Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog184 .,., II .: 1\ ' Page 1 of 1 Michelle Farfan From: AI Scalf Sent: Monday, June 14, 20044:02 PM To: Michelle Farfan Subject: FW: RESPONSE Port Ludlow DSEIS [is) IE <<: IE D WIE fRI m1 . 14. lW fyi AI -----Original Message----- From: Powers & Therrien [mailto:powers_therrien@yvn.com] Sent: Monday, June 14, 20043:40 PM To: AI Scalf Cc: David W. Johnson Subject: RESPONSE Port Ludlow DSEIS JEFFERSON COUNTY OEPt OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Attached please find my response to the Port Ludlow DSEIS matter which is due by 4:30 today. Please let me know if you need any additional information. I appreciate the assistance of your department in obtaining documents referenced in this letter. Thank you. Les Powers POWERS & THERRIEN, P.S. 3502 Tieton Drive Yakima, W A 98902 Phone (509) 453-8906 Fax (509) 453-0745 This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 D.S.C. Section 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This message and any attachments hereto may contain confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this email from your computer. LOG ITEM # --r( ~ L{ ;:jage~ I _of ~ l( 6/1512004 .;~, , " ~'eJJ June 14, 2004 Via Email ascalffij).coJefferson.wa.us AL SCALF Jefferson County Community Development 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, W A 98368 RE: Port Ludlow Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Dear Sir: I have a residence in the townhouses at 44 Heron Dr. I am writing this letter in response to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ("SEIS") proposed in connection with the Port Ludlow Resort Plan Revision ("PLA Proposal"). The SEIS at S-3, provides that the PLA Proposal is a major revision requiring a public hearing prior to decision before a hearing's examiner. Criteria are set forth in Section 3.906 of the Jefferson County Ordinance 08-1004-99 (the "Ordinance"). I note that PLA has made applications for permits to commence construction that trigger such hearings process and has initiated preliminary construction work in the form of survey staking prior to approval of the SEIS. I find this questionable, particularly in light of the deficiencies therein. As will be shown, the permit provides for the development of property that conflicts with the CC & Rs and the Plat and, as noted in the Development Agreement, such conflicts cannot be resolved without the consent of the persons owning property interests under the Plat and/or subject to the CC & Rs. The purpose of the SEIS is or should be to measure the impact of the PLA Proposal against a baseline describing the project that can now be developed. I have reviewed the SEIS in detail as has the engineer that I have retained to examine certain aspects of the plan. We both have concluded that there is no baseline and that the so called default plan, that is the development plan adopted in connection with the Ordinance has been mooted by development by PLA in conflict therewith and by PLA' s failure to obtain modifications to the plat that are a condition even to the implementation thereof. I realize that the Ordinance and Development Agreement identify the plan developed in connection therewith as the baseline plan. However, for reasons hereinafter set forth, it is clear that this is not the case. I think a summary of the current situation is necessary. In 1993, Pope Resources proposed a development project that included the hotel, retail, the restaurant, a town hall, a marina, a manager office, off street parking, open spaces and trails, and 122 new residential units in addition to those already in Admiralty I and II. The diagram of the 1993 Resort Plan indicates that 20 of the buildings would have been on Heron Dr. to the east of the Harbormaster Restaurant. The mix of single family dwellings, townhouses and other residential construction is not clear. The retail and the town hall were among the twenty buildings. LOG ITEM #-1 ~ <.{ Page ~"- of~ ,,-~ . , , , AL SCALF Jefferson County Community Development June 14,2004 Page 2 Jefferson County did not approve the plan. In its place, Jefferson County approved the addition of 58 new residential units, 53 townhouses ands 5 single family dwellings, the 37 unit hotel and the Harbormaster Restaurant Building. This approval covered the area covered by the 122 residential units, town hall, retail building Harbormaster Restaurant, and 37 unit hotel in the original plan. The Plat was prepared and recorded reflecting these changes. The changes were also incorporated in an application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit SDP 91-017 under the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (the "SMA Permit"). A permit was issued on May 11, 1993 in response thereto. The permit references a 36 unit hotel, 58 dwelling units, 5 detached single family and 53 attached single family residences in 14 multi unit structures. In the Plat and by admission ofPLA, the attached residential units are all townhouses. They are not condominiums. Each owner owns the lot upon which his or her townhouse is constructed. The SMA Permit contains 51 additional conditions applicable to the development of the subject area. I will discuss these later in this letter. I refer to the development plan incorporated in the Plat and approved in the SMA Permit as the "93 Development Plan". The project has been developed in a manner substantially consistent with the 93 Development Plan. The SEIS does not contain a schemata of the 93 Development Plan. Rather, it sets forth Pope's original 1993 development proposal that was not approved by Jefferson County or Washington State Shorelines Management Act Authority. To the extent there is a "baseline" for the project, it is the 93 Development Plan. The SMA Permit contains additional 51 conditions to which Pope Resources, PLA's predecessor, agreed to comply. Relevant hereto are those that relate to the lagoon. The lagoon was to be enlarged from 1.4 to 2.2 acres. It was to recycle water to and from Port Ludlow Bay to maintain constant salinity. It was the control basin for storm water run off from the development. It was to prevent sedimentation from entering Port Ludlow Bay. In addition, the lagoon was to be constructed and maintained with a view to its integration as a wildlife habitat. The storm runoff system was to contain improvements including the lagoon, referred to therein as a "detention pond" to manage both water quantity and quality. The lagoon was to be planted in its eastern sector in eelgrass to prevent the growth of sea lettuce. Two pumps and a standby mobile power generator were required to provide redundancy protection. The lagoon was to be constructed and maintained to prevent stagnation and water quality problems during warmer weather. The final plan was to diminish impervious structures to lessen runoff into the lagoon. Portions of the lagoon subject to tidal effects were made subject to Jefferson County's 'Flood Plain Management Ordinance No. 1-89. Enlargement of the lagoon was "to make provisions for improved aeration and circulation to discourage algae growth, maintain consistent water quality, and improve its value as fish habitat." The lagoon was ''to be designed to provide some shallow area along the south shoreline, suitable for wading birds, isolated from public access. "The lagoon "shoreline length equivalent to at least 50% of the existing shoreline" was to be "provided for bird loafing area." This area was "to be buffered by landscape vegetation to discourage public disturbance." See SMA Permit, Conditions Nos. 1, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,24,26,27,28, and 29. The lagoon LOG ITEM ,,#~ Page:; of~ .~ 1 AL SCALF Jefferson County Community Development June 14, 2004 Page 3 ! .. 'c' is integral both to storm water management and to the development of wildlife habitat in the areas of the project to be left as open spaces. It is both mitigation and an integral part of shoreline management, being in whole or part within 200 feet of the highwater mark of Port Ludlow Bay. See discussion in "Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SDP), SDP Exemption, Shoreline Conditional Use and Shoreline Variance, p. 1 paragraph 1. As such, it remains under the jurisdiction of the State and Jefferson County Shorelines Management Authorities whether or not it is in part artificial. It is an exception to the carve out to "wetlands" for certain inundated lands "that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction. . ." as part of mitigation. See RCW 90.58.030(h). The approval was incorporated into the existing plat that was approved and recorded in 1994. No condominiums or residential structures other than townhouses and single family dwellings were approved in the plat. With the plat, CC & Rs were approved and recorded. I attach a copy of the 1994 plat (the "Plat") as Exhibit A. Townhouses were built along the south and west side of Heron Dr., ultimately including the building that incorporates 44 Heron Dr., that my wife and I own. I note the contention of counsel for PLA that the CC & Rs are not subject to RCW 58.17.215. That statute provides that an application to alter a subdivision must be subject to an application by the proponent containing "the signatures of the majority of those persons having an ownership interest in the lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or divisions in the subject subdivision or portion to be altered." It further provides that "if the subdivision is subject to restrictive covenants which were filed at the time of the approval of the subdivision, and the application for alteration would resulting the violation of a covenant, the application shall contain an agreement signed by all the parties subject to the covenants..." I must respectfully dissent from that conclusion. The CC & Rs were adopted at the same time as the Plat. To the extent the preferred alternative or default alternative violate the CC & Rs, approval of all of the property owners is a condition to the submission of an application to amend the Plat. This conclusion was clear to the Jefferson County Commissioners when they adopted the Ordinance and entered the Development Agreement. Section 3.15 of the Development Agreement provides "The parties acknowledge that development of the resort complex may require alteration of the Ludlow Bay Village Plat. One option the parties may exercise regarding any required plat alteration is to process and consider the plat alteration in conjunction with (or on a parallel track with) the resort complex proposal. Alternatively, if the plat alteration is not decided until after the resort complex proposal has been decided, the County shall ensure that any approval of the resort complex is conditioned or made contingent upon approval of any plat alteration. . ..A public hearing shall be required for any necessary plat alteration, and the review process shall consider the criteria in RCW 58.17.215 controlling plat alterations." On October 4, 1999, in the last year of the effectiveness of the SMA Permit, at the instance of Pope, Jefferson County adopted ordinance 08-1004-99 (the "Ordinance"). A LOG ITEM . # (<gC{ :0 ,age y _of~l{=- AL SCALF Jefferson County Community Development June 14, 2004 Page 4 copy of the "Ordinance" without exhibits, is attached to the SEIS. It took the place of ordinance 10-1214-98. On February 11, 2000, Jefferson County entered a development agreement with Pope to execute the Ordinance (the "Development Agreement"). The Development Agreement and some 534 pages of exhibits are attached to the Ordinance as exhibits. They are available under the Jefferson County Web Site but reference was not made thereto in the SEIS increasing the time and burden to review same. Herein, I refer to the plan provided by the Development Agreement as the 99 Development Plan. The Development Agreement recognizes that the Plat probably conflicts therewith. To that extent, it requires approval of an alteration to the Plat in accordance with RCW 58.17.215 and approval, after hearing by a hearings examiner based thereon. It permits the planning and conditional approval under the Development Agreement to proceed simultaneous or prior to the fulfillment of the conditions of approval of the alteration of the Plat. As noted above, to the extent Plat is affected, a majority ofthe persons owning interests in the Plat that are affected by the alteration must approve. To the extent the CC & Rs, if recorded with the Plat are affected, approval of all affected persons is required. To date, approval of the affected persons has not been obtained although I understand that it has been solicited for at least one aspect of the 99 Development Plan. The Development Agreement recognizes that it is subject to consents by various authorities to execute the 99 Development Plan. The Development Agreement contains as exhibits, the requirement that it be consistent with MPR Zoning Code chapter of the Jefferson County Zoning Code, that it be consistent with the policies set forth in the "Comprehensive Plan Policies for Port Ludlow Resort MPR, that it be subject to Jefferson County Stormwater Ordinance # 10-1104-96, that it be consistent with Jefferson County Interim Critical Areas Ordinance No. 05-0509-94, that it be platted consistent with RCW 58.17 and Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance No. 04-0526- 92, that it be consistent with the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program, that the utilities and sewer service be installed consistent with the requirements at time of installation as approved by the Washington Department of Ecology, Modifications are contemplated, but only "in order to achieve a variety of purposes, including: incorporation of new information; responding to changing community and market needs; encouraging reasonably priced housing; and encouraging modifications that provide comparable benefit or functional equivalent with no significant reduction of public benefits or increased cost to the development." See Development Agreement at Sections 3.1 to 3.8 and 3.11. The 99 Development Plan contemplated a major restructuring and expansion of the facilities. The 99 Development Plan added 13 townhouses and 64 condominium units to those constructed to that date. The SEIS is not clear whether the 13 townhouses were a build out under the 93 Development Plan. The 64 condominium units were in addition thereto. The hotel was to be expanded from 37 to 275 rooms. The restaurant facilities were expanded to 59,000 square feet. Additional lounge facilities were to be provided. A museum or interpretive center, youth center, amphitheater, and conference center was to be added. The 2500 square feet of retail space was restored from the initial Pope LOG ITEM # I 55 <-I Page..- 5"' _of3~ ,11I1'f7 , I - . ~ AL SCALF Jefferson County Community Development June 14, 2004 Page 5 proposal. A large underground parking facility was to be provided. Indoor tennis courts, an indoor sports and pool complex and a yacht club were to be added. An examination of the 99 Development Plan, p. 1-13, reveals that the plan had minimal impact upon Heron Dr. The townhouses in the 93 Development Plan located in the three buildings north of the hotel and west of Heron Dr., and the last two buildings on the north end of Heron Dr. were to be abandoned and converted to amphitheater and open space. This had the effect of reducing, not increasing traffic on Heron Dr. east of the existing restaurant hotel, the area that is most impacted by the 2003 Development Plan. I make this comment because of the impression left by the SEIS that the 2003 Development Plan would decrease, not increase, density and burden on Heron Dr. to the existing townhouse owners compared with the 99 Development Plan. Apparently, Pope attempted to obtain the consent ofthe townhouse owners to the 99 Development Plan. Objections were raised, particularly to the amphitheater. Since the proposal would have had the effect of reducing the common area, Pope was persuaded that a modification of the CC & Rs would be required and that it would need unanimous consent"ofthe persons holding property thereunder. It did not have such consent. As I understand it, the issues between Pope and the townhouse owners did not involve the entire plan. However, Pope was apparently not able to develop a suitable alternative plan. What is important to note here is that the 99 Development Plan in the form set forth in the SEIS cannot be considered a default plan for the SEIS because it contains features that were already rejected by the parties prior to the transfer of the project from Pope to PLA. Contentions within the SEIS that the default plan that PLA will pursue is the 99 Development Plan and that its impact can be compared therewith are misleading. At sometime after 2000 and after failing to obtain approval for the overall 99 Development Plan, Pope sold its interest to PLA. Under the Development Agreement, PLA undertook all of the conditions and covenants undertaken by Pope. While the Development Agreement provides that there are no third party beneficiaries to Jefferson County and Pope under the Development Agreement, clearly, all of the townhouses sold in the Plat, and other units sold around Port Ludlow Bay after February 11, 2000, were sold on the basis that the support facilities contemplated in the Ordinance and Development Plan would be built and operated. PLA is subject to that implied representation to the extent of its continued development activities at Port Ludlow Bay. See Development Agreement, Section 4.2. I understand that certain of those facilities could not be constructed. Nothing prevented PLA, however, from developing a plan consistent with both the Plat and the promises for increased amenities promised under the 99 Development Plan. This it clearly has not done. Since the adoption ofthe 99 Development Plan, neither Pope nor PLA have begun any development. Notwithstanding the provision in the 99 Development Plan for an amphitheater across from the building my unit is in and for open spaces where the building my unit is in and the building to its north, PLA has constructed the building in which my townhouse is located and a smaller townhouse building to its north. Such LOG ITEM #---1cg q Page ---.&_ of3.i- . , , , - AL SCALF Jefferson County Community Development June 14, 2004 Page 6 buildings are consistent with the 93 Development Plan. Immediately north of the hotel, it has turned part of the amphitheater into a parking lot and operates informally parking for the townhouses there and along the west side of Heron Dr. It has no permits for any such change. It is clear that PLA has paid little or no attention to the 99 Development Plan that it promised Jefferson County and represented to the townhouse owners that it would pursue. The statements contained in the SEIS that the 99 Development Plan is the default plan if the preferred plan is not adopted must be seen in the context that PLA has never followed the 99 Development Plan and has constructed and sold townhouses and constructed and maintained other parking facilities in conflict therewith. PLA now formally proposes plans substantially to alter its obligations under the Development Agreement and Plat. It recognizes that the alteration is a major revision under Section 3.906 of the Ordinance. This means that in addition to the permit and other governmental requirements, including the SEIS procedure, it requires a public hearing before a type III hearings examiner before it can be approved. Scoping, dissemination of the SEIS, and acceptance and review of comments are only the preliminary stages to the approval ofPLA's preferred plan. I refer to PLA's development plan herein as the 2004 Development Plan. The 2004 Development Plan proposes to shrink the amenities that were promised by the 99 Development Plan. Specifically, the hotel is returned from 275 units to 37 units. In addition, the restaurant and lounge space is not only reduced to the original 2003 Development Plan level but is further reduced. The reduction is accomplished by making more ofthe restaurant and lounge seasonal and out of doors. Retail, the athletic and indoor tennis facilities, the museum or interpretive center, the youth center, the convention center, and the yacht club are eliminated. PLA orally represented the yacht club would be included but it was not present in the SEIS. Notwithstanding comparative allegations made in the SEIS, the 2004 Development Plan increases the density in the Heron Dr. both over the 1993 Development Plan and the 1999 Development Plan. Currently, there are 25 townhouse units, all north, east, or south of Heron Dr. The 1993 Development Plan provided for three four unit town house buildings west of Heron Dr. and two two unit townhouse buildings north of Heron Dr., each in the area west of the existing restaurant. Of these 16 units, one, the site immediately north of the hotel has already been defacto abandoned by PLA in recognition of the parking problem created by the hotel at any level of operation. Thus, the actual residential density on Heron Dr. east and south ofthe existing restaurant under the 93 Development Plan was 35 townhouse units. Under the 1999 Development Plan, not followed by PLA, the buildings on the west side of Heron Dr. that are east and south of the restaurant, the building containing my townhouse unit and the next two buildings to the north are abandoned. The resulting density on Heron Dr. is 18 residential townhouse units. In contrast, under the 2004 Development Plan, There will be two new sixplex condominium units and one additional to its north are retained but as six unit condominium buildings, and two are retained north of Heron Dr. as two unit townhouse buildings. In all, there will be 39 units, 27 townhouses ands 12 condominiums. In LOG ITEM #~ Page 7 _of 3~._ AL SCALF Jefferson County Community Development June 14,2004 Page 7 l addition, the restaurant will be removed and fourteen condominium and single family units will be developed on the south side of Heron Dr. in its place. Since restaurant parking was located north of Heron Dr. in parking lots that are retained, the additional residential traffic load on Heron Dr. from the residences will be based on 51 units rather than 35 units under the 93 Development Plan or 18 units under the 1999 Development Plan. It is not the case that the traffic and residential density are not increased by the 2004 Development Plan over any prior configuration. Notwithstanding the nomenclature used in the 2003 Resort Plan, p. 1-8 in the SEIS, the units west of Heron Dr. are not townhouses; rather they are smaller condominiums, an entirely different ownership regime. See the original Plat, the 1999 Resort Plan and the 2003 Resort Plan, SEIS, pp. 1-8 and 1-13. I include a map ofthe Plat, see Exhibit A. It was inadvertently omitted from the SEIS despite its obvious relevance. As justification for the modification to the 99 Development Plan, PLA claims that the business plan under which it was developed, that is to develop a major convention center, is no longer economically feasible. It says that the business plan for the resort must be changed from a convention center to a destination resort. Under its plan, as noted, the new amenities promised under the 99 Development Plan are eliminated. A new club is to be added. How a club house and an expansion of the marina contemplated under all plans will generate more destination resort business is not explained. Neither can the authors refer to any actual baseline testing. The hotel has never been expanded from its 37 units. No convention facilities have been added. How would anyone know if the convention center plan is not economically viable when there is no actual data to support that it was ever really tested? Nor is there any explanation how the addition of 100 slips in the marina and a clubhouse will suddenly attract the number of guests necessary to make a successful destination resort. The basic amenities are not improved by the 2004 Development Plan. They have been present at all relevant times. There have been beach paths, outdoor tennis facilities, a pool and clubhouse since the late 1960s. The golf facility has been in place for more than a decade. The hotel has been in operation; as have the restaurants ands lounges. Nothing has prevented destination guests from coming to Port Ludlow. Yet, there has not been an increase in hotel traffic under PLA' s watch. Rather, the hotel continues to lose money on a regular basis. How then will it suddenly become remunerative when no new rooms, no new restaurants or bars and no new support facilities are added? These questions are not addressed in the SEIS. One possibility not discussed in the SEIS is that PLA expects to find more purchasers of the smaller condominium units willing to rent them in the hotel pool. It currently has trouble obtaining units from Admiralty I and II, in part because several ofthe owners have moved into the units as primary residences and in part because PLA's plan to obtain additional units from the owners of Admiralty I and II backfired. As I understand it from an owner of a unit in Admiralty I, PLA made a proposal to the owners that it would rehabilitate the existing Admiralty units for a cost of $25,000 apiece, adjusted to unit size, and that such rehabilitation was a condition to remaining in the hotel pool through which the unit holders rented such units to guests. I understand that the Admiralty owners did not support the proposal and that the units have been taken out of the hotel LOG ITEM # IS<1 Page i_of 3 Lf AL SCALF Jefferson County Community Development June 14,2004 Page 8 pool. Although the townhouses are in the hotel pool, the owners have not been willing to rent theirs at all to transient traffic. It is possible that PLA believes that reducing the size and cost of the units from about 2,000 square feet to about 1,200 square feet, and the cost from $450,000 to about $340,000 will attract owners willing to let the units to transients through the hotel. I specifically inquired ofPLA's representative ifPLA intended to use the condominiums to increase the number of luxury units for the hotel. The representative denied such intent. Again, the SEIS does not disclose such intent. Yet, without additional luxury suites, it is difficult to see how the hotel can succeed as a destination resort. I make these surmises not because I can say they are the case but because of the absolute lack of a scintilla of support in the SEIS for the proposition that the business plan based on convention traffic is not workable and that a business plan based on destination resort traffic is. If PLA wants the townhouse owners to agree to a substantial reduction in amenities promised to them and an increase in traffic, it seems to me that PLA should provide specific justification justifying its business plan over that underlying the 99 Development Plan. Even ifPLA is experiencing problems with the operation of the hotel and with the business plan embodied in the 99 Development Plan, such problems are not of themselves sufficient to justify the kind of modification to the plan that PLA urges. Reference is made to the Development Agreement under which PLA operates. Market factors are only one of the factors necessary to justify modification. Other factors include providing reasonably priced housing, the needs of the community, new information, and providing comparable benefits and functional equivalency to residents without significant reduction of public benefits. Lowering cost is not a criterion. Not increasing cost to the developer would be. See Development Agreement Sec. 3.11. PLA has provided little justification under this standard. There is no marketing problem for the existing townhouses. They are presold before the foundation is poured~ There would not be any problem selling townhouses in accordance with the 93 Development Plan. Thus, marketability of units is not a sufficient basis to prefer the 2004 Development Plan. It might be possible to see "marketing" in terms of the hotel. However, there is no change in the units dedicated to the hotel under the plan. To market the hotel as a destination resort under the 2004 Development Plan requires no additional residential unit development. PLA represented to me that it did not contemplate that the projected condominium owners would furnish luxury suites to the hotel. If that is not the case, PLA should have been forthcoming when I inquired. Moreover, the SEIS contains not one bit of data supporting the view that the changes enhance marketability. On the other hand, the changes substantially reduce amenities available to residential unit owners, a factor that is not approved in the Development Agreement as a basis for changing the development plan even if costs are reduced. The SEIS contains no information showing that the unit owners or the public would benefit by the 2004 Development Plan when contrasted to the 1993 Development Plan and the 1999 Development Plan. While the new units may be less expensive, they are not "reasonably priced housing" by Jefferson County standards. Other than the resort developments, how many houses in Jefferson County sell for $350,000, the approximate price of the .... LOG ITEM # ICSl{ Page 9 _of~ 1 - AL SCALF Jefferson County Community Development June 14,2004 Page 9 condominium units? I saw no data in the SEIS dealing with this issue. My examination of units available around Port Ludlow Bay indicates that there are freestanding units that fall within the "reasonably priced" classification as do the units in Admiralty. Clearly, nothing in the SEIS justifies modification of the 1999 Development Plan based on the provision of reasonably priced housing. It may be the case that PLA would incur substantial costs to perform the 99 Development Plan in substance and it may be losing money on its hotel operation. Neither of these facts support modifying the "default plan", the 99 Development Plan, under the applicable standard of the Development Agreement Whatever development plan PLA or its successor execute, it must deal with the problem of the design and use of Heron Dr. The SEIS contains data about the burden of the project on the overall road network. It does not address the more important question about the design of Heron Dr. and the burden of the traffic and parking with respect thereto. Such burden must be explored in terms of local vehicular and pedestrian use and use by support and emergency vehicles. At a meeting but not clearly in the SEIS, a representative ofPLA promised that Heron Dr. would be closed at the hotel by a hammerhead to prevent hotel traffic from using the roadway. He also said that the median barrier would be moved to the edge of the parking on the west side of Heron Dr. in the vicinity of the hotel. He also said that the lot north ofthe hotel that was dedicated to townhouses in the 93 Development Plan and part of the lot next to it would be converted to additional hotel parking. In other words, all of the parking now informally shared by the hotel and the townhouses including the parking on the lot and a row of parking extending on the west side of Heron Dr. to the end of the building in which my townhouse is located would be eliminated as parking for the townhouse residents. Driving down Heron Dr. currently will show that PLA or its predecessor have devoted all of these areas to parking for both the hotel and the townhouse residents and have improved and maintained it with barriers and gravel. PLA's representative said that the townhouses could use the parking area north of the present restaurant for their guests. The guests could temporarily park on Heron Dr. to load and unload. Apparently that would also be the case for support vehicles such as carpet cleaners, gardeners and the like. When I asked the legal basis for changing the plat from townhouses to parking for the hotel, the representative from PLA said that PLA could do what it wished with its property and that it was the only party affected by the change. The problem here is that neither the existing townhouse design and location nor Heron Dr. adequately provides for the townhouses without additional parking or width to Heron Dr. If35 foot tall structures are constructed on the west side of Heron Dr. and around the comer from the building my townhouse is located, there will be a blind spot. The traffic is already dangerous. My neighbor and 1 have had to have gates installed to prevent children of our guests and my grandchildren from running into the street into traffic. Having the comer blind increases that risk. Moreover, Heron Dr. is only 24 feet wide with 18 inch concrete lips. At my building and the building to the south, the building improvements with bushes are built to the concrete lip. If the buildings across are built LOG ITEM #J ~:f Page-LO _of3Y , .1' - - AL SCALF Jefferson County Community Development June 14, 2004 Page to similarly to the edge of the concrete lip there will not even be enough room to turn a large SUV in and pull it out of a garage. When it emerges from the garage, it will emerge into blind traffic that cannot see around the comer. This is a prescription for an accident. The townhouses only average 1.5 parking spaces per residence. Some, like mine, have only a single car garage. When guests load and unload and support services stop to provide service, per PLA's representative, they will block half of Heron Dr. How does PLA think emergency vehicles such as fire trucks that are about 10 feet wide can pass temporarily parked vehicles that are loading, unloading and providing services? Heron Dr. needs an additional lane to accommodate loading, unloading, service and emergency vehicles. It should be widened by 8 feet to the west to provide same. PLA's response ofundedicated isolated parking through the townhouse complex is totally inadequate to meet this problem. Because it is not dedicated, it will be first come, first serve. This conflicts with the likely needs of guests and service providers. Dedicating each of the spaces might mitigate but would not solve the problem. The design of Heron Dr. is incompatible with pedestrian and bicycle traffic. By increasing the blind comers, PLA will increase the risk of accidents. Moreover, the existing road design, continued without mitigation by PLA has no sidewalks or bicycle paths to service the residents. Traffic flow on Heron Dr. should not be controlled by making Heron Dr. narrow and restricting visibility thereon as argued by a representative ofPLA at a meeting I attended. Finally, there are no facilities to enhance access for disabled and elderly owners and guests of residence owners. Finally, the hammerhead concept is misguided. There is no room for a turn around for emergency vehicles. Road design requires a minimum turn around for such vehicles. The 2004 Development Plan to the extent it closes Heron Dr. with a hammerhead does not address or resolve these problems. I was sufficiently concerned about the problems of Heron Dr. to commission an engineering study thereof both as it exists and as it would be affected by the 2004 Development Plan. The engineering firm I retained specializes in testifying in road design cases. The comments in the preceding paragraph are consistent with the conclusions of my engineer. Needless to say, the 2004 Development Plan as it affects Heron Dr. presents substantial issues of liability and insurability that affect PLA and Jefferson County if it does not address these concerns. I attach as Exhibit B a copy ofthe engineering report for review. The 2004 Development Plan as discussed by a representative of PLA to the residents contemplates construction of the condominium units to the west and south of Heron Dr. over the lagoon by use of pilings. I have serious questions whether this can be accomplished under existing SMA requirements and under Jefferson County's Shoreline Management Master Program ("Master Program"). At Section 5.160, it describes policies and prohibited uses that relate to residential construction. Paragraph I of prohibited uses and activities makes residences located near "lagoons" subject to the Master Program. Paragraph 2 of policies provides that residential development should be designed to adequately protect the water and shoreline aesthetic characteristics. Paragraph 4 provides "Over-water residential development, including floating home, should not be permitted." Paragraph 5 provides "Residential developers and individual LOG ITEM .#~ "Jage _1 ( _ of..3.L AL SCALF Jefferson County Community Development June 14,2004 Page 11 builders should be required to indicate how they plan to preseIVe shore vegetation and control erosion during construction. Paragraph 5 of performance standards requires that "Developments containing marshes, swamps, lagoons, portions of a flood plain, or similar wetlands shall use those areas only for the purposes of parks, open space, or recreational facilities." Finally, paragraph 9 of performance standards provides "the standard setback for residential structures, including common appurtenant structures such as garages and workshops, shall be thirty (30) feet or one (1) foot for each foot of bank height whichever is greater." There are exceptions for residential developments with approved setbacks. Since there is no residential development along the lagoon, this is not applicable. Since PLA is proposing a material modification, there would seem to be no reason that the present standards described in this paragraph should not apply. It is unclear to me that these standards did not apply in 1999. The use proposed in the 1999 Development Plan which eliminates residential structures on the west side of Heron Dr. along the lagoon is consistent with this analysis. Furthermore, the applicability of these standards is consistent with the current designation of the two lots on the east side of the lagoon to the west of Heron Dr. as unbuildable for property tax purposes, a classification of which PLA has taken advantage until now. While one might argue that the lagoon is artificial, for reasons hereinbefore stated, it is pretty clear that its purpose as mitigation and as a wildlife sanctuary under the SMA Permit eliminates the possibility that the lagoon can be treated as a matter outside the aegis of the Jefferson County and Washington SMA. The SEIS does not adequately deal with the effect of the development on wildlife. Contrary to the statements made in the SEIS, the lagoon is not a dead body of water. Consistent with its purpose, it is the home of ducks, geese, gulls, herons, and other marine birds. It is also the home of two families of river otters that forage live in the lagoon and forage in Port Ludlow Bay. It has fish and shell fish notwithstanding the failure ofPLA to perform the conditions of the SMA Permit regarding algae bloom and water quality. In addition, the bald eagles in the area do not just forage in Port Ludlow Bay; they also nest to the north of the sewage treatment facility. Increasing human density will certainly affect the bald eagle population. The improvements, including building over the lagoon will affect the use of the lagoon by river otters and fowl. Bear in mind the SMA Permit requires that the lagoon be developed and maintained for the benefit of such animals and fowl. How PLA expects to cover the banks of the lagoon with housing and concrete and fulfill its commitments under the SMA Permit are not disclosed in the SEIS. The lagoon is also mitigation for the hotel and townhouse units. Its size is designed to handle the runoff from 58 residential units, associated parking, the restaurant and the hotel. The 2004 Development Plan eliminates the restaurant but adds 36 residential units and additional impeIVious roadways. There is no solid analysis in the SEIS addressing increases in impeIVious improvements. The SMA Permit requires that these matters be addressed. LOG ITEM ,#~ Page-L:f..- _of~ AL SCALF Jefferson County Community Development June 14, 2004 Page 12 Both the 99 Development Plan and the 2004 Development Plan require approval by the Plat owners if the owners are affected. I think it is pretty clear that there is increased density along Heron Dr. that will affect ofthe residence owners. The elimination of shared parking with the hotel will have a similar effect. The sewer and utility delivery system was designed for the 93 Development Plan. It is unclear that it is adequate to handle the increased density without additional improvements on common areas supporting the residential units. Among such common areas is the propane farm that is located on common area contiguous to lot owners, is owned by them, and will be burdened with additional capacity. The risk to the owners is not addressed in the SEIS. It is pretty clear that the increase density will burden those common areas, an effect on the existing property owners. It is pretty clear that the existing owners beyond the property that PLA retains and proposes to modify will be affected by the 2004 Development Plan. Accordingly, I cannot see how PLA can proceed without the consent of the persons owning property in the Plat along Heron Dr. It seems to me if this is at issue, a declaratory judgment action in Jefferson County Superior Court could resolve the matter. I think that it takes little review ofthe CC & Rs to reach the conclusion that they will be affected by the 2004 Development Plan. They contain provision for a Master Association and a Town Home Association. The latter represents 53 residential town homes within Ludlow Bay Village. See third recital, CC & Rs. The 53 residential town homes are built on lots owned by owners. What PLA proposes is to change both the number of members and potential members and to change the requirements for membership from lot owners to condominium owners. This is obviously a change to the CC & Rs. To make that change each town home owner must consent. See RCW 58.17.215. PLA cannot gloss over the change in the definition for the qualification for membership. Condominium ownership and town home ownership are legally distinct. Nor can PLA add a new association to the CC & Rs. Nor can PLA increase the population of the town home association from 53 to 94 without in each case obtaining consent of all of the town home association members. In summary, the 2004 Development Plan offers increased burdens and less amenities to the townhouse residents. It exacerbates an already dangerous condition along Heron Dr. It violates SMA requirements as well as the conditions set forth in the SMA Permit. It ignores wildlife and the duty to promote same. It provides no benefits to community members and in fact restricts all benefits to the hotel, the marina and their guests. It contains no real economic justification for the change in business plan other than, implicitly, PLA is losing money on the hotel operation. It ignores all ofPLA's duties under the 99 Development Agreement to provide additional amenities. While the possibility of change was recognized therein, justification was limited to situations in which costs would increase. Here, PLA simply does not want to incur the costs of providing benefits it as successor to Pope promised or to provide equivalent facilities to obtain relief from the duty to provide such benefits. The SEIS contains no meaningful baseline against which to measure environmental impact. PLA cannot seriously urge that the 99 Development Plan is its default plan after it has already violated its terms by LOG ITEM # -Leg 4 Page~of~ - AL SCALF Jefferson County Community Development June 14,2004 Page 13 constructing the building in which I have a unit and the next building to the north and by failing to develop one amenity promised in the Development Agreement. What we have here is PLA making objection to the performance of duties that may cost it money without a return and a refusal by PLA to seek advice from persons with expertise in hotel management about the operation of a hotel and the support facilities required thereby. Even ifPLA loses money on this venture, that was the risk it undertook by purchasing Pope's interest in the project. There is no good reason why Jefferson County should permit PLA to avoid its duties without proposing alternatives that actually benefit the community rather than PLA. I have no objection to PLA's successful development of Port Ludlow. I acquired my unit with a view that the amenities proposed in the 99 Development Plan or acceptable alternatives thereto would be provided, as promised. I want the hotel and restaurants to be successful so that I can continue to use them. What I do not want is a modification to an existing plan that enhances only PLA's bottom line at the expense of the residents, including me. I think PLA, as Pope in the 99 Development Plan can build residential units to the north of Heron Dr. and the restaurant without creating the problems that the 2004 Development Plan would create and with little loss in density. I think such development with proper attention to road outlets might be acceptable to the residents. I do not think that these developments eliminate PLA's duty to run successful restaurants and a hotel as promised in the 99 Development Plan. I look for another more carefully considered articulation of the 2004 Development Plan to address these concerns. Several of the issues identified in this letter are of a legal nature dealing with rights of the residents in connection with any proposed development and the duties of PLA. Because there may be disputes over these matters, I would propose as a preliminary to any further plan touching these issues that they be judicially resolved. ~i(~~ 3502 Tieton Drive Yakima, W A 98902 Ph: 509-453-8906 Fx: 509-453-0745 Em: powers _ therrien@yvn.com Enclosure( s) cc: David Johnson LOG ITEM #~ Page~of3tf_ d: --"- ~ . .i )( \Il - . H ~~ , ~~ I .....::::= ~ lN3i133HOY1N3i1d013^30 M010n11~Od 3e>V"IA A '0'8 Mo,an, MOlOM1IfOd I f . I i I. i II IIldl .. . ~ . Cl ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ WOO'II^1OW..'MJNI, _-CU_" _ _".._I _ .._...'u..._ .... VM '_........ I~I !.~!.I... -=::.:: 1&15I J.NEW'GeVNVW 3O~3t:I OIc::W'4A"1O ~ ~ iii w " a: Z ~~ ~~~ ;J i i >g ~ >~ ~. <N~ mD:> .. ~ 8 ~~ S 000: gd ~!!j ::E z .Jffi > o " IL o Z o ~ ~ < a:: (/) ... ilD~ LOG I #J8q Page IS- _ ofli ; I ~ o o .. o o .. o o o .. ",..INltlltt:..U.j,O'W "'U"".~~l~;-- ! - @ EDWARD STEVENS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. 60El COL.UMBIA ST. NW., SUITE 214 OL.YMPIA, WASHINGTON 8BSCl1 (360) 3157-6651 FAX, (360) 352-0108 E,}lhibit t Job 3637 June 7. 2004 Mr. Les Powers 3502 Tieton Drive Yakima, WA 98902 Re: Review of EIS for the 2003 revision to the Port Ludlow Resort Dear Mr. Powers: Introduction: You have retained the services of Edward Stevens and Associates to review the SEPA action being considered relative to the 2003 revision to the Port Ludlow Resort Plan Revision. The scope of this study is to review the Draft EIS for adequacy related to impact on roadways that are to serve the vicinity of Ludlow Bay Village. Specific attention is being placed on Heron Drive and access to the 37 seat restaurant which seems to be called both Heron Beach Inn and Inn at Port Ludlow in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Qualifications: I am a registered professional engineer and land surveyor in the State of Washington. I have worked for twenty five years with the Washington Department of Transportation in a variety of areas encompassing the broad field of transportation engineering. I have worked for five years as a land surveyor and engineer completing a wide variety of transportation engineering projects and subdivision design and platting projects. I have been at Edward Stevens and Associates for more than 7 years. Edward Stevens and Associates is a civil consulting firm specializing in engineering studies related to safety of transportation facilities. A current curriculum vitae is attached for more detailed background. Materials reviewed for this study: 1. Jefferson County Road Standards sheets for: LOG ITEM #--1-154 Page_Iv of~ "'~'~' EDWARD STEVENS & AsSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC Mr. Les Powers June 7 J 2004 1. Single Lane Two Way Traffic, AASHTO "Local Service Road", June 18, 1995 2. Typical Road Section 18' Roadway, November 13, 1996? (Date difficult to read on our copy) 2. "Guide for Development of Bicycle Facilitie~, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, (AASHTO) 1991 and 1999 editions 3. "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets', 2001, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, (MSHTO). 4. "Design Manuar, Washington State Department of Transportation, current edition. 5. "The Traffic Safety ToolboX' - A Primer on Traffic Safety, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1993 6. "Local Agency Guidelines Manuaf, City and County Design Standards, Washington State Department of Transportation, current edition. 7. "Roadside Design Guide" American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2002 This review is limited to analysis of the transportation element of the Draft EIS, with a focus on roadways within the plat of Ludlow Bay Village. Section 1.7 of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement contains the following at page 1-13 and 1-14: 1.7 Significant Issues for Consideration: Major issues identified during the scoping process for the 2003 Resort Plan relate to: (3) Parking and Vehicular Traffic The proposed 2003 Resort Plan, including the expansion of the marina, will create demand for additional parking, especiaUy 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 townhome residents. Will the proposed development exacerbate the problem? This section recognizes existing difficulty of traffic circulation along Heron Drive. The potential for making matters worse for abutting townhome owners is acknowledged. I agree with this assessment. The question is asked rhetorically, however there is no information that could be found within the Draft EIS to provide an assessment of impacts and mitigation. LOG ITEM #~ Page-U-of~ . 2 -~. EDWARD STEVENS & AsSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. Mr. Les Powers June 7, 2004 Transportation impacts are summarized On Page 1-22 of the Draft EIS. Under the heading of "Mitigating Measures" the entry "None Required" is found. (Exhibit 2) I do not agree with this assessment relative to at least Heron Drive. In the absence of an answer by the developer to his own identified "significant issue for consideration", I will provide my analysis of existing conditions and possible impacts along Heron Drive, and the likely mitigation that would be required to correct the situation. My concerns are summarized below: Altered and increased traffic patterns: The preferred alternative includes shoreline attractions at the south end of Heron Drive in the form of an esplanade for pedestrians to view the marina, shoreline, and park at Burner Point. Parking is being created at the north end of Heron Drive to serve visitors to the shoreline attractions and overflow from the townhouse area. This new construction will make a pedestrian and bicycle route out of Heron Drive to a far greater extent than exists today. Sight distance, inter-visibility between users and modes Sight distance along Heron Drive is limited in all directions by the narrow roadway and inadequate setbacks for buildings. Garages were measured to have a 4.4 foot setback from the edge of asphalt lane on Heron Drive. Vehicles backing out of the garages cannot see pedestrians, bicyclists or other motor vehicles approaching them until they occupy nearly the full lane. Pedestrians, bicyclists, and other vehicles are in very real danger of conflict during the back- out maneuver. The degree of setback is analogous to head-in parking that used to be seen along city streets. Most cities have eliminated 90 degree head-in parking along streets because of the known hazards of this arrangement. The hazards are related to two main factors: 1. Inadequate visibility when backing out onto the street. The visibility in the head-in 90 degree parking that is less severe than what exists when Heron Drive townhouse owners back out of their garages. A driver cannot see out of the garages on Heron Drive at all, but there is usually some visibility for 90 degree head-in parking through the windows of adjacent vehicles. 2. A dart-out problem is created by sight blockages along the street. This problem is especially dangerous for young children, who may not stop and look both ways before they enter the street. It is virtually impossible for a LOG ITEM #-1. '6'~ PageJ _O~ 3 -,- EDWARD STEVENS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS. INC. Mr. Les Powers June 7, 2004 motorist or bicyclist to stop for them when they are visible for only the last few feet of their travel path before being struck. Use of Heron Drive by multiple modes of travel: Heron Drive will become a pedestrian and bicycle route to an even greater extent than it is under present development. There are recognized safe standards for width related to multiple use facilities for motor vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles. Heron Drive does not meet standards for safe multiple use even if sight distances were clear and unobstructed. Heron Drive is inadequate for the uses that will be placed upon it by the new development. Miscellaneous considerations: I have been told that there will be a hammerhead design cul-de-sac at the south end of Heron Drive for vehicles to turn around. Access to the Inn from Heron Drive will be closed off by bollards, thus eliminating Inn traffic from Heron Drive. The preferred alternative includes a fire lane connecting Heron Drive to the Inn at Port Ludlow parking lot for emergency vehicle access. Unless it is effectively blocked to all but emergency vehicles, this access will reconnect Heron Drive with the Inn parking lot, further exacerbating traffic problems on Heron Drive. The Draft EIS indicates that the Inn will not be accessed through Heron Drive for the preferred alternative. Emergency vehicle access is an important part of safe street design. More investigation needs to be done concerning this critical safety aspect. How will safe access be assured with the narrow, blocked off roadways characteristic of the Heron and Gull Road connection? Fire and police officials should approve of plans in this area. County Road Standards: A Jefferson County Road Standard that appears to be applicable to Heron Drive has been reviewed. This standard sheet is titled TYPICAL ROAD SECTION 18 FOOT ROADWAY (35 MPH - UNDER 400 ADT. (Exhibit 1) This sheet represents a rural roadway section and shows a 22 foot total roadway width. There is a note on this roadway section stating that: Roads in designated urban areas may require pedestrian improvements, including wider shoulders or sidewalks. The Ludlow Bay Village is an urban-in-character plat located within a rural area. Resort planning calls for walking paths, a shore-front esplanade for pedestrian LOG ITEM #-1 <g\.f Page--L:L of..2L 4 EOWARO STEVENS & AsSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. Mr. Les Powers June 7, 2004 traffic, and emphasizes the outdoor amenities and natural beauty of the area. By design and intent, Heron Drive will operate as a multiple use roadway, serving motor vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic. In my opinion, wider roadways and sidewalks are required to handle the mixed uses that will be evident on Heron Drive. Requirements for multiple use: The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (MSHTO) is an association of all 50 member states. Literature and design gUidance emanating from AASHTO concerning geometric design truly represents the consensus of civil engineering science regarding streets and highways. This guidance is used by all states in setting the basic standards for geometric design. The Local Agency Guidelines for City and County use references Washington Department of Transportation and AASHTO publications for guidance in geometric design of county roads. Bicycle safety and use: "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets", 2001, by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, (AASHTO), contains the following guidance relative to bicycle facilities. (Page 100) BICYCLE FACILITIES The bicycle has become an important element for consideration in the highway design process. Fortunately, the existing street and highway system provides most of the mileage needed for bicycle travel. . '" . .. . Improvements such as the following, which are generally of low capital intensity, can enhance considerably a routeJs safety and capacity for bicycle traffic: . paved shoulders. · wide outside traffic lane (4.2 At, [14-ftJ minimum) if no shoulders exist. . bicycle-safe drainage grates. . adjusting manhole covers to the grade. . maintaining a smooth, clean riding surface. (Emphasis supplied) LOG ITEM # --.l <g Lj Page aD _of3l\ 5 EDWARD STEVENS & AsSOCIATES ENGINEERS. INC. Mr. Les Powers June 7, 2004 The "Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities" (AASHTO) 1991, defines the bicycle status of the roads in the Ludlow Bay Village as "Shared Roadways". SHARED ROADWA Y - Any roadway upon which a bicycle lane is not designated and which may be legally used by bicycles regardless of whether such facility is specifically designated as a bikeway. In Chapter 2, on design, the Guide discusses roadway improvements: Roadway Improvements To varying extents, bicycles will be ridden on all highways where they are permitted. All new highways, except those where bicyclists will be legally prohibited, should be designed and constructed under the assumption that they will be used by bicyclists. Bicycle-safe design practices, as described in this guide, should be followed to avoid the necessity for costly subsequent improvements. Because most highways have not been designed with bicycle travel in mind, there are often many ways in which roadways should be improved to more safely accommodate bicycle traffic. Roadway conditions should be examined and, where necessary, safe drainage grates and railroad crossings, smooth pavements, and signals responsive to bicycles should be provided. The RCW's on bicycle accommodation: RCW 47.26.300 Bicycle routes-Legislative declaration. The state of Washington is confronted with emergency shortages of energy sources utilized for the transportation of its citizens and must seek alternative methods of providing public mobility. Bicycles are suitable for many transportation purposes, and are pollution-free in addition to using a minimal amount of resources and energy. However, the increased use of bicycles for both transportation and recreation has led to an increase in both fatal and nonfatal injuries to bicyclists. The legislature therefore finds that the establishment, improvement, and upgrading of bicycle routes is necessary to promote public mobility, conserve energy, and provide for the safety of the bicycling and motoring public. [1974 ex.s. c 141 9 1.J LOG ITEM #~ Page-&..Lof 3Y 6 . , - EDWARD STEVENS & AsSOCIATES ENGINEERS. INC. Mr. Les Powers June 7, 2004 The Port Ludlow development complex is a destination resort and conference center featuring extraordinary beauty and outdoor amenities. Hiking, recreational walking, and bicycling are ordinary activities in this setting, and must be provided for in a safe and responsible manner. Recognized Standards for safety and multiple use: Clear zone standards: A minimum clear zone of 7 to 10 feet is recommended by AASHTO in the publication "Roadside Design Guide", 2002 edition. This is for urban construction where there is no barrier curb in place. Barrier curb is defined as a curb at least 6 inches high with a vertical or nearly vertical face. There is no curbing on Heron Drive. The term "clear zone" refers to a width outside of the traveled lane edge that is kept free of fixed obstacles. During a field trip to the area, I measured 4.4 feet from the edge of traveled lane to the face of garage buildings. This is in violation of clear zone standards. Clear zone standards are promulgated by the AASHTO, and Washington State Department of Transportation. The purpose is to build safety into the roadside environment. In the case of Heron Drive, safety would be enhanced by not only removing fixed objects, but by increasing sight distance. In my opinion, a minimum of 10 feet should be employed to create some degree of inter-visibility between vehicles backing out of garages, pedestrians entering the street, and traffic on Heron Drive itself. It is my opinion that the lack of adequate clear zone along Heron Drive creates unsafe operating characteristics. The more traffic increases, the greater the probability of serious accidents will become. This deficient aspect of construction along Heron Drive needs to be considered for mitigation before increased mixed use is invited to the street. Sidewalks: Sidewalks are the standard application for accommodating pedestrian travel on a street in the urban setting. Sidewalks separate pedestrians from vehicles for very obvious safety reasons. The absolute minimum width for a two way sidewalk is 4 feet where travel is very light, and 5 feet to accommodate appreciable two way foot traffic. Where narrow sidewalks are used, they should be separated from the curb by a planting strip. This generally results in an urban section with a raised curb. LOG ITEM # 184 Page ~~of :~y 7 EDWARD STEVENS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. Mr. Les Powers June 7 f 2004 There is a two foot wide concrete strip along one side of Heron Drive. This is not a sidewalk, and will not accommodate pedestrian travel. Pedestrian travel is therefore forced into the traveled lanes of Heron Drive. Pedestrian travel is a recognized necessity to appreciate the amenities of the Ludlow Bay Village area. The danger of forcing mixed travel modes in the narrow and deficient geometric width of Heron Drive, as well as the liability that may accrue to the designers and owners of these facilities if an accident should happen, should be carefully assessed and mitigated in the environmental documentation for the Port Ludlow Resort Plan Revision. I could not find where this issue was mentioned, except possibly in Section 1.7 "Significant Issues for Consideration." In that section, possible impacts were posed only as a rhetorical question. Bicycle accommodation: The standard for one way bicycle travel is a five foot width lane, separate and apart from the travel lane for motor vehicles. As noted above, MSHTO recommends a minimum of a 14 foot paved lane on low volume roads. This results in 9 or 10 feet for vehicular passage, and 4 to 5 feet for bicycle passage. This is considered acceptable for light bicycle use in rural areas. The minimum standard for two way bicycle travel is an 8 foot wide path. Ten feet in width is desirable for moderate to heavy use. Nothing like the above minimums exist along Heron Drive. Instead, all modes of travel are forced into two paved lanes that measured 21.6 feet across both lanes when I made my field trip to the site. Handicap accommodation: Handicap accommodation is a very important consideration where pedestrian routes are created in public places. The final design for Heron Drive should be reviewed for conformance to the Americans With Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. It is a very poor idea to do nothing, and therefore expect the handicapped to mix with all other traffic modes on this narrow, substandard street. The liability implications of this for the owners and designers should be obvious. A few thoughts on Highway Standards: Standards and codes are developed to provide public safety, convenience of use, and to enable enjoyment of life. Most of the codes and standards are based upon experience from human loss and suffering. For instance, fire escapes are LOG ITEM # /~tf Page a3 "_of.3 L( 8 EDWARD STEVENS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. Mr. Les Powers June 7, 2004 required in multi-story buildings for safety. Many lives had been lost in multi- story building fires before uniform escape route codes were enacted. Then it was realized that a fire can spread so fast that fire escapes can be rendered useless, due to heat and smoke. Sprinkler systems are therefore required in multi-story buildings, to suppress fire until occupants can escape. This is all based upon unfortunate human experience. The same is true of highway and street standards. Experience has taught that certain widths, radius criteria, clear zones, and other geometric features contribute to and promote safe, efficient transportation. These criteria are generally codified as standards for design. Such standards must not be liahtlv dismissed. They are adopted as law and/or recognized operating procedures by the various government agencies in charge of highway and street construction and permitting. Variances should be granted only when it can be shown that there is a compelling reason, and safety will not be compromised. The geometric design of Heron Drive falls short of both state- wide and nationally recognized criteria. There does not appear to be any compelling reason for lack of adherence to standard. The argument may be proposed that Heron Drive is not a publicly owned road, . therefore not subject to the aforementioned standards. There are, however, no separate standards of good practice available except AASHTO, Washington Department of Transportation, Americans With Disabilities Act, and Jefferson County adopted standards, and other industry-recognized standards. There is a duty on the part of the developer to create a safe environment, and a duty on the part of Jefferson County to see that a safe environment is designed and constructed. The safety of the final plan can only be judged by adopted industry standards and applicable laws. Analysis that I have not done: 1. Daily traffic volumes for interior roads that will be impacted have not been calculated. These volumes should be shown in the traffic impact analysis, both for the base, or do nothing condition, and for each proposed alternate. Traffic impacts due to implementing revisions cannot be assessed or estimated without this information. It is the responsibility of the proponent to provide this as part of the impact assessment. 2. I have not attempted to estimate pedestrian use or bicycle use for Heron Drive, or any other interior road. This too is the responsibility of the developer, and necessary to identify impacts to the built environment. 3. The Draft EIS does not appear to clearly identify the location of new planned versus existing housing units. I have not attempted to make that LOG ITEM #-1 ~L{ Page~ofM. 9 .~. - - EDWARD STEVENS & AsSQCIATES ENGINEERS. INc. Mr. Les Powers June 7, 2004 determination, believing that it is the proponent's responsibility to make the distinction clear. 4. I have not studied why setbacks were allowed to be only 4 feet from the edge of travel way to the face of garages. The documentation offered cites only "USC" as the setback distance. USC setbacks may change from time to time, I have not researched them, and do not know what revision may be referred to. I believe that the proponent needs to specify what the setback distance is in feet, so that disclosure is complete and easily understood. If the setback to building face is less than the clear zone distances mentioned above, it should be justified in the face of obvious safety problems created by backing maneuvers and dart-out problems discussed above. 5. I have not evaluated the adequacy of a cul-de-sac that is proposed to be placed at the new end of Heron Drive. I could not find geometric details of this feature, so it is not possible to evaluate it. Possible solutions: In my opinion, Heron Drive most likely needs to be re-engineered to accommodate changes in travel mode and volume associated with the 2003 revision. Studies need to be conducted to accurately identify and mitigate impacts. Steps in this process may include: 1. Identify traffic volumes by each travel mode for the interior roads. This needs to be done for the base condition and for each proposed alternative. 2. Review standards for construction to accommodate each mode and traffic volume. 3. Identify impacts. Impacts will be an assessment of change brought about by the difference between the base condition and the alternative condition being considered. 4. Produce a listing of improvements to mitigate the impacts identified above. 5. Provide a review opportunity for affected parties, per SEPA requirements. A possible outcome of this study might be 10 foot minimum setbacks to garage faces from the edge of lane, 5 foot sidewalks on both sides of the road with handicap access features, and a 28 foot wide minimum paved width to accommodate light mixed bicycle use along the roadway. On-street parking would need to be prohibited under this scenario. Conclusion: In conclusion, I find that Heron Drive is constructed to an inadequate standard to safely accommodate mixed use travel. In my opinion, there is considerable LOG ITEM #..l<gGj Page ~~of3~_ 10 . <Ii. EDWARD STEVENS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. Mr. Les Powers June 7, 2004 impact to the neighboring built environment as a result of increased residential density and imposed travel patterns created by parking arrangements. As a reviewer, it is not my responsibility to complete the Draft EIS. My review indicates, however, that the adequacy of disclosure for impacts and mitigating measures concerning roads interior to the Ludlow Bay Village Plat is lacking in the Draft. This subject needs to be considered by the proponent and made available for review as part of the SEPA process prior to adoption by Jefferson County. The existing owners abutting Heron Drive and future owners and visitors to the area deserve the protection of infrastructure that meets adopted standards in accordance with existina laws and reaulations. SEPA approval should be withheld until impacts can be fully assessed and mitigation can be agreed to by the interested parties. Sincerely: EDWARD STEVENS AND ASSOCIATES, ENGINEERS, INC. LOG ITEM #l~4 Page ~lLof,3~-. 11 - CURRICULUM VITAE Henry J. Borden, P.E., P.L.S. Name: Henry J(Hank) Borden Address: Home 2207 Allen Road S.E. Olympia, Washington 98501 Office 606 Columbia Street N.W., Suite 214 Olympia, Washington 98501 Education: High School Wishkah Valley High School 1958 - 1961 Junior College Grays Harbor College, 1962 - 1964 Graduated in Pre-Engineering College Washington State University, Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering, May 1967 Professioual: .Member, Land SlUVeyors Association of Washington, Southwest Chapter .Professional Engineer in Washington, Certificate #13676 .Professional Land Surveyor in Washington, Certificate #13676 Technical Experience: February 6, 1997 to Edward Stevens & Associates, Engineers, Ioe. present Transportation Engineering Specialist Work at Edward Stevens and Associates involved preparation of traffic impact studies, topographic surveying of streets and highways, preparation oftopographic drawings, analysis of roadways for safety related issues, engineering report writing, writing declarations, client interface, supervision of drafting and technical staff I have provided expert testimony and given depositions in court cases involving safety issues related to streets and highways. LOG ITEM #..1 <gt1 Page d7 of~ 10f8 . ' - - 8/92 - 2/97 Skillings-Connolly, Inc., Project Manager and Surveyor of Record for a consulting engineering and land surveying firm of approximately 34 personnel. During my 54 months at Skillings-Connolly, I was in charge of all surveying for the firm. This responsibility included organizing, directing, reviewing, and stamping of all land sUlveying projects, including legal boundary surveys, plats, subdivisions, boundary line adjustments, construction surveys, topographic surveys, writing legal descriptions, section subdivisions, General Land Office retracements, and other work. Typical projects included: Surveyor and Engineer of record for the Plat ofLoma Vista, a 59 lot rural subdivision in south Thurston County, the D.B. Story Subdivision, a 53 lot subdivision in the City ofLongview and the Plat of Noble Firs, a 28 lot subdivision in the City of Lacey, Washington. Surveyor of record for the Plats of Redwood Estates and King's Court in the City of Olympia, and the Plat of Haussler Heights in the City of Kelso, Washington. Complete survey of Section 21, Township 30N, Range 3 West of the W.M. and establishment of a wetland mitigation site for the Washington State Department of Transportation. This project involved section subdivision and General Land Office comer retracement for the WSDOT Sequim Bypass Project. Many topographic surveys for the purpose of street design, plat design, site development, and miscellaneous design purposes. Many boundary and lot surveys were completed during this time period. Boundary line adjustments, short plats, large lot subdivisions and planned unit developments were typical small survey projects routinely completed. LOG ITEM #--l <g Y Page~ ~~_ of~ ~ 20f8 -. Construction surveys were calculated by myself or survey technicians, field surveyed by field crews under my supervision, and reviewed in the field by me. Typical construction surveys included water and sewer line staking, road and street staking, building foundation staking, lot boundary staking, as-built plan surveys, surveys for easement preparation, and more. There were no claims for inaccurate staking work in my 54 months with this firm. I also completed design of civil projects and performed project management for a variety of private and public clients, including: Washington Department of Transportation, Port of Tacoma, City of Lynn wood, Washington Department of General Administration, developers of private subdivisions, Lower Columbia Community Action Council, miscellaneous site development projects. Typical civil design projects that I personally completed as a "hands on" project manager are: Design of Work Zone Traffic Control (WZTC) plans for the Washington State Department of Transportation's Olympic Interchange project. I was certified by WSDOT as a Work Zone Traffic Control Supervisor prior to completing plans for this project. The certification was given by Sverdrup Civil, Inc., after attending WSDOT's WZTC supervisor training seminar in the spring of 1994. Sverdrup Civil prepared and taught the course for the WSDOT. Design .and civil plans for a walking path at the Washington Department of Labor and Industries Headquarters Building in Tumwater, Washington. Design and civil plans for three pavement rehabilitation projects, including railroad track reconstruction at the Port of Tacoma's North Intermodal Yard. Included field surveys, cost estimating, and plan preparation. I was involved in promotional work for the firm, including preparation of proposals for civil projects, project scoping and estimating, attendance at job interviews. I also completed grant applications for public funding of transportation projects for client agencies. LO~ ITEM #-.J~ PageA-of3f 3of8 r - '. 6/67 - 8/92 Twenty-five years and three months with the Washington Department of Transportation with general duties as outlined below: 7/84 - 8/92 System Evaluation Supervisor I supervised a headquarters section involved with the following work program: -Highway Performance Monitoring System. Modeling the state's highway system in terms of performance and cost. -Conducting legislative and other types of special studies. .Monitoring and updating the system of statewide highway functional classification. I worked on the State Legislature's Route Jurisdiction Study, a study to refine the definition of State Highway, and to recommend route changes between State and Local Agency jurisdiction to be consistent with the refined definition of State Highway. This study resulted in the transfer of hundreds of miles of roads between state and local jurisdictions. I worked on the Federal Highway Administration's Highways of National Significance Study. This study was conducted for the Federal Highway Administration by the States for the purpose of conforming to the revised Highway Program mandated by the Surface Transportation Act of 1991. I learned state-of-the-art computer techniques for modeling highway systems for performance characteristics while working with the Highway Perfonnance Monitoring System. This is a modeling effort done by all 50 states for the purpose of producing the Federal Highway Administration's annual report to the Congress entitled "The Nation's Highways--Conditions and Performance". I wrote and distributed two publications for local agency use during this time period, entitled: "Short Count Factoring Guide", a guide book of recommended practice for local agency traffic counting programs, "The Highway Performance Monitoring System--Facts and Figures", an informational publication of highway statistics and cost analysis for the State of Washington. Training taken through WSDOT included management and personnel relations courses, and the following WSDOT technical courses: LOG ITEM #--1 gt.J 40f8 Page 3D _ ofM_. . '. 10/78 - 6/84 8/77-9/78 LQG,ITEM #---1 <6 ~ Page~of3'1 eLegal Aspects of Highway Engineering, a WSDOT contract course led by Michael Duggan of the King County Prosecutor's Office. eBeginning and advanced Highway Capacity Manual courses. -Quick Response Travel Estimating Techniques, utilizing QRS software for producing traffic estimates for spot developments. Assistant District Materials and Project Engineer I was responsible for the day-to-day operations of a District Section doing soils drilling, foundation analysis, materials quality control, minor plan production, design surveying, and construction inspection. The duties consisted of production of strip maps for minor design projects, including curve realignments, intersection upgrade projects, and paving projects. These projects were field surveyed, mapped, and designed under my direct supervISIon. I designed a system of estimating project costs for the District Three pavement rehabilitation program. This involved scoping all paving projects for the district's biennial program, including evaluation of deficiencies, identification of safety hazards, and costs to cure. The end product was a scope of work for contract plan production purposes, and an associated cost estimate to complete the work. I did this work for three years while I was in the District (now Olympic Region) Office. I evaluated pavement defects and produced resurfacing reports for pavement rehabilitation contract production for the district design program. Conducted soils slope stability investigations, and recommended solutions to our Headquarters Soils Engineering Group. Assistant District State Aid Engineer Duties as Assistant District Three (now Olympic Region) State Aid Engineer included administration of Federal Aid pass-through programs to the Cities and Counties of the seven northwest counties and cities within those counties. 50f8 r ~ Federal Aid programs I worked with were Bridge Replacement, Federal Aid Secondary, and the various sections of the Federal Aid Safety Program, including Railroad Crossing Upgrade Program, Safer Off System Program, Hazardous Intersection Program and the Pavement Marking Demonstration Program. I issued calls for prospectuses, evaluated and graded prospectuses according to criteria fonnulated by headquarters offices, set up reimbursable accounts for the projects, administered payments oflocal agencies, and assisted the Federal Highway Administration with inspections and documentation requirements. 6/76-7/77 I worked as Assistant to the Project Engineer in a major location and design office. This office specialized in large projects requiring Environmental Impact Statements: -Port Townsend Ferry Terminal Site Study - I scheduled, directed, and managed day-to.,.day operations for this multi- disciplinary study leading to the recommended location for the present Ferry Tenninal in Port Townsend. This study developed alternative designs and cost estimates for ferry terminal sites, and also conducted an intensive public attitude survey in the area to assess public desires and community visions for the project. Public hearings were held, and questionnaires were written, circulated, and evaluated. -Trident Base Access Study, Kitsap County - I scheduled, coordinated and managed day-to-day operations for a multi- disciplinary study of design alternatives and environmental. impact studies leading to a recommended design and EIS for the new State Route 3 access to the Naval Submarine Base, Bangor. I organized and managed this study from its inception to a point where the design and limited access hearings were ready to be held. This study included a citizen attitude survey conducted by questionnaire. -Tacoma Spur Study - I finalized the citizen participation aspect of this environmental impact statement, including evaluation of alternative designs. The study resulted in what is now Interstate 705 in Tacoma. -SR 167 Environmental and Location Study - I supervised the final environmental impact statement and contract plans for the section of SR 167 from PuyaIlup to the King County line. LOG ITEM # l )?L{ Page 3 ~ of~ 60f8 r 4. "'. 6/67 - 5/76 LOG ITEM #-1 crg~ Page, 33 _of 3lf I worked in the Aberdeen field office of Washington Department of Highways under John Hart, Project Engineer. I was promoted from Highway Engineer 1 to Highway Engineer 4 in this office. I gained a solid background in Highway Engineering in this nine year period, including surveying for right-of-way mapping, surveying for construction projects, including bridge and roadway layout and staking, slope staking, river channel realignment staking, surveying in tidal zones and topographic surveys for highway development projects. I estimate that I spent three years solid in the field in personal charge of field survey work. The remainder of this period always included scheduling and designing a wide variety of surveys, doing office computations for survey work, and turning out finished survey projects. Field surveys and office computations for contractor pay quantities were a routine part of work in this office, for the entire period that I was there. I qualified to sit for the Land Surveyor's Examination based upon work done in this office in right-of-way mapping, boundary surveys for highway construction projects, construction pay quantities, and became a Licensed Land Surveyor in 1979. Significant projects included: -Project inspector for the Shelton Bypass. I was the Department's lead inspector and surveyor in the field for this new five-mile section of SR 101 bypassing the Town of Shelton in Mason County. This project included four bridges, three channel changes, three interchanges, and several miles of frontage road construction. I was responsible for all field staking, right-of-way staking, inspection, contractor relations, and pay quantity calculation for this project. .Project inspector for the Aberdeen-Hoquiam one-way couplet, a major realignment and construction of a one-way street system in the Cities of Aberdeen and Hoquiam. I was responsible for all field staking, inspection, contractor relations, and pay quantity calculation for this project. I was the survey party chief and surveyor for construction staking on the twin SR 107 overcrossing bridges on SR 12 near Montesano, and the lift span structure across the Hoquiam River at 6th Street in the City ofHoquiam 70f8 . , .. ._~ .. I served as Office Engineer for this office for a period of approximately three years. Duties included organization of office, supervision of design projects, calculation of pay quantities for contract work and production of contract plans for general highway work. As a staff Engineer for the Aberdeen Hoquiam Expressway Study, I evaluated alternative designs, prepared presentations for the citizens' advisory committee, and the interdisciplinary team assigned to the study. I supervised field operations for a citizens' attitude survey by questionnaire, and organized day-to-day office operations for the study. This was a preliminary study for the anticipated construction of a new expressway through the Cities of Aberdeen and Hoquiam. This study is still underway, in one form or another. There were many minor to medium projects worked on during this time period. They are too numerous to mention, but project types included bridge site mapping for replacement, surveys for pavement rehabilitation, safety item installation, contract plans for the Elwha River Bridge and approaches, river erosion control projects, paving projects, safety design and construction projects, slide correction projects, and more. These projects typically involved work in both design and construction phases. LOG ITEiVl #~- Page .. '3 ~ ofM 80f8