HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog137
, , .
11' .
May 29, 2004
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, Washington
Ii i. :. JUH 1 2004
i J i ~) , -
I wj
l "----"J
...........J. Ec;: c.'...'"..'. "n" r('.I.! 'rJ'~'"
" l 1 ~~, \ '-oj i,..,' j 't -.J ,~:.J,..! I
DEP..l..~~.....~ L'tVaOer,!ENT
~ ....... -.~""."".,.....,-->._-.....",~.~~._,,~_,~. "0 '"
Dear Sirs:
I am writing my comments in regard to the Port Ludlow Resort Plan Revision's Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) dated in April 2004. I
understand that by the extension granted on May 24,2004, I have until June 14,2004 at
4:30 PM to place these in the hands of the Department of Community Development.
Before beginning the critique to be contained in this letter, I want to make it clear that I
am writing simply as a citizen of Port Ludlow, Washington, without regard to any office
position that I may hold in the community or any professional position that I may have
attained.
Let me also state that I have every desire to see the developer, Port Ludlow Associates
(PLA) succeed in the build out of the Port Ludlow Resort. My concern arises when I see
the prospective plans for the final development of the resort as seriously flawed and, in
my reading of the law, proceeding in some areas in an illegal manner.
I have detailed my concerns in an Appendix to this letter (Appendix A) which is attached
hereto and made a part of this letter for the record. I have chosen to do this because I
believe that if the areas that I believe to be illegal applications for a building permit are
addressed (denied), the majority of the objections expressed by myself and the
community to the DSEIS will disappear. Therefore, the body of this letter focuses on
those illegal areas.
I am referring specifically to the Shoreline Management Master Program for Jefferson
County dated March 7, 1989. Section 5.160 of that document specifically prohibits the
building of "residential structures on or over marshes, bogs, swamps, lagoons, tidelands,
ecologically sensitive areas or water areas subject to the master program." With
reference to the DSEIS, this prohibition specifically applies to the PLA plan to build
residential units over the shoreline of the lagoon in the resort.
Although the DSEIS states (page 3-10) that "no wetlands or streams are located within
the Resort,"this is an untrue statement since the over 2+ acre lagoon constitutes a wetland
that is utilized by wildlife residing in or passing through the area. PLA contents that it is
not subject to the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program because the lagoon was
"man-made".
In my reading of the law and from my personal experience in watching others attempt
LOG ITEM
#--13 7
Page_.f _of-4-
.'
..' .
JUN - 1 2004
(without success) to get around the "no building over wetl~tnds" requifement, it does not
matter whether the lagoon is made by nature or man-made. This body of water is not like
a swimming pool in one's back yard. Once a wetland is created, it remains a wetland in
perpetuity or until natural conditions change and it dries up of its own accord.
A reading of the description of the lagoon in the DSEIS, Section 3.2.1.1, Affected
Environment further substantiates my view. This lagoon was created in 1967 and
enlarged in 1994. Thus, it has existed for 37 years. It is approximately 10 feet deep. It is
very close to the Bay and there is water exchange between the lagoon and the Bay. I
myself have seen otters playing around the lagoon as well as herons and egrets feeding in
the waters of the lagoon. Indeed, one of the "conditions" required in the 1993 permit for
resort development of the Inn and surrounding townhomes was the planting of eel grass
in the lagoon to promote use by wildlife and aquatic creatures. Clearly, then, this body of
water is a wetland and must remain subject to the Shoreline Management Act of the State
of Washington and the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program.
Currently in the DSEIS, PLA proposes to build a series of "stacked flats" and town
homes over the shore of the lagoon and extending into the lagoon. My count from the
map labeled "Figure 8 - Drainage Basins" at page 3-12 of the DSEIS shows at least 12
and perhaps 13 of these buildings are to be built over and extending into the lagoon. If,
as I believe, this building over the shoreline of the lagoon is not permitted under the
Shoreline Management Act or the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Program, this
would eliminate at least 12 buildings from the crowded plan proposed by PLA and
automatically decrease the complaints of the Port Ludlow citizens related to traffic,
parking and congestion (See, Appendix A herein).
Indeed, no less than the Jefferson County Tax Assessor-Collector, Mr. Jack Westerman,
had declared those lots located over the lagoon as ''unbuildable'' and lowered the taxes
assessed to PLA on those lots.
My second area of concern relating to legal aspects of the proposed DSEIS relates to the
changes requested by PLA in location of commercial Iresidential properties. While I
have no personal objection to the switching of these locations, I am concerned when it
appears that PLA is attempting to make these switches without going through the proper
permitting process. Specifically, the location of the present Harbormaster Restaurant is a
commercial area (See, 1993 Resort Plan, Figure 2-Altemative 2). In the DSEIS,
townhomeslstacked flats are being planned for this area. Currently, along the shoreline
of the Marina, single family residential units are platted (See, 1993 Resort Plan, Figure2-
Alternative 2). The DSEIS contemplates making this area a commercial area with a
marina store, restaurant and recreation facility.
Section 3.903 of the Jefferson County Ordinance 08-1004-99 requires that any
subdivision that has only partially been developed must apply for a plat alteration "as set
forth in state law and in applicable county ordinances". The Resort plat was approved
and recorded in 1993 thus, any alteration to that plat must be applied for and processed
separately from seeking approval through the DSEIS process. RCW 58.17.215 states that
an application for such plat alteration "requires the signatures of a majority of those
persons have an ownership interest in the lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions in the
LOG ITEM
#..J ~1
PageA_of4-
','
subdivision. "
Since the townhouse owners now living in the resort area outnumber the developer when
it comes to a vote by head count and the RCW does not give an advantage to the majority
lot owner, PLA would be treated as a single lot owner for the purpose of such a vote.
Knowing that PLA would likely fail to gamer the required votes for such a plat change, it
appears that PLA is trying to slide this plat change requirement through in the DSEIS.
Although the two issues stated above are but a few of the flaws that I have found in my
reading of the DSEIS (See, Appendix A hereto), they are the most serious because they
appear to flout the laws of Washington and Jefferson County. In light of these flaws
alone, I believe that the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement submitted
to Jefferson County, Washington by Port Ludlow Associates should be rejected in its
entirety.
~inc.e. relY..,... ~. .... ',... k\...
{\ I (\ ""'"
~~ . ~ ..", V
Carol Higley Sabe \
P.O. Box 65487
14 Sea Vista Terrace
Port Ludlow Washington, 98365
LOG ITEM
#-')7
Page 5> of~
0:..' '
JUN - 1 2004
Appendix A
Overall Critique of
Port Ludlow Resort
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Traffic/Parking:
. Focus is on roadway impact (State Route 104, Beaver Valley Road, Paradise Bay
Road, Oak Bay Road) rather than parking at the resort which is the primary
concern. No analysis pof parking requirements at the resort is given.
. Several numbers given for total parking spaces: which are correct?
. Incorrect number off spaces stated as leased from LMC for Resort use (~, LMC
letter to Jefferson County Department of Community Development re: DSEIS).
. No citing of code reqUirements for adequate parking for each type of use
(business or residential) is given, such as " one parking space for each three
restaurant seats".
. What sort of on street parking is anticipated; where? It is impossible to
determine where driveways are located from the maps within the DSEIS.
. Residences will have tandem parking for two cars (behind each other) and will
tend to use street spaces or parking lot spaces for at least one of those cars per
household. Drives for residences will effectively eliminate street parking
considering the density of development since driveways cannot be blocked. No
on street parking will be allowed on the road to the inn as that is to be a two-way
road and is not wide enough to allow for parking as well.
. All streets are dead-end streets without turn-around areas. With cars in the
streets and no turning areas this creates a hazard in emergency situations. Will
fire trucks and emergency vehicles be able to maneuver?
. No discussion given to the "elevator" at the parking lot or the "18 foot wall" at
the parking lot as shown on the plats and diagrams. What do these items consist
of? What are the safety measures (if any) connected with these items?
· No consideration was given to the present average use of current parking in
determining adequate future parking needs at buildout of the resort and
expanSion of the marina. Even now, during events at either the marina, Beach
Club, Inn or Harbormaster (which are often simultaneous, particularly in Spring,
Summer and Fall), parking can be difficult to find.
Drainage:
· There is no description as to how adequate drainage is to be accomplished.
Present drainage is often Inadequate. Development (particularly of Admiralty III)
will only increase the drainage problems.
LOG ITEM
#--1177
Page-y--ot(f
II
JUN - 1 2004
..'
· The North Bay Drainage District has not beehconsulted on these issues even
though they are the agency which will directly involved in solving drainage
problems that arise.
· With so much additional land to be covered by asphalt and concrete in the
Admiralty III area, why are there no detailed provisions made for drainage which
is already a problem for the Admiralty I and II units?
· Where is the retension pond for Admiralty III? Is there to be one at all? If not,
is this development allowed?
Density:
· The proposed residences are a significant increase (56%) over the current plan
(from 87 to 190 residential units over all ; with an increase from 58 townhomes
to 88 residential units within the resort itself) creating a crowded situation not
conducive to a resort atmosphere.
· The floor plans included in the DEIS do not represent all the types of residences
proposed and it is impossible to tell which of these units are to be located where
in the blocks of shaded areas representing housing.
· Floor plans for the commercial areas are not included in the DEIS nor are the
locations adequately designated on the plats.
· Designation of some residential units in the proposed plan occupies land zoned
commercial (where the present Harbormaster is located) and some of the
currently zoned residential area (along the marina waterfront) is proposed to be
commercial space. Doesn't this require a re-zoning and a re-plating? No
consideration seems to have been given to the legality/illegality of this change.
· No discussion was given to the building of residential units on pilings over the
lagoon. Only a one sentence mentioned that the lagoon was exempt from the
Washington State Shoreline Management Act but no citation was given nor any
opinion cited by an official of that agency as to the truth of that statement.
· It is not realistic to say that just because the lagoon is man-made that it is not a
wetland. It has been in place for 37 years and water is exchanged between the
Bay and the lagoon.
· The presence of wildlife around the lagoon was minimized, based on 12 year old
data yet, I myself, while dining at the Harbormaster have seem eagles, herons,
osprey, muskrat, beaver, otter and deer around the lagoon. I cannot believe that
the greatly increased density will not have an adverse effect on wildlife within
the water and around the water of the lagoon.
· Two additional propane tank storage areas are contemplated but are not shown
on the site maps and no analysis of the safety of this propane storage was done.
LOG ITEM
# (37
Page 5' of~ (0 ~
." ,
. .
4} ....
Economics:
II
JUN - 1 2004
· A great deal of space is given over to comparison of the current proposal with the
two prior proposals. Is this used as a justification for the current proposal
changes to the resport plan? Otherwise, why are these comparisons in there in
such detail?
· It seems strange that Jefferson County appears to be passing on the economic
viability of this project and commenting on changing economics. Since
economics has been introduced into the DEIS, it would be interesting to inquire
as to the economics of the proposed club which is open only to guests at the inn,
the town home residents (who already are designated to be members of the LMC
Beach Club), and guests at the marina (but not slip holders).
· How can such a meager use base support a facility that will probably cost 1/2 to
3/4 of a million dollars to build (to say nothing of maintainence)? If the
townhome residents are to be forced to be excluded from the LMC in order to
build the new club base, this will require a change to the current CC&Rs which
requires a 100% approval (not a likely prospect). Changing economics would
seem to dictate that this facility is not viable.
· Reference is made to use of the conference center as PLA offices. However, this
facility is under lease to Port Ludlow Vacations, a company unaffiliated with PLA.
There is also the possibility that this facility will be sold to an outside party as
negotiations are on-going.
Overall Evaluation:
· It appears that Jefferson County Department of Community Development relied
totally on PLA for input into this DSEIS.
· The lack of citation of federal, state or county codes to support the statements
made is shocking. This does not allow adequate evaluation of the DSEIE in
relation to Code requirements.
· Port Ludlow is designated a Master Planned Resort (MPR) under the Codes of the
State of Washington. That designation was originally created by the Washington
State Legislature with Port Ludlow in mind. Now, with the increased density and
major changes proposed in the DSEIS, it is hard to realistically continue to call
Port Ludlow an MPR. If that designation fails due to the actions of the developer,
it opens the community up to all sorts of land use designations leading to much
uncertainty in the future.
· Increasing the density, changing the focus of Port Ludlow from a resort to just
another residential area, removing the open spaces so prized by the citizenry, will
have an adverse effect on property values reducing the tax base for Jefferson
County in the long run.
LOG ITEM
# 137
Page (f _of Ct