HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog091
.
e
Page 1 of 1
Josh Peters
From: William G Funke [wgfunke@olypen.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 24,20023:36 PM
To: Josh Peters
Subject: Port Ludlow Marina
Josh,
Thanks for your prompt reply and comments. I have no problem with your corrections which
actually give needed fill-in detaiL I appreciate this.
One point I do not understand from you editing is the County reverting to "the preferred alternative"
should the final Resort Plan not permit Marina expansion as now proposed.
What does this mean? What is (or will be) the preferred alternative, or will this be decided only after
the impacts of the final Resort Plan are available? And is or will an alternative be "no expansion".
Please explain.
With this in mind, I still have a problem with the County rationale and position to waive the
Ordinance" no piecemeal "requirement because the Marina expansion will be the only Resort Plan
EIS segment requiring other agency input.
The multi agency aspect of the Marina expansion is all the more reason to follow the Ordinance
requirements and do the Marina EIS as part of the whole Resort EIS or, in consideration of the other
agencies, not do a Marina EIS until all other segments of the Resort plan EISs are completed, Having
the complete plan should be necessary so that the other agencies have all available data on which to
base their decisions.
In short, there is no rationale for the County to waive the Ordinance rules and accept PLA's Marina
Expansion plan in advance or separate from the whole Resort development plan just to accomidate
PLA.
I would appreciate your comments and for you to include this correspondence with the Marina
Expansion file,
Bill Funke
'$' 'q l . . ._....
""",~~,..,.._... . ~
Page -1-0f~_
1/25/02