MPR, currently draws
groundwater from three wells in the North Aquifer (Wells 2,3, and 4N) and two wells in the
South Aquifer (Wells 13 and 14). No groundwater is currently withdrawn from the Well 1
Aquifer or the South Valley Aquifer.
Existing information on each aquifer, summarized below, is taken from the Draft EISfor the
Port Ludlow Development Program (1992), the Draft EIS for the Inn at Port Ludlow (1992), and
the Olympic Water and Sewer Inc.'s annual Monitoring Report dated February 20032. The
annual Monitoring Program, required by Jefferson County, concentrates on the North and South
Aquifers and encompasses the area presumed to overlie these aquifers, as well as a substantial
area around each aquifer. The current groundwater monitoring network is comprised of 17 wells
owned and maintained by eight separate participants. The goal of the program is to assess the
long-term condition ofthe aquifers in the Port Ludlow area. To date, the monitoring program
has found "no definitive indications of declining water levels related to groundwater production
2 Robinson & Noble, Inc. 2003. 2002 Annual Report on the Port Ludlow Area Groundwater Monitoring Program
for Port Ludlow Associates, LLC, February 2003. -
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.15
March 2004
~
r---
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
or rising chloride and conductivity levels in any of the three aquifers monitored in the Port
Ludlow area ".1
The Well 1 Aquifer lies partially beneath the Resort. The Well 1 Aquifer has one well (Well 1)
that is completed at a depth of361 feet (approximately 250 feet below sea level). Well 1 is
currently unused and has a production capacity of approximately 50 gallons per minute (gpm).
The North Aquifer is encountered about a half-mile northwest of the Resort and contains three
wells (Wells 2, 3, and 4N) currently used by the Olympic Water and Sewer Company to serve
the Port Ludlow MPR and other users. The recharge area is estimated to be 1 square mile and
total annual recharge to the aquifer has been calculated as 370 gpm (597 acre-feet per year
[af/yr]).
Historic water level production and precipitation data were examined in the early 1990s to
determine production rates that would not result in water level declines of the North Aquifer.
Production from the North Aquifer had reached 87.3 gpm (141 at) in 1992. It was estimated
that, at a pumping rate of 70 gpm (113 af/yr), water levels would remain steady with average
rainfall. Therefore, an average withdrawal from this aquifer of 65 gpm (105 af/yr) was
recommended. The average withdrawal rate has been approximately 70 gpm (113 af/yr) between
1993 and 2002 and was 78 gpm (126 at) in 2002. Water levels in the North Aquifer have shown
a general rise since the programmed decrease in withdrawal rates from the aquifer was initiated
in 1993.
The South Aquifer lies across Port Ludlow Bay, at and south of Tala Point, and includes two
wells (Wells 13 and 14) operated by the Olympic Water and Sewer Inc. The recharge area is
approximately 4.5 square miles and total recharge is approximately 1,640 gpm (2,640 af/yr).
The combined withdrawal rate from Wells 13 and 14 in 2002 was 109.2 gpm (176 at), while a
hypothetical yield of 492 gpm (794 af/yr) was determined for the aquifer based on conservative
assumptions for precipitation, evaporation, and runoff. The South Aquifer also contains four
other major wells - the PUD Bywater wells 1 and 2, the Paradise Bay well, and the Tala Point
Partners well.
The South Valley Aquifer is located across Port Ludlow Bay, about 2 miles south ofthe Resort.
Numerous test wells have been drilled in this aquifer but none are currently in use. This aquifer: .
has two inactive sources - Wells 4A and 9, which are being considered for treatment and return
to service. A hydrological study concluded that this aquifer is unable to support long-term, year-
round groundwater production but could augment supplies during peak demand periods by up to
65 gpm.
Other wells exist in the vicinity of Port Ludlow. In the upland areas, most are private wells
tending to draw from water-bearing zones that are above sea level, such as the North Aquifer.
Along the shoreline, private wells are generally completed below sea level in water-bearing
zones such as the South Aquifer. A monitoring network that includes 17 wells operated by
Olympic Water and Sewer, other purveyors, and private residences was established in 1993 to
monitor for indications of salt-water intrusion. To date, the water characteristics have remained
stable, with no indications of salt-water intrusion.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.16
March 2004
~
Data Sources: Interstates. state routes. and roads from TIGER 2000.
County boundaries. cities. and waterbodies from Department of Ecology.
Aquifer and well locations from Draft EIS for Port Ludlow Development
Program (Oct. 26. 1992).
All locations are approximate.
Lambert Conformal Conic
Washington State Plane North
North American Datum 1983
Explanation
L -=- Approximate Aquifer Boundary
. Well Locations
Note: This drawing is for informational purposes. It is intended to assist
in showing features discussed in an attached document.
It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission.
Principal Port Ludlow Area Aquifers
GEoENGINEERS CJ
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The depth of shallow groundwater at the Resort site varies with season, rainfall and tidal
influence. In areas of fill, groundwater is encountered at approximately 8 feet below ground
surface. In portions of the upland areas, water depth may be as shallow as 3 feet.
The groundwater quality within the North and South Aquifers is typical of groundwater in the
Puget Sound region. The relatively low concentrations of chloride, a parameter used as an
indicator of salt-water intrusion, have remained stable in all of the monitoring network wells.
3.2.2.2 Environmental Impacts
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3
Water supplies to meet the additional demands from Resort build-out will be provided by
Olympic Water and Sewer Inc. They will continue to rely on the North and South aquifers but
may also draw from the South Valley Aquifer to augment supplies during periods of peak
demand. The increased demand on the water supply from the planned Resort development and
marina expansion is estimated to be approximately 23 gpm (37 af/y). This represents a demand
increase of approximately 12.2 percent over the 2002 production of 187.2 gpm (302.3 at). The
water company, with its water rights holdings of 465 af/yr, has concluded from previous studies
that these aquifer systems have sufficient capacity to support Alternatives 1 or 2. Alternative 3
has not been studied.
The withdrawal of groundwater to serve the expanded Resort and marina is not expected to have
any impact on water quality. Approximately 10 years of monitoring data have demonstrated that
saltwater intrusion has not occurred under current rates of withdrawal. Based on the current
understanding of aquifer dynamics systems, there is currently no basis for believing that the
approximately 12 percent increase in withdrawal rate will change this situation. Since annual
groundwater monitoring will continue, any saltwater intrusion problems will be identified and
corrected (such as through altering pumping rates from the various supply wells available) before
they affect water supplies.
The proposed project does not involve discharge of surface waters to groundwater. Any
accidental releases of sediments, petroleum products, or other contaminants during construction
would either run off and be collected in the stormwater distribution and treatment system, or
would be retained in surface soils. Neither construction nor operation present any risks to the
Well 1 Aquifer beneath the Resort site nor to any other aquifers in the area (none of which are
downgradient from the site).
3.2.2.3 Mitigating Measures
Proposed:
· The continuing groundwater monitoring program provides adequate coverage and
information regarding water levels and water quality and allows long-term trend analysis of
the Port Ludlow area aquifers.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.18
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
3.2.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
The region's aquifers will continue to be managed to sustain long-term supplies of water for the
expanded Port Ludlow Resort and Marina and other area users. Withdrawals are not likely to
significantly draw down or reduce the production capacity ofthe aquifers. However, as with any
project, use of additional water for this project will preclude that water from being available for
other future uses in the area.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.19
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
3.3 PLANTS AND ANIMALS
3.3.1 Affected Environment
Regional Conditions
In 1992, Raedeke Associates conducted a survey of plant and animal communities in the Port
Ludlow Development Program area (Raedeke Associates, 1992a). The purpose of that survey
was to obtain baseline information on an approximate 1,200-acre area and to assess impacts of
future development. Since that study area encompasses and generally surrounds the portion of
the Port Ludlow Resort development addressed in this SEIS, it serves as the primary source of
recent information on plants and animals in the general vicinity of the resort site. The
information regarding regional conditions is contained in Appendix B of this document and is
summarized from that report unless indicated otherwise.
Resort Site
In 1992, Raedeke Associates conducted a plant and animal survey of a 17.5-acre study area
including the artificial lagoon and areas immediately to the east, west, and north of the lagoon
(Raedeke Associates, 1992b). That report, an appendix to the 1992 Inn at Port Ludlow DE IS
(Jefferson County, 1992b), contains species lists and scientific names of the plants and animals
named below. This section combines the Raedeke information with more recent data on site-
specific conditions, including a biological site reconnaissance on November 4,2003.
Upland Areas
The upland portions of the Resort site have been disturbed previously and do not appear to
support any significant concentrations of native habitats or species. Much of the site is presently
covered by roads and driveways, parking lots, residences, recreational facilities, and other
structures, all of which are surrounded by lawns or ornamental landscaping. On the west and
north sides immediately beyond the Resort boundaries, vegetation is relatively dense and
undisturbed (except areas surrounding scattered residences);
Even though the Resort occurs in an area of fairly steep terrain, most of the site has been
contoured and a stormwater drainage system has been installed. Even the few remaining open,
undeveloped portions have been graded flat and planted with lawn grass. The northern portion
ofthe site tends to drain to the east (toward the Bay) while the southern portion drains to the
south (toward the lagoon).
Noise and human activity levels at the Resort can vary widely depending on the season. During
the November 4, 2003 site visit, noise and activity levels were fairly low. Some noise from
construction within the resort and traffic on the adjacent highway was discernable.
Animal populations and assemblages most common on the site are birds and small mammals that
are tolerant of human activity (such as moles, shrews, mice, rats, squirrels, and rabbits).
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.20
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Artificial Lagoon
The lagoon was initially constructed in 1967 by excavating upland soils. It was 1.4 acres in size.
In 1994 the lagoon was expanded to 2.2 acres as mitigation for planned Resort expansion.
The lagoon is reported to be approximately 10 feet deep with a firm bottom composed of sands
and silt. A floating walkway connects the north and south shore. Mowed lawns cover upland
areas north, south, and east of the lagoon. Ornamental and native shrubs. and trees, including
big-leaf maple and Douglas fir, grow between the lagoon and restaurant. California poppy, aster,
and clover cover the south and west banks ofthe lagoon.
Soils between the lagoon and the Bay are relatively porous, so water seeps out from the lagoon
and the water level can drop a foot per day if it is not replenished. Consequently, saltwater is
pumped into the lagoon from the Bay on a continuous basis to maintain the water level.
The lagoon experiences considerable algae growth at times. Filamentous algae grows where
water depths are less than 3 to 4 feet and covers much of the lagoon during the summer, at times
creating floating algae mats and odors. Mechanical means are used periodically to remove algae '.
from the lagoon. The lagoon is not used for boating or swimming.
Small clams and mussels occur along the bottom of the lagoon and attached to the algae. The
algae probably also served as habitat for other invertebrates, including insects. Neither
amphibians nor reptiles were observed near the lagoon during the 1992 Raedeke survey. Fish are
known to occur in the lagoon but neither species nor population characteristics have been
documented. WDFW has noted that, based on the elevation of the culvert connecting the lagoon
with the Bay, the lagoon may be accessible to marine fish at tides above MHHW and probably
provides some rearing habitat (Burkle, 2002).
American wigeon, bufflehead, and killdeer use the lagoon. Wigeon have been observed flying or
walking from the adjacent shoreline to the lagoon. The birds engage in social and loafing
activities while on the lagoon and feed on the lagoon's algae and invertebrates. Wigeon also
feed on lawn areas to the east of the lagoon.
Bufflehead have been observed diving for food within the lagoon. Bufflehead feed on
crustaceans, which are readily available within the lagoon. Killdeer feed along the shoreline of. .
the lagoon, presumably consuming a variety of invertebrates.
Mallard, pintail, lesser scaup, and merganser have been reported to use the lagoon. It is also
expected that gull, belted kingfisher and American crow use the lagoon.
A variety of passerines and other species that favor upland habitats use shrubs and other
vegetation near the lagoon and in the vicinity ofthe restaurant. These include song sparrow,
violet-green swallow, robin, American crow, European starling, and purple finch. Both finches
and starlings have been observed constructing nests in the shrubs and trees near the restaurant.
Mammals expected to use the lagoon include domestic dog and raccoon. Mole, shrew, mouse,
rat, vole, red fox, and skunk may use the lagoon and nearby areas during some times of the year.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3-21
March 2004
~
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Port Ludlow Bay and Marina
The Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Draft SEIS (Reid Middleton, 2002a) addressed marine
conditions in the vicinity of the marina. This section focuses on birds and other biological
features not included in that document.
Much of the rocky substrate, and most ofthe structure associated with docks of the marina,
contain barnacles, clams, mussels, anemones, and other marine invertebrates. No amphibians or
reptiles are expected to use the marine environment on a regular basis.
Seventy-six bird species are expected to use the open water and shoreline areas of the marina and
Bay. Of these, 18 species were observed during the Raedeke field studies.
Nineteen species of waterfowl have been reported or are expected to use the area. American
wigeon and scoter are abundant in the area. Scoter feed by diving within Port Ludlow Bay while
wigeon feed and loaf along the shoreline by the marina. Wigeon also feed on grassy areas next
to the shoreline.
Common loon feed near the marina. Arctic and red-throated loon are expected to use the area
during the winter.
Horned grebes feed near the docks. Red-necked, eared, and Western grebe have been reported or
are expected to use the Bay and marina.
Other common birds seen near the marina included double-crested cormorant and pigeon
guillemot. Brandt's cormorant and pelagic cormorant are expected to use the Bay near the
manna.
Sixteen species of shorebirds are expected to occur in the vicinity of the marina. Killdeer feed
along the shoreline.
Glacous-winged and herring gull are commonly seen flying, feeding, and loafing on the docks
and waters adjacent to the marina. Signs of use by gulls are common on most areas of the docks.
. An additional eight species of gulls and terns are expected to use the area. .
Belted kingfisher and American crow have been reported flying near the marina. American
robin and rufous-sided towhee use the area.
Domestic dog was the only mammal observed at the marina during the 1992 Raedeke survey.
However, raccoon, river otter, gray whale, Dall's porpoise, and harbor seal have been reported to
use the marina and Port Ludlow Bay.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.22
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive, and Other Priority Species and Habitats
Vegetation and Habitats
The Washington Natural Heritage Program has developed a list of plant species considered to be
Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive within the state of Washington. A number of the species
on these.lists are thought to occur in Jefferson County, although several are known from
historical records only. Federally-protected threatened and endangered plants are listed by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Based on a review of existing information, no plant species listed as endangered, threatened, or
sensitive by state or federal agencies are known or likely to occur in the area. The Washington
Natural Heritage Program has no records for rare plants or high quality native ecosystems in the
vicinity of the project (Washington Department of Natural Resources, 2003).
The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) shows the nearest upland wetland to be located more
than 0.75 mile west of the Resort site. The nearest coastal wetland in the NWI database is about
0.5 mile from the site, across Port Ludlow Bay.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) was contacted for information on
Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) as well as other species and habitats of concern in the
vicinity of the project site. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service responded on October 16,2003,
to a similar request by providing a list of federally protected species and species of concern
possibly occurring in Jefferson County; however, they deferred to the WDFW's PHS program
for site-specific species information. The PHS report was prepared on October 9,2003.
The PHS report included two types of priority habitat in the project vicinity. Priority estuarine
zones occur along the north shore of Port Ludlow Bay (about 0.25 mile west of the marina) and
on the south shore (about 0.5 mile south of the marina across the Bay). The NWI coastal
wetland noted above is also a priority habitat in the PHS database.
Fish
The PHS report includes three species of priority fish species in Ludlow Creek, which drains into
Port Ludlow Bay about a mile southwest of the marina: chum and coho salmon and winter
steelhead. All three are anadromous species that use the creek for spawning and rearing and are
found in open marine waters during most of their life cycle. The coho is a candidate for listing
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). No priority resident species were reported from the
area.
Species listed as threatened under the ESA that could occur in marine waters in the project
vicinity include Puget Sound chinook salmon, Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, and bull
trout.
Birds
Marbled murrelet and spotted owl are listed as threatened or endangered species by both federal
and state jurisdictions, and both are reported by USFWS to occur in Jefferson County. Although
marbled murrelet was noted by Raedeke (1992b) to use Port Ludlow Bay, the PHS report
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.23
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
,
I
I
included no indication of marbled murrelet or spotted owl occurrence within a mile of the project
site. Although critical habitat for both species has been designated in Jefferson County, no such
habitat occurs near the project site. Any use of the area by either species is highly unlikely.
The PHS report identified breeding sites for the following priority species within a mile of the
project site:
. Bald eagle
. Great blue heron
. Purple martin
The eagle and heron nests are located across Port Ludlow Bay in the general vicinity of Tala
Point, more than a half-mile south and east from the Port Ludlow Resort site. No nests are
known within the Port Ludlow development area, nor would any be expected there because of a
relative lack of suitable nesting sites (i.e., large snags or old-growth trees) and the level of human
activity.
The nearshore area along the eastern shoreline of Port Ludlow Bay (along Tala Point across the
Bay from the Resort) is shown in the PHS database as bald eagle territory used for feeding and
possibly used for breeding. Bald eagles are often seen flying over Port Ludlow Bay and have
been reported to occasionally land on trees in the vicinity of the Resort. The bald eagle is
classified as threatened by the federal government and the State of Washington.
Purple martin nesting has been reported to occur at the Port Ludlow Marina. In late June of
1997,30 birds were reported to use boxes installed on pilings at the marina. Those boxes are no
longer present.
The common loon, a species classified as sensitive by WDFW, is frequently observed in the
vicinity of the marina. The diet of common loon consists primarily of fish, crustaceans, and
some plant material.
Five state candidate bird species (species under review by WDFW for possible listing as state
endangered, threatened, or sensitive) may occur within the area:
· Pileated woodpecker
· Northern goshawk
· Vaux's swift
· Western grebe
. Merlin
Signs of pileated woodpecker have been observed in upland forest habitats. However, this
species typically occupies large home ranges (one square mile or more) and may forage a great
distance from the nest. No nests have been reported, and potential nest sites (large, tall snags)
are limited in the area given its logging history. Thus, while this species appears to forage in the
area as part of its home range, it may not breed there because of a general lack of suitable nest
sites.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3-24
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Northern goshawk may forage in the area but are more likely to be found in the foothills and
higher elevations in the Cascade Range. Vaux' s swift may forage in the area but are not likely to
find their preferred nesting habitat of large dead-topped trees in mature and old-growth forests.
Residents have reported sightings of Western grebe in Port Ludlow Bay. Merlins, a small falcon,
may occur in the area in low numbers during certain times of year. They prefer more open
habitats for feeding arid typically feed on shorebirds in the Puget Sound area.
The short-tailed albatross is a state candidate species and a federal endangered species reported
by USFWS as possibly occurring in Jefferson County. However, there is no indication in either
the PHS data or the Raedeke report that this species occurs in the vicinity ofthe Port Ludlow
Resort.
Six state monitor species (those managed by WDFW to prevent them from becoming
endangered, threatened, or sensitive) are expected to occur within the area:
. Horned grebe
· Red-necked grebe
· Black-crowned night heron
· Green-backed heron
. Great blue heron
. Osprey
Horned grebe have been reported feeding in deeper water areas ofthe Bay and within the marina.
Red-necked grebe and black-crowned night heron are expected to use the Bay during certain
times of year. Green-backed herons may occur in the area, although they are most commonly
found along woods-edged rivers. Great blue heron feed in shallow waters near the southern end
of Port Ludlow Bay and have nested in the vicinity.
The osprey, a fish-eating hawk, has been reported to use Port Ludlow Bay and is known to nest
in the vicinity. Ospreys typically breed along water bodies where fish are available as prey.
Osprey breeding has been reported to occur both across the Bay and in a flat-topped Douglas fir
tree about one-third mile west of the Port Ludlow Resort site.
A number of birds designated as state game species of concern are expected to occur in the area.
Bufflehead use the artificial lagoon for feeding, loafing, and social activities. Bufflehead
consume mostly animal material, including insects, snails, mollusks, and crustaceans, and are
classified as state game species of concern due to their population status and sensitivity to habitat
alteration. Other state game species reported to use the area included common merganser,
hooded merganser, Barrow's goldeneye, and harlequin duck.
Mammals
A harbor seal haulout and parturition site is located in the Port Ludlow Bay/Admiralty Inlet area
about two miles northeast of the Resort. Adult harbor seals use this site year-round, with
pupping occurring.in the summer. The PHS report included no other priority mammal species or
habitats in the project vicinity.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.25
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The gray whale, listed as a federal and state endangered species, was observed by a resident at
the entrance to Port Ludlow Bay (Raedeke, 1992b). Gray whales spend most of their time in the
North Pacific Ocean but sometimes stray into Puget Sound during their migration from breeding
grounds in Baja California to waters further north.
The Townsend's big-eared bat -- a state candidate species-- may forage over forest and wetland
habitats. Breeding and roost sites are not expected to occur in the project vicinity because of a
general lack of large snags, caves, or other suitable cavities.
As noted previously, two state game species of concern that are expected to occur in the area
may frequent the site: Columbian black-tailed deer and beaver.
3.3.2 Environmental Impacts
Upland Impacts Common To All Alternatives
This assessment of project impacts is based on information contained in the original EISs
prepared in 1992 for the Inn at Port Ludlow (Jefferson County, 1992b) and the Port Ludlow
Development Program (Jefferson County, 1992a), supplemented by current site information
(presented above) and an analysis of project activities common to all three alternatives.
Although each of the three alternatives would involve different types of new construction and
human use, their impacts on plants and animals would be more similar than not.
All three alternatives will result in potential impacts to plants and animals from the following
project activities. and effects:
General Construction Effects (short-term)
· Land clearing and conversion
· Stormwater runoff
. Noise
. Emissions
Indirect Effects (long-term)
· Increased human activity
· Change in hydrologic patterns
Short-Term Construction Impacts
Land clearing activities typically involve the removal of existing vegetation and grading to
prepare a site for construction. In some cases, vegetated areas will be replaced with impervious
surfaces (such as parking lots or roofs). In other locations, the disturbed area will be replanted
with the same or different species after construction has been completed. For all three Port
Ludlow Resort alternatives, no wetlands, riparian zones, dunes, or other significant areas of
native vegetation will be cleared, converted, or otherwise disturbed during construction.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.26
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Land-clearing activities will reduce the amount of vegetative productivity and cause a minor
change in the distribution of habitat types and values within the Resort site. Smaller, less mobile
animals whose home range lies wholly within a disturbed area or that cannot access other
available habitat in the vicinity will likely perish. Some animals will be displaced temporarily to
less disturbed areas in and adjacent to the Resort. Some mortality may occur as a result of that
displacement, depending on habitat conditions. and suitability.
The overall effect ofland clearing and conversion activities on plants and animals is expected to
be insignificant because animals currently using the site tend to be those that tolerate moderate to
high levels of human activity. Furthermore, the areas to be cleared or converted to other uses
have already been disturbed and currently offer little natural habitat. For example, reptiles and
amphibians generally rely on forest duff, downed logs, and snags for habitat, but these habitats
are generally lacking within the Resort area. Consequently, although full development of the
Resort could further reduce populations of these species, the number of individuals potentially
affected is low.
The change in land cover could increase stormwater runoff and erosion during construction. The'
potential for erosion and offsite transport of sediments will depend on the construction season,
soil types affected, amount of exposed soils, slope conditions, surface drainage patterns, and
mitigation measures employed. Construction impacts will largely be controlled through the
implementation of best management practices (BMPs) tailored to suit site-specific conditions
and the season of construction. Excavations in the upland areas will likely encounter some
groundwater seepage, especially if construction occurs during the rainy season, but this seepage
is expected to be minor (Jefferson County, 1992b). However, site topography and drainage
characteristics are such that any turbid water escaping from a construction site will be intercepted
and prevented from reaching marine waters by considerable expanses oflawn or other vegetated
land in the northern portion and by the lagoon in much ofthe southern portion. Facilities to be
constructed adjacent to the beach near the west end ofthe marina are more subject to
uncontrolled runoff, but this area is predominantly flat from previous contouring and special
runoff controls will be used there to prevent stormwater or any intercepted groundwater seepage
from reaching the Bay. Consequently, no adverse effects on water quality in the Bay are
anticipated.
Water quality in the artificial lagoon could be adversely affected if a large slug of turbid water
were to escape a construction site at the southern end of the Resort. Such an event is likely to be
very local and temporary. The sediments are expected to settle out quickly in the calm lagoon
waters without adversely affecting plants or animals in the lagoon. The fact that lagoon water
tends to discharge to the Bay via seepage means that the subsurface soils will serve as a filter,
generally retaining all but the smallest suspended particles before the lagoon water reaches the
Bay.
Noise typical of construction activities will be generated from the project site during the course
of the construction period. In response to this noise and increased level of human activity, an
overall reduction in local wildlife populations could occur due to avoidance of the area by
sensitive species. However, most of the wildlife currently using the site is tolerant of at least
moderate levels of noise and human activity, and the surrounding terrain and dense forest
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.27
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
vegetation in the area will tend to dampen the noise and largely prevent it from reaching areas
outside the Resort. Consequently, any population reductions associated with additional noise or
human activity during construction are expected to be minor.
Discernable (above-background) construction noise is presumed to carry a distance of a half-mile
or less. For none of the three alternatives is such noise expected to reach and adversely affect
known bald eagle or great blue heron nests located more than a half-mile across Port Ludlow
Bay. This distance is much greater than the 400-foot protective zone (or 800-foot buffer zone)
typically established by WDFW around eagle nests under the State of Washington Bald Eagle
Protection Rule (WAC 232-12-292). Both species may be less likely to forage in the immediate
Resort vicinity during construction, but the impact is expected to be minor since foraging activity
is low and those that do use the site are used to some level of human activity in the immediate
vicinity.
Of the state sensitive, candidate, and monitor bird species that could occur in the project vicinity,
none will be significantly affected by any of the three alternatives. The primary basis for this
conclusion is that none of these species breed nor find their high quality or preferred habitat in
the upland Resort area, primarily due to the existing level of development and disturbance.
Areas offshore of Port Ludlow Bay are sometimes used by such species as grebes, merlins,
herons, and osprey, and construction noise or other construction-related activities could drive
them further offshore. However, because suitable open-water habitat is fairly abundant here,
such effects are expected to be temporary and minor.
Osprey breeding has been reported to occur as close as about one-third mile from the Port
Ludlow Resort site. Although some construction noise could be carried that distance, it is not
expected to have a significant impact on breeding behavior ofthis state-monitor species.
WDFW has not published management recommendations for nesting osprey, but this particular
nest is well beyond the 400- and 800-foot management zones established for bald eagle nests.
Neither marine mammals of concern nor their breeding habitats will be affected by any of the
three alternatives, as they are located well beyond the potential zone of construction impacts.
Surf smelt and sandlance spawning areas along the east-facing beach will not be affected by
construction.
Gaseous emissions from construction equipment and vehicle transport will increase during
construction, and the higher level of use during normal operations will increase vehicle
emissions. These emissions will be controlled through standard emission control equipment and
are not expected to exceed any air quality criteria nor to adversely affect plant or animal
populations in the vicinity.
An accidental release of oil or fuel from construction equipment could lead to petroleum
contamination of soil or water. The spill prevention BMPs to be employed during construction
should serve to prevent a release from occurring. Even if a release did occur, the flat terrain at
the construction sites will make it fairly easy to contain and clean up the spill before it reaches
the artificial lagoon, Bay, or any other sensitive receptors.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.28
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Operational Impacts
Once the new Resort facilities are in operation, increased human activity will increase the
likelihood of human disturbance to wildlife. The magnitude of these impacts at the Resort site is
expected to be relatively minor because of the development that has already occurred there.
Most of the Resort area has already been converted from its natural condition to a managed
community. Much ofthe area proposed for new structures currently consists of mowed lawns,
and few areas of shrubs and trees will be lost.
Species most affected will be those least tolerant of such disturbance, such as ground- and shrub-
nesting birds (e.g., dark-eyed juncos, rufous-sided towhees and ruffed grouse) and ground-
dwelling mammals (e.g., deer mice and small weasels). Domestic pets associated with the
increase of residential use at the Resort could contribute to wildlife mortality through predation
or habitat disturbance. Some species such as gulls, squirrels, raccoons, mice, and coyotes will
likely do well and may experience growth in population size in the more developed environment.
Noise and other human activity may cause foraging eagles and other protected birds to avoid the
Resort area and immediate surroundings, although the current level of such use is low.
Considering that less-developed areas are located across the Bay and north of the Resort, birds
diverted from the Resort area are expected to find more suitable foraging habitat elsewhere.
Over the life of the project, the maintenance of the Resort's stormwater conveyance and
treatment system as a result of the Resort developments will ensure that the new facilities are
adequate to manage both the quantity and quality of runoff so that plants and animals are not
adversely affected. In conjunction with the Resort's plans for the application of fertilizers and
pesticides, the stormwater collection and treatment system is expected to protect water quality
over the long term.
None of the three alternatives would impact wildlife migration patterns, since no specific
migratory corridors exist on the site. No protected plant species or wetlands would be affected
by any alternative either in the short or long term. With stormwater management BMPs in place,
project impacts are not expected to extend as far as the nearest state priority habitat - an
estuarine zone about 0.25 mile west of the marina. None of the alternatives are expected to have
any impact on Ludlow Creek (about one mile southwest of the marina) or on the three priority
salmonid species that spawn and rear in that system.
Increased residential and Resort use will result in increased human use ofthe east-facing beach,
primarily as occasional beach combing and related low-intensity use. If this activity were to
occur when eggs of surf smelt or sandlance were present in the beach substrate, some eggs could
be crushed and the reproductive success rate of these fish populations could be reduced. Due to
the limited use of the beach by humans, the effect is expected to be small in terms of the
percentage of eggs lost and the impact on local populations of these species.
The project is not expected to significantly affect individuals or populations of Columbian black-
tailed deer or beaver, two state game species of concern in the area. Although use of the Resort
site by these species may decrease, current use is believed to be low because of the lack of
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3-29
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
suitable habitat. Any significant operational impacts are not expected to extend beyond the
resort boundaries.
For all three alternatives, neither operations nor construction activities are expected to have any
effect on the three ESA-listed threatened fish species that could occur in marine waters in the
vicinity:Puget Sound chinook salmon, Hood Canal. summer-run chum salmon, and bull trout.
Alternative-Specific Upland Impacts
In addition to the impacts common to all three alternatives (described above), additional
alternative-specific impacts could occur. These are addressed in the following sections.
Alternative 1: Proposed Project - 2003 Resort Plan
A total of approximately 4 acres of lawns or ornamental vegetation will be disturbed during
construction of Alternative 1, which includes demolition of the Harbor Master Restaurant located
just north of the lagoon.
Alternative 1 includes 39 new townhomes in Admiralty ill to be constructed south and east of
the existing Conference Center. Both areas are flat and largely covered by lawn. The southern
portion includes a few scattered trees and a circular grove of red alder trees and dense blackberry
bushes about 25 feet in diameter. It is expected that most ofthe trees and the grove will be
removed, although the revegetation plan is expected to include replacement of any trees lost.
Construction of Ludlow Bay Village residences (62 townhomes/condominiums) will mostly
affect areas covered by lawn and, to a lesser extent, landscaped vegetation. Most of this
construction will occur north and east of the lagoon. The new units of Ludlow Bay Village as
well as the new restaurant and new recreation building near the waterfront on the west side of the
Resort will be constructed on flat, mostly lawn-covered areas or existing rip-rap Special erosion
and sedimentation control measures will be employed here to minimize the potential for local
water quality impacts on the Bay during construction.
Construction of the 8-foot-wide boardwalk along the waterfront between the new Restaurant
building and the Inn may affect nearshore habitats in the immediate area. However, the impact
on plants and animals is expected to be small because the work will occur above the ordinary
high water line, BMPs will be installed to control runoff, and any soils or sediments reaching the
intertidal zone should be carried away and dispersed by waves and tides.
Alternative 1 does not involve any alteration ofthe artificial lagoon. Demolition ofthe Harbor
Master Restaurant and construction of residential units along the northern edge of the lagoon
could cause water quality impacts, although BMPs will be installed and maintained during
construction to control runoff. Any releases to the lagoon are expected to be temporary and
limited to an increase in suspended sediments, which will largely settle or be filtered out by
subsurface soils before the water seeps into the Bay.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.30
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Alternative 2: 1993 Resort Plan
A total of approximately 4 acres of lawns or ornamental vegetation will be disturbed during
construction of Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 includes 50 new' townhomes in Admiralty ill which, like Alternative 1, would be
constructed south and east of the existing Conference Center. Both areas are flat and largely
covered by lawn. The southern portion includes a few scattered trees and a circular grove of red
alder trees and dense blackberry bushes about 25 feet in diameter. It is expected that most of the
trees and the grove would be removed, although the revegetation plan is expected to include
replacement of any trees lost.
Construction of Ludlow Bay Village residences (72 townhomes/condominiums) would mostly
affect areas covered by lawn and, to a lesser extent, landscaped vegetation. Most of this would
occur north and east of the lagoon and near the waterfront on the west side of the resort. These
are generally flat, lawn-covered areas. Special erosion and sedimentation control measures will
be employed here to minimize the potential for local water quality impacts on the Bay during
construction.
Alternative 2 does not involve any alteration of the lagoon. Construction of residential units
along the northern edge of the lagoon could cause water quality impacts, although BMPs will be
installed and maintained during construction to control runoff, similar to Alternative 1.
Alternative 2 would not involverestaurant demolition, a new waterfront commercial building,
and recreational facilities in the western portion of the property, nor a boardwalk along the
waterfront.
Alternative 3: No Action (1999 Resort Plan)
A total of approximately 4 acres of lawns or ornamental vegetation will be disturbed during
construction of Alternative 3.
One of the differences between this and the other two alternatives is that Alternative 3 might not
include development of the Admiralty ill area east and south of the Conference Center. Thus,
the existing lawn and scattered trees in that area would remain.
The major difference is that Alternative 3 would involve significant alteration of the artificial
lagoon. The eastern two-thirds of the lagoon would be filled, lawn would be planted over that
area as open space, and major facilities would be constructed north and east of the new lawn
area. These facilities include, an underground parking garage, a 238-room addition to the Inn, a
large conference center and a restaurant.
The filling of the lagoon would directly impact the fish, mollusks, plants, and other organisms
that occur in the water as well as the waterfowl and other birds that feed and rest on its surface.
A cofferdam could be constructed or other BMPs could be implemented so that sediment-laden
water was contained and treated, although it is possible that the lagoon filling and adjacent
construction could result in the discharge of some quantity of sediment-laden water to the Bay.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.31
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Although filling two-thirds of the lagoon will be disruptive to a variety of plants and animals that
use the lagoon, this loss may not be significant.- One aspect of this evaluation of significance is
the fact that the lagoon was artificially constructed and water levels are artificially maintained by
daily pumping of seawater. The lagoon is not a natural system and is not known to support any
species of particular value or concern. . Birds use the lagoon for resting and feeding (on algae and
invertebrates primarily), but a reduction in lagoon. area may have little affect on the magnitude of
usage. On the other hand, public and regulatory concemsabout filling the lagoon have been
significant.
Cumulative Impacts
This section combines the impacts associated with development of upland portions of the Resort
(described above) with the impacts related to the planned expansion of the Port Ludlow Marina.
The upland commercial and marina construction activities will likely overlap in time.
The most notable impacts of each of the three Resort development alternatives on upland plants
and animals are due primarily to an increased level of human activity and the affect of that
activity on noise, traffic, and runoff in the immediate vicinity. The fact that the Resort site has
- largely been altered previously and that the areas to be impacted contain no natural vegetative
features or valuable habitats means that, compared to new construction in a previously
undeveloped location, the project impacts will be incremental and minor. This assumes that
BMPs needed to control offsite impacts will be installed, monitored, and maintained properly
throughout the course of construction. The one exception to this conclusion is the high degree of
public and regulatory concerns associated with lagoon filling in Alternative 3.
In addition to these impacts, the effects on marine species and habitats due to marina expansion
must be considered. These impacts are largely addressed in the draft and final SEIS prepared for
that project (Reid Middleton, 2002a; Reid Middleton, 2002b) and can be summarized as follows:
· No adverse impacts to eelgrass or other marine macrophytes
· Displacement of small area of benthic habitat due to pile installation (currently projected
to be 120 piling but subject to revision during final design), partially offset by increased
surface area for future colonization by marine plants and animals
· Avoidance of significant numbers of juvenile salmonids by constructing only during the
work window approved by WDFW
· Generation of noise, vibration, and turbidity during pile driving possibly causing salmon,
birds, and mammals to temporarily avoid these areas
· Increase in overwater coverage may increase predation, alter migratory behavior, and
reduce prey production and availability for salmonids.
· Increased shading of predominantly deep subtidal habitats beneath the floats resulting in
minor decreases in macroalgae and benthic productivity, offset by substantial additional
surface area for colonization by aquatic vegetation and invertebrates
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.32
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
",'-'-''''''''''7.'
· Increased productivity of epibiota due to the floats providing additional area for
colonization
· Temporary and localized disruption of foraging behavior by forage fish and groundfish
due to pile driving and elevated turbidity
· .' No effects on fish access, fish refugia, substrate, shoreline, riparian conditions, flow and
,.,...,,;t;,hydrology, current patterns, or saltwater-freshwater mixing patterns
· No adverse modification or destruction of designated critical habitat for Chinook or Hood
,- - Canal summer-run chum, both species protected under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA)
· No significant impacts on bald eagles, marbled murrelets, or Stellar sea lions, all
protected under the ESA
· Possible short-term disruption of bird and marine mammal foraging behavior during
COIlstruction but no long-term effects on either group.
· No effects on populations of shellfish in Port Ludlow Bay
In summary, the greatest cumulative impacts on plants and animals caused by any of the three
alternatives are likely to be centered on the nearshore marine environment in the immediate
vicinity of the marina. This area will be subject to turbidity and shading effects from both
marina expansion and to potential runoff of sediments and other contaminants from upland
development near the shoreline. The magnitude ofthese impacts will depend on whether the
marina and upland construction activities overlap and the effectiveness ofBMPs and other
measures intended to limit the disturbance (including the monitoring and maintenance ofBMP
effectiveness).
3.3.3 Mitigating Measures
Proposed (Alternative 1):
Upland Development
· All three upland alternatives will include a revegetation and landscaping plan designed to
control erosion and runoff during construction and to offset the permanent loss of plant
cover. The first element of the plan involves restoring disturbed areas as soon as
construction has ceased using species that mimic the vegetation located within the existing
area. The impacted areas will be vegetated with native species that are perennials, have good
soil-binding qualities, grow relatively quickly and provide habitat cover. The selection of
vegetative species will also be based on the hydrologic requirements of the plants and their
attributes, such as being able to support wildlife, to improve water quality, and to foster
aesthetic appeal. Selecting vegetation found in the vicinity of restoration helps to avoid the
spread of non-native and undesirable species, such as reed canarygrass, Scots broom, and
Himalayan blackberry, and it also seFVes-rofoster survivability ofthe planted species.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.33
March 2004
---
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. Native plants will also be established along the south and west sides ofthe lagoon. A
conceptual planting plan is shown in Figures lOA - lOC, and described in Appendix C. Low
growing grasses and shrubs will dominate, with special emphasis on species that provide
food and cover for wildlife (such as dune grass, wild rose, twinberry, Douglas aster, salt
grass, low growing willow, shore pine, and Douglas fir). Logs, rocks and other natural
features will be included in the landscaping plan. Consideration will be given to the selection
of tree species in this area inan effort to minimize view obstruction without compromising
wildlife habitat. The proponent also intends to include new purple martin nesting boxes in
this area. This additional landscaping will serve multiple purposes. It will: make up for lost
primary productivity associated with land conversion; provide terrestrial habitat for birds and
other small animals; serve as a partial buffer to control the quantity and quality of stormwater
reaching the lagoon from adjacent lawns, roadways and parking areas; and provide aesthetic
benefits.
. Alternative 3 would require special mitigation to compensate for the partial filling of the
lagoon. A previous evaluation oflagoon filling by WDFW and Jefferson County led to the
conclusion that replacement mitigation would have to be created in the vicinity of Ludlow.
Bay. Three potential mitigation sites were evaluated: the stream associated with the Oak Bay
Road bridge, the Ludlow Creek area and a marshy area in the vicinity of Ludlow Point
Villages. Further investigation will be necessary before mitigation plans can be developed at
any of these or possibly other sites.
Marina Expansion
Because the final design for the marina expansion has not yet been completed, WDFW has not
made a final determination of specific mitigation requirements to be attached as conditions to its
Hydraulic Project Approval (HP A). Nevertheless, once these details have been worked out, the
applicant has committed to prepare a mitigation plan that complies with the terms of the marina
expansion HPA and WDFW's goal of no net loss of habitat functions and values, as related to
both the marina and upland developments.
Mitigation specific to the marina expansion includes the following elements:
. The kayak float will be relocated to deeper water and designed to include light-
penetrating panels (one design under consideration is a grated polymer panel that allows
water and sunlight to pass through the walking surface).
. Boater education regarding potential impacts of discharged or spilled wastes or hazardous
materials will be increased, and a "no black water discharge" rule will be enforced.
. It is anticipated that the loss of benthic habitat associated with the installation of 120 new
piling will be mitigated by removing a yet-to-be-determined number of old, unused wood
piling from the head of the Bay (based on final design considerations, the applicant and
WDFW will agree on a mitigation ratio which is expected to be 1: 1 or greater).
. All in-water work will be conducted during approved work windows when salmon are
not likely to be present.
. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has issued a permit for the 100-slip expansion; this
permit includes concurrence by NOAA Fisheries and U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.34
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.3.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Under all three alternatives, including the marina expansion component, the following impacts
are unavoidable: disturbance and displacement of some fish and wildlife species due to elevated
levels of human activity and noise during the construction period; loss of vegetative cover and
productivity between the time land is cleared and the time revegetation takes hold; increased
surface runoff due to an increase in impermeable surfaces; loss of small areas of subtidal benthic
habitat at the location of the new piling; possible loss of algal and epibenthic productivity at
locations beneath the new floats; mortality to beach-spawning forage fish associated with
increased human use of the beach; and increased risk of spills or discharge of graylblack water,
petroleum products, or hazardous material.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.35
March 2004
...
Figure lOA - Landscape Types
Port Ludlow Resort Plan DSEIS
.~
U\
C
o
~
ra
u
o
.....
QJ
s..
::s
o
~
"C
C
ra
U\
QJ
C.
~
QJ
C.
ra
u
U\
"C
C
ra
.....
c
o
o
o
ra
.....
-
ra
::s
..,
c.
QJ
u
C
o
U
"~~~""'<.'.>. "
", L...f'-
z
o
~
z
:5
0-
X
W
Vl W
Z LL ,.....
<l: :J Cl::
::iE Cl w
=> .J !;(
:I: ~ 3: ~
Cl:: Cl:: Z
0 0 .;::..
LL LL
{.? (.? Vl
W
Z Z >=
a: a: a::
<l: <l: :I:
U U 0- W
Vl Vl 0
Cl Cl Cl:: W
z z u Z
:5 :5 <l:
::iE -
I~I "
z
w
0
w
C)
-------
"--,
, "
,/'
\
I
I
---..............".-..'-,
,
"""-",),.~'.,.,.',~
II
.,',
,.i:
III
"D
o
~
-0
o
"-
"-
2
III
:J
U
Q)
III
:J
o
.r:.
"D
"-
CD
..c:
....
.~
<l=
.,-...
I/)
~~
.~ ~
c: 0
~~~
10....- -
~~~
c: Q) .-
Q) _::.::",
'0 ~ ~........;- ~
~ 10... 10... U _ '"'-
o Q) Q) :J ... Q) ~ 0
(:> .o....J:~.oo8..o ~
.~ ~ c 0 ~ :: ~ ~ Q) g III
.. -E {i ~ I/) Q) U .b ~ (:> 1l z c: ~ ~
o~'O(I)... Q) 0>
o22~o.O>C: Q)C:~0 i:i:Q)C:
I- _ = 0 :J ... :J '0 .::t:. 0 Q) .- 0
:;:J:J 0 0 Q) 0 c: 0 0>:;;::':: CD~:O Q)
z CD CD ffi 0 w> ,,"- 0 0 ~ 0 0 I/) 0 .2 0>
<! '-J (I) J: 0 .- 0 o.r:. ... "D
..J(:> a.a.O::(I)~~
~CD&5~25Qg ~(:> Z
J:oa.a.o::Bi~~
~
o
o
(!)
S
~
ROAD
o
~
Cl::
"
U)o~o
~+".....,..c
.a~o'-
o .....~
Q) Q) I/)
__.ccno
_1-2E
o . 0
Q)"D Q)
~ 3 g-~ ~
:;; .2' ]?
8'4- ~~~-o
._ I/) Q) c: 0 '0
:;; :c.o EQ) 0 ::E
c:- Q)
~.c ~ B.::Q
._ - 0 0 0 Q)
Q) '0 .c: " 0::
.r._~~lo...C~
....., cn '0 ~ QJ ..0
.!:::: E :g E .
_:g~EB8
.~ I/) ~ o.g ~
~ ~I-'t-o '-
3 . 0.- Q)
2 0 2 ~~ .a
I/)~ 0.- E
" 0.002
{lEEoQ)g.
c:eSo:5(1)
Q)-
. c:" a.~ (IJ -0
QJ'_ Q) 0 ~
o .'!1 '5.. Q) ~ Q) .g
.s- Eo g,~.
x - 0 ,-.- Q) ..
e .0 B..... I/) 5
a. f Q) g .'!1.::: a:
g- o:v ~..~
~Q) Q)
curl) '-ai"'O~
...Q)oo...C:(I)
o~oog,o.
c: 0.0 -.- .-e
~3 .g-go
o a....; .'!1 - 8l
{i C:Q)..c:'0::
OlU~""~
I/)~E..c:-Q)~
~:;:;G-+Jo~.2
:J 0 0 Q) ._"D
_E"Q)~O>:J
gt.... .....:;;t5-J
_0"500-
_ 1: 2 '-.~ Q) 0
c'- 0 0:0 (:> a.
Qj:J:J ·
't- 5 t... C7\ a.~
o '+- +' "'0
I/)l/)ooQ),,~
c:'- C C Z Q) ~
:8 ~.- 0 Q).s ~
0:J'O'O 0 I/)
g .2' III I/).!: I/) c:0>
_ 'to- rn Q) en 0- .-
:J 0 ~
~.~ ~ 5.3 ~ e
I- ~.- 0 0 0 0
'0 III '0 0
I
-=N
in
Q)
-
o
z
u
c:
'"
CJJ
"C
--
'"
.c
......
::s
o
'"
~
......
'"
CJJ
~
I
C
ta
-
a..
en
c
--
......
C
ta
-
a..
c
o
o
en
ta
....
-
ta
::s
......
Q.
CJJ
V
C
o
u
CD
o
c:
Q)
...
Q)
-
Q)
0::
~
a::
w
w
Z
-
CJ
Z
W
o
w
'"
~
3DOICJ81 0 0-=1
...
Q)
....
Ul
:J
U
Q)
Ul
... :J
Q) 0
Ul 'O..c
0> "S '0
~0~
:5
'j
e:
Q)
"E
o
e.:>
~...
a;.!
.0 Ul
.S <(
.2:-..c ~ fj)
"'CUl 0
Z Q) :J -" c;.
1~:g~11 g
zmmmo
~e.:>O::I-<(:I:U
~mmmowe.:>
w
----
fj)
.::it
U ~
'c 0
e:o;::
~:i: :!2
~'c ~
.0 .S
~c.6
g ... ~ ~
:I:~~g
8~~
.....
Ul
e:
Q)
~'O
Ole:
... ::l
Q) 0
> ...
We.:>
...
Q)
"g-E
o 0
Ul:I:
-"
...
Q) 0
Q. .0
o Q)
... '0 e:
e.:>3lZ
e: ~ U
OO)\;:
g:;;: '0
... .!:! 0
00...0...
~
.2
:g~
a: a>
:0
o
'L:
o
>
~
o
o
~
:s
........'.'~.'~...<.~.
.....6
''>,::'<---"--,,,-',\'
,'\ \ " " '
'\ ~. ' .-,
'-,-\,'.,".,
',',,'
'.,"", ,',\
". \ ",
~ " \.
,,:'~ \~ ' \ '
e.:>
o
Ul
Ul
o
...
0>
e:
o
a>
0>
'0
~
, ,
, '
:~~~,'
'\.~'
a> ~
III 0
o..c
O::Ul
3:e.:> z 0...:;:
:I:Oo...o...O::Ul>3:
Cl
~
0::
'0
...
a> 0
~B:5..c
~.gOL
.... ....a>
OQ) en
~~CI)O
I-Q)E
'0 .0
Cll '0 Cll e:
c: L Q...c 0
.2 5, :l I- . ~
o~~"';"E=O
~.'!! Cll ~ 8 ~
..:5.oEa>
C Q)::J"""'"O
~.s 15 g '0 'v
'0 ..c'O 0::
~ -~ ~ "- c ~
.... ,_Ul_ CJ 0) OJ ..c
EUlE
.S 0 :l ri
....~~Eg8
.~ Ul ~ 0 '0 N
cnQ)t- -L
o ~ . '0.3 ~
o :l Cll .- c
...... g] ~~ c:
0.00J!
1lEEUCllfil"
-geOo:5VJ
Cll- U
. C "0 '- .~ ~ ~
a>'- ~ 0 Cll -0
-o.~ .(i~ :; ~ "0
E.... E ~.~Cll'e:
'g -: 8 G - Ul .2
5..~Cll g~;:: a..
Q.~~ I-~
o ~~ ."O~
~~00~5Vi
o~o2g.,.t
C e-o 0 -= g 0
~:l.'OUl-~
,g 0.1:: Cll:C . 0::
cn-Q)(I)-~
o E Cll Cll ~
~5:l:5'O:g.2
'-:.;:; 0 0_ '"0
:lOOCllCOl.3
-OE'OJ!~~
Q)"''OCoo"t
't- ~ Q) ~.~ Q) 0
'6 .s:2 g:o e.:> p-
..... 0 ~ Ol ~E "0
o'+-...... Q)
o 0 Cll '0 :;:;
~.'!! C C:5 ~ ~
.2 Cll'- ~ Cll.B a>
.otJ'-"o.....ocn
o :l Cll C
g .g' ~ ~'Iii.'!!
- :lU
Q).~ ~ 5.B
..c ..c._ 0 0
I-I-'OUl'O
0>
C
'j
>'0
a....
00
U
~N
Q.i
U
e:
Q)
...
Q)
-Qj
0::
u;
Cll
-0
z
u
C
OJ
'C
.-
.."
.c
....,
::s
o
.."
I
C
ttS
-
a..
=
c
.-
....,
C
ttS
-
a..
c
o
o
=
ttS
...J
-
ttS
::s
....,
c.
OJ
V
C
o
U
~
a:::
w
w
Z
-
\!)
Z
W
o
w
C)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.4 LAND AND SHORELINE USE
3.4.1 Affected Environment
Port Ludlow is located in a generally rural portion of eastern Jefferson County, approximately
six miles north of SR 104. The MPR is centered on the inner portion of Port Ludlow Bay and
extends both north and south of this inner portion of the Bay. The Resort complex is situated on
the north shore of the Bay and includes both shoreline and upland properties.
Project History
Port Ludlow was originally settled in the mid-1800s as a shipbuilding, logging, and sawmill
community. By the 1880s, Port Ludlow encompassed a sawmill, log dump, numerous homes, a
hotel, and other facilities. These facilities were generally located in the area of the current
Resort. The sawmill was permanently closed in 1935 and subsequently dismantled. The existing
homes were moved to Port Gamble.
Development ofthe current Port Ludlow Resort and residential community was initiated in the
late 1960s, with construction of the Harbor Master Restaurant, Conference Center, and the
marina. The Admiralty I and II areas were platted in 1968, and the plat of Ludlow Bay Village
was recorded in 1994.
As approved by Jefferson County, the Port Ludlow MPR as a whole will include up to 2,250
dwelling units (1,800 of which have been developed to date), the Resort complex, a 27-hole golf
course, a small retail center, and extensive parks and open space.
Existing Resort Development
The Resort complex is located on the north shore of Port Ludlow Bay, in the area of the original
shipbuilding/sawmill community. To date, approximately three-quarters of the Resort area has
been developed. Existing Resort development includes:
. The Harbormaster Restaurant (5,000 square feet/120 seats)
. The Inn at Port Ludlow (3 7 rooms)
. LodginglResidential units (25 townhomes and one single-family dwelling within Ludl<?w
Bay Village, and 64 condominiums within the Admiralty I and II areas)
. The LMC Beach Club (private recreation facility, open to guests at the Resort)
. One conference building
. Paved and graveled parking areas
. Open space including "Mill Pond" (an artificial, man-made lagoon), areas of open lawn,
informal trails, and a viewing area at Burner Point; and
. A 280-slip marina with support facilities. The marina serves Port Ludlow area residents,
guests, and boating groups.
The 27-hole Port Ludlow Golf Course, located on the south side ofthe Bay, is a major attraction
for visitors to the Resort.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3-39
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project Area
The Resort complex is surrounded by residential portions of the larger Port Ludlow MPR to the
north and west and is bordered by Port Ludlow Bay on the south and east. Immediately west of
the Resort complex, properties around the inner portion of Port Ludlow Bay are occupied by
single-family homes and condominiums. Properties further upland are situated atop the hill and
are occupied by single-family homes. The majority of the Resort complex is separated from.
surrounding single-family development by Oak Bay Road.
Properties immediately west of the Marina lie within a designated "Single-Family" area and are
occupied by four single-family dwellings. These properties access Oak Bay Road via Scott
Court, and for purposes of this discussion are referred to as the "Scott Court Properties." A four-
slip dock serves these residential lots. This dock, known as the "Scott Dock," is located
approximately 150 feet from shore, approximately 300 feet west of the Port Ludlow Marina C-
and D-Docks.
Within the inner portion of the Bay, the number of existing private docks is small; these docks
are generally located on the southwestern shore of the Bay. The Meydenbauer Bay Yacht Club
uses four dock slips at the west end of Port Ludlow Bay, as well as rafting boats together and
anchoring boats in the Bay, as a satellite club facility.
Land Use Regulations
Current land use regulations pertaining to Port Ludlow stem from the 1998 Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan, designating Port Ludlow a Master Planned Resort (MPR), and the 2000
Port Ludlow Development Agreement. Jefferson County Ordinance Number 08-1004-99,
adopted in October 1999, establishes the Port Ludlow Development Regulations consistent with
the MPR designation established in the Comprehensive Plan.
Under Ordinance No. 08-1004-99, the Port Ludlow MPR is divided into several zoning districts,
one of which is the "Resort Complex/Community Facilities Zone." The purpose of this zone is
to provide amenities and services associated with a Resort and the surrounding community and
to support existing residential uses. Uses allowed in this zone "...recognize the recreational
nature of the Resort and include the existing and planned Resort complex, as well as limited
permanent residential uses, and non-resort community facilities including a beach club and
Kehele Park. "
The Port Ludlow land use designations are shown in Figure 11.
The approved Resort Plan is described in Section 3.90 - "Resort Development" of Ordinance No.
08-1004-99. Section 3.901 identifies the specific facilities (and their sizes) that are to be
developed within the Resort Complex/Community Facilities Zone. Section 3.90 envisions the
Resort as a destination resort for large groups, as well as the traveling public. Section 3.901
"Resort Plan" identifies Resort facilities encompassing
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3-40
March 2004
~
D
c:J
-
-
-
,
Figure 11 - Comprehensive Plan
Port Ludlow Resort Plan DSEIS
Port Ludlow
Master Plan
Resort
Boundary
Single Family Residential
4 DU per acre
(MPR-SF 4:1)
Single Family Tracts
1 DU per 2.5 acres
(MPR-SFT 1:2.5)
Single Family Residential
1 DU per 5 acres
(RR 1:5)
Multi-Family Residential
10 DU per acre
(MPR-MF 10:1)
Resort Complex
Community Facilities
(MPR-RClCF 10:1)
Village Commercial Center
(MPR-VC)
Recreation Area
(MPR-RA)
Open Space Reserve
(MPR-OSR)
FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY -
Jefferson County does not attest to the accuracy of the data contained herein
and makes no warranty with respect to its correcmess or validity. Data
contained in this map is limited by the method and accuracy of its collection.
Product of Jefferson County Integrated Data Management System3. In addition
to recognizing legal pre-existing land uses. Jefferson County recognizes pre-
existing lots of record as legal lots.
Current parcel database as of July, 1998.
/idms5/comp-clips/ludlow.aml by davidn on November 04, 1998
Port Ludlow Comprehensive Plan - Land Use Designations
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
498,300 square feet of development, not including residential structures. Facilities include a
275-room hotel, two restaurants, resort retail, a conference center, a recreation complex, museum
or interpretive center, amphitheater, youth center, an expanded marina, and public open space.
Multi-family and single-family structures are permitted uses within a density not to exceed 10
units per acre. Revisions to this Resort Plan are provided for in Sections 3.905 and 3.906.
The MPR as a whole is subject to a development cap. To implement and monitor this cap, while
providing for flexibility regarding future land uses, a measurement and transfer system was
developed. This system is based on the actual number of residential lots, residential units, and
equivalent residential units for commercial development. The unit of measurement is termed an
"MERU" (Measurement Equivalent Residential Unit). Total MERUs are not to exceed 2,575;
total residential units are not to exceed 2,250. Jefferson County maintains an official MERU
Record.
Since adoption of the 1999 MPR regulations, it has become evident to the owners of the Resort
that a destination Resort oriented to large conference groups is not feasible for Port Ludlow.
Changes in the resort market have resulted in a need for a resort more oriented to the traveling
public. A change to the Resort Plan as outlined in Section 3.906 of Ordinance No. 08-1004-99 is
therefore proposed.
In addition to market factors, the 1995 plat of Ludlow Bay Village (located north ofthe marina
within the Resort area) and subsequent construction oftownhomes within this plat, has limited
the ability of Port Ludlow Associates to construct certain facilities anticipated by the 1999 MPR
regulations.
3.4.2 Environmental Impacts
Short-Term Construction Impacts
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3:
For all alternatives, construction activities will result in short-term impacts to the existing Resort
uses. Marina and upland construction activities will also result in short-term impacts to adjacent
residential properties. Construction activities will temporarily increase noise levels and levels .of
suspended particulates (dust); fumes from construction equipment may be noticeable; and truck
and marine barge traffic will increase.
Construction noise will be generated primarily by operation of heavy machinery for grading and
earthwork and from pile driving, but will also come from the use of generators, other small
engines, and hand tools. Construction hours will be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Mondays
through Saturdays.
For the Port Ludlow Marina expansion, construction noise will be generated primarily by pile
driving and will be heard from the Resort area and the Scott Court properties to the west. Data
from the Shilshole Bay Marina Dock Replacement/Moorage Expansion Project Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (port of Seattle, 2000) indicates that, from a
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3-42
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
noise standpoint, the "worst case" pile driving scenario is a diesel-powered hammer driving steel
piles into a very hard subsurface soil layer, with no noise abatement shrouding. In this scenario,
the Leq measured 100 feet from the diesel hammer was 95.9 dBA. At 180 feet, the Leq will be
90.8 dBA and at 300 feet, 86.4 dBA.
The noise level will be determined largely by the number of piling to be driven and the depth to
which they are driven. Given the subsurface conditions at the Marina, iUs anticipated that both a
vibratory hammer and a drop hammer and/or diesel hammer will be used. The pile driving will
occur over an approximate 45-day period. Because sound travels well over water, construction
noise will likely be heard around the entire Bay, but will not be as significant.
Jefferson County regulates noise impacts per Section 6.19 ("Noise") of the Unified Development
Code. Resolution Number 67-85, Establishment of Environmental Designation (EDNA) for
Noise Abatement Areas for Jefferson County, adopted WAC 173-60 in its entirety to establish
maximum permissible noise levels for various environmel!ts or classes of use.
WAC 173-60 states that noise emitted by any commercial or industry activity shall not exceed
those levels established by the Washington State Department of Ecology. WAC 173-60.030
classifies residential sites and parks and recreational sites as Class A EDNA. The maximum
noise exposure levels for noise emitted in Class A EDNA that is received by Class. A EDNA is
55 dBA (WAC 173-60-040).
WAC 173-60-050 lists activities that are exempt from the maximum noise level requirements of
WAC 173-60-040. Section 3-a exempts sounds originating from temporary construction sites as
a result of construction activity with the exception that these sounds are not allowed between the
hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7 :00 a.m. in Class A EDNA receptors.
Impacts from increased construction truck and barge traffic will be concentrated within the
shoreline area, although the pile-driving barge will also be located in the vicinity of the Scott
Dock. The barge will not block access to that dock. Fumes from the construction activities are
not anticipated to be significant.
Long-Term Impacts
Alternative 1: Proposed Project - 2003 Resort Plan
Construction of Alternative 1 would result in build-out of the Resort complex, with Resort
facilities designed to serve the traveling public. Conferences will still be accommodated but on a
smaller scale and would be housed in existing facilities such as the Heron Beach Inn, the Bay
Club, the Beach Club, and the relocated Harbor Master Restaurant. Large, outdoor special
events would no longer be accommodated. At build-out, development within the Resort area
would include:
Residential Units
190 residential units, described as follows:
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
March 2004
~
DRAFT
3-43
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
· Admiralty area - The existing 64 stacked condominiums within Admiralty I and II,
together with 39 new townhomes in Admiralty ill (32 stacked flats and 7, two-story
townhomes).
. Ludlow Bay Village - The existing 25 townhomes and one single-family dwelling,
together with 62 new stacked flat condominiums (48 stacked flats, and 14, 2-story
townhomes). This is anincrease of30 units over the existing 58-lot plat of Ludlow
Bay Village. Vehicular access to existing townhomes within Ludlow Bay Village
will be restricted to Heron Road and will be separated from access to the adjacent Inn.
· New townhomes will maintain the existing architectural theme established in Ludlow
Bay Village (i.e., New England/Colonial) and will be 1,200 - 1,500 square feet in
size - smaller than existing townhomes in Ludlow Bay Village. The smaller size is
intended to allow for an overall variation in product type and price range.
Typical floor plans for the new residential units are shown in Figure 12A.
Hotel
· Inn at Port Ludlow- Existing 37 room inn, including restaurant and lounge. The
existing building will remain unchanged, however, vehicular access to the Inn will be
modified. Vehicular access to the Inn and its associated parking will be restricted to
Gull Drive and separated from access to the adjacent townhomes. The existing 36-
stall parking lot will be reconfigured to provide 55 spaces. Regarding interior
improvements, the size of the formal restaurant will be reduced to double the size of
the Fireside Lounge.
Waterfront Facilities
· Waterfront Commercial Facility. A new I-story building will be located on the
shoreline near the west end of the marina which will contain the Dock Master's
office, the marina maintenance area, and a store for marina tenants and guests. This
facility will be situated adjacent to the relocated Harbor Master Restaurant. The
building will maintain the New England/Colonial architectural theme; a preliminary
architectural elevation of the building is shown in Figure 12B.
· Harbor Master Restaurant (relocated)
The existing restaurant building will be demolished, and the restaurant will be
relocated to the waterfront commercial facility near the marina. The seating capacity
will be reduced from 120 people to 90 people (inside seating for 60, together with
outside seating for 30). A preliminary architectural elevation of the building is shown
in Figure 12B.
· Private Recreational Facility - 7,500 square feet
A new 2-story, indoor recreation facility will be located adjacent to the waterfront
commercial facility near the west end of the marina. The facility will include an
indoor-outdoor swimming pool, spa, and a fitness center and will be available only to
residential property owners within Ludlow Bay Village and their guests, guests at the
Inn, and guests at the marina. The recreation building will also be designed in the
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3-44
March 2004
~
~
0
<t 0
<:I;) -1
~ LL
~
ill
I- 0-.
z 0-. 0)
::J :J <:{
<:{ ~
<:I;) 0
~ 0
~ - ~ -1
LL
I- ~
Z ill
::J 0-.
0-.
::J
'"
C
fa
-
~
r...
0
0
-
LI.
~ <:{ -
<:{ 0 <:{ fa
<:I;) 0 ~ U
~ -1 0 .-
LL 0 Co
I- Z -1 ~
Z <:{ LL
::J r:: ~
~
I 0-.
; I ::J
~ I
s ~ ~
I
I I
i
s I ~
, 0
L_, I 0
!I I -1
LL
I z
r-.J
, S <:{
,
r::
~
1--4 Z ...
Z:3 ~
:::l ..
o VI ~
E-c ~ ~
U ~ ~
~:!!: i
Z 5i!
t: j ~ ~
=r:: Q.. , ~
U o'lJ ! ~
~ a ! I
< ~ ~ ~
g
en
J(
f5
cO
J(
QJ
C\
fa
-
-
:>
>-
fa
CQ
~
o
-
"C
:::J
...I
,..."
o
o
\0
~
co
I
cc:
o
00
r--:
J(
g
r--:
J(
o
M
cO
J(
ILL:
CI)
0
~
Ol'
.... ('>l
I:!: I:!:.
e ~co '"
00 <0 CO.... ~ :0.... CO 0l....0
..... ..........
~ !:::
-
LlJ ~
a:: ~ I ~
oc::c ... I
>- :;e Ll:>'
::), , , , ,.... , , , , , ,....
CO
~
-
5 ::::: LL:
~ CI)
...,J 0
~ 0
~ Ll:>
~ 00'
J...,: ~
~ :::l .... :'\l('>l , , ,I('>l N, ,Ll:> ('>l~
a ~I- - - - -~~
-
CI) LL:
lJ..J- CI)
a::~ I 8
<IS
... ~
~ .... oo~ co ('>l0
:::l .... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... .....00
I
m.....~"'''tLO ....
1Jjl1r-, 0 ..... ('>ll:!:
~ Ol ..... ~ .....
Olto::&o::o::li: 0::[9:: 0:: 0:: o::e
~---
I
(
I
::::::
~
~
~
~
::)
.....
UJ
~
~
~
::)
~~~
000
000
('>lLl:>'"
...............
~~~
000
LlJ~8:Q:
NQ:o..&
Ii)<:(<:(<:(
CI)
lJ..J
~
I-
- lU lU
~:::> ~ ~
00
CI):t::t:
...,J~5~~
~ j:: u.: f2 f2
L'" ~ fa >- >-
r- " ~ 0:: Q:
~ouf2f2
l..U ~ ~ CI) CI)
aQCI)c\ic\i
-
~
a::
~J:::::~
~
)". .
';".
(!)
Q @--.---
-J
~
I--
:c::
~ I'...
~ .
~ a::
C) ~
~
~ @:@--- (0
.
Q a:: a::
~ ~ ...
::) ~
co (!) .
a::
<: Q ~
0 -J
~ ~ .
a::
~ :t (\I'"
5 0 ([X'0-- .
~ a::
~ CI,)
~
~
t3
a::
UJ <C
a::: @
~
ClL
.
a:::
CI,)
~ ~-_._---
a:::
<C
(!) u.:u.: ~u.:
<:
j:: CI)CI) 8~
~~ 88 coo
Ii) Ol.... oLl:>
('>lLl:> .....t-.
ffi
I f.;;
CI)
~
CI) ~
(!) 0....
Co
~ ~~
-
a f2(!)
-.I CI)~
~ ~ (!)~
u
:::> ffi <:~
j::
co ~ LlJCI)
...,J ~ ~Q:
~
~ (.) t--:<:
0:: <:LlJ
0 0 ~(.)
0 :'CI)
ffi tr ~~
C ~~
:iE ~~ Q:a:
~~ ' ,
~ U(!) (!)(!)
~<: Cc
0 ~~ 15-.1
~ ~ ...al
0 <:~ <:~
j:: ~lU ~j::
e: a:
5 ~ ~~ :,itj
<:u.: ~Q:
~ ~ i!5 Cl)U
Q ::!:CI) ~~
:it
~
~
~~ ~ ~~ QClU
I
JJJ I
C>
~
Q
S
co
.....
<:
Ci
:;,
~
CI)
UJ
Q::
~
u ~ ~
- <( ~
Z ~ l:;
:::l 3!5
o ~ ~
E--c 8 ~
~ ~ I
E--c~l!ll=i
- a. I l!
=:r:: ell g ~
u z 'if ~
~P::: i;l i :
~ ~ ~ e
I
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I'Tl I'Tl I'Tl
X X X
(fj (/) (/)
-; -;
z z z
G) G) G)
G) (/) ::E
;;0 I'Tl ~
~ ::E
I'Tl I'Tl
:< ;;0 ;;0
I '1 r
(/) 0 Z
I'Tl ;;0 I'Tl
::E (')
:E I'Tl I'Tl
:E ;;0
:E r s::
ill )>
(JJ ".... 0 z z
3 lDl\) 0 I'Tl
0 CoO
~ !!1cn z
",. fI) \
(, -Co) \
:E"" c:
0 ",Ol r-
3 ~g. -t
:E!a z
}oeD
(l)lD C)
Ol-
0 m
0
Co) z
C)
U .~
! m
.;:
.N
~,;
.. t~
.W
'I'll'
~~
C^"" ;",'
m
><
--
~
,....
--
=
\Q
=
to
~
o
::t.
c:
,....
--
-
--
,....
--
to
~
~ ~ ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
New England/Colonial style; a preliminary architectural elevation ofthe building is
shown in Figure 13B.
. LMC Beach Club Recreational Facility and Bridge Deck
No changes to this existing private facility or its parking areas are proposed.
. Port Ludlow Associates Offices (existing building)
Offices for Port Ludlow Associates will be moved from their current location (off
Paradise Bay Road) to the old conference center along Oak Bay Road, in the north
end of the RC/CF zone. Approximately 30 employees will be located in this building.
· Maintenance building - 2,900 square feet
A new maintenance facility serving the Inn and other Resort operations will be
located just east of the old conference center facility.
. Central Receiving Dock
A new, approximately 1,000-square-foot central receiving facility will be located
within an existing parking lot on the north side of Harbor Drive.
. Off-street parking (existing and proposed) .
All new residential units will include off-street parking for two cars. A total of 324
off-street stalls will be provided in a series of paved parking lots serving the marina,
commercial, and recreational uses in Ludlow Bay Village.
. Designated Helipad for Emergency Evacuations (proposed)
A 20-foot by 20-foot paved helipad for use by Fire District #3. The pad will be
located north of Marina View Drive between Oak Bay Road and Olympic Place.
. Open space, trails (existing and proposed)
A designated, signed trail system will be developed within Ludlow Bay Village to
provide for better pedestrian circulation and access to public portions of the shoreline.
The pedestrian access/trail plan is shown in Figure 13. This system will include an
eight-foot-wide wooden boardwalk/esplanade along the shoreline that will extend .
from the new restaurant, east to the Inn. Existing open space along the south side of .
the artificial lagoon will be retained, as will the open space at the end of Burner Point.
Parking for access to the public trails will be located at the upper community lot.
. Infrastructure Improvements
Storm Drainage - New water quality vaults will be added at each of the inlets to the
artificial lagoon to supplement water quality treatment. Also, within Admiralty ill,
new stormwater detention facilities, as well as water quality facilities, will be
constructed. The existing storm drainage collection/conveyance system within
Ludlow Bay Village will be evaluated to determine if the 100 year capacity is
adequate to accommodate the additional runoff from the Admiralty ill area.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3-47
March 2004
~
'. ,.~,~.~.~
:c
()
L5
[D
EZ
. . ~~:..::~. -:._ ~~-:':~~.;:....:.;"~-;:;:.:.;;2' .~._ L~".
"0
QJ '-
~.B:5~
'- 0
E~2~
0<1> (;)
~..crno
.....1-2E
oQ).gQJ C
c: L- Cl...c 0
,Q 6.::J I- ,Q)
o~ ~....;~ =0
~.f!! ~ a; 1:; :Q
~:5~EQJ~
c: Q):J~~
Q,) C > 0...... "Qi
:Q ,- ~.g 0 Ct::
Q,)~ ...... ~
:5 ,_en_ ~ ~ ~ .0
EenE
::~~Eg8
.~ 00 1! 0"0 ~
Ul<1>t- - ~
o ~ . O.~ ~
o ::J QJ .~ c
...... g i ~~ c:
"0 a.oo~
QJEEuQJ QJ
-ge1:;o:5Ul
QJ.....
~"O ~.~ ~ ]
Q)'- ~ 0 QJ 0
'0 .f!! '0..2 :; ~ "0
E ... E e ,<:?, QJ :
'x - 0 ::J '+- rn c:
o .Uu .2
a.~QJg?~1l.
g. g ~ 1-.. ~ 2
;:~ ."0.
~[l00~5tii
o~o.85,.-e
C e-o 0:;;: U 0
~::J ."OooE 00
~ Cl.c Q):.c .. ~
rnoQ)~"""~~
oocE.c:o~.2
~ E ~ ...... .S ~
::JOOQJCO>::J
'0 E"O 2 ,Q t5 -'
QJ,-"Uc'Oo-e
--2Q,)~oQ)o
-c"'0:'=011.
"0 "= ~ 6..g >. :
'+- 0 L- Cl..o '"0
0......... OJ
OOQJ"U:;::;
~ "~ c: c: :S ~ :g
o .- 0 0 QJ
:;=;~"U"U3cn
O::JQJ C 0>
g .<:?' 0000 [l'iij.f!! .S
-.....::Ju ;:
oou'-o>'o
1! :C.f!! 5 '0 g. 0
I-I-"Uoo"UU
""':N
Ui
QJ
-0
z
U
C
C
to
-
a..
'"
'"
QJ
u
u
<(
C
to
.-
s..
....,
'"
QJ
"C
QJ
a..
CD
U
C
QJ
'-
QJ
Qi
Ct::
~
a::
w
w
Z
-
'"
Z
W
o
w
C)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sanitary sewer and water service will continue to be provided by the Olympic Water
and Sewer Inc. New hook-ups will be required, but the capacities ofthe existing
systems are adequate to handle the increased use.
. Marina - 380 slips (280 existing slips + 100-slip proposed expansion)
The existing Marina will be expanded by up tolOO-slips. The expansion will occur
both westward and waterward.
Build-out of the Resort as proposed in Alternative 1 will increase the intensity of use within the
Resort complex. The 101 new residential units will roughly double the number of existing
residential units and potentially double the permanent residential population. Assuming a
household size of two persons per unit, 202 new residents may be expected. It is unknown to
what extent these households will be permanent residents, seasonal occupants, or temporary
visitors. It is not anticipated the new residents will include a significant number of school-age
children.
The new buildings and expanded marina will be visible from within the Resort and travelers on
Oak Bay Road. The increased building intensity will also be visible from across the Bay, but
these views will be distant. The design of the new residential and commercial buildings will be
consistent with the New England/Colonial style established in Ludlow Bay Village. No building
will exceed 35' in height.
The expanded marina will moderately impact portions of views from the Scott Court properties,
Oak Bay Road, and Burner Point. A detailed analysis of impacts to views from the marina
expansion is included in the 2002 Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Final Supplemental Impact
Statement.
The new uses, especially the commercial uses and associated increased use of parking areas, will
generate additional light and glare. Noise levels associated with increased vehicular and boat
traffic and increased use of the waterfront area will increase over existing levels. No unusual
sources of noise are anticipated. The Harbor Master Restaurant, a commercial use, will be
relocated from the residential area to the new commercial area along the waterfront.
Odors associated with a marina, such as exhaust from boats, will also likely increase
incrementally. Extensive boat repairs are not allowed within the Marina, so odors from repair
activities will not be significant.
Impacts of Alternative 1 on adjacent land uses (i.e., outside the Resort Complex) relate primarily
to potential impacts to the Scott Court residential properties. The marina expansion will result in
Port Ludlow docks lying within approximately 150 to 200 feet of the Scott Dock and within 2;;0
to 350 feet of the closest residential lot (currently undeveloped). Residents of Scott Court have
expressed concerns regarding the increased boat activity adjacent to their homes, the ability of
boats and seaplanes to access their dock, and the ability to expand their dock ifthe marina
expansion were to be approved.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3-49
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Alternative 2: 1993 Resort Plan
Because the overall intensity of Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 1, the overall land-use
impacts would be similar to those of Alternative 1. Land-use impacts within specific areas ofthe
Resort complex would differ, however.
With regard to residential units, 50 new units would be added to the Admiralty area (versus 39
new.units with Alternative I). Within Ludlow Bay Village, the number of new units would total
49 (versus 62 with Alternative 1).
With Alternative 2, there would be less separation of residential and commercial uses within
Ludlow Bay Village. The Harbor Master Restaurant would remain in its current location, the
access to the Inn and adjacent townhomes would remain in its current configuration, and the
western end of the waterfront area would be residentially developed, rather than occupied by
commercial uses. A new Town Hall, rather than a new recreation facility is proposed.
It is assumed the architectural style of the new buildings would be consistent with the New
England/Colonial style, although no architectural elevations are available.
The proposed marina expansion would be the same as that proposed in Alternative 1.
Alternative 3: 1999 Resort Plan (No Action)
Build-out of Alternative 3 would result in the most intense development of the Resort complex.
If construction of new townhomes within Ludlow Bay Village is halted, new development would
consist of commercial Resort facilities - outdoor sports facilities, an expanded conference center
and hotel, a youth center and museum, and a parking garage. The new resort facilities would be
focussed in the Ludlow Bay Village area and would require partial filling of the lagoon and 100
percent approval of the Ludlow Bay Village Homeowner's Association through a
Redevelopment Agreement. Approximately half of the existing artificial lagoon would be filled
and replaced with open lawn area. Aside from the new hotel, no new residential units would be
added.
Given the existing level of residential development that has occurred in Ludlow Bay Village
since adoption of the 1999 Resort Plan, full development of the Alternative envisioned in 1999
can no longer be achieved. Certain uses, such as the amphitheater, are no longer feasible. More.
intense development could, however, still occur along the north side of the lagoon at the western
end ofthe waterfront area and along the slopes adjacent to Oak Bay Road. In this scenario, no
new development is proposed within the Admiralty area; the existing conference center building
would, however, be converted to a youth center.
If, however, a new Resort Plan is not approved, and development of townhomes within Ludlow
Bay Village continues, it is unclear what facilities would exist at build-out. The current plat
provides for four additional single-family homes along the shoreline, as opposed to additional
Resort facilities. The artificial lagoon would remain at its present size, and the Harbor Master
Restaurant would remain in its current location. Up to 28 additional townhomes could be
constructed. Given the demand for improved Resort facilities, it is unlikely, however, that the
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.50
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
owner would fully develop their remaining ownerships only with residential uses; more intense
use of the Resort waterfront is anticipated.
Alternative 3 would likely result in the greatest increase in noise, light, and glare and overall
vehicular and people use of the site and greatest water consumption and waste production. The
character of the Ludlow Bay Village area could be that of a commercial resort, with a limited
residential environment. Visitors to the Resort would be accommodated in a hotel setting, rather
than townhomes or condominiums.
The proposed marina expansion associated with Alternative 3 is the same as that proposed in
Alternatives 1 and 2.
3.4.3 Mitigation Measures
Proposed (Alternative 1):
Construction Impacts
· Hours of construction will be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Mondays through Saturdays.
· Stationary construction equipment will be positioned as far as possible from residential
properties.
· The construction contract will require that all mufflers are maintained in good working order.
· Any dust will be suppressed by utilizing wetting techniques.
· Energy-efficient equipment will be used to control emissions.
Long-Term Impacts
· The proposed project will provide for an economically sustainable Resort function.
· The proposed Resort site plan will separate residential and commercial uses to minimize
conflicts associated with traffic, noise, light, and glare.
· The proposed Resort Plan acknowledges the existing residential character and architectural
style of the central and eastern portions of the Ludlow Bay Village area.
· New street and parking lot lighting will be designed to shield and focus light.
· The new docks associated with the marina expansion will provide adequate fairway and
maneuvering area for access to existing Scott Docks.
· The new docks associated with the marina expansion will not block significant portions of
existing views.
· The marina expansion will provide additional slips for area residents and may also allow use
of slips as satellite facilities for other yachts clubs. This may, in turn, reduce the number of
boats anchored.;.out in Port Ludlow Bay during summer months.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre.Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.51
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.4.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Build-out of the Resort will result in more intense development ofthe project area. Increased
development and use of the area will result in increased activity levels, vehicular traffic, noise,
light, and glare; this increased intensity of use will be noticeable to existing users and residents
within the Resort.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
March 2004
~
DRAFT
3-52
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.5 LAND AND SHORELINE USE - RELATIONSHIP TO PLANS AND POLICIES
3.5.1 Affected Environment
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1998, addresses Master Planned Resorts
(MPRs) in Chapter 3 - "Land Use and Rural Element." The Comprehensive Plan describes
MPRs, establishes MPR Goals and Policies, and identifies an MPR Strategy and Action Items, as
follows:
Master Planned Resorts
"Master planned resorts (MPRs) are large-scale, self-contained developments that are
based on an integrated, conceptual master plan, yet are typically developed in stages
depending on market demand or other factors. Recent amendments to the Growth
Management Act (GMA) allow jurisdictions to recognize existing master planned resorts
which may constitute urban growth outside of Urban Growth Areas as limited by RCW
36.70A.362.
Jefferson County currently contains one existing master planned resort, Port Ludlow.
The master planned resort of Port Ludlow is characterized by both single-family and
multi-family residential units with attendant recreational facilities including a marina,
resort, and convention center, and is one of Jefferson County's fastest growing
communities. Located on Port Ludlow Bay and surrounded by an area of significant
natural amenities, Port Ludlow is suited to be designated as a master planned resort.
Port Ludlow is managed by Olympic Resources Management (ORM), a corporation
which is responsible for the phased development of the community and resort. Although
Port Ludlow is a planned development, its overall phased development pattern may
change according to changing market conditions. Any change in the development plan
will need to be reviewed for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and for
compliance with Port Ludlow's PElS and all applicable federal, state, and local
regulations. Currently, a development agreement is being prepared between ORM and
the County that, if adopted, will allow for flexibility in the overall development of the
Port Ludlow master planned resort within the limits of a residential cap of 2,250
residential units and a total of 65, 000 sq. ft. ofretaillcommercial development.
The Comprehensive Plan contains policies in LNG 25.0 that help guide development at
Port Ludlow. Many of Port Ludlow's goals and policies were drafted from issues
identified by community residents who, through the establishment of community planning
groups, articulated their desired plan for Port Ludlow's future development. The goals
and policies identified by the community and included in Jefferson County's
Comprehensive Plan focus on maintaining and enhancing Port Ludlow's recreational
and community amenities and preserving the community's lifestyle. "
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.53
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Maintain the viability of Port Ludlow as Jefferson County's only existing
Master Planned Resort (MPR) authorized under RCW 36; 70A.362.
The Goals, Policies, and Strategies related to the Port Ludlow MPR and the Resort area are as
follows:
Goals:
LNG 25.0
Policies:
LNP 25.1
LNP 25.2
LNP 25.3
LNP 25.4
LNP25.5
LNP 25.6
LNP 25.7
LNP 25.8
Ensure that development in Port Ludlow complies with County
development regulations established for critical areas and that on-site and
off-site infrastructure impacts are fully considered and mitigated.
The provision of urban-style services to support the anticipated growth
and development at Port Ludlow shall occur only within the designated
MPR boundary.
No new urban or suburban land uses will be established in the vicinity of
the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort.
The total number of residential lots allowable within the MPR boundary
shall not exceed the 1993 Port Ludlow FEIS total of2,250 residential
dwelling units.
Port Ludlow shall accommodate a variety of housing types, including
affordable housing, singlefamily andmulti-familyhousing, and assisted
living care facilities.
Support efforts to preserve and protect Port Ludlow's greenbelts, open
spaces, and wildlife corridors.
LNP 25.6.1 Support the establishment of a Ludlow Creek Nature
Preserve.
No preliminary plats will be processed by Jefferson County for the 200-
acre area south of the Port Ludlow Golf Course within the MPR boundary
(as depicted on the official Jefferson County Land Use Map) until such
time as a conceptual site plan has been approved by the County.
The Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort commercial area shall be
designated as the Port Ludlow Village Commercial Center.
Strategies:
Jefferson County's strategy is to coordinate efforts with Port Ludlow to support its
development as an existing Master Planned Resort while containing "urban" type
development within the boundaries of the Resort.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.54
March 2004
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Action Items:
1. Establish procedures for monitoring growth to ensure that Port Ludlow does not
exceed its targeted population and housing projections. (Corresponding Goal: 25.0)
2. Encourage the Port Ludlow MPR to provide a mixture of affordable housing types
including single-family, multi-family, and assisted care livingfacilities.
(Corresponding Goal: 25.0)
3. Allow for the adoption of a Development Agreement between the Jefferson County
and Olympic Resource Management for the Port Ludlow MPR pursuant to RCW
36.70B.170. (Corresponding Goal: 25.0)
The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan also includes goals and policies related to both Parks
and Recreation (Chapter 6) and Shorelines (Chapter 7).
Regarding Parks and Recreation, the goal is to develop and maintain facilities that are responsive
to the needs and interests of Jefferson County residents and visitors. The associated policies
state that existing facilities should: not be overburdened; be planned to support designated
residential development; and should include adequate infrastructure. The facilities should also
be consistent with the needs and desires of the citizens of the area and be compatible with the
Shoreline Management Master Program. Policies related to Parks and Recreation are listed in
Appendix D.
Regarding Shorelines, Comprehensive Plan goals relate to preserving the long-term benefits of
shoreline resources and allowing development that is compatible with the natural environment.
Associated policies establish a hierarchy of preferred uses, promote public access, and allow
development that is compatible with the natural processes, conditions, and functions of the
shoreline. Policies related to Shorelines are listed in Appendix D.
Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program
The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) of 1971 (Revised Code of Washington, RCW, Chapter
90.58) was enacted to provide for the management ofthe shorelines ofthe state by planning for
and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. It is the policy of the state to protect against
adverse effects to public health, land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the stat~.
and its aquatic life. Permitted uses in the shorelines are to be designed and conducted in a
manner to minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment
of the shoreline and any interference with the public's use of the water.
The SMA gives responsibility to the local governments in initiating and administering the
regulatory program of the Act. As a result, Jefferson County developed and adopted a Shoreline
Management Master Program (SMMP) in March of 1989. The SMMP is a regulatory ordinance
with performance standards for development intended to implement adopted goals and policies.
The SMMP is adopted as Section 5 ofthe Jefferson County Unified Development Code. All
shorelines subject to the SMA are given a shoreline environment designation designed to locate
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3-55
March 2004
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Development in urban areas should be managed so it enhances and
maintains the shoreline for a variety of urban uses, with preference give to
water dependent and water related uses. Water-enjoyment uses that
provide access to and enhance enjoyment of the shoreline for a substantial
number of persons should also be given priority in urban areas.
Efficient utilization of existing urban areas in a manner consistent with
this program is encouraged before further expansion into non-urban areas
occurs.
the most appropriate uses in particular areas and to enhance the character of that shoreline
environment.
Two shoreline environment designations are located within the Port Ludlow Resort complex.
The south shoreline, including Burner Point, is designated "Urban." The east shoreline of the
Resort complex (excluding the east side of Burner Point) is designated as "Suburban." Shoreline
environment designations are shown in Figure 14.
The Urban shoreline environment is an area of high intensity land use, including residential,
commercial, and industrial development. The policies and performance standards ofthe SMMP,
Urban Environment give preference to water-dependent, water-related, and water-enjoyment
uses. Shoreline policies for the Urban Environment (SMMP 4.105) follow:
Policy 1.
Policy 2.
Policy 3.
Policy 4.
Policy 5.
Policy 6.
Policy 7.
Policy 8.
Policy 9.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre. Draft SEIS
Pedestrian and visual access should be provided to and along the urban
waterfront area. Public access to and along the water's edge should be
coordinated in a walkway system and linked to adjacent existing or future
walkways.
Urban development should provide for public views to the water.
Wherever possible, the waterside of shoreline buildings should include
windows, doors, and public areas that enhance enjoyment of the shoreline
and present and interesting, attractive view of the development from the
water.
Development in urban areas should preserve and enhance significant
architecture and historic buildings.
Unique natural features of the urban shoreline, such as bluffs, dunes, and
wetland areas, should be preserved and protected.
Parkingfacilities should be located on the upland side of buildings away
from the shoreline.
Internal and perimeter landscaping should be incorporated and
maintained to screen parking facilities from the shoreline and adjacent
properties.
Development within the shoreline urban area should be consistent with
other adopted plans, programs, or policies.
DRAFT
3.56
March 2004
~
Legend
_ Urban
-... - Suburban
- - - Conservancy
~ Natural
..,
~l
1
1
-
Port Ludlow
Master Plan
Resort
Boundary
_I.
1 ,/
1-
IS'~ . "
.~.
"lS'ol} .' .
. ""lle Ii,
C/.
-
--' \fJalker IA
. '~
"1
,I
I
I
r
lS'
Jj
.i{
it.il
Shoreline Environment Designations
o.
Q)
Cl
"0
if
~.
~.
o
:; .
'.p C',. i ""',::,;)5
llradise Bay Rd~,r;'>
--,
:( ".J"
-~~""Z
,.~, l
(ll ..
'21
~.
" \
':, '-/
\1
)0,
.s
%\
1
1
L
~
-- \
/
Teal L,ake.".'.......
:!':,
.&1
,,~
;;
:,W
'Off
-
"0
~
0:
Q)
01
.p
Qj
~.
oS
B
...J
Reid iddleton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Suburban shoreline environment is an area where residential activity may approach urban
density, but usually where densities permit space for small numbers of livestock, gardens, or
wood lots.
Shoreline uses are classified as "primary," "secondary," or "conditional," in order of preference
or appropriateness ona particular shoreline. Within the "Urban" shoreline, water-related and/or
dependent commercial uses, marinas, recreational facilities, residential development,
transportation facilities, and utilities are "Primary" uses (SMMP 4.40). Residential development
and day-use recreational facilities are deemed as preferable within the Suburban designation and
are classified as "primary" (SMMP 4.40).
Policies and specific Performance Standards for commercial development, marinas, recreational
facilities, residential development, transportation facilities, and utilities are provided in Chapter 5
of the SMMP. Consistency with the specific performance standards is determined through the
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit process.
3.5.2 Environmental Impacts
Alternative 1: Proposed Project - 2003 Resort Plan
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
Alternative 1 is consistent with Goal LNG 25.0 of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan,
relating to maintaining the viability of the Port Ludlow MPR. Changed market conditions have
resulted in a need to shift the focus of the resort complex from that of a conference facility
serving large groups, to a destination resort for the traveling public. The business model for the
Resort envisioned in the 1999 Development Agreement is no longer viable. Build-out of the
Resort with a new waterfront restaurant, additional indoor recreational facilities for Resort
guests, additional lodging opportunities (permanent and/or seasonal), improved parking and
circulation in the waterfront area, and expansion of the marina with upgraded support facilities
will maintain the Resort function and will be economically sustainable.
With regard to consistency with Policies and Strategies related to Comprehensive Plan Goal
25.0:
· Policy LNG 25.1 - Compliance with critical area regulations related to fish and wildlife
habitat was addressed in the 2002 Port Ludlow Marina Expansion SEIS;the proposed
expansion was found to be consistent with County regulations. The Marina expansion
has also been reviewed by applicable federal agencies (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
NOAA Fisheries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and the State Department ofFish and
Wildlife and found to be consistent with federal and state regulations related to
threatened and endangered fish species and marine habitat. The impacts of upland and
infrastructure improvements are addressed in Sections 3.1 - 3.3, and 3.7 of this Draft
SEIS.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.58
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. Policy LNG 25.2 - No urban services will be established outside the MPR as a result of
this project.
. Policy LNG 25.2 - No new urban or suburban land uses will be established outside the
MPR as a result ofthis project.
. Policy LNG 25. 4 -Thetotal numberofresidential units allowed in the MPR (i.e., 2,250)
will not be exceeded.
. Policy LNG 25.5 - The new residential units will provide increased variety of residential
unit types (1,200 - 1,500-square-foot townhomes) within the Resort complex.
. Policy LNG 25.6 - The project will not impact efforts to preserve and protect area
greenbelts, opens spaces, or wildlife corridors.
. Policy LNG 25.7 - N/A
. Policy LNG 25.8 - N/ A
The proposed project is also consistent with the Parks and Recreation Goals and Policies of the .
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Element that encourage development and
maintenance of park and recreational facilities that are responsive to the needs and interests of
Jefferson County residents and visitors. The expansion will relieve existing and potential
overburdening of existing recreational areas and facilities.
The proposed recreational facilities will support areas designated for future residential
development and adequate infrastructure will be available. The location, type, and amount of
park and recreational facilities is consistent with the needs and desires of the citizens in the area
and will accommodate a diversity of user groups.
Shoreline Management Master Program (SMMP)
Regarding Shoreline goals and policies, consistency with the policies and performance standards
contained in the Shoreline Management Master Program (SMMP) would result in consistency
with the Shoreline goals and policies.
With Alternative 1, proposed new development will be located within the Urban shoreline
environment. Consistency with the Urban Policies follows:
. Policy 1-The proposed project adds new uses to the waterfront and expands the
existing marina. The relocated restaurant, recreation building, and promenade are
considered water-enjoyment uses; the marina and its support services are a water-
dependent use. The proposed boardwalk and marina expansion will increase public
access to the water.
. Policy 2 - The proposed project provides for utilization of property within the Urban
designation and does not propose expansion into non-urban areas.
. Policy 3 - The proposed project includes a new pedestrian shoreline boardwalk and
improved signage for pedestrian access along the shoreline. Visual access to the
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.59
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
shoreline will be maintained. The expanded marina will be visible from adjacent
residential uses and Oak Bay Road.
. Policy 4 - Public views to the water will be maintained from the waterside of shoreline
buildings, from outdoor spaces, and from Oak Bay Road. Conceptual elevations of the
waterfront buildings are shown in Figure 12B.
. Policy 5 - No significant historic buildings currently exist within the Resort complex.
. Policy 6 - The existing shoreline will not be disturbed.
. Policy 7 - The existing parking facilities to be reconfigured will be located on the upland
side of buildings, away form the shoreline.
. Policy 8 - The parking areas will include internal and perimeter landscaping.
. Policy 9 - The proposed development must be consistent with other adopted plans,
programs, and policies.
Alternative 2: 1993 Resort Plan
Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 1 in its consistency with goals and policies contained in
both the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and SMMP. With Alternative 2, however, the
upland shoreline would contain primarily residential development, rather than a mix of
commercial and residential uses. Public views to the water would be maintained.
Alternative 3: 1999 Resort Plan (No Action)
Development of the Resort as described in the 1999 Development Regulations 3 is consistent
with the policies contained in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, but does not appear to
be consistent with the overall goal of maintaining the viability of the MPR. Since the time
Alternative 3 was developed in response to the County Comprehensive Plan, the Resort owner
has found that market conditions have changed and there is therefore, a need to change the focus
ofthe Resort. Alternative 3 would also be consistent with the SMMP, and would provide for a
more intense use of that portion of the shoreline within the Urban environment. Alternative 3
also proposes development within the band of steep slopes along the east side of Oak Bay Road.
Continued development of townhomes within Ludlow Bay Village, but with no revision to the
Resort Plan, would result in development which is generally consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and Shoreline Master Program Policies. It is unclear how this scenario would effect the
economic viabilityofthe Resort. This scenario could also result in single-family residential
development along the western portion of the shoreline, a designated "Urban" environment.
3.5.3 Mitigating Measures
The permitting process for the expansion will require consistency with the Port Ludlow MPR
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Management Master Program goals and
policies as well as any other applicable ordinances, such as the Critical Areas Ordinance.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.60
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.5.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
March 2004
~
DRAFT
3.61
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.6 TRANSPORTATION
Regional access to the Port Ludlow MPR is provided by SR 104 via Paradise Bay Road or SR 19
and Oak Bay Road. Teal Lake Road also provides access to the project area but is less traveled.
Roadways in the project area are shown in Figure 15.
The Resort complex itself, including the marina, is accessed directly from Oak BayRoad.
Approximately 1,400 linear feet of existing private roads provide internal circulation within the
Resort.
Port Ludlow Associates is required by Jefferson County to provide a yearly traffic-monitoring
program for Port Ludlow. The purpose ofthe monitoring program is to provide a cumulative
summary of traffic volumes in the area and an assessment of current operating conditions at
critical intersections in the general area. The Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) has also expressed concern regarding traffic impacts in July and August, particularly on
weekends. The Port Ludlow monitoring program has thus focused on weekend counts by taking
machine counts on a Saturday, Sunday, and Monday in August. The year 2002 is the ninth year' .
that data has been collected for this program.
The traffic analysis prepared for this Draft SEIS includes a review of the existing conditions in the
project vicinity and analyzes the potential traffic-related impacts associated with the Proposed
Action (Alternative 1), the 1993 Resort Plan (Alternative 2), and the current Resort Plan
(Alternative 3 - 1999 Resort PlanlNo Action). The type and magnitude of the land use associated
with the alternatives is described in more detail under the "Project Description" found in Section
2.2 of this Draft SEIS. It should be noted that it is unlikely that all the facilities proposed under
the current Resort Plan (i.e., Alternative 3) could still be built, given the development that has
occurred since the 1999 Plan was adopted. For purposes of this traffic study, however, and to
provide a comparison between the alternatives, this Alternative is analyzed as described in the
current MPR regulations.
The major elements included in this traffic analysis are a description of the existing roadway and
traffic conditions, traffic accident history, the trip generation/distribution, level of service (LOS)
analysis at critical intersections, and a summary of impacts and expected mitigation. Also
included in the analyses are the cumulative impacts associated with external traffic growth and . .
current and future housing construction within Port Ludlow.
Trip generation utilized for the alternatives is based on values from the ITE Trip Generation
Manual (published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers). Values from the Trip
Generation Manual are used for all land uses with the exception ofthe residential development.
Past traffic impact analyses in Port Ludlow have used adjusted trip generation values for
residential development to account for smaller household sizes. Adjustments to the trip rates
were utilized in the preparation of the 1993 Port Ludlow Development Program Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and were described in detail in that document. The
above-mentioned yearly traffic-monitoring program provided for Jefferson County also captures
count data for use in calculating the trip generation rates for the residential units within Port
Ludlow. This trip generation data has been based on the number of occupied units at the time of
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3-62
March 2004
~
I
I XXXX - August 2003 weekend average daily volume
I:~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~e;~; ~:;:: :~;;g:o::~~ volume
N.A. - not available
Figure 15 - Existing Volumes
Port Ludlow Resort Plan DSEIS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1106
(1425)
(3734)
-d
a:
>-
Q)
~
:;:.
7037
[E?"qp]
13079
[77P9]
Existing Daily Traffic Volumes
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the counts by using utility records to determine occupancy. (The use of just occupied units in the
calculation of trip rates tends to result in a conservative or higher trip rate value than may
actually exist based strictly on a per lot basis.) Data collected from the 2002 program is used in
the analyses that follow.
Future traffic volumes are estimated for the year 2010, which is the expected year for complete
build-out and occupancy ofthe Resort. The existing traffic volumes are adjusted upwards based
on a combination of data provided by Jefferson County from their Comprehensive Plan and the
traffic generated by the approximately 350 residential units that remain to be constructed under the
Port Ludlow Master Plan. Further discussion and details regarding these estimates can be found in
Appendix F.
3.6.1 Affected Environment
Existing Roadway and Traffic Conditions
Area roadways that would serve the Port Ludlow Resort include SR 104, SR 19 (Beaver Valley
Road), Paradise Bay Road, and Oak Bay Road. The following briefly describes these roadways.
SR 104 is a predominantly east-west highway that provides access to the Edmonds-Kingston ferry
to the east and connects to SR 101 to the west. In the project vicinity the roadway is typically two
lanes wide with six- to ten-foot paved shoulders and some extruded curb. Turn storage lanes have
been provided at the Paradise Bay Road and Beaver Valley Road intersections, and a hill-climbing
lane extends west from Paradise Bay Road for several hundred feet. The posted speed is 60 mph.
SR 104 is characterized by gentle horizontal and vertical curves and the adjacent land use is
typically undeveloped/rural property. Existing intersections from SR 104 that provide access to
Port Ludlow include Paradise Bay Road, Teal Lake Road, and Beaver Valley Road. All ofthese
intersections are controlled by stop signs on the side street.
SR 19 (Beaver Valley Road) is a state highway that extends north from SR 104 to Port
Townsend. Beaver Valley Road is approximately 24 feet wide with 4- to 7-foot paved shoulders
and some extruded curb. The roadway is in good condition and is characterized by gentle
horizontal and vertical curvature. A Park & Ride lot and visitor information center are located just
north of where Beaver Valley Road intersects SR 104. The posted speed is 50 mph.
Paradise Bay Road is a minor collector that provides a connection between SR 104 just west of
the Hood Canal Bridge and Oak Bay Road within the Port Ludlow community. The roadway is
two lanes wide and is characterized by fairly gentle horizontal and vertical curvature. The posted
speed varies from 30 mph to 50 mph, with a 40-mph speed posted within the Port Ludlow
community. The roadway is 22 feet wide with shoulders varying from about 1 foot up to 10 feet.
(The wider shoulder width is typically located at the intersections serving newer developments.)
The roadway is fronted by undeveloped parcels, residential lots, and some commercial
development near its intersection with Oak Bay Road.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre.Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.64
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Oak Bay Road is a major collector that provides access from Beaver Valley Road to the Oak
Bay/Fort Flagler area to the north, traveling through the Port Ludlow community. The roadway
is approximately 20-22 feet wide with shoulders up to 3 feet wide in certain areas and open
ditches. The posted speed is 40 mph. An all-way stop controls the intersection of Oak Bay
RoadlParadise Bay Road.
Transit Service
Transit service in Jefferson County is provided by Jefferson Transit. Port Ludlow is served by
the Port Ludlow/Poulsbo/Tri-Area route, which provides service between Port Townsend and
Poulsbo via the Tri-Area and Port Ludlow. Service is provided daily, although service is
reduced on the weekend. Weekday service begins at approximately 6:00 AM and continues until
approximately 7:30 PM, at approximately one and a half to four hour headways. Weekend
service is limited to one AM and one PM run in each direction. The Port Ludlow Village Store
is listed as a scheduled timepoint along the route.
Non-Motorized Facilities
,
Some paved pathways have been constructed within the Port Ludlow MPR development; these
pathways meander through the residential areas. Sidewalks have been constructed within the most
recent subdivisions. A comprehensive community-wide pedestrian trail plan has been approved
by Jefferson County and is being constructed in phases. The trail system is intended to serve
recreational uses, as well as a network between activity nodes such as the recreation center,
marina, and commercial complex. Trails exist within the Resort complex, but are currently
unsigned.
Accident Analysis
Traffic accident data was provided by Jefferson County for Oak Bay Road and Paradise Bay Road.
The following table summarizes the accident frequency along the roadway sections and at the
major intersections for the years 2000, 2001, and 2002.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.65
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 2
A'd H'
CCI ent IstOry
Accident Type
LocationlY ear Property
Damaae Iniurv Fatality Total
Oak Bay Road: ..
at Swansonville Road (MP 8.40)
2000 0 0 0 0
2001 0 0 0 0
2002 0 0 0 0
between Swansonville Road and
Paradise Bay Road (MP 8.40-9.47)
2000 0 0 0 0
2001 1 0 0 1
2002 1 0 0 1
at Paradise Bav Road (MP 9.47)
2000 0 0 0 0
2001 1 0 0 1
2002 0 0 0 0
between Paradise Bay Road and
Beaver Valley Road (MP 9.47-10.80)
2000 0 1 0 1
2001 0 0 0 0
2002 0 0 0 0
Paradise Bay Road:
between Oak Bay Road and
Spinnaker Place (MP 0.00-0.45)
2000 0 0 0 0
2001 1 0 0 1
2002 0 0 0 0
between Spinnaker Place and
Ludlow Bav Road (MP 0.45-1.24)
2000 0 1 1 2
2001 0 1 0 1
2002 2 0 0 2
at Ludlow Bav Road (MP 1.24)
2000 0 1 0 1
2001 0 0 0 0
2002 0 0 0 0
at Teal Lake Road (MP 1.52)
2000 0 0 0 . 0
2001 0 0 0 0
2002 0 0 0 0
Injuries were involved in 4 ofthe 11 collisions (36.41 percent) along roadways in the area, and
one fatality (9.1 percent) was reported. The fatality involved a driver having a heart attack whose
vehicle left the roadway and rolled over. The majority ofthe accidents (63.6 percent) involved
vehicles either losing control and rolling over or leaving the roadway in a curve section. The
remaining collisions included right angle collision, a rear-end collision, and a head-on collision.
Overall, the frequency of accidents in the area is low,
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.66
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 16 - 2003 Volumes
Port Ludlow Resort Plan DSEIS
2003 PM Peak HourVolumes
(Weekdays)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 17 - 2003 Volumes
Port Ludlow Resort Plan DSEIS
2003 Estimated Weekend Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Traffic Volumes
Traffic count data has been collected in the Port Ludlow area since 1994 as part of the yearly
traffic monitoring program that was required as a condition of approval for several prior plat
approvals. The monitoring program collects both weekday and weekend data during the month of
August, along with weekday PM peak hour turning movement counts. Counts are conducted
during the month of August in order to capture the higher volume tourist traffic that is typically
present during the summer months. This data was again collected in 2003. The Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) also conducts traffic counts along the state highways,
and Jefferson County counts the County roadways. Summaries of the various daily traffic
volumes are shown on Figure 15. In general, the volumes along the state highways were typically
higher on the weekend than the average daily volumes, whereas the reverse was true along the
County arterials.
The weekday PM peak hour is the highest 60-minute period between the hours of 4:00 and
6:00 PM and typically occurs during the peak afternoon commute. Peak hour counts completed in
2003 available for this study include the intersections of Paradise Bay Road/SR 104,
SR 104/Beaver Valley Road, Oak Bay Road/Beaver Valley Road, Paradise Bay Road/Oak Bay
Road, Teal Lake Road/Paradise Bay Road, and Oak Bay RoadlWalker Way. A summary of these
counts can be found on Figure 16.
Figure 17 shows the estimated weekend peak hour volumes for these same intersections. These
volumes are based on the approach volumes from the mechanical counters. The weekend peak
hour for all of the intersections within Port Ludlow (i.e., Oak Bay Road/Paradise Bay Road, Oak
Bay RoadlWalker Way, and Paradise Bay Road/Teal Lake Road) occurred on Saturday during the
late morning/early afternoon, whereas the intersections along SR 104 or SR 19 peaked on Sunday
afternoon. At all locations, the weekend peak hour total approach volumes were higher than the
weekday peak hour volumes.
Level of Service
Existing levels of service were calculated for intersections that would be affected by future
development and per discussions with Jefferson County Staff. LOS analyses were conducted
using the traffic count data described above. Calculations for the intersection LOS analyses
completed for this assessment were conducted using the McTrans Highway Cavacity Software
release 4.1 c based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual.
"Level of service" is a common term used in the Traffic Engineering profession that is defined as
a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream and its perception
by motorists and/or passengers. These conditions are usually described in terms of such factors
as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience,
and safety. Six levels of service are designated, ranging from "A" to "F", with LOS "A"
representing the best operating conditions and LOS "F" the worst. Jefferson County considers
LOS "C" or better acceptable in areas outside the urban line and LOS "D" or better acceptable in
areas within the urban lines and along urban/tourist corridors.
Six intersections were analyzed for this assessment and include the following:
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.69
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. SR 104/Paradise Bay Road
. SR 104/SR 19 (Beaver Valley Road)
. SR 19/0ak Bay Road
. Oak Bay Road/Paradise Bay Road
. Paradise Bay Road/Teal Lake Road
. Oak Bay Road/W alker Way
OVERALL
All of these intersections operate under minor street stop sign control with the exception of Oak
Bay Road/Paradise Bay, which is controlled by stop signs in all directions. The following tables
summarize the current levels of service for the weekday and weekend conditions.
NORTHBOU
NO
SR 104/ LOS C LOS F LOS A LOS A
Paradise Ba Road 18.8 sec. >100 sec. 10.0 sec. 8.8 sec.
SR 104/ LOS B LOS D LOS A LOS A
Beaver Valle Road 14.0 sec. 27.2 sec. 9.2 sec. 8.0 sec.
Beaver Valley LOS A LOS B
Road/OakBa Road N.A. 8.1 sec. N.A. 12.6 sec.
Oak Bay RoadlParadise LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A
Ba Road 8.6 sec. 8.7 sec. 8.5 sec. 9.7 sec.
Paradise Bay RoadlTeal LOS B LOS A LOS A LOS A
Lake Road 11.7 sec. 9.9 sec. 7.6 sec. 7.6 sec.
Oak Bay RoadlWalker LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B
Way 7.6 sec. 7.6 sec. 11.1 sec. 11.2 sec. N.A.
N.A. - not applicable/available (Le., calculation not provided for specific analysis or movement)
Table 4
Existin Weekend Levels Of Service
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND OVERALL
SR 104/ LOS D LOS F LOS A LOS B
Paradise Ba Road 29.8 sec. >100 sec. 8.9 sec. 11.4 sec.
SR 104/ N.A. LOS F LOS A LOS;'
Beaver Valle Road >100 sec. 10.0 sec. 8.6 sec.
Beaver Valley LOS A LOS B
Road/Oak Ba Road N.A. 8.2 sec. N.A. 14.3 sec.
Oak Bay RoadlParadise LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS B
Ba Road 8.8 sec. 9.0 sec. 8.9 sec. 10.1 sec.
Paradise Bay RoadlTeal LOS B LOS B LOS A LOS A
Lake Road 12.0 sec. 10.1 sec. 7.5 sec. 7.6 sec.
Oak Bay RoadlWalker LOS A LOS A . LOS B LOS B
Wa 7.5 sec. 7.7 sec. 11.3 sec. 11.5 sec. N.A.
N.A. - not applicable/available (Le., calculation not provided for specific analysis/movement, or no volume on
subject movement)
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.70
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
LOS A
9.0 sec.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
LOS A
9.3 sec.
N.A.
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Where:
LOS Dela
A < 10 seconds
B > 10 & < 15 seconds
C > 15 & < 25 seconds
D > 25 & <35 seconds
E > 35 & < 50 seconds
F > 50 seconds
(for unsignalized intersections)
Tables 3.6-2 and 3.6-3 show that the intersections along SR 104 are operating at a lower LOS than
the intersections located on the County arterial system. The lower LOS for the minor road
movements is a result of the high volumes on SR 104 that make it difficult for vehicles to enter
from the minor roadway. A comparison of the results of the analyses from the prior monitoring
programs shows minor changes in the amount of delay at the intersections of Teal Lake
Road/Paradise Bay Road, Oak Bay RoadlBeaver Valley Road, and Paradise Bay Road/Oak Bay
Road since 1992.
In general, both of the intersections along SR 104 have shown increased intersection delay over
the past decade due to increased demand for the southbound left-turn movements and higher
through volumes on SR 104. The LOS for the southbound movement at the intersection of SR
104/Paradise Bay Road was at LOS "F" in 2003. This movement has ranged from "C" to "F"
since 1992. .
The comparison of the 2003 weekend data with the weekday data was similar to most of the prior
years when both the intersection of Paradise Bay Road/SR 104 and Beaver Valley Road/SR 104
operated at a worse condition on the weekend than the weekday.
Resort Parking
Off-street parking is currently provided throughout the Resort area. Within the Admiralty area,
the conference center provides parking for 54 vehicles. Parking for the Admiralty I and II
condominium units and the Beach Club is provided.
Within Ludlow Bay Village, 36 stalls are currently available at the Heron Beach Inn, with
existing stalls in the upper and lower lots north of the marina. On-site parking for the residential
townhomes is provided at a rate of one to two stalls per unit. Much of the available existing
parking is located north of Heron Road and tends not to be used except during peak season.
Parking along the side of roads adjacent to the marina also occurs during the peak season.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
March 2004
~
DRAFT
3.71
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.6.2 Environmental Impacts
Short-Term, Construction Impacts (all Alternatives)
Development under all Alternatives will generate the customary temporary construction traffic.
Typically, the majority of these. activities occur during the daylight hours on the weekdays, thus
limiting the impact on the adjacent roadways. Large vehicles used in grading or deliveries will
travel to and from the site until the facilities are complete. Some of the larger equipment will be
brought in once and remain on site until it is no longer needed. For all Alternatives, assuming a
total work force of 40 to 50 during the various phases of construction, plus a total of 30
deliveries on any given day, a total of 220 to 260 construction trips per day may occur. This
amount is less than the traffic that would be generated by the development upon completion.
Long-Term Impacts
For all Alternatives, several project elements are included in the Resort Plan. These elements
include both existing uses such as the Heron Beach Inn, the Harbor Master Restaurant, the
marina, and the existing residential units, as well as new (proposed) uses. Those uses that
currently generate traffic are included in the existing traffic volumes. Those uses that will
generate new traffic are included in the analysis of future traffic volumes.
Alternative 1: Proposed Action - 2003 Resort Plan
The following sections summarize the traffic-related impacts associated with build-out of the
remainder of the Port Ludlow Resort under the Proposed Action (Alternative 1). One ofthese
uses, the Harbor Master Restaurant, will be relocated from its current site to a site closer to the
water and the seating capacity will be decreased by 25 percent, which is likely to result in less
traffic. To provide a conservative analysis, however, no deduction of current traffic has been
made to coincide with this seating reduction.
Those development actions that will generate new traffic and are included in the projection of
future traffic volumes include: an additional 101 residential units, the 100 additional slips at the
marina, the 2,900-square-foot maintenance building, and the PLA offices that will be relocated to
the existing conference center building. All other uses described under the Proposed Action are .
either existing uses or support facilities that are not traffic generators by themselves. (Note: many
ofthe trips associated with the relocation ofthe PLA offices to the resort currently exist on the
roadways. However, forpurposes of the following analyses, these trips will be assumed new to
the adjacent intersections of Oak Bay Road/W alker Way and Oak Bay Road/Paradise. Beyond
these intersections, the employee trips would be included in the existing traffic volumes.)
In addition, the analyses completed for the Proposed Action reviews peak weekend conditions.
The peak intersection volumes in the area occur on the weekend rather than on a weekday as is
typical in most urban areas where commuter traffic produces higher volumes. Trip generation
rates for a Saturday are used, since this is the day when the higher volumes within Port Ludlow are
present. The peak hour for both the various land uses and the adjacent intersections are assumed
to occur simultaneously in order to review the worst-case condition.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
March 2004
~
DRAFT
3.72
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Direct Impacts
Trip Generation
Alternative 1 will generate additional traffic onto the adjacent transportation system. The trip
generation for the proposed action was estimated using the most recent values in the ITE Trip
Generation Manual (6th Edition, 1997) and trip generation data collected as part of the traffic-
monitoring program in Port Ludlow. The average trip rates have been used for the trip generation
unless noted otherwise. As noted earlier, only those uses that will generate new traffic are
included in the trip generation: Land Use Codes 150 (Warehouse), 420 (Marina), and 710
(General Office Building) from the ITE Trip Generation Manual for the maintenance building,
additional slips, and PLA offices respectively were used in the trip generation estimates. The trip
rates for the residential units are based on data collected in the 2002 monitoring program. Table 5
summarizes the weekend trip generation associated with the proposed action.
Table 5
Estimated Weekend Trip Generation
Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)
Port Ludlow Resort
PROPOSED ACTION
Maintenance
Townhomes Marina PLA Offices (30 Building
(101 units) (100 slips) emp.) (2,900 SF)
Daily Trip Rate 5.40 trips/unit 3.22 trips/slip 0.54 trips/ 1.22 trips!
employee 1,000 SF
Daily Trips 545 322 16 4
Peak Hour Rate 0.66 trips/unit 0.27 trips/slip 0.09 trips/ 0.12 trips!
employee 1,000 SF
Peak Trips Entering 36 12 2 0
Peak Trips Exiting 31 15 1 0
Total Peak Trips 67 27 3 0
Total Trips
887
50
47
97
Table 5 shows tha{ the townhomes will generate the majority of the new weekend trips.
Trip Distribution
The distribution of traffic is based on current travel patterns, a review of the existing roadway
system and activity centers, and the proposed land uses. Figure 18 shows the estimated weekend
daily and peak hour trip distribution/assignment for the proposed action. Many of the trips
associated with the Proposed Action will be destined to and from other activities/areas within
Port Ludlow, i.e., the commercial area, the community center, golf course, other housing areas,
and could include social trips within the community. Reasons for traveling beyond the Port
Ludlow community include major shopping, medicallhealth care, or social/recreational
opportunities. Some of the trips would require traveling on SR 104 to reach the ultimate
destination, with many trips using Oak Bay Road or Beaver Valley Road to access the Tri-Area
or Port Townsend areas. Many ofthe trips are expected to stay within the Port Ludlow
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.73
March 2004
~
I
I
Figure 18 - Alt1 Distributions
Port Ludlow Resort Plan DSEIS
XXX% - Percent Distribution
(XXX) - Peak hour volume
[XXx] - Daily volume
(2}[.~1~]
~OI1~.
5% ~ ~
[441 (3) ~o;'
(7)
15%\
[1331
(7)
Estimated Weekend Trip Distribution/Assignment
(Proposed Action - Alternative 1)
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
community. The proposed action would have its greatest traffic-related impact on Oak Bay
Road, which provides direct access to the Resort.
Future Volumes
Figure 19 shows the estimated 2010 weekend daily and peak hour traffic volumes for the Proposed
Action. The trips associated with development under the proposed action were then added into the
2010 base volumes (see description and base volumes in Appendix F}toproduce the volumes
shown on Figure 19.
Level of Service
LOS analyses were completed for the 2010 Proposed Action conditions (including anticipated
increases in base volumes) and are shown in Table 6.
Table 6
2010 Weekend Levels Of Service
PROPOSED ACTION
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND OVERALL
SR 104/ LOS F LOS F LOS B LOS C
Paradise Ba Road >100 sec. >100 sec. 10.2 sec. 16.8 sec.
SR 104/ N.A. LOS F LOS B LOS A
BeaverValle Road >100 sec. 12.8 sec. 9.1 sec.
Beaver Valley LOS A LOS C
Road/Oak Bay Road N.A. 8.6 sec. N.A. 20.0 sec.
Oak Bay RoadlParadise LOS B LOS B LOS B LOS B
Ba Road 11.5 sec. 10.6 sec. 10.9 sec. 13.9 sec.
Paradise Bay Roadffeal LOS C LOS B LOS A LOS A
Lake Road 18.6 sec. 11.0 sec. 7.6 sec. 7.9 sec.
Oak Bay Road/Walker LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS C
Way 7.7 sec. 8.0 sec. 14.2 sec. 17.0 sec. N.A.
N.A. - not applicable/available (i.e., calculation not provided for specific analysis/movement, or no volume on
subject movement)
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
LOSB
12.3 sec.
N.A.
Where:
LOS Dela
A < 10 seconds
B > 10 & < 15 seconds
C > 15 & < 25 seconds
D > 25 & < 35 seconds
E > 35 & < 50 seconds
F > 50 seconds
(for unsignalized intersections)
The results of the capacity analyses for the future conditions under the proposed action indicate
that all ofthe intersections will drop from their current levels of service. Much of the increase in
delay, especially at the two intersections along SR 104, is a result of the increase in traffic over
the next seven years associated with miscellaneous background growth (see discussion in
Appendix F). The local intersections (i.e., Teal Lake Road/Paradise Bay Road, Oak Bay
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
March 2004
~
DRAFT
3.75
Figure 19 - Alt1 2010 Volumes
Port Ludlow Resort Plan DSEIS
2010 Estimated Weekend Daily & Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
(Proposed Action - Alternative 1)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Road/W alker Way, and Paradise Bay Road/Oak Bay Road) will continue to operate at good
levels of service as would the Beaver Valley Road/Oak Bay Road intersection. However, the
side-street movements at the intersections along SR 104 would experience considerable delay.
(The side-street movements at both of these intersections currently experience LOS "F" on the
weekend.) The traffic-related impacts associated with the proposed action have a very limited
impact on the critical movements at the intersections reviewed.
TraDsit Service
Proposed development would create additional housing and recreational opportunities. As
discussed in the "Affected Environment" section, transit service is currently provided by
Jefferson Transit between Port Townsend and Poulsbo via the Tri-Area and Port Ludlow.
Service is provided daily, although service is reduced on the weekend. Development under the
Proposed Action is not sufficient to warrant additional transit service.
NOD-Motorized Facilities
The Proposed Action will likely generate additional pedestrian activity along the adjacent
roadways that could potentially conflict with vehicular traffic. A designated trail has been shown. .
on the site plan to serve Resort visitors and residents and is a portion of the pathway system in
Port Ludlow. Specifically, the portion of the trail system constructed under the Proposed Action
includes an eight-foot-wide boardwalk/esplanade along the shoreline extending from the new
Harbor Master Restaurant to Burner Point. Signage for the existing pedestrian trail system will be
located at the upper community parking lot and along the Burner Point beach traiL
A comprehensive community-wide pedestrian trail system has been constructed within Port
Ludlow and is maintained as a joint effort between the Port Ludlow Village Council and the
developer. The trail system is intended to serve recreational uses, as well as provide a network
between the residential areas and activity nodes such as the recreation center, marina, and
commercial complex.
Site Access
The Oak Bay Road/W alker Way/Marina View Drive intersection will continue to serve as the
main access to the Resort, with Harbor Drive continuing as a one-way entry to the Marina area.
The analyses completed in the prior section indicate that the Oak Bay Road/W alker Way h
intersection is currently operating at LOS "B", with the future (2010) LOS upon completion of the
Resort projected at LOS "C", which is considered acceptable. The accident history showed no
reported collisions at this intersection during the three-year period reviewed.
No left-turn lanes are currently constructed along Oak Bay Road to serve traffic entering the
Resort. The need for left-turn storage on Oak Bay Road at Marina View Drive has been
evaluated using Figure 91O-9a ofthe WSDOT Design Manual. Based on the anticipated
volumes at this intersection, a left-turn storage lane would not be recommended for the future
conditions.
The entering and stopping sight distances along Oak Bay Road for the Marina View Drive access
were reviewed. A horizontal curve is located to the south of Marina View Drive along with a
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.77
March 2004
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
slight upgrade. The grade and alignment to the north is relatively flat and straight. The entering
sight distance is approximately 850 feet to the north, as is the stopping sight distance from the
north. The entering sight distance to the south is restricted by the horizontal curve and measures
approximately 525 to 550 feet. The stopping sight distance from the south is approximately 425 to
450 feet.
The posted speed along Oak Bay Road is 40 mph. The required entering sight distanceJor a
40-mph design speed is 445 feet and 500 feet for a 45-mph design speed according to the
AASHTO 2001 edition of A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. The required
stopping sight distance for a 40-mph design speed is 305 feet and 360 feet for a 45-mph design
speed. Based on AASHTO guidelines, the intersection meets both entering and stopping sight
distance requirements for the posted speed and a design speed of 45 mph.
Parking
Additional parking will be constructed as part ofthe development. Parking requirements for the
various commercial uses (the marina and restaurant comprising the larger requirements) will be
provided per county Code and will total 251 stalls. An additional parking stalls will be
provided to serve as overflow for the townhome guests or visitors using the open space.
Altogether, ~2~ spaces will be provided in lots north ofthe restaurant and marina or on the north
side of Heron Drive.
During peak season, Resort employees will be required to use the upper lots. The parking supply
will be monitored during the peak season and valet service will be provided by the restaurant if
needed. Golf carts may also be available for marina users to shuttle supplies and equipment
between the upper parking lots to and from the marina.
Parking for "special events," such as Ludlow Days or large conferences/weddings, which have
resulted in capacity conditions in the summer, will no longer be required. Consequently, many
of the past problems with parking demand will be eliminated.
Furthermore, the parking lot layout and access for the Heron Beach Inn will be
modified/expanded to eliminate conflicts with townhome residents across from the Inn and along
Heron Drive. Nineteen additional stalls will be provided within the Inn parking lot and access to
the Inn will be restricted to Gull Drive.
Traffic Impacts
Resort development under Alternative 1 would generate just under 900 new weekend daily trips,
with just under 100 of those trips occurring during the peak hour. The roadways within the Port
Ludlow community will be impacted by the largest number of trips. However, the County roads
within Port Ludlow are relatively low volume, and the additional traffic generated by the proposed
action is well within the capacity of these roadways. The highest anticipated future volume on
either Paradise Bay Road or on Oak Bay Road is less than 6,000 vehicles per day including
background traffic growth and new trips from the approved, but unbuilt units. Many of the trips
associated with the Proposed Action will be internal to Port Ludlow and will not impact roadways
on the regional system.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.78
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The major County intersections that will be impacted by the development (i.e., Paradise Bay
Road/Teal Lake Road, Paradise Bay Road/Oak Bay Road, and Oak Bay RoadlWalker Way) are
expected to continue to operate at good levels of service with or without the development. As
noted earlier, the capacity analyses have indicated that the intersections of the local arterials will
operate at LOS "C" or better.
The most critical transportation conditions in the area occur along SR 104 between Beaver Valley
Road and the Hood Canal Bridge. The side-street movements at the intersections of
SR 104/Beaver Valley Road and SR 104/Paradise Bay Road are currently at LOS "F" on the
weekends during the peak hour and will continue to experience considerable delays. These
conditions have been present for several years and were noted in prior traffic monitoring programs
conducted for Port Ludlow and identified in prior environmental assessments. The failing
conditions are a result of the extremely high volumes of traffic present along SR 104, especially
on the weekends in the summer months, and the limited number of gaps in traffic for vehicles
entering the highway, which in turn results in a low LOS. The additional trips from the Proposed
Action through either of these intersections have minimal impact and comprise less than a fraction
of a percentage of traffic through either of these intersections. The Proposed Action will
contribute 0.6 percent oftrips through the SR 104/Beaver Valley Road intersection and 0.5
percent of the trips to the SR 104/ Paradise Bay Road intersection.
Cumulative Impacts
The traffic volumes and LOS analyses described under Alternative 1 include estimates of future
traffic growth for the year 2010. An annual growth rate ranging from 2.68 percent to 6.09
percent plus pipeline development trips were used to project these volumes to account for
background traffic growth in the area and the cumulative effects of this growth. Details and
summaries of the future volumes and analyses can be found in Appendix F.
Alternative 2: 1993 Resort Plan
The subsequent sections summarize the traffic-related impacts associated with development of
the Resort as described in the 1993 programmatic EIS for Port Ludlow. Many of the land use
elements in Alternative 2 are similar to those under the Proposed Action and include the existing
uses such as the Heron Beach Inn, the Harbor Master Restaurant, the marina, and the existing
residential units. The traffic generated by these existing uses is included in the existing traffic
volumes.
As noted under Alternative 1, only those development actions that will generate new traffic are
included in the analysis for Alternative 2. These uses include the additional 97 residential units
(the 186 units proposed in 1993 less the existing condominiums in Admiralty I and II and
townhomes in Ludlow Bay Village), the 100 additional slips at the marina, the 2,500-square-foot
retail building, and the 1,850-square-foot Town Hall. All other uses described under Alternative 2
are either existing uses or support facilities that are not traffic generators by themselves. The
analyses for Alternative 2 will review peak weekend conditions as noted under the Proposed
Action. The peak hour for both the various land uses and the adjacent intersections are assumed to
occur simultaneously as noted under the Proposed Action.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.79
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Direct Impacts
Trip Generation
Alternative 2 will generate additional traffic onto the adjacent transportation system. The trip
generation for Alternative 2 has been estimated using the most recent values in the ITE Trip
Generation Manual (6th Edition, 1997) and trip generation data collected as part of the traffic
monitoring program in Port Ludlow. The average trip rates have been used for the trip generation
unless noted otherwise. As noted earlier, only those uses that will generate new traffic are
included in the trip generation. Land Use Codes 420 (Marina), 495 (Recreational Center), and 814
(Specialty Retail Center) from the ITE Trip Generation Manual for additional slips, the Town
Hall, and retail building respectively were used in the trip generation estimates. The trips rates for
the residential units are from the 2002 monitoring program. Table 7 summarizes the weekend trip
generation associated with Alternative 2.
Table 7
Estimated Weekend Trip Generation
Alternative 2
Port Ludlow Resort
ALTERNATIVE 2
Townhomes Marina T own Hall Specialty Retail Total Trips
(97 units) (100 slips) (1,850 SF) (2,500 SF)
Daily Trip Rate 5.40 trips/ 3.22 trips/ 9.10 trips/ 42.04 trips/
unit slip 1,000 SF 1,000 SF
Daily Trips 524 322 17 105 968
Peak Hour Rate 0.66 trips/ 0.27 trips/ 1.25 trips/ 4.93 trips/
unit slip 1,000 SF 1,000 SF*
Peak Trips Entering 35 12 1 7 55
Peak Trips Exiting 29 15 1 5 50
Total Peak Trips 64 27 2 12 105
· - Saturday peak hour rate not available in ITE so weekday value was used.
Table 7 shows that Alternative 2 would generate slightly more traffic than the Alternative 1 at
build-out.
Trip Distribution
Figure 20 shows the estimated weekend daily and peak hour trip distribution/assignment for
Alternative 2. The distribution/assignment is based on current traffic patterns, the existing road
system, and the proposed land uses as discussed under the Proposed Action. As noted under
Alternative 1, many of the trips are expected to stay within the Port Ludlow community, and the
greatest traffic-related impacts will be on Oak Bay Road.
Future Volumes
Figure 21 shows the estimated 2010 weekend daily and peak hour traffic volumes for Alternative
2. The annual growth rates and pipeline traffic discussed in the Appendix were used to project the
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.80
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
future base volumes shown in Figure 21 to account for miscellaneous background and pipeline
traffic growth. Additionally, the traffic associated with development under Alternative 2 was
added into these volumes.
Level of Service
LOS analyses were completed for the 2010 Alternative 2 conditions and are shown in Table 8.
Table 8
2010 Weekend levels Of Service
ALTERNATIVE 2
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND OVERALL
SR 104/ LOS F LOS F LOS B LOS C
Paradise Ba Road >100 sec. >100 sec. 10.2 sec. 16.8 sec.
SR 104/ N.A. LOS F LOS B LOS A
Beaver Valle Road >100 sec. 12.8 sec. 9.1 sec.
Beaver Valley LOS A LOS C
Road/Oak Ba Road N.A. 8.6 sec. N.A. 20.2 sec.
Oak Bay RoadlParadise LOS B LOS B LOS B LOS B
Ba Road 11.6 sec. 10.6 sec. 11.0 sec. 14.0 sec.
Paradise Bay Road/Tea1 LOS C LOS B LOS A LOS A
Lake Road 18.7 sec. 11.0 sec. 7.6 sec. 7.9 sec.
Oak Bay RoadlWalker LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS C
Way 7.7 sec. 8.0 sec. 14.3 sec. 17.2 sec. N.A.
N.A. - not applicable/available (i.e., calculation not provided for specific analysis/movement, or no volume on
subject movement)
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
LOSB
12.3 sec.
N.A.
Where:
LOS Dela
A < 10 seconds
B > 10 & < 15 seconds
C > 15 & < 25 seconds
D > 25 & < 35 seconds
E > 35 & < 50 seconds
F > 50 seconds
(for unsigna1ized intersections)
The LOS analyses show that that Alternative 2 will have a slightly greater impact than the
Proposed Action at some of the intersections. As noted under the Proposed Action, the local
intersections (i.e., Teal Lake Road/Paradise Bay Road, Oak Bay Road/Walker Way, and Paradise
Bay Road/Oak Bay Road) will continue to operate at good levels of service as would the Beaver
Valley Road/Oak-'f3ay Road intersection. However, the side-street movements at the
intersections along SR 104 would experience considerable delay.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3-81
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 20 - Alt2 Distributions
Port Ludlow Resort Plan DSEIS
XXX% - Percent Distribution
(XXX) - Peak hour volume
~~~] - Daily volume
(8)
15%\
[1481
(8)
Estimated Weekend Trip Distribution/Assignment
(Alternative 2)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 21 - Alt2 2010 Volumes
Port Ludlow Resort Plan DSEIS
n
13+26
6 38 22
120-+-88 C~ 627308
26 40 224
24+254
318
121
16+101
6 4 163
1710+1702C~ 7397925
2 1 23
1+11
13
2010 Estimated Weekend Daily & Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
(Alternative 2)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Transit Service
Development under Alternative 2 will be similar to the Proposed Action. As discussed in the
"Affected Environment" section, transit service is currently provided by Jefferson Transit
between Port Townsend and Poulsbo via the Tri-Area and Port Ludlow. Service is provided
daily, although service is reduced on the weekend. Similar to the proposed action, development
under Alternative 2 is not sufficient to warrant additional transit service.
Non-Motorized Facilities
Alternative 2 would likely generate additional pedestrian activity along the adjacent roadways as
noted under the proposed action. No specific trail or non-motorized facility improvements are
noted for construction under Alternative 2. The existing Port Ludlow trail system could serve
many ofthe needs of the new residents.
Site Access
Access to the Resort under Alternative 2 would be the same as under Alternative 1, i.e., either
from the intersection of Oak Bay RoadIW alker Way/Marina View Drive or via Harbor Drive.
The LOS at the intersection of Oak Bay RoadIW alker Way/Marina View Drive would be "C",
left-turn storage on Oak Bay Road at Marina View Drive would not be needed, and the sight
distance conditions would all be the same as those noted under the Alternative 1.
Parking
Slightly more parking would be provided under Alternative 2 as compared to the Proposed
Action. Parking for 400 vehicles was proposed under Alternative 2 in various lots throughout
the site. The parking lot layout and access for the Heron Beach Inn and adjacent townhomes
would remain in its current configuration, however.
As with Alternative 1, it is assumed the past "special events," generating demands for additional
parking during the peak season, would no longer occur.
Traffic Impacts
The development of the Port Ludlow Resort under Alternative 2 would generate just under 970
additional weekend daily trips, with 105 of those trips occurring during the peak hour. The
impacts associated with development under Alternative 2 would be almost identical to those under
the Alternative 1, i.e., the major County intersections would continue to operate at good levels of
service ("C" or better) and the side street movements at the intersections of SR 1 04/Beaver Valley
Road and SR 104/Paradise Bay Road would experience considerable delays.
Cumulative Impacts
The traffic volumes and LOS analyses described in Alternative 2 include estimates of future
traffic growth for the year 2010. An annual growth rate ranging from 2.68 percent to 6.09
percent plus pipeline development trips were used to project these volumes to account for
background traffic growth in the area and the cumulative effects of this growth. Details and
summaries ofthe future volumes and analyses can be found in the Appendix.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3.84
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Alternative 3 -1999 Resort Plan (No-Action)
The subsequent sections summarize the traffic-related impacts associated with development
under the existing 1999 Resort Plan for Port Ludlow (No-Action alternative). Many ofthe land
use elements in Alternative 3 are substantially different to those under the Proposed Action or
Alternative 2; however,. Alternative 3 does include the existing uses such as the Inn at Port
Ludlow, the Harbor Master Restaurant, the marina, and the existing residential units, which
currently generate traffic that is included in the existing traffic volumes.
As noted for the previous alternatives, only those development actions that will generate new
traffic are included in the analysis for Alternative 3. These uses include the hotel/conference
center (including the restaurants and lounge), the 100 additional slips at the marina, the 2,500-
square-foot retail building, the museum, and the sports/youth facilities. All other uses described
under Alternative 3 are either existing uses or support facilities that are not traffic generators by
themselves. The analyses for Alternative 3 will review peak weekend conditions as noted in the
previous alternatives. The peak hour for both the various land uses and the adjacent intersections
are assumed to occur simultaneously as previously noted.
Direct Impacts
Trip Generation
Alternative 3 will generate additional traffic onto the adjacent transportation system. The trip
generation for Alternative 3 has again been estimated using the most recent values in the ITE Trip
Generation Manual (6th Edition, 1997). The average trip rates have been used for the trip
generation unless noted otherwise. As noted earlier, only those uses that will generate new traffic
are included in the trip generation. Land Use Codes 310 (Hotel), 420 (Marina), 492 (Racquet
Club), and 814 (Specialty Retail Center) from the ITE Trip Generation Manual were used in the
trip generation estimates. No trip generation data is available for museums, so other land uses
were reviewed to find a reasonable substitute. The most comparable use of the ones available in
the Trip Generation Manual is Land Use Code 590 (Library). The library land use was deemed
the most appropriate substitute since its patrons have random arrivals and departures, the use is
institutional, and extended stays can occur, all of which are similar to a museum.
Some of the site traffic is expected to be internal, i.e., patrons of the hotel/conference center may
use the museum, marina or sports facilities, or current townhome/condominium residents may use
the marina, restaurants, or sports facilities located within the site. This assumption is further
supported by data found in thelTE_Trip Generation Handbook summary on multi-use
developments where data for multi-use sites with hotels had an internal capture rate of
approximately 30 percent. To be conservative, a 15 percent internal rate for trips within the site
has been used for Alternative 3. Since these trips are internal, they will not impact the adjacent
roadways or intersections and therefore have been deducted from the total trips associated with the
proposed land uses.
Table 3.6-8 summarizes the weekend trip generation associated with Alternative 3.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3-85
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 9
Estimated Weekend Trip Generation
Alternative 3
Port Ludlow Resort
AL TERNA TIVE 3
Hotel/Conf. Sport1Y outh Specialty
Center Marina Centers Retail Museum Total
(238 rooms) (100 slips) (43,500 SF) (2,500 SF) (7,500 SF) Trips
Daily Trip Rate 8.19 trips/ 3.22 trips/ 24.51 trips/ 42.04 trips/ 46.55 trips/
room slip 1,000 SF 1,000 SF 1,000 SF
Daily Trips 1949 322 1066 105 349 3,791
Less 15% Internal 293 48 160 16 52 569
Net New Tri s 1656 274 906 89 297 3,222
Peak Hour Rate 0.72 trips/ 0.27 trips/ 3.11 trips/ 4.93 trips/ 6.75 trips/
room slip 1,000 SF 1,000 SF* 1,000 SF
Peak Trips Entering 96 12 67** 7 27 209
Peak Trips Exiting 75 15 68** 5 24 187
Total Peak Trips 171 27 135 12 51 396
Less 15% Internal 25 4 20 2 8 59
Net New Tri s 146 23 115 10 43 337
* - Saturday peak hour rate not available in ITE so weekday value was used.
** - Directional split not provided; 50/50 split assumed.
Table 9 shows that Alternative 3 would generate significantly more traffic than the Proposed
Action or Alternative 2.
Trip Distribution
Figure 22 shows the estimated weekend daily and peak hour trip distribution/assignment for
Alternative 3. The distribution/assignment is more heavily weighted towards SR 104 (to and
from the east) than the Proposed Action and Alternative 2. This is due to the regional attraction
associated with the hotel/conference center, which is not proposed to the same extent in either
the Proposed Action or Alternative 2. As noted under Alternatives 1 and 2, some of trips are
expected to stay within the Port Ludlow community with destinations to and from existing
residential, commercial, or recreational activities within the community. The greatest traffic-
related impacts would continue to be on Oak Bay Road.
Future Volumes
Figure 23 shows the estimated 20 I 0 weekend daily and peak hour traffic volumes for Alternative
3. The annual growth rates and pipeline traffic discussed in the Appendix were used to project the
future base volumes shown in Figure 23 to account for miscellaneous background and pipeline
traffic growth. Additionally, the traffic associated with development under Alternative 3 was
added into these volumes.
Level of Service
LOS analyses were completed for the 2010 Alternative 3 conditions and are shown in Table 10.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3-86
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 10
2010 Weekend Levels Of Service
ALTERNATIVE 3
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND OVERALL
SR 104/ LOS F LOS F LOS B LOS C
Paradise Ba Road >100 sec. >100 sec. 10.5 sec. 17.3 sec.
SR 104/ N.A. LOSF LOS B LOS A
BeaverValle Road >100 sec. 13.5 sec. 9.1 sec.
Beaver Valley LOS A LOS E
RoadlOakBa Road N.A. 8.9 sec. N.A. 40.5 sec.
Oak Bay RoadlParadise LOS B LOS B LOS C LOS C
Ba Road 14.0 sec. 11.7 sec. 15.1 sec. 16.2 sec.
Paradise Bay RoadlTeal LOS C LOS B LOS A LOS A
Lake Road 20.5 sec. 11.1 sec. 7.6 sec. 8.0 sec.
Oak Bay RoadlWalker LOS A LOS A LOS C LOS E
Way 7.7 sec. 8.3 sec. 16.0 sec. 38.1 sec. N.A.
N.A. - not applicable/available (i.e., calculation not provided for specific analysis/movement, or no volume on
subject movement)
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
LOSB
14.9 sec.
N.A.
Where:
LOS Dela
A < 10 seconds
B > 10 & < 15 seconds
C > 15 & < 25 seconds
D > 25 & < 35 seconds
E > 35 & < 50 seconds
F > 50 seconds
(for unsignalized intersections)
The LOS analyses show that Alternative 3 will have a much greater impact at some of the
intersections than either the Proposed Action or Alternative 2. Specifically, the intersections of
Oak Bay Road/Beaver Valley Road and Oak Bay Road/W alker Way would drop to LOS "E"
under Alternative 3, although the intersections of Paradise Bay Road/Oak Bay Road and Paradise
Bay Road/Teal Lake Road would continue to operate at good levels of service. The side-street
movements at the intersections along SR 104 would continue to experience considerable delay as
noted under the existing conditions, the Proposed Action, and Alternative 2.
Transit Service
Development under Alternative 3 would be more intense than Alternatives 1 or 2. As discussed
in the "Affected Environment" section, transit service is currently provided by Jefferson Transit
between Port Townsend and Poulsbo via the Tri-Area and Port Ludlow. Service is provided
daily, however, service is reduced on the weekend. Although development under Alternative 3
would generate more traffic than Alternative 1 or 2, it is not sufficient to warrant additional
public transit service, since much of the traffic will be regional. There is a potential to reduce
some of the site traffic through private van or mini-bus service to shuttle hotel guests between
the various activity centers within Port Ludlow or to and from ferry terminals.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3-87
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 22 - Alt3 Distributions
Port Ludlow Resort Plan DSEIS
XXX% - Percent Distribution
(XXX) - Peak hour volume
P5~~1 - Daily volume
(16)
10%\
[322)
(18)
Estimated Weekend Trip Distribution/Assignment
(Alternative 3)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 23 - Alt3 2010 Volumes
Port Ludlow Resort Plan DSEIS
2010 Estimated Weekend Daily & Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
(Alternative 3)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Non-Motorized Facilities
Alternative 3 would likely generate additional pedestrian activity along the adjacent roadways as
noted under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2. A boardwalk along the shoreline extending
east from the Inn, similar to the one proposed in Alternative 1, has been shown on the site plan.
Additionally, the existing Port Ludlow trail system could serve many of the needs ofthe hotel
guests.
Site Access
Access to the Resort under Alternativ~ 3 would be the same as under the proposed access, i.e.,
either from the intersection of Oak Bay Road/W alker Way/Marina View Drive or via Harbor
Drive.
The LOS at the intersection of Oak Bay Road/W alker Way/Marina View Drive would be "E",
which is lower than projected for either Alternative 1 or 2, indicating the potential need for
upgrades to the intersection. Left-turn storage on Oak Bay Road at Marina View Drive would not
be needed, and the sight distance conditions would be the same as those noted under the Proposed
Action.
Parking
A multi-level parking structure would be provided under Alternative 3. Additionally, additional
stalls would be provide in surface lots. This amount of parking is greater than the amount
proposed for the Proposed Action or Alternative 2. The parking lot layout and access for the Inn
and the adjacent townhomes would remain in its current configuration under Alternative 3.
Traffic Impacts
The development of the Port Ludlow Resort, if constructed as proposed under the 1999 Plan,
would generate over 3,200 additional weekend daily trips, with over 300 ofthose trips occurring
during the peak hour. The impacts associated with development under Alternative 3 would be
much greater than those under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2. Specifically, the
intersections of Oak Bay Road/Beaver Valley Road and Oak Bay Road/W alker Way would drop
to LOS "E" under Alternative 3, although the intersections of Paradise Bay Road/Oak Bay Road
and Paradise Bay Road/Teal Lake Road would continue to operate at good levels of service. The
side-street movements at the intersections along SR 104 would continue to experience
considerable delay as noted under the existing conditions, the Proposed Action, and Alternative 2.
Cumulative Impacts
The traffic volumes and LOS analyses described in Alternative 3 include estimates of future
traffic growth for the year 2010. An annual growth rate ranging from 2.68 percent to 6.09
percent plus pipeline development trips were used to project these volumes to account for
background traffic growth in the area and the cumulative effects of this growth. Details and
summaries of the future volumes and analyses can be found in the Appendix.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3-90
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.6.3 Mitigation Measures
Direct impacts associated with the Alternative I - Proposed Action, are limited. Specifically, new
trips associated with the Proposed Action will have a negligible impact on the LOS at the local
intersections within Port Ludlow and therefore no mitigation is needed. The County arterials in
the Port Ludlow area are operating at acceptable levels of service and will continue to operate
acceptably with the Proposed Action.
The side-street movements at the intersections of Beaver Valley Road/SR 104 and Paradise Bay
Road/SR 104 are currently operating at LOS "F" and will become increasingly more congested
with or without development under any of the alternatives. The congested conditions are typical
during the peak summer season and are regional in nature. Considerably less congested
conditions occur during the off-peak seasons.
Both of these intersections have had turn lanes constructed on SR 104, and any additional
channelization improvements would primarily be constructed on the side streets. The capacity
analyses at these intersections were conducted again to determine improvements that could be
made to provide a LOS better than "F". The installation of a traffic signal and additional side-
street lanes would raise the LOS above "F", although the intersection ofSR 104/Paradise Bay
Road would still have saturated conditions in the eastbound direction in the future (assuming the
over 50 percent increase in these volumes occurs). These improvements would result in LOS "E"
at SR 104/Paradise Bay Road and LOS "C" at SR 104/Beaver Valley Road.
WSDOT has no near-term projects in the area currently proposed. WSDOT does list
improvements to SR 19 between SR 104 and Chimacurn/Center Roads and to SR 104 between
Beaver Valley Road (SR 19) and the Hood Canal Bridge in its 20-year Highway System Plan.
The SR 19 long-term improvements include widening to four lanes. The long-term SR 104
improvements would include widening to four lanes, intersection improvements, and access
management plus widening of the Hood Canal Bridge to four lanes to address the congested
conditions. These improvements proposed by WSDOT are large-scale projects to address
regional needs along a highway of statewide significance. The number of trips associated with
the Proposed Action impacting either of the intersections along SR 104 is a small percentage of
the total traffic through these intersections (0.6 percent at Beaver Valley Road and 0.5 percent at
Paradise Bay Road) and is not creating the need for these improvements.
Based on the previous analyses and the impacts associated with the alternatives, no off-site
mitigation is recommended for Alternative 1 or 2. Some channelization improvements may be
required at the Oak Bay Road/W alker Way and Beaver Valley Road/Oak Bay Road intersections
to raise the LOS above "E" for Alternative 3. Under all alternatives, enhancements to the on-site
parking operations are recommended as described in the previous sections in order to regulate
peak demand.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3-91
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.6.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Traffic volume increases along SR 104 from external sources will result in continued LOS "F"
conditions in the future during peak (summer) season. This will occur with or without
development under the Proposed Action. The construction of traffic signals will be needed in
order to accommodate the additional traffic as noted in the previous section, and additional lanes
on SR 104 will be needed per WSDOT's long-term plan. No other significant unavoidable
adverse impacts have been identified with respect to traffic that cannot be mitigated. Although
the amount of traffic is within the capacity of the roadways, or improvements can be constructed
to mitigate the levels of service, the presence of additional traffic on the roadways may be
perceived as undesirable by existing residents.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3-92
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.7 PUBLIC SERVICE AND UTILITIES
3.7.1 Fire/Emergency Services
3.7.1.1 Affected Environment
The Port LudlowResort is served by Jefferson County Fire Protection District #3. Fire District
#3 provides emergency fire/hazardous materials/medical services from four fire stations: one in
Port Ludlow, one in Paradise Bay, one on South Point Road, and one in Chimacum. The Port
Ludlow fire station (Station No.31) was completed in May 2002 and is located at 7650 Oak Bay
Road. This station is manned by a minimum of two career firefighters/EMTs 24 hours a day,
365 days per year, and staff is augmented by five volunteers who respond from their homes in
the Port Ludlow MPR. In addition, the Fire Chief is at this station during the weekdays. This
station houses two Class A pumper trucks, two Advance Life Support ambulance vehicles, one
wildfire engine, and two support vehicles.
The Jefferson County Fire Protection District No.3 responded to a total of 344 alarms in 2002,
with 159 of those alarms coming from the Port Ludlow MPR. Call data is not reported for the
Resort complex independently of the larger MPR.
Information provided by Fire District 3 indicates that the typical current response time from
Station 31 to the MPR is 2 to 3 minutes from the time of alarm. A typical average immediate
response includes three personnel with an additional average of one volunteer.
Stations No. 32 (Alder Street in Paradise Bay), Station No. 33 (101 South Point Road), Station
No. 11, and Station No. 81 (Kingston) are also available to assist with incidents at the Resort.
Station No. 32 will provide a volunteer response 30 percent of the time, with a typical response
time of7 to 8 minutes. Station No. 33 will provide a volunteer response 45 percent of the time,
with a typical response time of 8 to 10 minutes. Station No. 11 will dispatch immediately for
any incident larger than an emergency aid call in the Resort area, with a typical response time of
7 to 9 minutes. Stations No. 81 (Kingston) and No. 77 (Kitsap Fire District No. 18/Poulsbo) are
also available for any incident that has the potential of overwhelming initial response teams.
Detailed information regarding Fire District No.3 capabilities is presented in Appendix G.
Development-specific fire flows are determined by the Jefferson County Fire Marshall. Fire
hydrant tests were conducted in 2000 and 2003 and show adequate flows are available to the
Resort area.
Existing upland structures were constructed in compliance with fire protection codes for the
specified use applicable at the time of construction. Existing townhomes are sprinkled. The new
townhomes/condominiums are anticipated to be considered "Type 5, 1 Hour" occupancies and
also will be sprinkled.
Currently, mid-size emergency medical air transport helicopters can land in open areas within the
Resort. No area is designated as a formal landing zone, however.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3-93
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Within the Resort, propane storage for boats at the marina is currently located adjacent to the
Dockmaster's office. Propane storage for the eastern half of the Ludlow Bay residential units is
located at the east end ofthe Resort, between Building 700 and Building 400.
The existing fire protection system at the Port Ludlow Marina consists ofthree individual
portable saltwater pump units located in small shed storage areas dispersed throughout the float
system. Chapter 9 of the Port Ludlow Marina Operations Manual addresses marina emergencies
and outlines procedures for responding to emergencies such as person overboard, medical
emergencies, fire control, safety, security, fueling, oil spills, sinking boats, hazardous materials,
severe weather, earthquakes, and threats. The Marina staff is trained to respond to emergencies
per procedures set forth in this manual.
3.7.1.2 Environmentallmpacts
Alternative 1. Proposed Project - 2003 Resort Plan
Alternative 1 will result in an additional 101 residential units within the Resort, as well as a new
7,500-square-foot recreation building, the new Harbor Master Restaurant, and the 100-s1ip
expansion of the marina. Use ofthe waterfront area for large, outdoor special events will be
significantly curtailed.
All new construction will comply with current fire code standards. All new residential units, as
well as the recreation building and restaurant, will be sprinkled and will not exceed 35 feet in
height. The new residential units will result in an incremental increase in. emergency aid. calls.
Vehicular access to the Resort from Oak Bay Road will remain unchanged. Within the Resort,
internal access to the Inn at Port Ludlow and adjacent residences will be separated.
A designated emergency medical helicopter landing site will be located at the south end of the
Admiralty ill area.
Two new underground propane storage areas will be added - one within Ludlow Bay Village
and one within Admiralty ill. If the new Harbor Master Restaurant or Recreation building
require propane storage, the storage will be located outside, adjacent to the buildings.
For the 100-slip expansion of the marina, a piped fire suppression system with call boxes will be
provided for all new floats. The system will consist of a piped connection to the existing fire line
on land near the existing Marina office. A double detector check valve, post indicator valve, and
siamese fire department connection will be provided in the vicinity of the Marina office. A dry
line pipe will run from the landside, down the existing gangway, and will be run along the docks
under the walers. A fire department connection standpipe will be installed on the dock system
per code such that no point on the new dock system will be more than 75 feet from a fire
connection standpipe. In addition, a fire hose cabinet with a direct connection to the standpipe
will be located at each fire standpipe location; a fire extinguisher will also be located at each of
the fire hose cabinets.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3-94
March 2004
~
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Additional fire standpipes may be added to the existing floats on A-, B-, C-, D-, and E-Docks
and along the existing central walkways to improve fire fighting capabilities on these existing
floats.
The new fire suppression system will improve the ability to control and contain fires at the
Marina. With the presence of a fire piping system, additional fire extinguishers, fire hose
cabinets, and numerous fire connection ports, the ability to fight fires is greatly improved. This
will reduce the pollution of the environment through faster containment of fires resulting in less
sunken vessels, oils, and other debris that may occur in the event of a fire.
Alternative 2. 1993 Resort Plan
The impacts of Alternative 2 to fire and emergency medical services would be similar to the
impacts associated with Alternative 1. Current internal road access would remain unchanged and
no emergency medical helipad would be designated; emergency helicopter landings would still
occur, however.
Alternative 3. 1999 Resort Plan - No Action
Alternative 3 could result in the most intense use of the site and thus the greatest impacts to fire
and emergency medical services. Increased use of the site would result in an increase in both
emergency medical and fire calls. It is unclear whether Fire District #3, working with the
District on a response program, could provide an adequate response to calls during the peak
season if this Alternative was developed as originally envisioned.
3.7.1.3 Mitigating Measures
Proposed:
· For each new residential unit, the developer will pay Fire District #3 $193.00 per unit in
mitigation/impact fees.
· A portion of the property tax for development within Port Ludlow goes to Fire District No.3;
in 2002 this amount was $77,097.
· Residential units extending over the edge of the artificial lagoon will include 24-foot-wide
catwalks connecting the decks and wrapping around the building side in order to provide
emergency egress to the land side.
· A designated emergency helicopter landing zone willbe located at the south end of the
Admiralty ill area.
· All propane storage areas will meet applicable code requirements.
. All new piling will be concrete or steel.
· At least two fire hydrants and adequate emergency access will be provided in the area of the
proposed Marina expansion.
· A dry line piped fire suppression system will be provided on float C, down the central
walkway, and on all new docks. Additional extensions to the existing docks may also be
constructed. This new piped system will provide fire fighting capabilities such that each area
on the new float system is no more than 75 feet from a fire fighting apparatus. Improved
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3-95
March 2004
~
Figure 24 - Existing 2010 Vols.
Port Ludlow Resort Plan DSEIS
2010 Estimated Weekend Daily & Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
(Base Condition)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
· firefighting capabilities will reduce the potential for debris and pollutant contamination from
fire events.
· Marina personnel and liveaboard residents will receive training in emergency fire fighting
procedures.
· Fire call boxes will be provided on the new floats and down the main walkWay. These
alarms and the main fire alarm for the Marina will be linked to a monitoring service or other
entity to assure automatic alert of appropriate authorities.
· A connection will be provided between B-Dock and C-Dock to provide additional access to
the docks for firefighting crews and for egress for boaters from the docks in the event of a
fire emergency. This will allow each dock to be accessed by two gangways instead of the
current one-gangway access system for Docks C, D, and E.
3.7.1.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
No significant unavoidable adverse impacts to fire and emergency medical services are
anticipated. Increased use of the Resort by residents and guests will increase the demand on fire
and emergency services, however.
3.7.2 Water Service
3.7.2.1 Affected Environment
Water service to Port Ludlow is provided by Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc. (OWSI). An
eight-inch water main runs through Admiralty I and II and loops around the plat of Ludlow Bay
Village.
OWSI obtains its domestic and irrigation water from groundwater (see Section 3.2.2
"Groundwater" of this Draft SEIS). The Port Ludlow development has water rights equal to 186
million gallons per year. Storage totaling 895,000 gallons is provided in four reservoirs.
Existing water mains serving the Resort complex are shown in Figure 24. OWSI produces an
annual "Well Productions Report" to monitor their water usage. For the year 2002, the OWSI
combined annual average production was 187.2 gpm from all aquifers, or 98.4 million gallons of
water for the year.
Of the total 98.4 million gallons, the Marina accounted for approximately 1.7 million gallons
(4,602 gallons per day), or approximately 2 percent of total water use.
Annual water use for the Port Ludlow development is expected to stay well below the
186 million gallons of annual water rights.
The adequacy of fire flow is addressed in Section 3.7.1, Fire/Emergency Services.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3-97
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.7.2.2 Environmentallmpacts
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3
All Resort Plan alternatives will result in an increased demand for domestic and irrigation water.
The new residential units and Resort recreation facilities were anticipated in the design of the
water system. Theadequacyofgroundwater supplies is addressed in Section 3.2.2.2 oftms
Draft SEIS.
Use of domestic water also will be increased at the new marina slips, as well as at associated
upland facilities such as the laundry, restroom, and showers. The following summarizes the
anticipated increase in water usage at the expanded marina:
· Anticipated total Marina Water Usage with expansion = 6,457 GPD/2,356,805 gallons
per year.
· Total annual increase in water usage = 620,500 gallons per year, or a 0.7 percent increase
in year 2001 total Port Ludlow water usage.
Thus, with the Marina expansion, the annual water usage for the Port Ludlow development will
not exceed their 186 million gallons of annual water rights.
The Uniform Building Code does not address the number of restroom facilities required in
marinas. Marina design guidelines recommend adding one additional bathroom stall per 100
slips for expansion (Tobiason, 2000).
3.7.2.4 Mitigating Measures
Proposed (Alternative 1):
· Build-out of the Resort, including a 100-slip expansion of the Marina was anticipated in
planning for the water system.
· Water system improvements will be installed as required at the time of development.
3.7.2.5 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
No unavoidable adverse impacts to the water system are anticipated.
3.7.3 Sanitary Sewer Service
3.7.3.1 Affected Environment
Sanitary sewer service to Port Ludlow is provided by Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc. (OWSI).
All development within the MPR is connected to the sanitary sewer system. Within the Resort,
sewage is collected in gravity lines and subsequently pumped via a lift station into a force main
and conveyed to the treatment plant located north of the Resort. The 2002 Port Ludlow
Development Impact Monitoring Report states that the maximum-month average daily treatment
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3-98
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
plant flow occurred in January and was 195,000 gallons per day. The treatment plant has a
permitted design capacity of 640,000 gallons per day. Key parameters measured in effluent
discharge (i.e., biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, and fecal coliform) were
well below adopted standards. The existing sewer system within the Resort complex is shown in
Figure 24.
At the marina, the existing sanitary sewer system consists of one stationary boat sewage pump-
out system installed on the fuel float and a new portable pump-out facility. The stationary boat
sewage pump-out is a Keco Model installed in the early 1990s. The existing discharge piping
and system is in working condition and has sufficient capacity to support the Marina. The new
portable pump-out facility was installed in April 2002.
The draft Resort at Ludlow Bay Marina Regulations and Policies address discharge of gray and
black water in Section ill D., as follows:
D. DISCHARGE OF BLACK WATER AND GRAY WATER
1. All vessels, which moor in the Marina, must be in compliance with all
regulations established by the United States Coast Guard or other federal or
state regulatory agencies.
2. Discharge of black water from vessels while in Ludlow Bay is prohibited.
3. Sanitary waste disposal facilities are available at designated locations within
the Marina at no charge to users. All users shall use these facilities for the
disposal of raw sewage.
4. Liveaboards must pump their holding tanks on a monthly basis.
5. A pump-out log is located on the fuel dock shed, all vessels utilizing the
pump-out must sign the pump-out log.
6. The discharge of gray water is currently under review by the State but
discouraged while in the Marina. Only Biodegradable soaps and cleaners may
be used while in the Ludlow Bay Marina.
Item 9 ofthe Resort at Ludlow Bay Liveaboard Agreement addresses sewage disposal as follows:
· Vessels must be equipped with a Coast Guard-approved holding tank. Liveaboards
are required to use the pump-out station Monthly. Failure to do so will result in
termination of the /iveaboard agreement. You will move off your boat or move the
boat out of the Marina within ten (J 0) days of non-compliance. A /iveaboard pump-
out log will be kept and updated daily.
Boats at-anchor in the Bay (both transient and permanent at-anchor) can use Port Ludlow pump-
out facilities but cannot be required by Port Ludlow to do so (per existing state and federal laws).
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3-99
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
3.7.3.2 Environmentallmpacts
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3
The existing sanitary sewer system, including the treatment plant, has adequate capacity to serve
all proposed Resort Plan alternatives.
The expansion of the Marina will create an increased demand for sewage pump-out and marina
enforcement services. A second portable sewage pump-out facility will be provided as part of
the Marina expansion construction project.
3.7.3.3 Mitigating Measures
Proposed (Marina):
· Two portable pump-out carts will be available for use in addition to the existing fixed pump-
out facility.
· Enforcement of rules regarding discharge of black water will be strictly enforced by Marina
management.
· The Marina Liveaboard Agreement, Regulations and Policies, and Best Management
Practices have been reviewed and revised to address current Marina issues, including
discharge of sewage.
No mitigating measures are required within the upland portion of the Resort.
3.7.3.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
No adverse impacts related to sanitary sewer service are anticipated.
Port Ludlow MPR Resort Plan
Pre-Draft SEIS
DRAFT
3-100
March 2004
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF JEFFERSON
AN ORDINANCE repealing the interim )
development controls of Ordinance )
10-1214-98 and adopting new. development )
regulations for the Port Ludlow Master )
Planned Resort. )
ORDINANCE NO. 08-1004-99
WHEREAS, Jefferson County adopted its 20 year comprehensive land use plan on August 28,
1998.
WHEREAS, The Comprehensive Plan designated the Port Ludlow community as a Master
Planned Resort based on the provisions contained in RCW 36.70A.362; and
WHEREAS, the County is required to adopt development regulations that are consistent with the
provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, emergency interim regulations were adopted for the Master Planned Resort, one
appeal was filed and others were under consideration, and, as an alternative to an appeal process
and in consideration of dismissal of the appeal, the County initiated mediation between
stakeholders representing a wide range of community interests; and.
WHEREAS, the stakeholder interest groups have reached consensus on the issues related to this
phase of the planning process that might otherwise have been subject to appeal; and
WHEREAS, a memorandum of understanding between Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc. and
Jefferson County accompanies this ordinance and provides for equitable allocation of sewer
services within the boundary of the Master Planned Resort for at least the next 20 years; and
WHEREAS, Olympic Resource Management has agreed that vested preliminary plat applications
within the Master Planned Resort shall be subject to the terms and provisions of this ordinance,
and further acknowledges that future resort development will require altering and partially
vacating approved plat development; and
WHEREAS, a development agreement setting forth provisions and limitations on future resort
and related development plans is expected to proceed through a separate public review and
adoption process; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of this Ordinance are within the scope of the impacts
anticipated by the County's Comprehensive Plan and within the range of impacts evaluated in the
1993 environmental studies referenced below; and
WHEREAS, environmental review for 1he new regulations has been completed and included
adoption of the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan (published February 1997 and May 1998), the Draft and Final EISs for the
Inn at Port Ludlow (October 1992 and April 1993), and the Draft and Final EISs for the Port
Ludlow Development Program (October 1992 and April 1993);
NOW, TIIEREFORE, The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners does ordain as follows:
-.. -Fagehx2t
ORDINANCE NO. 08-1004-99 repealing the interim development controls of Ordinance 10-1214-98 and adopting new development
regulations for the Port Ludlow Planned Resort. .
SECTION 1
AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE
Section 1.10 Authority and Table ofContents:This ordinance is adopted pursuant to Chapter
36.70 RCW. The Table of Contents for the MPR regulations set forth in this ordinance is as
follows:
SECTION 1 AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE
1.10 Authority and Table of Contents
1.15 Title
1.20 Purpose and .Intent
1.30 Rules of Interpretation
1.40 Additional Requirements
1.50 Qualified Lead Planner
1.60 Public Notice Roster
SECTION 2 SCOPE OF REGULATIONS
2.10 Applicability
2.20 Compliance With Regulations Required
2.30 Exemptions
2.40 Non-conforming Uses
2.50 Non-conforming Structures
2.60 Community Associations and Facilities
SECTION 3 PORT LUDLOW MASTER PLANNED RESORT ZONING DISTRICTS
3.10 Single Family Zone (MPR-SF)
3.101 Purpose
3.102 Permitted Uses, Lot Size, and Density
3.103 Conditional Uses, Lot Size, and Density
3.104 Height Restrictions
3.105 Bulk and Dimensional Requirements
3.106 Commercial Forest Land Buffers
3.107 Accessory Dwelling Units Prohibited
3.108 Conceptual Site Plan Requirement
3.20 Single Family Tract Zone (MPR-SFT)
3.201 Purpose
3.202 Permitted Uses
3.203 Conditional Uses
3.204 Height Restrictions
3.205 Bulk and Dimensional Requirements
3.206 Accessory Dwelling Units Prohibited
3.30 Multi-family Zone (MPR~MF)
3.301 Purpose
3.302 Permitted Uses
3.303 Conditional Uses
3.304 Height Restrictions
3.305 Bulk and Dimensional Requirements
Page 2of21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
( I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ORDINANCE NO. 08-1004-99 repealing the interim development controls of Ordinance 10-1214-98 and adopting new development
regulations for the Port Ludlow Planned Resort.
3.40 Resort Complex/Community Facilities Zone (MPR-RC/CF)
3.401 Purpose
3.402 Permitted and Conditional Uses
3.403 Non-Resort Uses and Properties
3.404 Height Restrictions
3.405 Bulk and Dimensional Requirements
3.50 Village Commercial Center Zone (MPR- VC)
3.501 Purpose
3.502 Permitted Uses
3.503 Conditional Uses
3.504 Height Restrictions
3.505 Bulk and Dimensional Requirements
3.60 Recreation Area (MPR-RA)
3.601 Purpose
3.602 Permitted Uses
3.603 Height Restrictions
3.604 Bulk and Dimensional Requirements
3.70 Open Space Reserve (MPR-OSR)
3.701 Purpose
3.702 Permitted Uses
3.703 Conditional Uses
3.704. Height Restrictions
3.705 Bulk and Dimensional Requirements
3.80 Development Cap
3.801 Development Cap and MERUs
3.802 MERU Record
3.803 MERU Allocation and Assignment
3.804 Initial Allocation of Commercial MERUs
3.805 Initial Allocation of Residential MERUs
3.806 MERU Transfer
3.807 MERU Allocation Not Property Specific; Limitations
3.90 Resort Development
3.901 Resort Plan
3.902 Permit Process for Resort Development
3.903 Requirement to Vacate or Withdraw Existing or Vested Development Rights
3.904 Environmental Review for Resort Plan Development
3.905 Revisions to Resort Plan
3.906 Major Revision
3.907 Minor Revisions
Section 1.15 Title: The regulations set forth in this ordinance shall be known as the Port
Ludlow Master Planned Resort Code, or by the short title, MPR Code. Citations to these
regulations may be made using the applicable section number and this ordinance number or the
name of this code.
.Page 30f21
Page 4 of21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ORDINANCE NO. 08-1004-99 repealing the interim development controls of Ordinance 10-12 I 4-98 and adopting new development
regulations for the Port Ludlow Planned Resort.
Section 1.20 Purpose and Intent: The purpose and intent of the MPR Code is to set forth
development regulations that comply with and are consistent with the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan for future development within the boundaries of the Port Ludlow Master
Planned Resort.
Section 1.30 Rules ofInterpretation: The following rules apply in making interpretations of
the terms and conditions contained herein. .
1. For purposes of this Ordinance, all words used in the ordinance shall use normal and
customary meanings, unless specifically defmed otherwise in this ordinance.
2. Words used in the present tense include the future tense.
3. The plural includes the singular and vice-versa.
4. The words "will" and "shall" are mandatory.
5. The words "may" and "should" indicate that discretion is allowed.
6. The word "used" includes designed, intended, arranged, or intended to be used.
7. The masculine gender includes the feminine and vice-versa.
Section 1.40 Additional Requirements: . The following Ordinances and
requirements may qualify or supplement the regulations presented in this ordinance. Where the
regulations of this ordinance, those set forth below, or any other local, state, or federal regulations
overlap, the most restrictive and/or protective standards shall apply.
1. Ordinance No. 05-0509-94, Interim Critical Areas Ordinance. .
2. Ordinance No. 10-1104-96, Stormwater Management Ordinance
3. Ordinance No. 04-0526-92, Subdivision Ordinance, as amended by this Ordinance
4. Chapter 246-272 WAC, On-Site Sewage Systems
5. Shoreline Management Master Program
6. Ordinance No. 01-0121-97, Forest Lands Ordinance, as amended by this Ordinance (see
section 3.106) to limit agreements pursuant to section 7.20(1) of the Forest Lands
Ordinance so that when a new structure is proposed on land adjacent to land designated
as Commercial Forest Land, in no case shall an agreement be made which allows the
setback to be reduced to less than 150' and, further, a minimum average setback of200'
shall be maintained, exclusive of critical areas and their associated setbacks.
7. All local and state monitoring, operational, and management requirements for sewer,
water, and stormwater utilities, updated as may be required by the local or state agency
with jurisdiction.
8. Ordinanc@ Ne. Q<t 9828 98, Land Use Prec@dW'@s OrdiBanc@. The applicable provisions
of the Jefferson County Unified Development Code, which, in the case of the Port
Ludlow Malter Planned Resort, relate exclusively to Section 8 (Permit Application &
Review Procedures/SEP A Implementation), Section 9 (Comprehensive Plan and GMA
Implementing Regulations Amendment Process ), and Section 10 (Enforcement). insofar
as they relate to proiect permit review procedures, resort plan amendment or revision
procedures, and enforcement specified under this Ordinance.
Section 1.50 Qualified Lead Planner: The Director of the Department of Community
Development shall appoint a qualified planner to serve as the lead planner for the Port Ludlow
Master Planned Resort community. The lead planner shall review or coordinate review of all
land use applications within the MPR boundaries, and shall serve as the initial point of contact for
citizens seeking information on development proposals or planning issues in the community.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ORDINANCE NO. 08-1004-99 repealing the interim development controls of Ordinance 10-1214-98 and adopting new development
regulations for the Port Ludlow Planned Resort.
Section 1.60 Public Notice Roster: The Department of Community Development shall
establish and maintain a public notice roster which shall be used to provide notice of land use
applications within the MPR boundaries. The Port Ludlow MPR roster shall supplement any
other list of names or addresses to which the department provides public notice information. Any
person or organization may request to be added to the roster at any time.
SECTION 2
SCOPE OF REGULATIONS
Section 2.10 Applicability. The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to all land, all
associated water areas and all uses and structures within the boundary of the Master Planned
Resort of Port Ludlow as depicted on the official land use map for Jefferson County, Washington.
Section 2.20 Compliance With Re2;ulations Required. No structure shall hereafter be erected
and no existing structure shall be moved, altered, added to or enlarged, nor shall any land or
structure be used, or arranged to be used for any purpose other than that which is included among
the uses listed in the following chapters as permitted in the zoning district in which the structure
or land is located, nor shall any land or structure be used in any manner contrary to any other
requirement specified in this Ordinance.
Section 2.30 Exemptions. The following structures and uses shall be exempt from the
regulations of this Ordinance, but are subject to all other applicable Local, State and Federal
regulations including, but not limited to, the County Building Ordinance, Interim Critical Areas
Ordinance, the Shoreline Management Master Program, and the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEP A).
1. Wires, cables, conduits, vaults, pipes, mains, valves, tanks, or other similar equipment for
the distribution to consumers of telephone or other communications, electricity, gas, or
water or the collection of sewage, or surface or subsurface water operated or maintained
by a governmental entity or a public or private utility or other County franchised utilities
including customary meter pedestals, telephone pedestals, distribution transformers and
temporary utility facilities required during building construction, whether any such
facility is located underground, or above ground; but only when such facilities are located
in a street right-of-way or in an easement. This exemption shall not include above-
ground electrical substations, sewage pump stations or treatment plants, or potable water
storage tanks or facilities, which shall require conditional use approval in any zone where
permitted.
2. Railroad tracks, signals, bridges and similar facilities and equipment located on a railroad
right-of-way, and maintenance and repair work on such facilities and equipment.
3. Telephone booths and pedestals, underground utility equipment, mailboxes, bus shelters,
informational kiosks, public bicycle shelters, or similar structure or device which is found
by the Director of Community Development is obviously intended to be appropriately
located in the public interest.
4. Agricultural buildings used to house livestock, store feed or farm equipment.
5. Minor construction activities, as defined by the UBC, Section 106.2 and structures
exempt under Jefferson County Building Code Ordinance #03-0713-98 as amended.
-Page 5-Of21
ORDINANCE NO. 08-1004-99 repealing the interim development controls of Ordinance 10-1214-98 and adopting new development
regulations for the Port Ludlow Planned Resort.
6. Storm water detention facilities associated with and accessory to new development are
permitted in all zones. Any above ground detention facility or pond shall be screened
from the public right-of-way or appropriately landscaped to ensure compatibility with the
surrounding area.
Section 2.40 Nonconformin2Uses: Existing legal non-residential uses are valid land uses in all
zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall. comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8.1.
8.11 on non-conforming uses.
Section 2.50 Nonconformin2 Structures: Existing legal nonconforming Structures damaged
or destroyed by fire, earthquake, explosion, wind, flood, or other calamity may be completely
restored or reconstructed if all of the following criteria are met:
. 1. The restoration and reconstruction shall not serve to extend or increase the nonconformity
of the original structure.
2. The reconstruction or restoration shall, to the extent reasonably possible, retain the same
general architectural style as the original destroyed structure, or an architectural style that
.more closely reflects the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
3. Permits shall be applied for within one (1) year of the damage. Restoration shall be
substantially complete within two (2) years of permit issuance.
4. Expansions or substantial modifications to rebuilt nonconforming Structures shall comply
with current regulations and codes, except that an existing nonconformity regarding the
amount of impervious surface on a site may be maintained.
Section 2.60 Community Associations and Facilities: The Ludlow Maintenance Commission,
Inc. (LMC) and the South Bay Community Association (SBCA) are recognized as existing
organizations with facilities including, but not limited to, club houses, parking areas, recreation
vehicle parking, recreational facilities, and parks and trails located in the MPR. LMC and
SBCA facilities are separate from and not part of the Resort, as defined in section 3.90.
Expansions, modifications, or changes to these separate LMC and SBCA facilities and uses are
allowed, consistent with the provisions of this code, and exclusive of the limitations imposed by
section 3.90.
SECTION 3
PORT LUDLOW MASTER PLANNED RESORT ZONING DISTRICTS
SECTION 3.10 SINGLE FAMILY ZONE (MPR-SF)
Section 3.101 Purpose:This zone recognizes, maintains and promotes single family residential
areas within the MPR, and provides opportunities for reasonably priced housing.
Section 3.102 Permitted Uses. Lot Size and Density: The following uses, lot sizes, and
densities are permitted within the MPR-SF zone:
1. Single family detached dwelling units.
2. Home-based business.
3. Accessory uses and structures, such as garages, carports, storage buildings and similar
structures supporting the residential environment, when clearly subordinate and
supplemental to a permitted use.
4. Trails, parks, open space and playgrounds approved through a platting or development
review process.
Page 6 of21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
( I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ORDINANCE NO. 08-1004-99 repealing the interim development controls of Ordinance 10-1214-98 and adopting new development
regulations for the Port Ludlow Planned Resort.
5. Minimum lot areas of 5,000 square feet approved through a platting process and not to
exceed a gross density of four (4) dwelling units per acre. Existing subdivisions shall not
be further subdivided.
Section 3.103 Conditional Uses. Lot Size and Density: The following uses, lot sizes, and
densities are permitted conditionally in the MPR-SF zone:
1. Trails, parks, open space and playgrounds if not part ofa platting or development review
process.
2. Minimum lot areas of 3,500 square feet if approved through a platting process and not to
exceed a gross density of four (4) dwelling units per acre. Existing subdivisions shall not
be further subdivided.
3. Single family attached dwelling units including duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes as part
of a new subdivision, not to exceed a gross density of four (4) dwelling units per acre.
Setbacks and impervious surface limits shall apply to the total lot or development parcel,
not to the land allocated to any individual attached unit. For purposes of this Ordinance,
"single family attached" shall mean a townhouse style or side-by-side development, not
stacked units.
4. Fire stations; provided that existing fire stations are allowed a one time expansion of up
to 30% in the size of the building footprint without going through a conditional use
process.
5. Above-ground electrical substations, sewage pump stations or treatment plants, and
potable water storage tanks or facilities.
Section 3.104 Bei2ht Restrictions: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or
structurally modified ~o exceed 35 feet in height.
Section 3.105 Bulk and Dimensional Requirements: Bulk and dimensional requirements shall
be as provided in Table MPR-SF below. For projects proposing single family attached units, the
requirements shall apply to the total lot, not to the land allocated to any individual attached unit.
Density
Minimum
Lot Area
TABLE MPR-SF
Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum Impervious
Setback Setback Setback Surface
4 DUlAC
4 DUlAC
5,000 sq.ft.
3,500 sq. ft.
Conditional
Use required
Minimu
m Lot
Width
40'
40'
20'
20'
5'
5'
5'
5'
45%
2,250 square feet for
any lot less than 5000
sq. ft. in size
Section 3.106 Commercial Forest Land Buffers: New developments on property located
adjacent to lands designated Commercial Forest are subject to the requirements of the County's
Forest Lands Ordinance No. 01-0121-97. Section 7.20(1) of the Forest Lands Ordinance allows
modification of the standard 250' setback from adjacent commercial forest lands. Within the
MPR-SF zone, the following limitations shall apply to any agreement to modify the standard
buffer or setback requirement for development adjacent to Commercial Forest land.
1. An average setback of at least 200' shall be maintained.
2. Critical areas and critical area setbacks or buffers shall not be included in the calculation
or areas used to establish the 200' average setback distance.
3. A minimum setback of 150' shall be maintained.
.. - --Pageq.of21
ORDINANCE NO. 08-1004-99 repealing the interim development controls of Ordinance 10-1214-98 and adopting new development
regulations for the Port Ludlow Planned Resort.
4. .Natural vegetation and forested areas shall be maintained in a native state, but may be
managed to ensure healthy reforestation and avoid hazards to life or property.
5. The boundaries of the buffer or setback area shall be visibly marked during and following
development.
6. When established through a platting process, the buffer or setback area shall be
designated on the face of the plat as a separate open space tract.
3.107 Accessory Dwelline Units Prohibited: Accessory dwelling units shall not be allowed in
the MPR-SF zone.
3.108 Conceptual Site Plan Requirement: Prior to preliminary plat approval in the south area
designated on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map as requiring a "conceptual site plan," a
plan shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development showing a concept for
development of the entire south area. The conceptual site plan shall illustrate at least one
development option for the entire south area and shall at a minimum address required buffers,
road layout, and potential phasing. .
SECTION 3.20 SINGLE FAMILY TRACT ZONE (MPR-SFT)
Section 3.201 Purpose: This zone recognizes, maintains and promotes larger, single family
residential tracts within the MPR.
Section 3.202 Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted within the MPR-SFT zone:
1.
2.
Single family detached dwelling units.
Accessory uses and structures, such as garages, carports, storage buildings and similar
structures supporting the residential environment, when clearly subordinate and
supplemental to a permitted use.
Accessory buildings, such as barns, stables and similar structures, when clearly
subordinate and supplemental to a permitted use.
Home-based business.
Trails, parks, open space and playgrounds approved through a platting or development
review process.
3.
4.
5.
Section 3.203 Conditional Uses: The following uses are permitted conditionally within the
MPR-SFT zone:
1. Trails, parks, open space and playgrounds if not part of a platting or development review
process.
2. Above-ground electrical substations, sewage pump stations and treatment plants, and
potable water storage tanks or facilities.
Section 3.204 Heieht Restrictions: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or
structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height.
Section 3.205 Bulk and Dimensional Requirements: Bulk and dimensional requirements shall
be as provided in Table MPR-SFT below.
Density
TABLE MPR-SFI'
Minimum Front Yard Side Yard
Lot Width Setback Setback
100' 25' 25'
Rear Yard Maximum Impervious
Setback Surface
25' 20%
Minimum
Lot Area
2.5 AC
1 DU/2.5 AC
Page 8 of21
(
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ORDINANCE NO. 08-1004-99 repealing the interim development controls. of Ordinance 10-1214-98 and adopting new development
. regulations for the Port Ludlow Planned Resort.
Section 3.206 Accessory Dwellin2 Units Prohibited: Accessory dwelling units shall not be
allowed in the MPR-SFT zone.
SECTION 3.30 MULTI-FAMILY ZONE (MPR-MF)
Section 3.301 Purpose: This zone recognizes, maintains and promotes multifamily housing
opportunities within the MPR, in part to provide lower-cost housing units.
Section 3.302 Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted within the MPR-MF zone:
1. Multi-family dwelling units including condominiums.
2. Assisted-Living, congregate care, and long-term care facilities.
3. Accessory uses and structures, such as garages, carports, storage buildings, pools, and
recreation buildings supporting the residential environment, when clearly subordinate and
supplemental to a permitted use.
4. Home-based business.
5. Trails, parks, open space and playgrounds approved through a platting or development
reVIew process.
6. Single family attached (townhouse style) or detached dwelling units.
Section 3.303 Conditional Uses: The following uses are permitted conditionally in the MPR-
MF zone:
1. Trails, parks, open space and playgrounds if not part of a platting or development review
process.
2. Above-ground electrical substations, sewage pump stations and treatment plants, and
potable water tanks or storage facilities.
Section 3.304 Hei2ht Restrictions: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or
structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height as measured by UBC standards.
Section 3.305 Bulk and Dimensional Requirements: Bulk and dimensional requirements
shall be as provided in Table MPR-MF below. Single family residential uses. are subject to the
requirements of section 3.10; provided that conditional use approval shall not be required for
single family attached development.
10 DUlAC
Minimum
Lot Area
N/A
Minimum
Lot Width
N/A
TABLE MPR-MF
Front Yard Side Yard
Setback Setback
UBC UBC
Rear Yard Maximum
Setback Impervious Coverage
UBC 55%
Density
SECTION 3.40 RESORT COMPLEX/COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE (MPR-RC/CF)
Section 3.401 Purpose: The MPR-RC/CF zone provides amenities and services associated with
a resort and the surrounding community, and supports existing residential uses. Uses allowed in
the RC/CF zone recognize the recreational- natUre of.tlie7esOItarid inCluoe the.. existing and
planned resort complex, as well as limited permanent residential uses, and non-resort community
facilities including a beach club and Kehele Park. Kehele Park is located north of the actual
resort area and serves as a community park.
-'"-'~~Page9 of2}
ORDINANCE NO. 08-1004-99 repealing the interim development controls of Ordinance 10-1214-98 and adopting new development
regulations for the Port Ludlow Planned Resort.
Section 3.402 Permitted and Conditional Uses: The following uses are permitted within the
MPR-RC/CF zone. Within the resort area, for resort facilities only, the uses set forth below are
further described and limited by the Resort Plan, as set forth in section 3.901.
RC/CF USE CHART
USES
RC/CF
Resort Area
./
./
./
./
./
./
C
C
./
./
./
./
RC/CF
KehelePark
Hotels (Inn) ~d appropriate associated uses
Conference Center/Banquet Facility
Parks and Trails as part of a platting or development review process
Recreation Center/ Club/ Yacht Club
RestaurantlLounge/Bar
Marina
Seaplane Dock
Helipad for Medical Emergencies Only
Resort Related Retail Use
Library~useum
Interpretive and Informational Kiosks
Community Organization Activity Facilities, e.g. LMC Beach club and
RV storage properties
Multifamily and Single Family Residential Structures (10 du/ac)
Tennis Courts (indoor or outdoor)
Amphitheater
./
./
./
./
./
CHART INTERPRETATION: a means a use is permitted; "C"
means conditional use approval is required.
3.403 Non-Resort Uses and Properties: Those non-resort controlled uses and activities which
currently exist within the RC/CF zone are recognized as valid uses and activities and may
continue, expand, or change in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance. These non-resort
uses, activities, and properties are not regulated by the provisions for the Resort Plan as set forth
in section 3.90.
Section 3.404 Hei2ht Restrictions: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or
structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height, excluding roof projections, as measured by UBC
standards, except that Hotels and associated Conference Center facilities, as specified in the
Resort Plan (see section 3.90) may be allowed to a height not exceeding 50 feet as measured by
UBC standards when the Jefferson County Fire District (#3) finds that fire-fighting and life safety
issues have been adequately addressed.
Section 3.405 Bulk and Dimensional Requirements: Bulk and dimensional requirements for
commercial uses in the MPR-RC/CF zone are contained in the table below. Single family
residential uses are subject to the requirements of section 3.10; provided that conditional use
approval shall not be required for single family attached development. Multi-family uses and
structures are subject to the requirements of section 3.30.
Density
TABLE MPR-RC/CF
Minimum Front Yard Side Yard
Lot Width Setback Setback
N/A UBC UBC
Rear Yard Maximum Impervious
Setback Coverage
UBC 50%
Minimum
Lot Area
N/A
N/A
Page 10 of21
'"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ORDINANCE NO. 08-1004-99 repealing the interim development controls of Ordinance 10-1214-98 and adopting new development
regulations for the Port Ludlow Planned Resort.
SECTION 3.50 VILLAGE COMMERCIAL CENTER ZONE (MPR-VC)
Section 3.501 Purpose: The MPR- VC zone provides retail and commercial uses and other
services to meet the needs of resort visitors and community residents. In addition to retail and
commercial uses or services, other uses such as government or community offices and facilities,
long-term care facilities, residential uses, and visitor services are permitted within this zone.
Section 3.502 Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted in the MPR- VC zone:
Section 3.503 Conditional Uses: The following uses are permitted conditionally within the
MPR- VC zone:
1. Principal use. above ground, and free standing Parking Structure.
2. Conference Center.
3. Helipad for medical emergencies only.
4. Above-ground electrical substations, sewage pump stations and treatment plants, and
potable water storage tanks or facilities.
5. Assisted Living, Congregate Care, or Multi-family uses if greater than 35,000 square feet
in gross floor area.
RETAIL
Bank and Financial Institutions
Variety Stores
Grocery Stores
Hardware Stores
Pharmacy and Drug Stores
Liquor Stores (state)
Personal Medical Supply Stores
Florist Shops
Specialty Food Stores
Sporting Goods and Related
Stores
Book and Stationary Stores
Jewelry Stores
Photographic and Electronics
Shops
Computer, Office Equipment
and Related Sales
Music Stores
Farmers Market
Interior Decorating Shop
Food Service Establishments
Antique Store
MPR- VC PERMITTED USES
SERVICES
Travel Consultant
Dry Cleaner/ Laundry
Barber and Beauty Shops
GenerallBusiness Offices
Professional Offices
Real Estate
Day Care Center
Clinics (Medical, Dental,
Mental Health, Chiropractic)
Social Services
Miscellaneous Health
Home HealthIHome Care
Vehicle Repair and Gas Station
Car Wash
Transportation Service
Utility Purveyor Offices
Public Agency or Utility
Offices
MailinglPackaging Business
. ~...-Pagell.of2.1
OTHER
Art Gallery
Theater
Post Office
Recycling Drop-off Facility
Library
Museum
Community Center
Police Facility
Fire Station
Park
Indoor Tennis Facility
RESIDENTIAL
Multi-family dwellings
Assisted Living, Congregate
Care Facilities
Mixed Use: Residential above
first floor commercial
Single family, attached or
detached dwelling units
ORDINANCE NO. 08-1004-99 repealing the interim development controls of Ordinance} 0-1214-98 and adopting new development
regulations for the Port Ludlow Planned Resort.
Section 3.504 Hei2ht restrictions: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or
structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height, excluding roof projections, as measured by UBC
standards.
Section 3.505 Bulk and Dimensional Requirements:
1. Multi-family residential developmentshall be subjectto section3.305 and Table MPR-
MF.
2. Single family developmentshall be subject to section 3.10; provided that conditional use
approval shall not be required for single family attached development.
3. The maximum gross floor area per nonresidential building allowed shall be 30,000 sq.
feet.
4. Other requirements for nonresidential development in the MPR- VC zone are set forth in
the table below.
5. Impervious surface requirements may be met by establishing an open space tract within
the zone, but separate from property proposed to be developed. Such an open space tract
shall be permanently established prior to permit issuance through a recorded Boundary
Line Adjustment, Short Plat, or Binding Site Plan that identifies the tract and secures the
open space for the life of the associated project.
Density
TABLE MPR-VC
Front Yard Side Yard
Setback Setback
UBC UBC
Rear Yard Maximum
Setback Impervious Coverage
UBC 45%
Minimum
Lot Area
N/A
Minimum
Lot Width
N/A
SECTION 3.60 RECREA nON AREA (MPR-RA)
Section 3.601 Purpose: The MPR-RA zone recognizes, maintains, and promotes the existing and
future active recreation activities and areas within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort.
Section 3.602 Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted within the MPR-RA zone:
1. Parks and Trails
2. Golf Shop/Club HouselRestaurant/Snack Bar/Lounge
3. Interpretive Center, and interpretive or directional signage
4. Golf Course and Related OfficeslMaintenance Buildings and Facilities
5. Indoor and Outdoor Recreation Club, including Indoor and Outdoor Tennis Facilities
Section 3.603 Hei2ht Restrictions. No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or
structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height, excluding roof projections, as measured by UBC
standards.
Section 3.604 Bulk and Dimensional Requirements: The maximum square foot area for
structures in the MPR-RA zone shall be 20,000 square feet, except for indoor tennis facilities
which shall be no larger than 27,300 square feet.
Density
TABLE MPR-RA
Front Yard Side Yard
Setback Setback
UBC UBC
Impervious
Minimum
Lot Area
N/A
Minimum
Lot Width
N/A
N/A
Rear Yard Maximum
Setback Coverage
UBC 45%
Page 12 of21
(
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ORDINANCE NO. 08-1004-99 repealing the interim development controls of Ordinance 10-1214-98 and adopting new development
regulations for the Port Ludlow Planned Resort.
SECTION 3.70 OPEN SPACE RESERVE ZONE (MPR-OSR)
Section 3.701 Purpose: The Open Space Reserve zone preserves in perpetuity and enhances the
natural amenities around Ludlow Bay, the Twin Islands and other natural areas within the MPR.
Uses within the Open Space Reserve shall be low impact and serve to promote or enhance the
aesthetic qualities of the Master Planned Resort. No residential or commercial development shall
be pennitted in the MPR-OSR zone.
Section 3. 702 Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be pennitted in the MPR-OSR Zone:
I. Parks, trails, paths, bridges, benches, shelters, and rest rooms, with associated parking.
2. Directional and interpretative signage and kiosks.
3. Private roads for maintenance and utility access or access to an interpretive center or
equestrian facility.
Section 3.703 Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be pennitted conditionally in the
MPR-OSR zone. Any interpretive center, equestrian facility, electrical substation, or water
storage tank or facility shall be located as near the outer boundaries of the zone as practicable so
as to minimize the need for access roads and other disturbance of the Open Space Reserve~
I. Man-made water features or enhanced natural water features, such as ponds, wetlands,
wetland buffer enhancements and stonn water detention ponds.
2. Interpretive Center
3. Equestrian Facility.
4. Above-ground electrical substations, sewage pump stations, and potable water storage
tanks or facilities.
Section 3.704 Heil!ht Restriction: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or
structurally modified to exceed 25 feet in height, excluding roofprojections, as measured by UBC
standards.
Section 3.705 Bulk and Dimensional Requirements: The maximum square foot area per
building allowed shall be 2000 sq. feet. Electrical substations and water storage tanks or
facilities may exceed this cap if approved through the conditional use process.
SECTION 3.80 DEVELOPMENT CAP
3.801 Development Cap and MERUs :
I. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan provides that within the MPR boundary total
residential dwelling units shall not exceed 2,250. In order to implement this development
cap and allow flexibility within the limits established by the 1993 FEIS, a measurement
and transfer system based on the number of actual residential lots, actual dwelling units,
and equivalent residential units for commercial development has been established.
2. Equivalent residential units are measurable and transferable between residential and
commercial uses. This ordinance uses the tenn "MERU" or "Measurement ERU" to
distinguish the meaning aOO. use of the term "equivalent residential unit" in this code
from its more common application to water and sewer utility issues. In this code, MERU
and Measurement ERU are defined as set forth in section 3.803. The tenns define the
measurement and transfer mechanism for future development within the MPR
boundaries.
. ~ ..Page 13 ot:21
ORDINANCE NO. 08-1004-99 repealing the interim development controls of Ordinance 10-1214-98 and adopting new development
regulations for the Port Ludlow Planned Resort.
3. Within the boundaries ofthe Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort, total development shall
be capped at 2575 Measurement ERUs (MERUs). Actual residential dwelling units shall
not exceed 2,250.
3.802 MERU Record: The Department of Community Development shall maintain a count of
MERUs and of residential dwelling units. A system shall be established no later than 60 days
from the effective date of this ordinance that provides an up-to:-datecount of available MERUs.
This system shall maintain a current count, shall be available to the general public for inspection
during regular business hours, and shall be updated as needed to reflect current usage and
allocations of MER Us. Allocations of MER Us shall be determined according to the provisions of
section 3.803. The Department shall maintain records of ERU and MERU allocations and shall
maintain a matrix showing allocation of residential and commercial MERUs.
3.803 MERU Allocation and Assienment: MERUs shall be allocated and assigned as follows:
1. Each MERU shall be assumed to generate 200 gallons per day (gpd) of sewer wastewater
flow.
2. Each single family dwelling unit or recorded, platted lot shall count as one MERU.
3. Each multi-family dwelling unit shall count as one MERU.
4. Assisted living, congregate care, and similar facilities shall be assigned an MERU
amount based on the number of bedrooms, beds, and type of care or assistance provided.
Reference shall be made to State Department of Ecology sewer design standards for
single family and multiple family dwellings, nursing homes, and homes for the aged.
Ecology design standards shall be those in place at the time of application for assisted
living, congregate care or similar uses.
5. Commercial development shall be assigned an MERU amount based on State Department
of Ecology design standards, as of the effective date of this ordinance.
6. If a use is proposed that is not called out in this section or is not assigned a flow rate by
the State Department of Ecology, the required gallons per day for a use (and its MERU
allocation) may be assigned based on measurements of actual use or other comparative
process as approved by the Department of Community Development.
7. Residential lots approved by a preliminary subdivision or preliminary short subdivision
shall be allocated MERUs based on the preliminary subdivision (preliminary plat or
preliminary short plat) approval. If the preliminary plat or preliminary short plat expires
or is withdrawn before being finaled, the MERU allocation shall revert to unallocated
status.
8. If a recorded subdivision is vacated or if platted lots are consolidated through a boundary
line adjustment or otherwise in a manner that precludes development of one or more
residential uses, unusable MERUs shall revert to unallocated status.
3.804 Initial Allocation of Commercial MERUs: Of the total2575MERUs allowed within the
MPR, 325 are . initially allocated to commercial development. Fifty-five new MERUs are
reserved for the Village Commercial Center. Three new MERUs are reserved for additional
resort commercial development, and 41 are reserved for future expansion of the golf course pro
shop and golf support facilities. All other commercial MERUs (226) are initially allocated to
existing development.
3.805 Initial Allocation of Residential MERUs: Of the total 2575 MERUs allowed within the
MPR boundaries, 2250 are initially allocated to residential. development. Existing (built)
residential development accounts for 1064 residential MERUs, platted but undeveloped lots total
727, and lots with preliminary plat approval account for an additional 326. As of the effective
date of this ordinance, a total of 133 MERUs remain available (subject to final verification
Page 14 of21
(
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ORDINANCE NO. 08-1004-99 repealing the interim development controls of Ordinance 10-1214-98 and adopting new development
regulations for the Port Ludlow Planned Resort.
pursuant to section 3.802) for additional residential development or may be transferred to support
commercial development as set forth in section 3.806.
3.806 MERU Transfer: MERUs initially allocated for residential development may be
transferred to support commercial development. Commercial MERUs may support either
commercial or residential development, provided that commercial MERUs shall not be
transferred to support residential development exceeding the cap of 2,250 dwelling units;
3.807 MERU Allocation Not Property Specific; Limitations: MERUs are not assigned to
specific properties, with the following limitations:
1. Developed properties, platted properties, properties with approved preliminary plats, and
properties with issued or vested building permits shall have, maintain and carry forward
the MERU allocation associated with the use, plat, preliminary plat, or building permit
for as long as the use or plat exists or the preliminary plat or building permit maintains its
active status.
2. The Village Commercial Center zone shall have an initial allocation of 55 new MERUs.
3. The Resort Complex/Community Facilities zone shall have an initial allocation of 3 new
MERUs on the resort property.
4. The Recreation Area zone (golf course pro shop and golf support facilities) shall have an
initial allocation of 41 new MERUs.
5. All remaining MERUs and any MERUs that revert to unallocated status pursuant to
sections 3.803(7) or (8), are available for future residential or commercial development,
with no limitation, assignment or reservation.
6. This allocation of MERUs shall be updated by the Department of Community
Development as set forth in section 3.802.
SECTION 3.90 RESORT DEVELOPMENT
This section describes the "Resort Plan" for facilities to be located . in the Resort
Complex/Community Facilities zone, sets out a required environmental review process for any
future resort development, and provides processes for reviewing major or minor revisions to the
Resort Plan. These provisions apply to the resort and associated development whether on resort
owned property or on other property. These provisions do not apply to any future development
proposed solely by and for the LMC, SBCA, or any other community association.
4.
5.
Section 3.901 Resort Plan: The Resort Plan for future development of properties in the MPR-
RC/CF zone shall be limited and shall not exceed the scope of development set forth below and
shall include no uses except those set forth below, unless a major revision is approved (see
section 3.905). Changes to this Resort Plan that decrease the sizes noted below are allowed. As
of the effective date of this ordinance, the Resort Plan shall be as set forth herein.
1. Gross square feet of resort development: 498,300.
2. Hotel Guest Rooms: 275
3. Restaurants - total square feet: 59,000
One 200 seat year round restaurant
One 125 seat seasonal restaurant (near marina)
Also includes hotel lobby and registration area,
Spa area, kitchens, offices and storage rooms.
Lounge, one year round, 125 seats, square feet:
Resort retail square feet:
Plus associated storage square feet:
5,000
2,500
1,400
-Pagets.of21
ORDINANCE NO. 08-1004-99 repealing the interim development controls of Ordinance 10-1214-98 and adopting new development
regulations for the Port Ludlow Planned Resort.
6. Conference Center, associated with and physically
part of Hotel buildings, square feet: 22,000
Plus support areas and storage square feet 8,000
7. Indoor tennis courts, square feet: 26,000
8. Indoor sports and pool complex, square feet: 13,500
9. StructUred/underground parking, square feet: 119;000
10. Museum or Interpretive Center, square feet: 7,500
11. Support Buildings, square feet: 12,000
(Maintenance, Warehousing, Housekeeping)
12. Youth Center, square feet: 4,000
13. Marina expansion, slips: 100 slips.
14. Amphitheater.
15. Yacht Club.
16. Four detached single family residences and one five-unit townhome structure, provided
that these structures are not included in or limited by the gross square feet of
development for the Resort Plan noted in 3.901(1) above.
17. All existing townhomes, provided that these structures are not included in or limited by
the gross square feet of development for the Resort Plan noted in 3.901(1).
Building heights and impervious surface limits shall apply as set forth in section 3.40. Surface
parking in addition to the structured or underground parking noted above may be provided.
Miscellaneous support areas including laundry facilities and administrative offices may be
included, but shall not increase the gross square footage for the resort complex, except that the
minor revision process may be used to permit these facilities with up to a 5% increase in gross
square footage.
Section 3.902 Permit Process for Resort Development:
1. A project level Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) analyzing~ the-
resort plan is required prior to issuance of building permits for any new resort
development. Environmental review of the Resort Plan shall not be piecemealed or
broken into small segments. The applicant may choose to develop a new Environmental
Impact Statement rather than a Supplement.
2. Notice of application for environmental review of the Resort Plan shall be provided to all
persons on the Port Ludlow MPR Roster established by the Department pursuant to
section 1.60, as well as to any other persons or agencies entitled to notice pursuant to the
County's Procedures Ordinance.
3. Actual building permit plans or construction drawings are not required during the SEIS
process. Architectural drawings including a detailed site plan, and architectural sketches
or drawings showing approximate elevations, sections, and floor plans are required,
however, to ensure that the SEIS considers project-level details.
4. The Department of Community Development may impose mitigating conditions or issue
a denial of some or all of the Resort Plan based on the environmental review and using
authority provided pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21C. A
report detailing any such conditions or denials shall be issued within 30 days of issuance
of the Final SEIS, and prior to issuance of any Resort Plan building permits. This report
and the conditions, approvals or denials contained therein shall be treated as an
administrative decision of the Department under the County's Proc@ldW'@s Ordinance
Unified Development Code (Type A IT decision) and shall be appealable to the county
hearing examiner.
5. Following completion of the SEIS and the Department report on the Resort Plan, building
permits may be issued, following appropriate plan review, for projects analyzed in the
Page 16 of21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
( I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ORDINANCE NO. 08-1004-99 repealing the interim development controls of Ordinance 10-1214-98 and adopting new development
regulations for the Port Ludlow Planned Resort. .
SEIS. If the Department report is appealed, no permits shall be issued until the
administrative appeal is resolved.
6. . Actual resort development may be undertaken in phases, but only following completion
of review and approval of a full resort buildout plan through the SEIS process. A phasing
schedule may be proposed as part of the environmental review or may be developed at a
later date.
7. In conjunction with the environmental review process, the Department shalLcalculate the
total MERU s needed to support the Resort Plan. This calculation Shall also establish the
Net New MERUs needed for resort development. These Net New MERUs shall be
transferred from those initially allocated pursuant to section 3.805 to new residential
development on the resort property, and shall be removed from the count of available
MERUs for as long as the resort use or its development rights exist.
Section 3.903 . Requirement to vacate or withdraw existin2 or vested residential
development rhzhts. Concurrent with issuance of any permit for new resort development, any
existing, pending, or vested development rights for projects or parts or phases of projects that:
1) have not been developed, and
2) are located in the RC/CF zone, and
3). are not included in the described Resort Plan
shall be withdrawn, vacated or otherwise permanently released. For any subdivision that has
been approved and recorded, but only partially developed, a plat alteration shall be applied for
and processed as set forth in state law and in applicable county ordinances. Nothing in this
ordinance is intended to affect the process or the specific outcome of any application for such a
plat alteration.
Section 3.904 Environmental Review for Resort -PlanDevelopment:
1. Detailed environmental review for future resort development shall be required pursuant
to RCW 43.21C.031 and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) Rules of WAC 197-
11. A project level Supplement to the Port Ludlow Development Program EIS (finaled
April 1993) shall be prepared, or a new stand-alone EIS may be prepared. Prior to
defining the scope of the document, a public scoping hearing shall be held.
2. The scope of the SEIS or EIS shall include, but not be limited to, the following elements:
A. Earth, including grading, erosion control, and dredging;
B. Water, including runoff and water quality issues, including those associated with
marina expansion, and public water supply;
C. Plants and Animals, including impacts on fish and wildlife migration and
threatened or endangered species;
D. Land and Shoreline Use, including relationship to existing land use plans and
estimated population, housing, light and glare, aesthetics, noise with respect to
potential amphitheater uses, recreation, and historic and cultural preservation;
E. Transportation, including trip generation, traffic congestion, traffic systems,
vehicle and pedestrian hazards, parking and spill-over parking; and
F. Public services and utilities, including water, storm water, sewer, and fire (as
may be related to building heights in excess of35').
3. The Land Use element ofthe-doeument{see 2D-above).shall provide information about
expected occupancy rates, size of conferences (expected attendance), any possibilities for
expanded conference center use of resort facilities such as the indoor tennis courts, as
well as possible conference center use of other community facilities or privately owned
properties.
4. The Utility element (see 2F above) shall review information on all affected utility
systems, including sewer and water systems monitoring. The effectiveness of such
-Page"I11lf21
monitoring shall be evaluated. Supplements or changes to the monitoring and reporting
systems shall be considered if necessary to ensure that water quality and water supply
are adequately protected and impacts to natural resources minimized.
This preliminary scope is based on the described Resort Plan. Use of the term
"including" shall mean "including but not limited to." Other elements, issues, and
specific levels of detail may be included based on information available at the time the
Resort Plan development .application is submitted. Elements noted . above. maybe
combined in the EIS analysis to reduce duplication and narrow the focus on potentially
significant adverse impacts.
ORDINANCE NO. 08-1004-99 repealing the interim development controls of Ordinance 10-1214-98 and adopting new development
regulations for the Port Ludlow Planned Resort.
5.
3.905
1.
2.
3
Revisions to Resort Plan:
Any proposed changes to the MPR boundary or zone changes within the MPR shall
require a Comprehensive Plan amendment and related zoning action. Such changes are
outside the scope of the Revision processes described below and in sections 3.906 and
3.907. The County may approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan only if all
requirements of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) are fulfilled
The County shall accept building permits only for projects included in and consistent
with the Resort Plan. A revision to the existing Resort Plan shall be submitted to the
County for approval prior to the acceptance of any proposal that is inconsistent with the
Resort Plans set forth in this ordinance. Upon approval of a revision, all subsequent
development proposals shall be consistent with the revised Resort Plan and development
regulations. '
Proposed revisions to the Resort Plan shall be submitted to the Department of
Community Development and the DCD Director will determine whether the proposal
constitutes a major or minor revision. Upon making a determination, the proposed
revision shall follow the appropriate process for plan revisions as outlined in Sections
3.906 or 3.907.
Section 3.906 Maior Revisions: Revisions to the Resort Plan that will result in a substantial
change to the resort including: changes in use, increase in the intensity of use, or in the size, scale,
or density of development; or changes which may have a substantial impact on the environment
beyond those reviewed in previous environmental documents, are considered to be major
revisions and will require application for a revised Resort Plan.
, 1. Application for a Major Revision to the Resort Plan. An application shall be prepared
describing the proposed revision in relation to the approved Resort Plan and providing a
framework for review, analysis and mitigation of the revised development activity
proposed. The Resort Plan revision proposal shall include the following information:
A. A description of how the revised Resort Plan would further the goals and
policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
a. A description of how the Resort Plan revision complements the existing' resort
facilities of the MPR. '
C. A description of the design and functional features of the Resort Plan revision,
setting out how the revision provides for unified development, integrated site
design and protection of natural amenities.
D. A listing of proposed additional uses and/or proposed changes to density and
intensity of uses within the resort, and a discussion of how these changes meet
the needs of residents of the MPR and patrons of the resort.
E. A description and analysis of the environmental impacts associated with the
proposed revision, including an analysis of the cumulative impacts of both the
proposed revision and the approved Resort Plan, and their effects on surrounding
properties and!or public facilities.
Page 18 of21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ORDINANCE NO. 08.1004.99 repealing the interim development controls of Ordinance J O.J 2 J 4.98 and adopting new development
regulations for the Port Ludlow Planned Resort.
F. A description of how the proposed Resort Plan revision is integrated with the
overall MPR and any features, such as connections to trail systems, natural
systems or greenbelts, that have been established to retain and enhance the
character of the resort and the overall MPR.
G. A description of the intended phasing of development projects.
H. Maps, drawings, illustrations, or other materials necessary to assist in
understanding and visualizing the design and use of the completed proposed
development, its facilities and services, and the protection of critical areas.
I. A calculation of estimated new demands on capital facilities and services and
their relationship to the existing resort and MPR demands, including but not
limited to: transportation, water, sewer and storm water facilities; and a
demonstration that sufficient facilities and services to support the development
are available or will be available at the time development permits are applied for.
2. Major Revision Process
Major Revisions shall be processed as a hearing examiner decision (Type B !ill, with a
required public hearing prior to the decision. Public notice of the application, the written
decision, and appeal opportunities shall be provided to all persons on the Port Ludlow
MPR Roster (see section 1.60) and such other persons or agencies as required by the
County Proc@dur@s Ordinanc@ Unified Development Code. Any proposed major revision
involving a change to the boundaries of the RC/CF zone shall require a Comprehensive
Plan amendment (a Type G V county commissioners decision) prior to any decision on
the Resort Plan amendment.
3. Decision Criteria: The hearing examiner may approve a major revision to the Resort Plan
only if all the following criteria are met:.
A. The proposed revision would further the goals and policies set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan.
a. No unmitigated significant adverse environmental impacts would be created by
the proposed revision.
C. The revision is consistent with all applicable development regulations, including
those established for critical areas.
D. On-site and off-site infrastructure (including but not limited to water, sewer,
storm water and transportation facilities) impacts have been fully considered and
mitigated.
E. The proposed revision complements the existing resort facilities, meets the needs
of residents and patrons, and provides for unified development, integrated site
design, and protection of natural amenities.
Section 3.907 Minor Revisions
1. Minor Revisions. The County recognizes that the Resort Plan may require minor changes
to facilities and serVices in response to changing conditions or market demand and that
some degree of flexibility for the resort is needed. Minor revisions are those that do not
result in a substantial change to the intent or purpose of the Resort Plan in effect and
which:
A.
a.
Involve no more than a five percent (5%) increase in the overall gross square
footage of the Resort Plan.
Will not have a significantly greater impact on the environment and/or facilities
than that addressed in the development plan.
Do not alter the boundaries of the approved plan.
. Do not propose new uses or uses that modify the recreational nature and intent of
C.
D.
~gei.'9-oft-t
ORDINANCE NO. 08-1004-99 repealing the interim development controls of Ordinance 10-1214-98 and adopting new development
regulations for the Port Ludlow Planned Resort.
the Resort.
2. Minor Revision Process:
Applications for minor revisions shall be submitted to, and reviewed by the Jefferson
County Department of Community Development to determine if the revisions are
consistent with the existing Resort Plan and Resort PlanSEIS, the Jefferson COUJlty
Comprehensive Plan and other pertinentdocull1ents; Those proposals that satisfy the
above-referenced criteria shall be deemed a minor plan - revision and may be
administratively approved (as a Type A II decision under the county's Pro()@dur@s
Ordiaanc@ Unified Development Code) by the Director of the Department of Community
Development. Public notice of the application, the written decision, and appeal
opportunities shall be proVided to all persons on the Port Ludlow MPR Roster (see
section 1.60) and such other persons or agencies as required by the County Pro()@dur@s
Ordinanc@ Unified Development Code. Those revisions that do not comply with the
provisions contained within this Section shall be deemed a major revision, subject to the
provisions outlined in Section 3.906 above.
SECTION 4
SEVERABILITY
Severability: If any section, subsection, or oth~ortion of this Ordinance is, for any reason,
held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such section, subsection,.
or portion thereof shall be deemed a separate portion of this ordinance and such holding shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 5
REPEALER
Repealer: Effective immediately upon its adoption, this Ordinance repeals and replaces
Ordinance No. 10-1214-98.
SECTION 6
EFFECTIVE PERIOD
Effective Period:
This ordinance shall become effective on the 4th day of October, 1999.
Page 20 of21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
( I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ORDINANCE NO. 08-1004-99 repealing the interim development controls of Ordinance J 0-1214-98 and adopting new development
regulations for the Port Ludlow Planned Resort.
SECTION 7
ADOPTION
Adopted by the Jefferson County Board ofComrnissioners this 4th day of October, 1999.
SEAL:
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ONLY
Prosecuting Attorney
Department of Community Development
Page 21 of21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix B
Port Ludlow Plants and Animals - Regional Conditions
GeoEngineers, February 2004
Plants and Habitats
The Port Ludlow Resort site falls within the Puget Sound lowlands, a region dominated by forest
communities. Weather systems moving inland from the Pacific Ocean create moisture and
temperature regimes ideally suited for the establishment and growth of coniferous forests.
Vegetation in the area is classified as the Western Hemlock Zone, the most extensive vegetation
zone in western Washington. In their old growth condition, forests in this zone are typically
dominated by western hemlock and Douglas fir. However, the area around Port Ludlow has been
extensively logged over the past century, and much of it is now dominated by mixed second-
growth forest. Portions of the area more recently logged by clearcutting are in earlier stages of
forest development dominated by shrubs or young trees. Logging roads and trails are common in
the area.
While mixed conifer and deciduous forests dominate the upland portions of the region,
depressions and lower elevation sites support a variety of wetland communities. Grasslands,
shrublands, and other non-forest or non-wetland communities also occur in the area.
The following sections describe the major types of vegetation cover and wildlife habitat in the
region.
Marine Shorelines
The shoreline along Port Ludlow Bay is classified as a marine, intertidal, rocky shoreline. Rock
rip-rap and various types of seaweed and filamentous algae are common shoreline features near
the marina. A recent assessment of marine vegetation in Port Ludlow Bay is included in the Port
Ludlow Marina Expansion Draft SEIS (Reid Middleton, 2002a).
Streams and Ponds
The Ludlow Creek subbasin is the largest drainage within the Port Ludlow Bay watershed and
contributes the greatest discharge of fresh water to the bay (Reid Middleton, 2002a). The Ludlow
Creek mainstem is approximately 4.5 miles in length with an additional 8.25 miles in tributaries
(Correa, 2002). It has an intact floodplain in its lower reaches, with good instream habitat, stable
banks and functional riparian condition. However, a culvert inhibits estuary function, and a right
bank tributary has been characterized as having a chronic erosion and slope failure problem. In
the upper watershed, riparian conditions are fair but often degraded in previously logged and
active agricultural areas. A waterfall located about 1,800 feet upstream of the mouth of the creek
and a number of culverts in the upper watershed present total and partial barriers to fish passage
(Cascadia Consulting Group, 2003; Reid Middleton, 2002a).
Wetlands
The Port Ludlow area contains a number of wetlands of a variety of classifications. Most of the
wetlands, particularly the smaller ones, are located in isolated depressions in forested areas.
From simple to complex in composition and structure, the wetland types in the vicinity include:
palustrine, open water (POW); palustrine, unconsolidated bottom (PUB); palustrine, emergent
Reptiles include turtles, lizards, and snakes. These species are mainly adapted for life on land,
with the exception of turtles. The northern alligator lizard is the only lizard thought to be present
in the area. This species is common in the cool forests of the Pacific Northwest, where it lives in
stumps, under logs, rocks, and in talus slopes. Several snakes are likely to be present, all in the
garter snake group. These snakes are generally forest dwellers, where they prey on slugs,
earthworms, salamanders, toads, frogs, small mammals, and birds. Snakes in turn are preyed
upon by mammals and birds such as herons and raptors.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Special Habitat Features
The diversity of native wetland and upland cover types generally provides high quality wildlife
habitat in the region. The presence of special habitat features, such as snags and downed logs,
provides specific forest elements required by some species.
I
I
I
I
(PEM); palustrine, scrub-shrub (PSS); and palustrine, forested (PFO) wetland. Most of the
smaller wetlands contain only one type, but the larger ones may contain several types.
Uplands
Most of the area is dominated by upland forest and clearcuts in various stages of regeneration.
Five general upland plant community types have been identified: coniferous; broad,..leaved
deciduous; mixed conifer-deciduous forest; early successional shrublands; and managed areas
dominated by grasses and other herbaceous vegetation. In addition, clearing and grading
activities have created some areas of mainly bare ground.
Forested areas, particularly mixed and coniferous stands, provide more snag habitat than the
clearcut areas. Forested wetlands likewise contained scattered snags, although many are red alder
and relatively small. The edges between clearcut and forest provide a number of snags and dead-
topped trees. The younger alder stands growing in disturbed areas such as former log landings
generally lacked snags altogether.
I
I
Logs are generally distributed throughout the site and occur in various sizes and stages of decay.
Many are small and provide limited habitat. Larger logs, commonly in advanced stages of decay,
are fewer in number and appear to be either remnants from past forest stands (prior to logging) or
the result of logging slash. Clearcut areas often include old slash piles at the log landings and
abundant downed woody debris scattered throughout, particularly in the areas most recently cut.
Animals
The variety of landforms, plant communities, and habitat resources in the Puget Sound region has
led to the development of a diverse and varied assemblage of animals. Habitats found in the Port
Ludlow area are typical of those described for the Puget Sound lowlands. The following sections
discuss animal species that use the area to a substantial degree at the present time, though some
species probably occur in low numbers or use the area only seasonally.
Amphibians and Reptiles
About 15 species of amphibians and reptiles are expected to occur in the area, including 6 species
of salamanders, 4 species of frogs, I lizard, and up to 4 species of snakes.
Amphibians include salamanders, newts, and frogs. These species are adapted to life in cool,
moist conditions. Almost all are carnivorous, eating mainly invertebrates and insects. They in
turn are preyed upon by fish, snakes, small mammals and birds.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Fish
A description of marine fish and invertebrates known to use Port Ludlow Bay can be found in the
Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Draft SEIS (Reid Middleton, 2002a). That document reported
that the lower section of Ludlow Creek was used historically by coho and chum salmon as
spawning and rearing habitat but is no longer believed to support native salmon runs. Small
populations of coho and chum salmon spawn occasionally in the lower 1,800 feet of the creek but
are blocked from migrating further upstream by a waterfall during most years. . A representative
of Wild Olympic Salmon noted recently that these spawning populations are not large but are
self~sustaining and contribute to the overall populations of Puget Sound (Garton, 2003).
Resident cutthroat trout utilize habitat above the falls, which is characterized by numerous small
lakes, such as Ludlow, Horseshoe and Teal, and many unnamed tributaries and wetlands (Correa,
2002). It is unlikely that bull trout occur in the area as Ludlow Creek does not provide suitable
spawning habitat nor are there any river basins in the vicinity that are known to support bull trout.
(Reid Middleton, 2002a).
Birds
A total of 180 bird species are expected to occur in the area. This number, however, includes
species associated with marine or shore habitats of Port Ludlow Bay -- fewer species are expected
to occupy the majority of the upland areas.
Twenty-nine species of waterfowl and 54 species of other aquatic birds (such as loons, grebes,
herons, shorebirds and gulls) are expected to use habitats in the area during at least a portion of
the year. The majority of these occur primarily in the marine and nearshore habitats of Port
Ludlow Bay, and over half of these frequent the area only during their winter or seasonal
migration periods.
Sixteen species of eagles, hawks, and owls may occur in the area. These species are generally
forest dwellers that require snags for nesting sites. Because snags are limited in the area, nesting
is uncommon.
Three species of upland game birds -- ruffed grouse, ring-necked pheasant (introduced), and
band-tailed pigeons -- are likely to be present. In western Washington, pheasants typically
occupy shrubby habitats and grouse are usually found in forested habitats. Pigeons probably use
the area during spring and fall migrations.
Five species of woodpeckers are known to occur in the Port Ludlow area, Woodpeckers glean
insects and larvae from on or under the bark of trees and snags. All are forest cavity-nesting
species and excavate their own nest cavities in trees each year. Their numbers in the area are
probably low due to a general lack of suitable (large) snags.
The order of birds known as the passerines, or perching birds, contains the largest number of
families and has the most diverse range of species of any order. The passerines are generally
small perching birds that exhibit a wide range of feeding rnodes and inhabit all cover types in the
area. A wide variety of passerine species (67 total) are expected to occur in the area.
Nighthawks are insectivorous aerial foragers common in a variety of habitats in western
Washington. The rufous hummingbird, a summer resident of the area, is a nectar feeder common_".
in brushy habitats.
Mammals
I
I
Aside from marine mammals, a total of 51 species of mammals may inhabit the area. The most
common and abundant are the small mammals, including shrews, moles, rabbits and small
rodents. These mammals are terrestrial,generaUynocturnal and secretive. Small mammals are
an important food source for the larger mammals arid predatory birds.
I
I
The temperate forests and wetlands of the Puget Sound lowlands support a wide variety of
mammals. They are observed less frequently than birds, however, due to their secretive and
nocturnal habits.
Bat communities in western Washington are poorly known. Up to seven species of bats are
expected to be found in the forest habitats and to feed in open areas above the wetlands. Most of
these bats are insect eaters and feed in the air at night.
I
I
Several of the larger rodents are the most conspicuous mammals present in the area. Squirrels
and chipmunks are common in the various forest communities, where they feed on conifer seeds
and other plant material. The northern flying squirrel, which is nocturnal and seldom seen during
the day, typically inhabits mature and old-growth coniferous forests but may be found in the
mixed and coniferous forests in the vicinity. A "gray" squirrel, most likely the introduced eastern
gray, has also been reported for the vicinity, but is more typically found in urban areas and
manicured parks.
I
I
I
The mountain beaver, while seldom seen, constructs numerous burrows in the forested area and
leaves distinctive evidence of browsing on shrubs and conifers. Muskrats, which typically inhabit
wetland and riparian areas, have been reported by local observers. Porcupines are also expected
to inhabit a variety of upland and wetland habitats in the area.
The Columbian black-tailed deer (a state game species) is widely reported from the area, although
no "concentration areas" are known in the vicinity. Deer are herbivores that browse mainly on
shrubs and trees in the clearcuts, forests and wetlands; they also eat herbaceous material when
available. As this area contains a variety of clearcut and forested habitats in close proximity, deer
are expected to do well.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Fifteen species of carnivores are expected to occur in the vicinity. Coyotes have become well
adapted to more urbanized areas and are found within many suburban residential areas. Red
foxes, introduced from the east coast of the U.S., are common in lowlands of the Olympic
Mountains and Kitsap Peninsula. Other, smaller carnivores, such as skunks, weasels, raccoons
and mink, are widespread and common in the lowlands of western Washington. These species
are most common in wetland habitats and around lakes where they feed on small mammals,
reptiles and amphibians and prey on ground- and shrub-nesting birds. River otters are known to
use the Port Ludlow Bay marsh north of Paradise Bay Road.
Larger carnivores, including the bobcat, black bear, and mountain lion, are likely to inhabit the
area. Bear are present in the region and may use the area as a portion of their home range.
I
Marine mammals in the Port Ludlow Bay area are described in the Port Ludlow Marina
Expansion SEIS (Reid Middleton, 2002a).
I
H:\DOC\27pl\03\002-Port Ludlow SEIS\DEIS\AppendixPl&Animals.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LANDSCAPING PLAN
PORT LUDLOW RESORT
JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
FEBRUARY 24,2004
FOR
PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES
G EOENG IN EERS ....r:;.
File No. 10622.002.01/022404
February 24, 2004
GEoENGINEERS Q
Port Ludlow Associates, LLC
70 Breaker Lane .
Port Ludlow, Washington 98365
.Aucntion: Mark.Dorsey
Subject:
Landscaping Plan
Port Ludlow Resort
Jefferson County, Washington
File No. 10622-002-01
GeoEngineers, Inc. is pleased to submit our final Landscaping Plan for the Port Ludlow Reson
Expansion. We are providing five copies for your use and for your forwarding to Jefferson County.
Please let us know if you need additional copies.
Thank you again for providing this opportunity to be of service.
Yours very truly,
GeoEllgineers, Inc.
)1h~ L--/-
Umes T. Rybock, CEP, PhO
Principal
;t.~-c-' ~'K/h<-
Lisa A. Bemtsen, PWS
Principal
JWP:LAB:jl
ORCH\IO\I 0622002\0 I \Final\1 062200201 R.t1oc
Attachments
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paqe No.
1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................... . 1
2.0 OBJECTIVES AND PRINCIPLES.... ........ .......................... ............... ......... ...... ...... ..... ........................... 1
3.0 GENERAL CONSI DERA TIONS ............................................................................................................ 2
3.1 SITE PREPARATION 2
3.2 PLANT SOURCES 2
3.3 PLANT PREPARATION 2
3.4 MAINTENANCE 3
3.4.1 Watering 3
3.4.2 Weeding, Pruning and Mulching 3
4.0 AREA-BY -AREA PLAN.......................................................................................................................... 3
4.1 SOUTH LAGOON SHORELINE - WILDLIFE AREA
4.1.1 Black Twinberry (Lonicera involucrata)
4.1.2 Wild Rose (Rosa spp.)
4.1.3 Willows (Salix spp.)
4.1.4 Douglas Aster (Aster subspicatus)
4.1.5 Oregon Grape (Berberis aquifolium)
4.1.6 Shore Pine (Pinus contorta var. contorta)
4.1.7 Groundcover
4.2 WEST LAGOON SHORELINE - HUMAN USE AREA
4.2.1 Kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi ssp. uva-ursl)
4.2.2 Sand Strawberry (Fragaria chiloensis)
4.2.3 Pacific Ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus)
4.2.4 Evergreen Huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum)
4.2.5 Butterfly Garden
4.3 AQUATIC PLANTS FOR THE LAGOON
4.3.1 Widgeon Grass (Ruppia maritima)
4.3.2 Pickleweed (Salicornia virginica)
4.3.3 Bulrushes (Scirpus spp.)
4.3.4 Eelgrass (Zostera marina)
4.4 ESPLANADE AND WALKING PATHS
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
9
9
9
10
10
5.0 PLANT SIZE AND SPACiNG........................................................................................................:...... 11
6.0 LI M ITA TIONS........................................................................................................................ ............... 12
7.0 REFERENCES................ .................. .................................................................................... ............... 15
GeoEngineers
File No. 10622-002-01/022404
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
TABLES
Table 1 - Plants Suitable for a Butterfly Garden
Table 2 - Size and Spacing of Species for South Lagoon Shoreline
Table 3 - Size and Spacing of Species for West Lagoon Shoreline
Table 4 - Source and Spacing of Species for In-Water Lagoon
FIGURES
Lagoon Showing Footbridge and South Shoreline
West Shoreline of Lagoon Showing Retaining Walls and Inflow Waterfall
Eastern Beach, View to the South
Community Access and Pedestrian Pathways
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Conceptual Planting Plans
Figure A-1 - Landscape Types and Figure Locations
Figure A-2 - West and South Side of Lagoon
Figure A-3 - South Side of Lagoon
GeoEngineers
ii
Paqe No.
7
11
12
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Fiqure No.
1
2
3
4
Paqe No.
File No. 10622-002-01/022404
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LANSCAPING PLAN
PORT LUDLOW RESORT
FEBRUARY 24, 2004
FOR
PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Port Ludlow Associates (PLA) is planning to complete anticipated development at the Resort at Port
Ludlow in Jefferson County, Washington. The plan proposes that the facility serve as a destination resort
for the traveling public, as opposed to serving large conference groups as envisioned in 1993. This
change will decrease the size of many resort facilities identified in previous development plans and will
increase the size of the marina and the number of residential townhomes. Conferences will still be
accommodated but on a smaller scale.
The marina expansion was addressed in a Final Supplemental. Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)
issued on October 24, 2002, and the planned upland developments are addressed in a separate SEIS
currently in preparation. The latter SEIS will also describe the cumulative impacts and mitigation
measures for the combined marina and upland developments.
This conceptual landscape plan has been prepared to assist PLA in satisfying the mitigation requirements
related to the planned resort development. Implementation of this plan will serve to lessen project
impacts and enhance environmental conditions at the Port Ludlow Resort.
This plan describes the objectives and guiding principles of the landscape plan, general landscaping
considerations, and site conditions, development plans and candidate species for each of the areas under
consideration. The conceptual plan sheets are included in Appendix A.
2.0 OBJECTIVES AND PRINCIPLES
The overall objective of this plan is to design, install and maintain landscape features in a manner that
balances multiple objectives - Le., provide habitat for birds and other wildlife, improve water quality in
the lagoon, and foster aesthetic enjoyment on the part of residents and guests. The Port Ludlow Resort
has been designed from the beginning to accommodate the needs of humans and those of other species.
As noted prominently on theirwebsite (www.portludlowresort.com):
"The Resort at Port Ludlow is committed to maintaining the integrity of the natural environment
of the Pori Ludlow area. In developing the area with homes, resort amenities and public utilities,
environmental concerns are foremost in determining what projects to undertake and when. We
feel it is our responsibility to keep the area pristine and in touch with its original state. "
GeoEngineers
1
File No. 10622-002-01/022404
I
I
. Revegetate disturbed areas as soon as feasible after construction and protect disturbed areas from
erosion during construction and until new vegetation has taken hold,
. Remove any invasive non-native plants (such as Himalayan blackberry and Scots broom) from
the areas to be landscaped and their immediate surroundings,
. Enhance the vegetative diversity and layout for human enjoyment, recognizing the present and
future uses of the resort and the importance of maintaining water views (which limits the number
and size of trees),
. Select native plants that provide habitat for plants and animals, including food, cover, and nesting
sites,
. Design the landscaping to prevent human activity from disrupting wildlife habitat, while
providing areas where humans can observe and enjoy wildlife activity,
. Select plants that are perennials, have good soil-binding qualities, grow relatively quickly, require
little or no artificial watering or artificial fertilizers, do not depend on pesticides or herbicides for
their survival and are sufficiently salt-tolerant (where applicable),
. Include in the plan logs, rocks and other natural features consistent with the site and the setting,
and
. Relying on principles of adaptive management, monitor vegetation success regularly and respond
to any problems with establishment or survival of the selected plants.
I
I
In implementing these general objectives in this landscaping plan, the following principles will apply:
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.0 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
I
3.1 SITE PREPARATION
Non-native grasses Or other types of ground cover may need to be removed prior to replanting. The top 2-
3 inches of vegetation, roots and soil should be stripped away. Use of a motorized sod cutter will allow
the sod to be rolled into bundles about IS-inches wide either for disposal or, if the condition of the
vegetation is suitable and if a demand exists, for reuse at other locations within the resort.
I
I
3.2 PLANT SOURCES
Care will be taken to assure that nurseries provide local planting material and are not obtaining plant
material originating from a different region. It will also be important to verify that nurseries are
cultivating plant material rather than collecting whole plants from functioning ecosystems. All plant
material should be obtained from seed stock collected from the Puget Sound Lowlands ecoregion to help
minimize plant mortalities, ensure adaptability, decrease maintenance costs, and preserve local diversity.
I
I
3.3 PLANT PREPARATION
Containerized, bare-root, or balled and burlapped planting material may be used for establishing shrubs
and trees within the mitigation area, depending on time of year and plant availability. Using containerized
plants during the growing season will optimize plant survivability due to ease of transportation, and
presence of a well-developed and intact root system. Many tree and shrub species are available as bare-
root materials during the dormant season (October through March). Bare-root material is generally much
less expensive than containerized or balled and burlapped planting material.
I
I
I
GeoEngineers
2
File No. 1062200201/022404
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.4 MAINTENANCE
Careful maintenance of the new plants and responding to any problems that may arise will be keys to the
success of this landscaping endeavor. The first and most obvious step is to design landscaping that is well
adapted to the environmental site conditions and requires minimal maintenance. Nevertheless, even low-
maintenance natural landscapes will need some degree of care and attention.
3.4.1 Watering
Irrigation is crucial to the establishment of new plants, especially after a spring planting. Washington
State University's Cooperative Extension program recommends deep, less frequent watering to encourage
roots to grow deeper. WSU also advises irrigating new installations for at least the first two years. There
should be an initial irrigation to wet the root zone immediately after installation, and thereafter irrigation
should occur every 4 to 7 days through the growing season, using the guideline that 1 inch of water
applied to a sandy soil will penetrate 12 inches. Water will be supplied by rainfall, soaker hoses and hand
applications.
3.4.2 Weeding, Pruning and Mulching
The maintenance program should also include regular checking for and, as necessary, removal of invasive
species. Mulching will be applied as part of site preparation and the initial plantings and then reapplied
every few years as it decomposes. Fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides should not be used on these
plants because of their proximity to the lagoon and the potential for these chemicals to adversely affect
water quality of the lagoon and/or areas of the bay affected by lagoon discharge.
4.0 AREA-BY-AREA PLAN
4.1 SOUTH LAGOON SHORELINE - WILDLIFE AREA
Most of the south shoreline between the lagoon and the east-west road connecting the marina with the
Heron Beach Inn will be landscaped primarily for the benefit of wildlife. Landscaping of this area will
also serve these additional purposes: make up for lost primary productivity associated with land
conversion in other parts of the resort; serve as a partial buffer to control the quantity and quality of
stormwater reaching the lagoon from adjacent lawns and roadways; and provide aesthetically-pleasing
features for human enjoyment and relaxation.
There is virtually no vegetation other than lawn grasses currently bordering the lagoon (Figure I). Thus,
there is no need to preserve and maintain existing native vegetation in this area. Non-native grasses will
be stripped away from areas to be replanted.
A buffer of grasses and low growing shrubs and trees will be planted between the shoreline and road to
provide habitat, water quality enhancement and protection from human disturbance. This will address
one of the requirements in the 1993 shoreline permit conditions pertaining to the establishment of a bird
loafing area along the lagoon shoreline, "using landscape vegetation to discourage public disturbance."
GeoEngineers
_-_3
-file No. .1062200201/022404
I
Native plants to be established along the south side of the lagoon will be dominated by low- growing
grasses and shrubs, with special emphasis on species that provide food and cover for wildlife. Tree
species will be selected giving consideration to maximizing wildlife habitat value without obstructing
VIews.
I
I
I
I
I
.
Other natural features (e.g., logs and boulders) and new bird nesting boxes will also be installed in this
area. Timber, fallen logs and boulders removed from other approved development locations in the
vicinity will be transported to the resort, placed along the lagoon shoreline and stabilized in place (with
the stabilization technique designed to counter the natural forces on this material). If such material is not
available from other construction sites, it may be obtained from commercial vendors but in no case will it
be removed from other functioning habitat. Bird boxes will be placed along the lagoon shoreline to
encourage nesting by ducks and other desirable species.
I
Types of vegetation to be planted along the south side of the lagoon include:
4.1.1 Black Twinberry (Lonicera involucrata)
This is a 4- to 8-foot tall deciduous shrub common along streams and in shrub swamps where soils are
perennially moist. Twinberry tolerates shallow flooding early in the growing season and is typically
found in moist forest, clearings, streamside habitats, swamps and thickets.
I
I
4.1.2 Wild Rose (Rosa spp.)
The native rose plants have good soil-binding roots, and, once established, will spread by underground
suckers to form thickets which provide excellent cover for birds and mammals.
I
I
. Nootka Rose (Rosa nutkana): Has large, solitary, pink flowers that produce big purplish pear-
shaped rosehips. Spindly, to 3 m tall, with a pair of large prickles at the base of each leaf, other
prickles usually absent except on some new growth. Grows in a variety of generally open
habitats (shorelines, meadows, thickets, streamside areas, roadsides, clearings), at low to middle
elevations.
. Baldhip Rose (Rosa gymnocarpa): Has clusters of small pink flowers, which produce brilliant
orange or red rosehips. Spindly, to 1.5 m tall, usually with numerous soft, straight prickles,
sometimes unarmed especially on younger stems, which are usually covered with stalked glands.
Found in a variety of habitats, from open to wooded, dry to moist; at low to middle elevations.
I
I
I
4.1.3 Willows (Salix spp.)
This is one of the most common trees used for riparian revegetation. They are easily established from
cuttings and rapidly produce luxuriant growth. Willows have excellent soil-binding qualities and provide
excellent browse for deer, elk, smaller mammals, and grouse. Willows often hang over the water,
providing leaves and insects that drop from their branches and support the aquatic food chain. They also
provide shade, which modulates summer water temperature. Most willows tolerate seasonal flooding.
I
I
I
GeoEngineers
4
I
I
File No. 1062200201/022404
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
· Hooker's Willow (Salix hookeriana): A sprawling shrub or cluster of trunks, with dense foliage
and a rounded crown. Wet places, often on the edge of standing water, sometimes on sandy
beaches or dunes. Deciduous scrub or tree 10 to 20 feet tall; grows in coastal dune and wetland
communities along the outer coast and coastal freshwater swamps around Puget Sound.
· Variable Willow (8. commutata): Spreading, much branched, 0.2 - 2 m tall; wetland and high
elevation thickets, lakeshores, gravelly benches, fresh alluvial and morainal materials, open
forests. Late flowering.
4.1.4 Douglas Aster (Aster subspicatus)
This perennial herb grows from a creeping rhizome or stembase and reaches 20-S0 cm tall. It is found
along beaches, meadows, streambanks and moist clearings. Common at low to middle elevations
throughout our region and typically a coastal species.
4.1.5 Oregon Grape (Berberis aquifolium)
This species is among the most common evergreen shrubs in our region. It has multiple erect,
unbranched stems; alternate, pinnately- compound leaves with prickly, holly-like leaflets (which
discourages human disturbance); and yellow bark, wood, and roots. Can grow to over ten feet tall
(usually under five feet) and has 5-9 leaflets with one central vein. Flowers are yellow, clustered, and
appear March through May. Fruits are waxy blue berries that appear in grape-like clusters. Often found
on drier, sunnier, and open sites, but can tolerate moister, shadier sites.
4.1.6 Shore Pine (Pinus contorta var. contorta)
This is a short, to 20 m tall (sometimes a straight tree to 30 m). It is highly adaptable, being tolerant of
low-nutrient conditions. It is common from from dunes and bogs to rocky hilltops and exposed outer-
coast shorelines.
4.1.7 Groundcover
A variety of plant species will be used for groundcover. Primary candidates are those listed in Section
4.2: kinnikinnick (Section 4.2.1), sand strawberry (Section 4.2.2) and the low-growing perennial and
annual wildflowers that comprise the butterfly garden (Section 4.2.5).
4.2 WEST LAGOON SHORELlNE- HUMAN USE AREA
Most of the west shoreline between the lagoon and the access road and parking stalls will be landscaped
primarily for the benefit of humans, including both marina users and the general community.
Landscaping of this area will also serve to: make up for lost primary productivity associated with land
conversion in other parts of the resort; serve as a partial buffer to control the quantity and quality of
stormwater reaching the lagoon from adjacent lawns and roadways; and provide habitat for birds and
small mammals.
There is virtually no vegetation other than lawn grasses currently bordering the lagoon (Figure 2). Thus,
there is no need to preserve and maintain existing native vegetation in this area. Non-native grasses will
be stripped away from areas to be replanted.
GeoEngineers
5
File No. 1062200201/022404
GeoEngineers
6
File No. 1062200201/022404
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Native plants to be established here will be dominated by low-growing grasses and shrubs.
Consideration will be given to the selection of tree species in this area, in an effort to maximize wildlife
habitat value without obstructing views.
A gazebo, picnic area and fire pit that is currently situated at the site of the future recreation building will
be relocated to this area. These features will be situated at the site in a way that is compatible with the
landscaping and walkway design. Primary emphasis will be placed on providing users views of the
lagoon, the wildlife habitat area on the south side of the lagoon, the marina and the bay.
Species to be planted on the west side of the lagoon have been selected based largely on their tolerance of
direct exposure to the elements (sun and wind from the bay) and of human disturbance. In addition to the
wild roses described above, the additional types of vegetation to be planted along the west shoreline
include:
4.2.1 Kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi ssp. uva-ursl)
Also called bearberry or sandberry, this trailing ground cover can grow to be 12 feet long, though it rarely
gets more than eight inches above the ground. It has small, evergreen leaves and thin, gray bark that
flakes off to reveal smooth, red bark. Flowers are small (about ~ inch across), drooping pinkish-white
bells, and appear in few- flowered clusters at the ends of branches from April to June. Fruits are small (~
inch) bright-red berries that remain on the plant into the winter. Found in well-"drained soils, especially
sandy to rocky ones. Grows and flowers best in full sun and prefers low summer moisture. Hosts
butterfly caterpillars, and fruits are eaten by birds, small mammals, deer, elk and bears.
4.2.2 Sand Strawberry (Fragaria chiloensis)
Also called beach or coastal strawberry, this spreading perennial grows relatively fast, but not invasively,
into a colorful groundcover peppered with white flowers (March-August or beyond). Is an evergreen,
produces edible red fruits and serves as good ground cover for sunny location. Native to coastal bluffs
and sand dunes. Cold tolerant.
4.2.3 Pacific Ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus)
This is a multi-stemmed, deciduous shrub, 6-13 feet tall, with thin, reddish-brown or yellowish-brown
bark that flakes away in thin strips. Leaves are alternate and serrated. Flowers are small, white, and are
borne in dense, round pompom clusters about 1-3 inches in diameter. Prefers moist sites in somewhat
open areas (e.g., wooded edges bordering meadows and along water). Prefers full sun to partial shade.
Has excellent soil-binding qualities, attractive leaves, and beautiful flowers. Provides cover, nesting sites,
and food for birds and small mammals.
4.2.4 Evergreen Huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum)
Huckleberry is a bushy shrub with small, glossy, evergreen leaves and small, shiny, purplish-black
berries. Plants growing in full sun tend to be 3-5 feet tall and compact. Leaves are leathery, oval with a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
pointed tip. Flowers are small (under Y2 inch in diameter) pinkish-white bells that appear March to
August in clusters of 3-10 flowers. Fruits are less than Y4 inch in diameter, and are edible and sweet.
Common at low elevations, especially along edges and clearings. Also found near beaches in the salt
spray zone. Tolerates full sun to full shade. Is browsed by elk and deer. Flowers attract butterflies and
fruits are eaten by birds, chipmunks, black bear and humans.
4.2.5 Butterfly Garden
In addition to the above species, a butterfly garden will be developed by growing nectar-producing plants
and shrubs that are known to attract butterflies. The purpose of a butterfly garden is to attract the insects
for our own aesthetic pleasure and to provide an extension of their decreasing habitat. A butterfly garden
provides food for the adults and includes host food plants for the larvae.
A variety of shrubs, bushes and perennial and annual plants can be used to build a multi-species butterfly
garden. One of the most common of such plants is the butterfly bush (Buddleia davidii), which is
particularly adept at attracting tiger swallowtails as well as hummingbirds. Butterfly bushes like full sun
and well drained soil, can reach 6-12 feet tall with a spread of 4-15 feet, and carry purple, pink, white or
red blossoms throughout the summer. As a tall plant, butterfly bush is a good choice for the back row of
a perennial border.
Butterfly bush is a keystone species in any butterfly garden. The following lists of plant species Can also
be used to augment the butterfly garden. Some of these species are more difficult to find depending on
season and nursery so numbers, groupings and actual species mix can be decided by the contractor based
upon availability at the nursery.
TABLE 1
PLANTS SUITABLE FOR A BUTTERFLY GARDEN
Perennials
Jerusalem artichoke
Common milkweed
Butterfl weed
Native eranium
Violets
Fox loves
Evenin rimrose
Asters
Iris
Phlox
Lavender
Shrubs
S icebush
clethra
S irea
Blueberries
ch santhemum
Viburnum carlessi
Potentilla
Goldenrod
4.3 AQUATIC PLANTS FOR THE LAGOON
The lagoon was initially constructed in 1967 by excavating upland soils. It was originally 1.4 acres in
size, but in 1993 the lagoon was expanded to 2.2 acres as mitigation for the resort expansion planned at
that time (Figure I).
GeoEngineers
I
File No. 10622002011022404
I
The lagoon is approximately 10 feet deep with a firm bottom composed of sands and silt. A floating
walkway connects the north and south shore via a small island. Soils between the lagoon and the bay are
relatively porous, so water seeps out from the lagoon and the water level can drop a foot per day if it is
not replenished. Consequently, saltwater is pumped into the lagoon from the bay to maintain the water
level.
I
I
I
I
Pumps are used continuously to bring saltwater into the lagoon via three short waterfalls (one on the west
end [Figure 2] and two on the east end). Because pumping accounts for most of the input to the lagoon,
salinity of the lagoon water is expected to be similar to salinity of the bay water (approximately 30 parts
per thousand [ppt]). Because freshwater also enters the lagoon at various times of year as rainfall,
stormwater runoff and possibly groundwater seepage, however, salinity in the lagoon can fluctuate at
levels below 30 ppt.
I
I
I
Other water quality parameters in the pond - such as dissolved oxygen, nutrients and temperature - have
been reported to vary widely, a common situation in small, shallow ponds such as this. These
fluctuations limit the number of species likely to grow successfully there over the long term and can
promote certain less desirable species adapted to variable and sometime extreme water quality conditions.
For example, the lagoon experiences considerable algae growth at times during the summer. Filamentous
algae grows where water depths are less than 3 to 4 feet and can create floating algae mats and unpleasant
odors. Mechanical means are used periodically to remove algae from the lagoon, and chemical dyes have
been applied to control algae growth by limiting the penetration of sunlight.
I
I
The development plans for the Port Ludlow Resort expansion currently include the installation of an in-
line water quality treatment system that will capture and treat much of the stormwater before it reaches
the lagoon. This system is expected to improve water quality conditions in the lagoon primarily by
reducing nutrient, sediment and other inputs from road and parking lot runoff. However, high water
temperature will continue to be a problem because of the shallowness of the lagoon, and low dissolved
oxygen concentrations may occur at times if algal blooms continue.
I
I
I
Small clam and mussels have been reported along the bottom of the lagoon and attached to the algae. The
algae probably also serve as habitat for other invertebrates, including insects. Fish are known to occur in
the lagoon but neither species nor population characteristics have been documented. WDFW has noted
that, based on the elevation of the culvert connecting the lagoon with the bay, the lagoon may be
accessible to marine fish at tides above MHHW and probably provides some rearing habitat (Burkle,
2002).
I
I
I
The aquatic plants to be introduced into the lagoon will be selected based on their ability to provide such
benefits as (WWU, 2004):
GeoEngineers
8
File No. 1062200201/022404
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
· Stabilizing the shoreline (the roots of many aquatic plants, particularly emergent plants, reinforce
shorelines and protect soil against erosion from wind, waves and currents),
· Improving habitat quality (many aquatic plants provide cover, food, nesting sites and resting
areas for fish, amphibians, invertebrates, birds and mammals),
· Expanding habitat diversity (the greater the diversity of native aquatic plants, the greater the
variety of native animal species they will attract),
· Resisting invasion by non-native plants (a healthy native aquatic plant community will resist the
establishment of invasive non-native species),
· Reducing nutrients (aquatic plants tend to bind up nutrients, leaving less available for algae and
make algae blooms less likely - emergent plants also slow water movement along shorelines,
causing nutrient-laden sediment to settle to the bottom where it is less available to algae),
· Providing shade (aquatic plants, particularly those with floating leaves, create shade and restrict
algal growth to open areas where light is available - shade can also reduce water temperature and
allow more oxygen to dissolve in the water), and
· Producing oxygen (as a by-product of photosynthesis, aquatic plants release oxygen into the
water).
I
I
I
I
I
Because construction activities will take place along the west, north and east sides of the lagoon and
because much of the shoreline in this area is either a vertical concrete wall or rip-rap constructed from
large boulders, the in-water plantings will be concentrated along the south shore. It is expected that as
these plants take hold and propagate, they will colonize other suitable areas around the lagoon.
I
I
Plants to be installed in shallow waters along the lagoon's south shore (assuming an adequate source of
plants or propagules can be identified) include:
I
I
I
4.3.1 Widgeon Grass (Ruppia maritima)
This is a bushy, fan-like underwater perennial plant with slender grass-like leaves attached to sheathing
bases and occasional flowers (April to July) extending above the water. It is mostly found in brackish
water, has a high salinity tolerance and provides cover and food for fish and many other types of aquatic
species. All the plant parts are eaten by waterfowl, and the species is often used for habitat rehabilitation.
I
4.3.2 Pickleweed (Salicornia virginica)
A halophylic (salt loving) plant, pickleweed has an opposite shoot branching pattern and at first glance it
seems to have no leaves; however, its central, water conducting stem is surrounded by succulent, salt-
solution storing leaf tissue. Photosynthesis is carried out inside the cells of this leaf tissue. Pickleweed is
found in estauries and bays where it is protected from wave action. A source for propagules of this
species has not been identified.
I
I
I
4.3.3 Bulrushes (Scirpus spp.)
These are tall, stout, perennial plants commonly seen in marshes and along shorelines in water up to about
4 feet deep. Hardstem, softstem and saltmarsh bulrushes (Scirpus acutus, S. tabernaemontani and S.
I
GeoEngineers
9
File No. 1062200201/022404
· It helps prevent erosion and maintain stability near shore by anchoring sediment with its
spreading rhizomes.
· Its leaves projecting upward have a slowing effect on water flow. This promotes deposition of
suspended particles and larvae, which, in turn, increase productivity through increased
photosynthesis in clearer water and larger animal populations from the settling and growth of
larvae.
· Eelgrass provides food, breeding areas, and protective nurseries for fish, shellfish, crustaceans
and many other animals.
I
I
4.3.4 Eelgrass (Zostera marina)
One Of the conditions of the 1993 shoreline permit for the Port Ludlow Resort states that "Eelgrass
(Zostera marina) shall be planted in the eastern sector of the pond to prevent the growth of sea lettuce
(Viva)." Neither a grass nor a seaweed, eelgrass is a perennial flowering plant that can live for many
years. It grows in estuaries, bays, lagoons, and other marine environments, generally in shallow salty
waters with muddy or sandy bottoms where water is clear and light is plentiful. Eelgrass may be found
growing just a few feet under water or at depths up to 25 feet or more if the water is unusually clear.
Eelgrass habitats are among the most productive and biologically diverse ecosystems on the planet and it
provides many valuable ecological functions, including:
I
I
I
maritimus) tolerate various levels of salinity. Also called tules, bulrushes are important habitat plants for
aquatic mammals and provide food, cover and nesting habitat for waterfowl and other birds. They are also
used for bank stabilization and to treat contaminated water.
I
I
I
I
Eelgrass is not a good candidate for planting in the lagoon and has not been included in this landscaping
plan. One of the reasons is that eelgrass is unlikely to take hold successfully in the lagoon. The range in
water temperatures due to shallow heating and turbidity problems caused by algal blooms or suspended
sediments could significantly depress its survival and reproduction rates. Second, if the growth of sea
lettuce in the lagoon is excessive (unconfirmed), the presence of eelgrass is not likely to ease that problem
- other approaches should be considered. Finally and perhaps most importantly, the source of a reliable
donor stock of eelgrass is problematic. Because of its habitat values, eelgrass is a very "protected"
species and it's unlikely that the necessary approvals could be obtained to gather eelgrass from a location
where it grows naturally.
I
I
4.4 ESPLANADE AND WALKING PATHS
Walking trails currently connect Heron Beach Inn with Burner Point. A plan for connecting these trails
with parking facilities and other public access routes is under development. Once complete, residents and
visitors will be able to access all public areas within the resort including the entire length of beach from
the eastern-most end of the marina to the northern-most property line (Figure 3).
I
I
I
I
I
Elements of this expanded pedestrian trail plan are shown on Figure 4 and include:
I
I
GeoEngineers
10
File No. 10622002011022404
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
· Designation of a community parking lot north of the lagoon
· Trail system and signage linking the parking lot with the footbridge across the lagoon
· Connections between the footbridge and the marina and community picnic area east of the lagoon
via the planned esplanade along the marina waterfront
· Maintenance of existing trails (four feet wide and constructed with a wood chip base) linking the
esplanade with Burner Point
· Bird boxes installed along the lagoon water edge
· Trails and signage necessary to connect Burner Point with the beach along the entire western
length of the resort
No additional landscaping is planned for the trails and walking paths. Dune grass planted previously is
reported to be taking hold and serving to stabilize the dunes.
5.0 PLANT SIZE AND SPACING
Tables 1-3 specify the vegetative species, size, and spacing (on-center) of each species to be planted
within the identified landscape areas. Figures A-I through A-3 (Appendix A) are conceptual plans of
their proposed locations.
TABLE 2
SIZE AND SPACING OF SPECIES FOR SOUTH LAGOON SHORELINE
SPACING
AVG O.C.
4-6'
4-6'
4-6'
COMMON NAME
Black Twinberry
Nootka Rose
Baldhip Rose
Hooker's Willow
Variable Willow
Douglas Aster
Oregon Grape
Shore Pine
Groundcover
GeoEngineers
SCIENTIFIC NAME
CONTAINER SIZE
I Gallon
Lonicera invo/ucrata
Rosa nutkana
I Gallon
I Gallon
1 Gallon (or stakes)
I Gallon (or stakes)
1 '-4'
Rosa gymnocarpa
Salix hookeriana
1 '-4'
Sa/ix commutate
Aster subspicatus
Berberis aquifolium
Pinus contorta
various
4"
6"
I Gallon
6'
5"
10'
4"
6"
11
File No. 1062200201/022404
TABLE 3
SIZE AND SPACING OF SPECIES FOR WEST LAGOON SHORELINE
SPACING
AVG O.C.
TABLE 4
SOURCE AND SPACING OF SPECIES FOR IN-WATER LAGOON
SPACING
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME SOURCE AVG O.C.
6.0 LIMITATIONS
GeoEngineers, Inc. has developed this planting plan in general accordance with the scope and limitations
of our proposal. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in
accordance with the generally accepted practices for Planting Plans in this area at the time this report was
prepared. Activities and actions outside of Geoengineers, Inc. control such as site design and construction
by the contractor, plant stock origin/health, installation, irrigation and maintenance are very important
aspects of success to this plan. Care should be taken to complete the planting as discussed and specified
in this report to maximize the chance of success. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied,
should be understood.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Port Ludlow Associates, Inc., their authorized
agents and regulatory agencies following the described methods and information available at the time of
the work. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such
reliance in writing. The information contained herein should not be applied for any purpose or project
except the one originally contemplated.
Any alteration, deletion or editing of this document without explicit written permission from
GeoEngineers, Inc. is strictly prohibited and may jeopardize the success of the plans. Any other
unauthorized use of this document is prohibited. This document is intended to be used in its entirety. If
an excerpt is quoted or paraphrased, it must be properly referenced.
COMMON NAME
SCIENTIFIC NAME
N ootka Rose
Baldhi Rose
Kinnikinnick
Sand Strawbe
Pacific Ninebark
Ever een Hucklebe
Groundcover
Rosa nutkana
Rosa
Fra aria chiloensis
various
Wid eon Grass
Pickleweed
Bulrushes
GeoEngineers
12
CONTAINER SIZE
I Gallon
1 Gallon
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4" l'
4" 6"
I Gallon 4-6'
I Gallon 4'
4" 6"
Pro a ules
6"
6"
6"
File No. 1062200201/022404
I
I
I
I
Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if
provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored
by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record.
I
~ ~ ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GeoEngineers
13
File No. 1062200201/022404
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Please let us know if you have any
questions about our report or if we can be of further service.
Yours very truly,
GeoEngincers, Inc.
~v0~
Urnes T. Rybock, CEP, PhO
Principal
dccn~ ~rA-
Lisa A. Berntsen, PWS
Principal
J\VP:LAB:jl
o Rell\ I 0\ 10622002\01 \Fi nal\ 106220020 I R.lIoc
Disclaimer: Any clcctronic form, facsimile or h:lrll copy of the originalllllcul1lcnt (cmail. tc:>;t, table, and/or Iigure), if provided, and any
attachments arc nnly a copy or thc original ducumcnl. Thc orillinal documcnt is storcd by GcoEl1llinccrs, Inc. and will scrvcas the oClkial
documcnt of rccord.
Attachments
GcoEnllinecrs
14
Filc No. 10622002011022404
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GeoEngineers
15
File No. 1062200201/022404
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.0 REFERENCES
Kruckeberg, Arthur. 2003. Gardening with Native Plants of the Pacific Northwest. University of
Washington Press.
Link, Russell. 2003. Landscaping for Wildlife in the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington
Press, Seattle and London, in association with the Washington Department.ofFish and Wildlife.
Pojar, Jim and Andy MacKinnon, et al. 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest. British Columbia
Ministry of Forest and Lone Pine Publishing, B.C., Canada.
U.S. Forest Service. 2004. Fire Effects Information System [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer).
Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis.
I
Washington Department of Ecology. 2004. Aquatic Plant Identification Manual for Washington's
Freshwater Plants [Online]. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www .ecv. wa. gov/programs/wq/plants/p lantid2/index. html
Washington Department of Ecology. 2004. Native Freshwater Plants [Online]. Olympia, Washington.
Available: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/native/index.htm I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Washington State University. 2004. Gardening in Western Washington [Online]. Plant Identification
Database: Native Plants. WSU Cooperative Extension. Available: http://gardening.wsu.edu.
"':~
g
"<!
~
"
OIl
5
o
N
8
N
N
'"
o
, -
11 ;::::::
..
c:
~
9
N
8
N
N
'"
o
<5
:2
~
o
GEoENGINEERS a
LAGOON SHOWING FOOTBRIDGE AND SOUTH SHORELINE
FIGURE 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .~
0;
o
I ......
~
I g
""
N
~
:>
I ~
N
o
o
N
N
I ~
c;
'"
~
o
I ~
\0
o
~
I ~
o
I
GEoENGINEERS a
WEST SHORELINE OF LAGOON SHOWING
RETAINING WALLS AND INFLOW WATERFALL
FIGURE 2
Z2
V\
Q
g;
.g
....;
~
bO
ii:
_I
o
N
8
N
N
<.0
~
c;
c:
~
9
N
8
N
N
<.0
~
6
:2
~
o
GEoENGINEERS a
EASTERN BEACH, VIEW TO THE SOUTH
FIGURE 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I f;
! /
" ;
ij
//
I ~
~
I
I
I
:r:
6
CD
. ........ ::'''''''4 _.-....r--"
"1'41''<.<1
.......................................................... ._m......................
vO/9 ~/ZO
'f"JH:!llr
:JMO'OZUOZOOZZ90 L \Zl\OY.l\ LO\ZOOZZ90L \:d\H:l!lO
~
a::
IoU
:1
z +
~j
l;!
'0
:3B:5~ V
.a.g2~ g
~~(fJ~ N
... '" E ~
'0 ti~ cv g
a ~ g-~ ~
._ 0" . ~
3~~c(E"O
~:E~E~~
c"" Q.l:J....:;:
~.s ~ g '0 K
~~:~Cl.
_en 0 4) GJ 0
,s '= E 11 5 .E
_~~Eg ~
.~ UI ~ 0"0 ~
cnlVl- -.0
o ~ . 'O.g ~
.2 5~~:::_'>I
"OVlo..g.O~
"'EEU", >.
~.g3o:;~
. ] -g ~.ra ~ oj
~(/J::G)~Q.lr7i
o._a._:J~
.~ ~ ~ ~ g':: ~
e ~ (J ~ .!! = :0
~ g t 0 ~"i .3
o :I: ~ .1:)-e
~~oO~6 0
o ~.... o.~ . P-
c e-~"O -.:: g 0-
~:J . "tJ cn- 0
~ ~~ ::;S f E
fngE~o:~
~ ~ G"'" .S-o
:JOOlUCO'l"O
-0 E"02:3~ 5 .
~~-ge8g (l)g
-c:-o::'::O cu-
o .= ~ 6, -go. >. :2 ui
_ 0'" ..c u.~
0-004,)"0 ~c
~.~ c: C::5 ~ ~ ~
~~~.g~~~~
g.g,:: ~ '~.ra ~ e
- ~ (J .3(<
~ ~ .~ g -E ~ ~ ~
1-1-"0 UJ"O U
"':N
Q;
U
c:
~
.2!
'"
'"
in
'"
-0
z
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEoENGINEERS CJ
APPENDIX A
CONCEPTUAL PLANTING PLANS
Ul
Z
0
(/l w i=
z lo- cr 4(
<( :J 0 ~O
0 w '"
:::;; -' f- 00
:0 ~ <( ...J...J
I :;: Ow
a:: a:: z ;:)0::
0 0 .;::- >- ...J;:) ..
lo- l0- W I-C) ..c
Cl Cl (/l W
w -z.~ 0 "- :5ii:
z z ~ w
a:: a:: ;!;
<( <( I ~ "' a..0Cl 0::
u u a. ':J I-Ul ;:)
(/l (/l 0 0( C!l
:Z 0 0 a:: <J 4(W ii:
z z ~ (/) II.
0 :5 :5 ....>
F= :::;; 0::....
0;( m~ I Ow
z
:5 Ula..
a. 0 W4(
X 0::0
w Ul
0
Z
4(
...J
'\
~-.i
")
.,:;"
'~
1
11
,.J
;:'~"'\"""'\l
I ;
r ~
I;:~:~
~~~H~1
[ i
\,.-".."...,1
~
! j
~~'1 ~ ~
L~~~::~',"-'~'A~~~J
r'''''~
~~
I' ,
~i~,'\.,J
....;;..-;
I~~\,,<~
r.;3..
1:111
~~J',l~
f-
Z
<(
a::Cl
:00
~ffi
(/l
w
a::
j'--
vol\: ~/lo
I
I
I
I
I
~
a::
w
w
~I
z +
~I
~1
I
I
I
I;'
't:l
~2:S~
.3-8243
~ ~O' ~ U
t-Q)E .f
o,~~ lU C
.~ ~ g-~ . ~
0:'= i-i'E ~
~.~ G) QJ 8 ~
:z:E.oE4Ll
c 1U~"-"C
:2 .5 ~ ~ '0 &
.,'t:l _
..c lU ;>. \.. C >.
-~E~E~
.S :g QJ E B a
~rn~o.g~
~~~o~~
o :J lU .- E
... g~ ~~ Q)
~EE8OJg.
~-.g 3 0:5 en
. ] ~ ~.~ ~ ~
~cn::lU~Q).g
0._ 0..... :J 2::
.~~ ~ ~g~.c:
o .Ou .Q
a~ug~:::CL
g.gtll)l-~ ~
lI>~~c~-giii
c;~~o~~-i
c e-o c;;: 0 0
~:J ."t) (1).5 :3
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
cngE~o~ ~
~ ~ g:: c'~ =g
oE"O.!:3~...J
.! .e -g E .~ g ~
=.5ognCl.a..
~ o~ 0' 5.~ "C
0- _. lU
00 lU "0 ::;
~.~ c: c:s ~ ~
2 ~~.g ~"* II)
o :J IV c: 0\
.2 g ~ E.en.~ .i
~ ~ .~ g -E ~ ~
I-t-"O 0'1) 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
""':N
iai
()
c
~
~
.,
a::
I
in
.,
(;
z
NHj:~lr
~Ma'VllLalOOll90 ~ \ll\av:>\ ~a\lOOll9a ~ \:d\H:>~a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,
.~,~
, ,
'<'
I .~
--,'j
I
I
I
I
I
. ~
-'" ~
.~ ~
<: 0
<:;;::
~:i :2
Q;'c ~
.a .S
~c ~ ~
fi~~~~LJ ~i~
3: CUI.... ~ '" cv Z 0'1
.. -E ~ I- ~ e "0 V1 Q; C ~ 0 i:L cv g
~~~~~tg-g~ ~~~ ~ ~~~
~~cEffi~~t;~.~ocr~~65~3:
~(Oa::...<(:r:u
x w CO mo .w.t::l
w
Ul
"
o
~
"'0
e
z
0 ~O
<0 00
-,<!l
C<
;:)-'
... -'W (II
w t-C .(
w
't.~ 0 "- a;(ij
;; 0 W
~ "' a..J: a;
':i .... ;:)
<C ....;:) <!l
u <0 ii:
U1 ....Ul
~oCl
Ul....
0 WUl
a;W
~
~
U;
"
:5 U ~
'j: I.... ='
(I) ~ ~
0'1 '3"0
~0~
<:
Q)
~
o
(0
~gQ..~a::B;~;:
~
a::
w
w
~f
~I
~~
2:
o
o
'-'
:s
a
6
0::
~
~2:S~
].g,Sv
g tl fIJ~ c.i
-~~-E s
'0 ,u.g fU c
,2 ~ g-~ . ~
S~~-E"E~
~.!! Q) fU 3 ~
~:s.oEQJ
C Q,) j "'" "0
~.!: ~ g-o ';;
.- .r. 'Q a:::
Q)" -
:5~~~~~
~ E Ul E .
'~:g cu E G a
~UI~o.g2
~el-o] Qj
o::J,u .~ E
- g:!i ~~ l1J
-gEE-Bog.
~~3o:S(/)
. :s -g a'~ ~ :s
~ en =-= CD ~ II) .g
0,-0._"1:
.~~ ~ ~~~IC
E>.oo(l)_..2
a.-cvg:c::a..
g-g4;lUl-):~
J: I.... ."tJ.-
~ ~ 0 o-~ a ~
00020'1.1::
i ~~.g ~.5 ~
~~~~5~a:
cngE~o~ ~
~ ~ a -- .~:o
~E.g$~g.3
~.E~58g~
:a .s:g g 15 f.:) Jl-
_5eO'l[~"lJ
0_... Q)
00 tV "'0 :;::
~.!! c: c::s e :g
~~~.g~~ cu
o ::J lU C O'l
.E~~ E'iij'!?i
~ :2 .~ g ~ ~ ~
1-1-"0(1)"00
"":N
Qj
o
<:
~
Q)
Q;
a::
1>0/91/Z0
........(m
~ ...----- '1/ '! j
...----- ,! i
:JMO'8Z1 L OZOOZZ90 L \Zl \ov:J\ LO\ZOOZZ90 1 \:d\H:J~O
in
Q)
"'0
z
V1H:~lr
I
'"
. ~
-" '"
.~ ~
c: 0
c:-.:
~~ ~
~:~ ~
~ ~ ~.=..i- ~
~ t ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
o ~2:E~~~g- ll)
'-' .~ ~ c 8 e ~ (; ] :i
.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '1J Vi ~ c ~
~Qi2~~~~"'O~~~~
i=~:sg5~egg~~g
~CD{IJmOwc;lU')IOa..a..
~toCl::....<(:r:u
XCDCOcnOWt:>
.....
'"
"
o
~
o 2
~ e ~
.Q~ ;; U
.~ ~ ~ ~ v
(L I1.J ern:!?
Q):Dg 0\ 5
~~"~~~o 0[[)
Cl::"'>~
X
~_ g a.. ~ fr: e, ~ -:: _ _ - . - , _
I
I
0 ~
'"
oz
...10
~ go
::! >- ...I(!l
0 '"
-'= w ....< .(
w
"E 't.~ 0 "- a:...I
iIi ~ ow w
~ DO 11.0 a:
4= w ....Cii ::J
<t (!l
u <J:
VI ........ u:
a:::J
00
CIlCll
0 w
a:
I
I
I
~
a::
w
w
:1
z +
~I
CJ!
~ \ \\ \~?g/~?~OP!,\\\\
I
I
I
"
~2:5~
.3.g2v
~~ en ~ 0
~ Q) E .f
Oqj~Q) c
g -~ g-~ 2
~~c....:-ci;5
.~ (I) ~ ~ 5 :2
:s~..oE~:i
C Q)::J'-"'Q
~.s €; g -0 "ij;
.- .&:."'0 a:::
.," -
L;Q)>.,-C>'
-~E~E~
.S: ~ Q) E B d
~U)~o.g~
~~I-o] ~
o::J V .~ E
- g ~ ~~ cu
-gEE-Bug.
~.g30:SU1
. ~ 11 5'~ ~ ~
~cn:::Q)~QJ.g
0._ d._ ::J c:
.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \:
o .Uu .2
a.~lUg~::a..
g- g Q; G,)..... i: ~
cu:3J:oe-gVi
\.. U) 0 ::J 0
o -~;g 2 ~ 0 -g
i5..gft).f~
~~]~5~a:::
rngE~o~ ~
~ ~ g:: c 'a. :g
oE-o~g~...J
2.e-gE8g~
=s .S ~ g ~ '-' P-
_ 5 ~ ~ ~~ "'0
0-"'" Q)
o 0 11.)"'0 ..
g .~ .S ~ Z ~ ~
:g ~]"O gfii C1
~~~ ~'iii.!!.j
~ :E.~ g ~ ~ ~
.....1-""001"'00
I
<:::
o
o
(..')
::s
a
d
Cl:::
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"":N
;,;
"
c:
~
.,
Q;
Cl::
I
in
'"
o
z
....
1>0/9 L/W
VlH:!llr
:lMa":J~HOWO~~90 L \~l\{]V:J\ LO\~00~~90L \'d\H:J!lO
I
t3
(])
'e-
0.
(/l
:.c
-
...
0
-
"C
(])
-
<'tl
0. .;.;
'0 u
+:: CI)
c '0'
<'tl ...
(/l 0.
- "C
c
$ CI)
en (/l
'3 0
(/l E 0.
C 0
0 ;;:: CI) ...
u ... .5 0.
(ij (]) CI)
.s:: Q.
:J - .s::
"C 0 (j -
'5 .s:: III 0
- C -
'6 ~ -
.5 c - C
"C 0 "C <'tl
>
C :;::l l!! CI)
<'tl <'tl CI) (j)
ui .~ - ...
iU III
- i:i '5 III
.!a '(3 c
(ij .1!! CI)
R a: 0
'0 <'tl E :;::l
(]) '(3 (f) - <'tl
... III
0. 0 ;;:: - ... u
(/l III (/l ... u: :E
ui III :.c <'tl (ij
<'tl ~ ...
c - <'tl ::l
0 .s:: .s:: ~ 0
f!? u - -
:E ~ -
(]) III "C
0. .;.; == - c
>. c m i: <'tl
CI) .s::. Qj 0 CI)
(]) - ...
~ E '3: u Cl :;::l U
- ... c c CI) <'tl C
0 CI) 0 ... CI)
Qj Cl E -
(]) 'Iii '':; III '':;
+:l ... R '5 CI)
E t= III u: C 0.
:J c:( - >< 0 CI) ><
(/l ~ - 0 w :;::l a: CI)
(]) u CI) III co ~ ...
... CI)
- CI) E ... u CI)
(]) E '0' m ::l :;::l .s::.
.;:: co ... co "C ~ -
al Z no z > w 0
r-.: cti ..c:i U "ti <ti -= d>
N'I
en
I
.....
~I
-
it)
it) I
C\I
E
...
0
lL
"C I
...
co
"C
C
co
-
(f)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
O?I
N
~
~I
!:!
!
~I
Goals:
Open Space Goal 4.0 Develop and maintain park and recreational facilities that are
responsive to the needs and interests of Jefferson County
residents and visitors.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Policies:
OSP 4.2
OSP 4.3
OSP 4.6
Appendix D
JEFFERSON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Parks and Recreation and Shoreline Goals and Policies
Develop recreational opportunities such that:
a. Existing recreational areas and facilities are not overburdened,
b. Recreational facilities are planned to support areas designated for
future residential development,
c. Adequate infrastructure is available.
Ensure that the location, type, and amount of park and recreation
facilities are consistent with the needs and desires of citizens in the area,
and that they accommodate a diversity of age, interest, and ability groups.
Ensure that parks and recreation facilities along marine shores, lakes, and
streams are compatible with the goals, policies, and performance
standards of the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master
Program.
Shoreline Goal ENG 4.0
Policies:
ENP 4.1
Preserve the long-term benefits of shoreline resources.
Shorelines shall be managed according to the following order of preferred
uses as established in the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90. 58. 020)
1. Recognize and protect state-wide over local interests;
2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline;
3. Achieve long-term over short-term benefits;
4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline;
5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shoreline;
6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public on the shoreline; and,
7. Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.1 00 and deemed
appropriate or necessary.
ENP4.4
Promote public access on shorelines in a manner that preserves or
enhances the characteristics of the shoreline.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Shoreline Goal ENG 5.0 Allow development along shorelines which is compatible with
the protection of natural processes, natural conditions, and
naturalfunctions of the shoreline environment.
ENP 5.1 Regulate shoreline land use activities based on the best available scientific
information.
ENP 5.5 Coordinate with Department of Fish and Wildlife to protect and enhance
fish and wildlife habitat and other marine resources.
ENP 5.8 Promote best management practices to protect shorelines in land use
regulations related to septic systems, forest practices, agricultural
practices, industry, and other development.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix E
Port Ludlow Proposed Resort Plan
Alternative 1 - 2003 Resort Plan
Measurement Equivalent Residential Units
The Port Ludlow MPR is subject to a Development Cap. Per the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan, total residential dwelling units are not to exceed 2,250. To
implement and monitor this cap while providing for flexibility regarding future land uses,
a measurement and transfer system was developed. This system is based on the actual
number of residential lots, residential units, and equivalent residential units for
commercial development. Equivalent residential units are measurable and transferable
between residential and commercial uses, as long as the cap of 2,250 residential uses is
not exceeded.
For the MPR, the term "MERU" or "Measurement ERU" is used and specifically defined
as a measurement and transfer system to "count" units of future development. The term
is not used in the same application as commonly used in conjunction with water and
sanitary sewer planning.
Section 3.802 of Ordinance No. 08-1004-99 requires the County to maintain a count of
Measurement Equivalent Residential Units (MERUs) and residential dwelling units.
Total MERUs are not to exceed 2,575, with residential MERUs not to exceed 2,250. The
April 2003 count shows that ofthe total 2,575 MERUs, 264 residential MERUs and 254
commercial MERUs remain unallocated.
Section 3.807 states that, "The Resort Complex/Community Facilities zone shall have an
initial allocation of 3 new MER Us on the resort property." To date, these 3 new MERUs
have not been used.
Each dwelling unit counts as one MERU. Commercial development is assigned MERUs
based on Department of Ecology standards. The table below identifies the MERU
allocations associated with the proposed revisions to the Resort Plan (i.e., Alternative I -
2003 Resort Plan). It should be noted that the Official MERU Record has previously
stated that the Heron Beach Inn equals 48 MERUs; the correct MERU for this facility is
42; 24 MERUs for the 37 rooms, together with 18 MERUs for the restaurant and lounge.
This correction has been made in the following table.
Measurement Equivalent Residential Units (MERUs)
Allocations for Alternative 1 - 2003 Resort Plan
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Residential MERUs
Allocation Existing Proposed Change
Admiralty 1 MERU per SF 64 103 +39
or MF dwelling
unit
Ludlow Bay Village 1 MERU per SF 581 88 +30
or MF dwelling
unit
Total Residential 122 165 +69
Commercial & Public Facility MERUs
Allocation Existin[? Proposed Change
Harbormaster 50 GPD per seat; 41 34 -7
Restaurant 165 seats2
Conference Center 1993 FEIS 4 4 0
Heron Beach Inn 37 rooms + Rest. 48 42J - 6J
and Lounge
Marina 1993 FEIS 15.5J 15.5 0
Recreation Center 1993 FEIS 22.54 33 + 10.5
Total Commercial 131 128.5 -2.5
Derived from allocations as shown in the Jefferson County Department of Community
Development Official MERU Record, updated as of April 17, 2003.
1 25 Townhomes and 1 Single-Family Existing or Under Construction; 28 Townhome and 4 Single-Family
Platted Properties.
2 Originally 120 restaurant seats, 45 lounge seats. New restaurant, 90 seats.
3 Includes 100-slip expansion (considered in 1993 FEIS).
4 Bay Club = 16,000 SF, 16,000 SF / 22.5 = 711.1 SQ per MERU
\\RMI\VOL2\DOC\27pl\03\002-Port Ludlow SEIS\DEIS\MERU Alt l.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX F
Year 2010 Background Traffic Volumes
Traffic volumes along the roadways and at the intersections in the Port Ludlow vicinity
are expected to increase over the next seven years as a result of external traffic, i.e.,
traffic traveling through the area or traffic associated with new housing. Jefferson
County has completed extensive analysis to predict traffic growth rates on the arterials
within the County as part of their Transportation Plan. These rates were based on
historical housing and traffic growth rates and forecast housing growth to produce the
estimated traffic growth rates. A review of the County's data showed that the growth
rates on those roadways near Port Ludlow that were reviewed in this assessment ranged
from 2.8 percent to 6.09 percent annually. The specific values were as follows:
· SR 104 west of Beaver Valley Road - 2.88 percent
· SR 104 east of Beaver Valley Road - 6.09 percent
· SR 19 (Beaver Valley Road - 2.68 percent
· Paradise Bay Road between SR 104 and Watson Road - 5.26 percent
· Paradise Bay Road between Watson Road and Oak Bay Road - 3.41 percent
· Oak Bay Road - 3.41 percent
· Teal Lake Road - 4.83 percent
· Walker Way - 3.41 percent
The above annual growth rates were applied to the existing daily and peak hour traffic
volumes to estimate the future (2010) volumes. In additional to these growth factors,
traffic associated with pipeline development trips was also added into the existing volumes
at the intersections of Paradise Bay Road/Oak Bay Road, Paradise Bay Roadffeal Lake
Road, and Oak Bay Road/Walker Way. The "pipeline trips" consist of the traffic
associated with the remaining housing units proposed for construction in Port Ludlow,
which totals approximately 350 units. These 350 units would generate approximately
1,900 weekend daily trips and 230 weekend peak hour trips. These additional trips were
added to just the three intersections noted because they would have their greatest impacts
there. Beyond these locations, the number of trips would be small and simply be part of
the background growth.
The estimated 2010 "base condition" volumes are shown on Figure F-l. The use of the
pipeline trips plus the annual growth rates to account for miscellaneous traffic growth
should provide a relatively conservative (worst-case) estimate of the future base volumes.
2010 Level of Service - Base Conditions
LOS analyses were completed for the 2010 base condition volumes shown on Figure ---.
The results of these analyses are shown in Table---.
N.A.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,.
Table F-1
2010 Weekend Levels Of Service
BASE CONDITIONS
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND W~$JBOUND OVERALL
SR 104/ LOS F LOS F LOS B LOS C
Paradise Ba Road >100 sec. >100 sec. 1O.2sec: 16.7 sec.
SR 104/ N.A. LOS F LOS B LOS A
Beaver Valle Road >100 sec. 12.7 sec. 9.1 sec.
Beaver Valley LOS A LOS C
Road/Oak Ba Road N.A. 8.6 sec. N.A. 18.5 sec.
Oak Bay Road/Paradise LOS B LOS B LOS B LOS B
Ba Road 10.6 sec. 10.2 sec. 10.2 sec. 12.9 sec.
Paradise Bay Roadffeal LOS C LOS B LOS A LOS A
Lake Road 17.4 sec. 10.9 sec. 7.6 sec. 7.9 sec.
Oak Bay RoadlWalker LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B
Wa 7.7 sec. 7.9 sec. 13.4 sec. 14.6 sec. N.A.
N.A. - not applicable/available (Le., calculation not provided for specific analysis/movement, or no volume
on subject movement)
KA.
N.A.
N.A.
LOSB
11.4 sec.
Where:
LOS Dela
A < 10 seconds
B > 10 & < 15 seconds
C > 15 & < 25 seconds
D > 25 & < 35 seconds
E > 35 & < 50 seconds
F > 50 seconds
(for unsignalized intersections)
The results of the capacity analyses for the future base conditions indicate that all of the
intersections will drop from their current levels of service as a result of the increase in
traffic over the next seven years associated with miscellaneous background growth. The
local intersections (i.e., Teal Lake Road/Paradise Bay Road, Oak Bay RoadlWalker Way,
and Paradise Bay Road/Oak Bay Road) will continue to operate at good levels of service
as would the Beaver Valley Road/Oak Bay Road intersection. However, the side-street
movements at the intersections along SR 104 would experience considerable delay. (The
side-street movements at both of these intersections currently experience LOS "F" on the
weekend. )
H:\DOc\27pl\03\002-Port Ludlow SEIS\DEIS\Predraft\APPENDIX F.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
Jefferson County Fire Protection District #3
Commissioner Eugene Carmody
Chairman of the Board
Commissioner William E. Hansen
Commissioner David Wheeler
Commissioner Robert Pontius
Wayne E. Kier, Sr., Fire Chief
Arlene F. Obtinario
Chief Financial OfficerlDist. Secretary
101 South Point Road, Port Ludlow, Washington 98365 (360) 437-2899 Fax (360) 437-0117
PORT LUDLOW FIRE & RESCUE
December 10, 2003
Lyn Keenan, Senior Planner
ReidMiddleton
728 134th Street SW Suite 200
Everett, W A. 98204
Dear Lyn:
RE: Fire Department Response Capability to Port Ludlow
Jefferson County Fire Protection District No.3 is staffed with a combination
of career and volunteer Firefighter / EMT'S. The District has three fITe
stations strategically located throughout the District.
Station No.31
Station No.31 is located at 7650 Oak Bay Road. Station No. 31 is the nearest
fITe station to the core resort area. (Marina, hotel, burner point). Station No.
31 is manned 24 hours per day 365 days per year with a minimum of two
people a Lieutenant / EMT and a Firefighter / EMT. Many shifts Station No.
31 is manned with three people a Lieutenant and two Firefighter / EMT...
During the weekdays, Monday through Friday, the Fire Chief is stationed at
Station No. 31. In the event of an incident to the core resort area, an
immediate response will be dispatched from Station No. 31. The typical
response time will be about 2-3 minutes from time of alarm. Additional
manning at Station No. 31 is augmented by a volunteer crew comprised of 5
people who respond from their residences in the Master Planned Resort.
Station No.31 has an apparatus compliment of two class A pumpers with a
combined pump capacity of2750 Gallons per minute. In addition to the
pwnpers are two Advance Life Support Ambulance vehicles, one Type 6
Station No. 81 Kitsap County Fire District No. 10
(Kingston)
Station No. 81 is located in the Kingston area of Kitsap County. Station
No.81 is called immediately to Port Ludlow for any incident that sounds like
it has the potential of overwhelming initial response teams. Station No. 81 is
manned 24 hours per day 365 days per year. Station No. 81 will provide an
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
wildfire engine and two support vehicles. A typical average immediate
response from Station No. 31 is three with an additional average of one
volunteer.
Station No.32
Station No. 32 is located on Alder St. in Paradise Bay. Station No. 32 is the
second nearest fIfe station to the core resort area. Station No.32 is manned
by an all volunteer comprised of a Company Officer and two Firefighters. In
the event of an incident at the core resort area Station No. 32 will provide a
volunteer response 30% of the time. The typical response time for Station
No. 32 is 7-8 minutes. Station No. 32 has a single A pumper capable of
pumping 1250 gallons per minute. Engine No. 32 is also licensed as an aid
car. A typical average volunteer response from Station No.32 is one
Firefighter.
Station No. 33
Station No. 33 is located at 101 South Point Road. Station No. 33 is the third
nearest fIfe station to the core resort area. Station No.33 is manned with one
resident Firefighter / EMT and five volunteers. In the event of an incident at
the core resort area Station No. 33 will provide a volunteer response 45% of
the time. The typical response time for Station No.33 is 8-10 minutes. A
typical average volunteer response from Station No. 33 is two Firefighters.
Station No.ll Jefferson County Fire District No. 1
Station No.ll is located in Chimacum at 9193 Rhody Drive. Station No. 11
is operated by Jefferson County Fire District No.1 and is the fourth nearest
fIfe station to the core resort area. Station No. 11 is dispatch automatically
for any incident larger than an emergency medical call in the core resort
area. Station No. 11 is manned 24 hours per day 365 days per year, with two
Firefighter / EMT. An immediate response from Station No, 11 will
typically take 7-9 minutes. Station No. 11 will send a class A pumper with a
pump capacity of 1500 gallons per minute, immediately. One air / support
truck manned with volunteers, and one Chief Officer.
sm....,.zze. e.IY. yours ..
. c: (. c-----/
?' )tv L !
WaYJie Kier, Fire Chief
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
immediate response with a minimum of one Captain and three Firefighter /
EMT personnel. An immediate response from Station No. 81 will take 10-15
minutes. Station No.81 will send a class A pumper with a pump capacity of
1500 gallons per minute with four personnel.
Station No. 77 Kitsap County Fire District No. 18Poulsbo
Station No. 77 is located in the Poulsbo area on Falkner Road. Station No.
77 is manned 24 hours per day 365 days per year. Station No. 77 will also be
called immediately to Port Ludlow for any incident that sounds though
dispatch as having a potential of overwhelming the initial response teams.
An immediate response from Station No. 77 will take 10-15 minutes. Station
No. 77 will send a class a pumper with a pump capacity of 1250 gallons per
minute with three people.
Other resources can and would be called from Jefferson County Fire
Protection District No. 2,4.5,6 and the City of Port Townsend. And,
resources from Clallam County Fire Protection District No. 3 Sequim are
also available on needs basis.
I hope this will be understandable to you and if you have any questions, feel
free to call 360 437-2236.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix H
List Of Acronyms Used
ADT - Average Daily Traffic
BAS- Best Available Science
BE - Biological Evaluation
BLM - Bureau of Land Management
BMPs - Best Management Practices
COE - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
DNR - Washington Department of Natural Resources
EFH - Essential Fish Habitat
EIS - Environmental Impact Statement
ESA - Endangered Species Act
ft-c - Foot candles
HP A - Hydraulic Project Approval
ITE - Institute of Transportation Engineer
Leq. - Equivalent sound level
LMC - Ludlow Maintenance Commission
LOS - Level of Service
MLL W - Mean Lower Low Water
MPR - Master Planned Resort
MSL - Mean Sea Level
NMFS - National Marine Fisheries Service
NTU - Nephelometric Turbidity Units (used in measuring turbidity)
OHW - Ordinary High Water
SEIS - Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
SMA - Shoreline Management Act
SMMP - Shoreline Management Master Program
UDC - Unified Development Code
USFWS - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
WOFW - Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife
WSDOT - Washington State Department of Transportation