HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog089
~
,
'.
e
e
Josh Peters
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Nicole Faghin [nfaghin@reidmidd.com]
Thursday, January 24, 2002 9:37 AM
Josh Peters
Re: FW: Marina Expansion
Josh: Thank you for the correspondence, We will keep this information
in our project file.
Please accept our committment to professionalism with respect to all
aspects of our work for PLA,
Thanks.
Nicole Faghin
Director of Planning
and Environmental Services
Reid Middleton
728 134th St. SW
Everett, WA 98204
(425) 741-3800
Fax: (425) 741-3900
nfaghin@reidmidd,com
>>> "Josh Peters" <jpeters@co.jefferson.wa.us> 01/24/02 08:36AM >>>
Hello Nicole:
I thought you may be interested in the attached summary of a
conversation with Bill Funke. Mr. Funke is concerned that the
PLA-contracted consultant will be "defending" the proposal rather than
analyzing alternatives. FYI.
On another note, Al says that he will not go out on site for the first
half of the Thorndyke pre-app day. He'll sit in on the
presentation/discussion here at the office, if he can. So that makes
for more flexibility in scheduling form our perspective.
Regards,
Josh
-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Peters
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 8:33 AM
To: 'William G Funke'
Subject: RE: Marina Expansion
Hello Bill:
Attached is your Word document with my line-in/line-out edits. You can
"accept" them by going to "Tools" and then "Track Changes." The
attached document better reflects my thoughts as expressed to you on the
phone and also includes some additional information, like the WAC
reference that says that counties should be the lead agency for SEPA
review when there is a county permit.
Regards,
Josh
# LO~ ~EM
Page -1-0f1-
1
.f
,
..
e
e
-----Original Message-----
From: William G Funke [mailto:wgfunke@olypen.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 4:09 PM
To: Josh Peters
Subject: Marina Expansion
Josh:
Attached is a memorandum recapping today's conversation. Please review
it for accuracy and advise.
Bill Funke
1 '1';
~. ~_~ ~L. *<-_ ~_~
a tl ~.o
/.r. (;_~___
2
E-mail MEMORANDUM TO:
Mr. Josh Peters
January 23,2002
f
"
e
e
. ~:-,~'"
Before relating our phone discussion today with my Scott Court neighbors, I would appreciate you
correcting any misunderstanding I might have drawn from your comments with respect to the proposed
Marine Expansion.
As I understood your answers to my questions:
Jefferson County has elected to act asis the appropriate -"Lead:!. a-geooy-Agency" for review of this proposal
under the State Environmental Policv Act (SEPA) per WAC 197-11-932. in dkeeting and coordiBatiag tfle
yarious otherThe State and Federal agencies that also have reg:ulatorv iurisdiction in the review of this
proposal whi€ft-will review and j*Hi5--8Butilize the environmental impact statement (SEP A) now being
prepared by a professional consulting company hired and financed by the developer, Port Ludlow
Assoeiated Associates (PLA), and approved by the County.
The PLA-contracted Consultant.....-Reid-Middleton, Inc.. will address all issues identified by the County in
the "scope" ofthe EIS; however, the County is not bound by the Consultants findings, e.g. a biased or
incomplete report.
In response to Scott Court property owner concerns, the environmental impacts of enlarging the marina
outward from the resort owner's property away from the Scott Court property must alsowill be studied
under the analysis of one of the Alternatives in the EIS.
Regarding my previously addressed written objections to the marina EIS that the current Jefferson County
Ordinances stipulate the Resort area EIS's will not be undertaken "piecemeal", i.e. must be part of a
complete Resort EIS, you opinioned that "none of the other State and Federal agencies are bound by the
County Ordinances and accordingly the County's Countv, ffile...as "Lead" agency for SEPA review. has a
responsibility to facilitate timely multi-agencv review of the proposaL Therefore, permits this partieular,
Fmllti agefley required approval,the Marine expansion EIS te-is going ge-forward without a complete Resort
plan and Resort expansion EIS stady in order for the other agencies involved to be able to review the only
element of the Resort plan under their jurisdiction, the Marina expansion.".
The County will enforce the resort area Ordinance requirements to require a complete resort plan and EIS
prior to issuing any land use approval (i.e., a shoreline or building permit} for any Marina expansion, ,
You further opinioned that should the complete resort plan, when submitted by PLA skew the results of the
Marina EIS, the County will review and possibly reconsider their marina eXpaflSiOB determiaatisHthe
"preferred alternative" in the Marina expansion EIS. For example any new development in the marina area
that would compromise marina parking, access et cetera.
At this time the County has not imposed a time limitation for PLA to submit the marina Draft EIS
f8f**t(DEIS). After receipt the J2.EIS will reviewed by the County thenbe made public for Community
response. A Final EIS (FEIS) that addresses public and agencv comments will be made available to the
public and used by State and Federal agencies with iurisdiction for their permit review. The Marina
expansion FEIS will serve as a component of the Resort expansion EIS to follow and may be modified
accordi!1gJv, as stated above.
Bill Funke
W gfunke@ol ypen.com
L.OG ITEM
# ~1~
'3 3
Page _of_