HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog092
..
e
.
Page 1 of 2
Josh Peters
From: Josh Peters
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 8:46 AM
To: 'William G Funke'
Cc: Mark Dorsey (E-mail); Nicole Faghin (E-mail); AI Scalf
Subject: RE: Port Ludlow Marina
Hello Bill:
Consult this website for information on the term "preferred alternative" in SEPA review:
bttP:!!W.WWA~_CY,Wg,gQY/pJQgrgmsL$.~a/$~p9Lb-,:l,lJgbklbJ,:Jfrc:jm~.htm. The link goes to a frame HTML version of
the SEPA Handbook. If you click on EIS process and then preferred alternative, you'll access the information
you desire. When I used the term in my note to you, I meant it in terms of a preferred alternative coming out of
the EIS at the end of the process, an alternative which mayor may not be one of the original alternatives
selected for analysis. The point was made in the context of an affirmative answer to your question, "Can the
Resort expansion EIS affect the outcome of the Marina expansion component EIS?" As it states in the SEPA
Handbook, an EIS does not necessarily have a preferred alternative.
There is a "no action" alternative being analyzed in the EIS, and that is the no expansion alternative.
Your message has been printed and placed in the file. I have also forwarded it to the applicant and the
consultant for their information. They may be willing to help explain the process to you and the other adjacent
property owners. Their email addresses appear above.
Regards,
Josh
-----Original Message-----
From: William G Funke [mailto:wgfunke@olypen.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 3:36 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
LOGclTEM
1/28/02 # ( 'l-
Page L-of ~
r~
.
.
Page 2 of 2
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
,,..., ,'~.(., ,~,AC~::" ~'.B
~ 1,"'; . ...Jl'~~
~~< q ''"1,..---
1/28/02 .-'~.. .,. "~-, ".-
'l...,L...
'-'-"