Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog189 , . ., II iWO~1J UDL"Oty LUDLOW MAINTENANCE COMMISSION June 14, 2004 JUN 1~ .. JEFFERSON COUNTY DCD Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 Subject: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ~18"Nft'"JIbrt'f.,udfow Resort Plan Revision Attention: Mr. AI Scalf Director, Department of Community Development Dear Mr. Scalf This letter is the response ofthe Ludlow Maintenance Commission (LMC) to the subject report. The LMC is the homeowners association for the North Bay residents of Port Ludlow representing over 1000 home, lot, and condominium owners. The review and comments contained herein represent the collective opinions of the LMC Board of Trustees acting on behalf of the Port Ludlow North Bay Community. We are very concerned about the lack of quality in the draft SEIS. The report contains significant errors, does not contain a baseline against which to judge the impact of the proposed revisions, and in most cases does not contain references to county, state and federal code requirements that allows us to evaluate the adequacy of the plan against requirements. The report appears to rely heavily on statements by the developer without any input from the community or the community homeowner associations. Further, it appears that little or no on-site visits to the Port Ludlow facilities were made by the engineering firms responsible for the preparation of the report. Our specific comments are listed below and we strongly recommend that the report be rejected and completely redone. Resort Economics Paragraph 3.5.2 on page 3-58 states that the business model for the resort envisioned in the 1999 development agreement is no longer viable and that the alternate I plan is necessary to maintain the long term viability of the resort. Normally one would leave decisions regarding the resort business models to the developer. However, economics are discussed in the report and in this instance PLA is indicating that a changing business model is forcing them to modify the plan for the resort. It would thus appear that PLA is under a burden to both the County and to the community to demonstrate that the proposed revisions are in fact necessary and provide assurance for the long-term viability qf the resort. There is no basis in the report to conclude that alternate 1 will assure the LOG ITEM #--1t69 page__L ot7 .~ POST OFFICE BOX 65060 PORT LUDLOW, WASHINGTON 98365 f' c '-; ~ \ : j i " ; ~ .1'.' :!:p'! d1 " ,i~" . ~ ; / J, . ..~'.,.~ . -:~: "J'.j '-~~?~ ' i* ,~ I.' / , , , t~' , . . I I community the economic viability of the resort. In fact, it is our opinion that the opposite is true. Alternate 1 does not add any rooms to the inn to better serve the traveling public. The restaurant is decreased in size signincantly so it is less able to serve the public and the Port Ludlow residents. Admiralty I and II, which has previously been used as rental units for the traveling public, are now rapidly being converted to permanent residences by the owners. Thus, it would appear that there will be no additional units to serve the travelling public and in fact the number may be decreasing. In less than 5 years the business model for the resort has changed. Who is to say that PLA's current business model will be valid in a few more years? There is no requirement that PLA construct all of the facilities shown in the alternative 1. We suspect that PLA could decide to only build the condominium and townhouse units to the maximum density permitted in the resort area and leave without constructing the additional amenities. What is the communities' protection against this? AcceDtabilitv of Resort Revisions bv the Community Paragraph 35, I on page 3-55 states "the facilities should also be consistent with the needs and desires ofthe citizens ofthe area and be compatible with the Shoreline Management Master Program." We can assure you in the strongest terms that alternate 1, with its significant increase in residential unit density, is not consistent with the needs and desires of the Port Ludlow community. The community has previously, in 1994, very strongly rejected a similar plan for high residential density. The higher density of building proposed by the alternative 1 plan change the esthetics and character of the resort area and will forever impact it negatively. If the County is serious about considering the needs and desires of the community you will reject the increase in residential units in the resort area. Resort Parkin~ The adequacy of parking was one of the big issues brought to the attention of the County in -letters and during the scoping meeting held last July. In spite of that concern by the Port Ludlow community, parking is only superficially covered in the report and is in error. There are three different numbers in the report for parking spaces planned for the resort (see pages 2-5, 3-47,and 3-78). Which number is right? The report makes no reference to Jefferson County code for determining the number of parking spaces that are required for the planned new facilities and the expansion of the marina. Page 3-78 of the DSEIS states that parking for the various commercial uses will be provided per county code and total 237 spaces. What is the basis for that number? We believe that number to be significantly in error. The parking analysis must specify the County code requirements for parking spaces for each area/facility within the resort area and demonstrate that the number of parking spaces is consistent with the'coderequirements and that the parking is within a reasonable distance to the facility being served. It must include the planned use of the second floor of the restaurant building by the Port Ludlow Yacht Club and the use ofthe third floor as a conference facility. The report indicates that PLA has a lease agreement with LMC for the use of 56 parking spaces in the West Parking Lot. That is not true. The lease agreement provides that PLA may have priority rights to 53 parking spaces if they upgraded the West Pa: . . LOG ITEM #J<6 ~ Page_~of_7~. JUN 14 2UU~ EFFERSON eOUNTY DeO .' contain a total of 106 parking spaces. This upgrade has not been done so PLA has only a non-exclusive right to the parking places in the West Lot and LMC has retained access and the right to use all spaces in the West Lot by LMC members, its officers, its guests and other invitees. Further, the lease expires January 1, 2013 and LMC does not currently plan to renew it. We therefore believe that for purposes of assessing long-term impact, none of the 56 parking spaces should be considered usable by resort facilities. The DSEIS states that each condominium and townhouse will have two off street parking spaces. Examination of the only plans made available to us would indicate that one parking space is behind the other. The reality is that it will be very cumbersome for residences to move one car to gain access to the other. People will likely park one car in the street in order to have ready access to their cars. This could block the streets and prevent emergency vehicles from access to all of the residences. Parking spaces for each townhouse or condominium should be parallel to each other so that there is ready access for each car. Stormwater Runoff No quantitative estimate has been made of the increase in stormwater runoff resulting from the proposed plan. How can you be confident that the additional steps proposed to be taken to handle the additional stormwater runoff will be sufficient if you do not know what the additional volume of water will be? Page 3-47, under Infrastructure Improvements, states that "the existing storm drainage collection/conveyance system within Ludlow Bay Village will be evaluated to determine if the 100 year capacity is adequate to accommodate the additional runoff from the Admiralty III area." What happens if it is not adequate and why was this analysis not required to be a part of this SEIS? There is currently year round seepage and drainage of water from the meadow above Admiralty II into the lower parking areas, with water pushing its way up through the seams in the asphalt. The DSEIS makes no mention of this problem that will be greatly increased by additional surface water from the construction of Admiralty III. This problem must be analyzed as a part of the DSEIS. We understand that the Port Ludlow Drainage District was not consulted about the impact of Alternative 1 on the drainage within Port Ludlow. How can the agency responsible for drainage within Port Ludlow not have input into this process? We assume that the additional stormwater runoff will carry with it significant additional silt into the lagoon and also petroleum products from parked vehicles. Has any estimate been made of the buildup of silt within the lagoon and the resulting environmental impact to habitat within the lagoon? The location of the retention pond for collection of stormwater runoff from the Admiralty III complex has not been shown. Where is this location, how large will the retention pond be, and what is the possible safety and environmental impact to all residences with the Admiralty complex of buildings? No consideration appears to have been given to overflow from a retention basin from earthquake, landslide or other events that could be destructive to the Admiralty property and to the residents of these units. LOG ITEM #~ Page ,3 ~of 7 JUN 1 ,4 20M JEFFERSON COUNTY OCD F'ire District No.3 Imoacts Page 3-95 presents a summary of mitigation/impact fees and property taxes to be paid to Fire District NO.3 for each residential unit. There is no analysis that demonstrates that this additional money is suftlcient to provide additional fire district personnel and equipment for emergency services such that the overall level of service within Port Ludlow is not degraded. A letter in the DSEIS from the Fire District No. 3 Fire Chief discusses stations available to support the area but does not address the impact of the resort expansion on the level of service available. The DSEIS should be reviewed by Fire District No. 3 and their concurrence must be obtained that the overall service in Port Ludlow will not be negatively impacted. Loss of Community Recreational Facilities There is significant open space around the Admiralty I and II buildings wherein Pope Resources, in the initial development of the Admiralty complex, constructed amenity facilities including a children's playground, volleyball court, basketball court, horseshoe pits, trails etc. The construction of Admiralty III will remove these amenities and there is nothing in the report to indicate that they will be replaced. Where is the mitigation necessary by taking these recreation facilities away from the community? Hazard ImDact to Admiraltv ComDlex Admiralty I and II and the proposed Admiralty III area is known to be in an area of "Landslide Hazard-Medium Risk". Adding Admiralty III will worsen this potential hazard and create an area of even higher risk to the residents of Admiralty II living close to the shoreline. Availabilitv of Facilities for Conferences The report indicates that small resort conferences can be held at the Bay Club, the Beach Club, the Heron Beach Inn or at the new restaurant. The County must be advised that the Bay Club and the Beach Club are not conference facilities as stated in the DSEIS. These are both private facilities for our members and guests. While we may occasionally rent out our facilities to outside organizations, it is on a very limited and as available basis. We do expect that as the population of North Bay increases pressure will increase to eliminate totally the renting of our facility to outside organizations. PLA should not assume the Beach Club facilities are available for their use. ComDliance With County Ordinance 08-1004-99. Section 3.902 Section 3.902 of Jefferson County Ordinance 08-1004-99 Port Ludlow Development Regulations, states that architectural drawings including a detailed site plan, and architectural sketches or drawings showing approximate elevations, sections, and floor plans are required for the SEIS to assure that the SEIS considers project-level details. Q'.... None of the site plans contained in the DSEIS show the level of detail required by Ordinance 08-1004-99. Location of roads within the resort and described in the text of the report are not shown. Further, none of the proposed residential units are shown in sufficient detail that one can understand how access is obtained to the residences and LOG ITEIVI p~-t~q q of ~-, 9 ___ _1, ~ c u c ~ :z: ::l o U Z o en a: w LL.. LL.. W --.:I ....,. ...... z ::::> ..., ..1 ... , , where the parking is relative to the residence and the roadway. No detailed drawings are presented showing elevations of the various residential units and of the commercial buildings as they would be platted and laid out within the resort landscape. The floor plans included in the DSEIS do not represent all the types of residences proposed and it is not possible to determine where these units are located within the resort. There is no floor plan for any of the commercial buildings planned for the resort area. This significantly hampers our ability to review the document and evaluate the alternative 1 impacts. ProDane Stora~e Areas and Analvsis of Hazards Page 3-94 states that two new propane storage areas will be added with one within Ludlow Bay Village and one within Admiralty III. The size and location of these storage areas are not specified or shown on any of the site maps and no analysis is presented to demonstrate that the storage areas do not pose a danger to the residences. Environmental ImDact to Resort Habitat Page 3-20 ofthe report indicates that a 1992 report forms the basis for evaluating the impact of the resort revision on the plant and animal communities within the resort area. How can a 12-year-old report be used as the primary source of data to evaluate current environmental impacts to endangered, threatened, sensitive, and other priority species and habitats in the resort area? The text of the report indicates that a number of species of concern are expected to occur within the area. Mitigation of the concerns and impacts are non-existent. Page 3-35 indicates that the following impacts are unavoidable: disturbance and displacement of some fish and wildlife species due to elevated levels of human activity and noise during the construction period; loss of vegetative cover and productivity between the time land is cleared and the time revegetation takes hold; increased surface runoff due to an increase in impermeable surfaces; loss of small areas of subtidal benthic habitat at the location of the new piling; possible loss of algal and epibenthic productivity at locations beneath the new floats; mortality to beach-spawning forage fish associated with increased human use of the beach; and increased risk of spills or discharge of graylblack water, petroleum products or hazardous material. Those words would indicate to us that there are significant negative environmental impacts that are not mitigated by this plan. The DSEIS states that there are no Eagle nests in the West portion of Port Ludlow Bay. This is in error. Several Eagles now reside in the west portion of the bay and in the Admiralty complex area both near the area proposed for resort revision. We see them flying every day and they roost on the totem pole on Burner Point. TransDortation Analvsis The transportation analysis contained in Section 3.6 is in error. The test of the report indicates that the analysis used base data from a 2002 program and estimated traffic volume increases to 2010 at which time the resort is projected to be built out. The analysis used 350 residential units as the number of units remaining to be completed under the Port Ludlow Master Plan. That number is in error. As of 2002 PLA had over 450 MERU's remaining for construction of residential units. Additionally, there are currently approximately 350 lots within North Bay that have not yet been built on. Thus, at resort completion, there will be approximately 800 additional residences over that u: ... ~ ..q4 ...-l z: :;::) ...., LOG ITEM #-1-<t;Cf Page E}_of 7~~ .. .. which existed at 2002. Finally, and perhaps more importantly, the report goes into great detail on the analysis of traffic impact to roads and road junction's external to Port Ludlow but does almost no analysis of traffic flow and traffic load within the resort. Section 3.904 Item E of County Ordinance 08-1004-99 requires that transportation impacts be analyzed including trip generation, traffic congestion, traffic systems, vehicle and pedestrian hazards, parking and spill-over parking. None ofthese items have been adequately addressed within the resort. The increase in residential units, the marina expansion and the remoteness of parking from resort facilities will significantly increase pedestrian traffic within the resort area. There are no pathways or sidewalks proposed within the resort for these people to walk on so they will be forced to walk on the resort roadways. There is no analysis to determine the amount of pedestrian traffic within the resort and the safety risk imposed by walking on the roadway. It is our belief that sidewalks are required within the resort to protect pedestrian traffic. ImDact of Recreational Facilitv on LMC The report indicates that the new condominium and townhouse residents, Inn guests and marina guests are the only ones that will be allowed the use of a new recreational facility to be built in the resort area. Further, PLA has publicly indicated that the new residential units may have their own homeowners association. The Port Ludlow community currently has a master homeowners association in North Bay and another in South Bay. We do not need to further separate various parts of the community and have another association that divides the community. In addition, it deprives LMC of potential member income threatening our economic viability. No changes should be made to the current CC&R's for Ludlow Bay Village that would eliminate the requirement that they become members ofLMC Public Access to Beach Area Page 3-59 states that the proposed boardwalk and marina expansion will increase public access to the water. That statement is not true. The pedestrian access plan depicted in Figure 13 shows only one basic access trail to the beach as being in front of Heron Beach Inn. That access now exists so no change is being made to beach access. ComDliance With Shoreline Mana~ement Master Pro~ram Page 3-21 states that the lagoon is not a shoreline regulated under the Shoreline Management Act. We do not understand the basis for that statement as our reading of the Shoreline Management Act clearly indicates that the lagoon should fall under the provisions of the act. The County must provide the details for that statement so that we may appeal to the proper authorities if such a ruling has been made. If indeed the lagoon does fall under the regulations ofthe Shoreline Management Act then the proposed revision is in violation of several provisions of the act. Resort Plan Alternatives We do not understand why Alternates 2 and 3 are contained in the report. The report states neither of these alternatives may be implemented due to changes that have taken LOG ITEM #~9 p " age (; _of 7 (.) 0 ~ .~ ::z => ~ C) ~ (.) z 2; :::;) C) -, en c:: lJJ LL... l.L LU -:. '- , place since 1994. The addition of these two alternatives only adds volume to the report and further complicates the ability to read and understand the environmental impact analysis of the resort revision being requested by Port Ludlow Associates (PLA). They appear to only be strawmen against which to judge alternative 1. The LMC wants the developer to succeed in the final development of the resort into one that has long-term economic viability. It must, however, be a plan that works for both the developer and for the community. Alternate 1, as presented in the DSEIS, is not a plan acceptable to the Port Ludlow North Bay community. Our preference is that additional residential units be constructed as currently platted. We would be willing to consider removal of the current Harbor Master restaurant, construction of a new restaurant on the waterfront, and expansion of the marina only if it can be firmly demonstrated that adequate parking will exist for the facilities and that the traffic patterns within the resort do not cause a burden to the community. We strongly urge the County to refuse to accept the DSEIS in its present form. There are significant errors in it and environmental impacts to the resort and the Port Ludlow community have not been adequately analyzed. It is clearly a plan we cannot accept. We ask that you include LMC representatives to sit down with the County and the developer to work towards a plan that will be acceptable and beneficial to all. ruce Schmitz ~:~1~~ Nelson ard Member, LMC Sally sborn Board Member, LMC LOG ITEM #.1 ~~T ~_~ Page ---2--_ of...::L, JUN 14 20M JEFfERSON COUNTI OeD