HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog170
..
euJcr-e& G(e ( (oL(
;>f '. ,
J. DWAYNE WILCOX
271 Montgomery Lane
Port Ludlow, Washington 98365
(360) 437-5056
IPD~
JUN 10 20M
JEFFERSON COUNTY OeD
June 9, 2004
Jefferson County Department of Planning
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, Washington
Atten: AI Scalf
Re: Port Ludlow Associate Associate Assn.
DSEIS Dated April, 2004
Dear Mr. Scalf:
This entire DSEIS submission should be rejected by the Planning commission as containing faulty,
incorrect, and incomplete analysis, and further is based on outdated investigation. The last DSEIS
was done in 1994 and therefore this supplementary DSEIS submitted is based on stale and incorrect
data provided by a different developer and company. This community has undergone substantial
growth and change during the last ten (10) years and such is not addressed in this document.
Having served on the Jefferson County Planning commission, I was led to accept the proposition that
mitigation is imposed on a plan to effect a lessening of a negative impact on a given planning change
altering the natural and usual visual scene.
The 1994Plan required the pond be restructured in mitigation of the natural and usual visual scene.
This was done to soften the impact of construction in a natural beauty area. Now PLA is attempting
to do away with the required mitigation by construction over the pond. This construction flies in the
face of the Shoreline Management Act and the previous requirements. The over the pond
construction would do extension damage to that pond area, water and natural habitat.
The DSEIS as submitted does not address any of the items of damage to the pond, the parking, and
the supposed need to build over the bond when there is more than ample area to build in otherwise
and without damage to the areas natural beauty.
At the time we bought our homes the 1994 plan was accepted as the future of Port Ludlow and was
accepted by the public. The plan proposed by PLA changes the entire character of the city and invites
challenge to its MPR designation without attempting to justifY the change in original philosophy and
direction.
The total effect of the proposed DSEIS will be to lessen the quality of the Resort development
LOG ITEM
#J70
Page --L- of B-
....'" " ;
j\
"'. "4.
"
culminating in crowded areas impossible to fire and emergency equipment and an area deprived of
its natural beauty and amenities in favor of concentrated density and impaction of an area otherwise
mitigated to retain visual beauty and a healthy and natural habitat.
This DSEIS fails to address critical items as follows:
A. Impact of the drainage problems to existing areas of the city and what must be done
to address those problems.
B. Excess traffic and parking problems to non-county owned roadways and what must
be done to maintain these areas after the developer leaves.
C. Substantial elimination of access to beach areas.
D. Habitat and mitigation violations.
All of these problems were brought up during the scoping hearing, but have not been adequately
addressed or even touched on in this report.
For the County to accept this submission as adequate would be a gross disservice to the citizens of
Port Ludlow and to the people of Jefferson County generally.
~~'
JUH 1 0 2O(K
JEFFERSON COUNTY OeD
LOG ITEM
#_l70
;:,)age,A ~ of~