HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog116
~
Page 1 of2
Michelle Farfan
From: David W. Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 10:56 AM
To: AI Scalf; Michelle Farfan
Subject: FW: DSEIS for Port Ludlow
LOG ITEM
# 1\1o
Page___Lof 9
From: RR2DP@aol.com [mailto:RR2DP@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 10:47 AM
To: David W. Johnson
Cc: bertl@cablespeed.com
Subject: DSEIS for Port Ludlow
After a intense review of the DSEIS report, I find that it is typcial of the work coming from your office. Very poor in
content and most likely failing even to meet the legal requirements for a DSEIS Report. There are so many errors
in this report as well as omissons, I do not know where to start.
1. With no baseline in the report from which to jude the proposed revisions, it is extremely hard to determine
what is being done. No detailed stie plans, architectural drawings or even sketches, no drawings with elevations,
and lastly no floor plans or cross sections of plans to assist in the evalutation of this DSEIS.
2. The use of 12 year old on impact to our enviromentally sensitive or threatened species and habitats within
Port Ludlow Resort area. For this DSEIS report and more up to date report is a must.
3. The transportation analysis is poorly lacking in actual facts regarding any impact upon roads within the
Resort itself, involving bike traffic or auto traffic. Especially lacking is the impact it will have in the area of the
marina, hotel, and restaurant.
4. In regards to Density within the area of the hotel and marina. Attempting to build even the amount of homes
previously approved will simply make this entire area a quagmire of traffic, people, parking, and reduce the value
of not only the homes located currently in that area but homes all over Port Ludlow.
5. In regards to parking. This plan does not address parking sufficiently and will never be able to address this
problem given the amount of new construction PLA is seeking. With the increase in size of the marina as well as
moving the restaurant, a new club, marina office and retail area, there will be no place to park for visitors or
marina patrons who have boats in the marina and wish to carry items aboard. The overcrowding in this area will
simply make using the factilies so difficult that people will eventually become discouraged and stop. This will in
turn reduce the value to every building in this immediate area and then to the rest of the village.
6. This report is limited to only having imput from the Developer (PLA). There is no imput from the Fire
Department, Fish & Wildlife, from any of the HomeOwner Associations in Port Ludlow, especially the Townhome
Association located adjacent to the hotel, or from any of our community leaders. This is just typical inept style of
the work done from this office.
7. Also, it is clear that no one from Jefferson County Community Development made anyon-site visits to verify
any of the information in this report. Again typical of work done from this office.
8. Jefferson County has no responsiblity to PLA regarding the economical viability of their investment. This is
not in anyway be a consideration by any govermental agency.
9. The last thing that I wish to address is the increase in stormwater runoff. Again, we have a Water drainage
district on the North side Port Ludlow, yet they were not consulted during the making of this report, nor were the
effects of increased stormwater runoff given anywhere in this report.
5/25/2004
Page 2 of2
.
'.
The above nine items are just the tip of the iceberg as what is wrong with this report and what the developer is
asking for. I would just like to say in closing that I believe this report does not meet the legal requirements of a
EIS report and should be considered invalid for the purpose intended. With all the major flaws it shoud never
have been even considered as sufficient.
Richard L. Rozzell
Resident, Port Ludlow, WA
5/25/2004