Waldo Point Harbor Reconfiguration
In September 1999 Waldo Point Harbor re-submitted a reconfiguration plan to the county which they hoped would resolve the existing permit violations and will alow new permits to be issued.
This plan was reviewed by HEG and FHA and was found to be extremely harmful to the residents of the five authorized Waldo Point Harbor docks. Also, as with other plans, it was drafted and submitted without consulting the affected residents. In a series of meetings held by WPH, residents of all the docks strongly objected to the plan WPH submitted, as it had serious negative impacts on every single dock.
In an effort to develop a plan that would serve both the regulatory agencies needs and the Waldo Point Harbor residents concerns, alternate plan "Concepts" were submitted by a joint committee of HEG, FHA, Gates CoOp and WPH residents. This "Community Development Proposal" was submitted in October 1999. This was included in the first Draft EIR, but was removed from that draft at the insistence of BCDC Staff.
Following the First Draft EIR, a new opportunity arose for WPH residents to take a more proactive role in influencing the WPH permit process and the associated reconfiguration plan. HEG and modified Community Development Plan was prepared by the joint FHA/HEG/Residents joint committee and was submitted for the second EIR round. The CDP was found to be the Preferred Alternative to the WPH plan and was accepted by WPH and all the agencies.
The downloadable files available from this page contain the most up to date information on the WPH reconfiguration plan, to be built in accordance with the CDP. Please take a moment to download and read them.
Summary of the Community Development Plan (CDP) as proposed by the Waldo Point Harbor Residents Committee (WPHRC) is a three-part plan that accommodates up to 38 Gates Co-op homes.
1) Provide infill wherever possible. The Plan accommodates 20 Gates Co-op homes on five docks. This is the only infill area available.
2) Purchase of existing homes should take place to minimize an increase in density. Available monies should be used to purchase existing homes wherever possible. Since the WPH permit expired, low cost homes could have been purchased at a cost less than that of upgrading many Gates homes. There is still some opportunity here.
3) There is no place else for other homes to go. If 41 are to be integrated into the community, they must be accommodated in a safe, secure, up to code manner in their current location. This makes sense because this is the only location where density is not maximized and there is available parking..
This plan is designed so that no existing Waldo Point Harbor residents need move their homes, lose their view, or are otherwise harmed as in the WPH plan. The substantial effort, time, and expense that the residents are going through to accommodate additional homes is predicated on the belief that the purpose of the relocation is to accommodate low and moderate level housing.
The WPHRC CDP is both reasonable and feasible and was approved in the Final EIR because:
1) Is has never been considered before. It is unique and meets most of the project objectives.
2) It lessens substantial impacts on the residents and the environment.
3) It was formulated and submitted by the residents of WPH who are the ones affected by the plan.
4) CEQA requires that it be considered. The WPH plan had unavoidable impacts on residents and the environment that could not be mitigated. Another plan must
be considered and the CDP was it.
5) The WPH plan increased density beyond any reasonable level and destroys existing views.
6) The WPH plan did not incorporate feedback from residents. We opposed the plan.
7) The WPH plan increased density where no additional parking is available. For instance, we were told new parking on the railroad property supports increased density on “A” Dock. The average distance to the parking is 1275 ft. This is nearly 1&Mac218;4 of a mile. Likewise with Issaquah Dock, the avg. distance is ~1188 ft. The average distance to new parking for Main dock is 619 ft., or two football fields.
8) The scale of the CDP is smaller and appropriate. It is fastest and cheapest to implement.
9) The CDP limits construction to one part of the harbor while the WPH plan was harbor-wide.
10) The CDP is more likely to succeed and will not subject residents to decades of construction misery, loss of enjoyment of their homes, and destruction of their community.