HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog107
e
e
Jerry Smith
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Warren Hart
Tuesday, October 17, 2000 10:18 AM
Josh Peters; AI Scalf; David Alvarez
Randy Kline; Jerry Smith
RE: Port Ludlow Marina expansion & SEPA
Continue with the application. My feeble memory of the meeting at the CH was to allow them to apply because it will take
1-2 years to get approval from the army corps and the services. We would not issue the permit until they complied with the
ordinance which requires the full resort plan. Of course we know that this approach is fraught with peril because PL may
be sold shortly or they will probably get their permits and then whine or sue that we can't hold up the permit since we let
them apply. We do not have this agreement in writing. Is Jon's word or memory defendable in court? Probably not.
David. Please respond to this blunt response. Thanks. Warren.
-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Peters
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 20009:51 AM
To: AI Scalf; David Alvarez; Warren Hart
Cc: Randy Kline; Jerry Smith
Subject: Port Ludlow Marina expansion & SEPA
Greetings:
I got a call from Nicole Faghin of Reid-Middleton today wanting to know what's happening with the Port Ludlow Marina
expansion case. I told her that the SEPA matter was lingering and that I'd get back to her as soon as possible.
About two weeks ago, Randy, Jerry and I discussed the specifics of the phased review proposal made by Jon Rose in
the cover letter for the application. We ended up calling David Alvarez. Basically, we agreed that a Supplemental EIS
to handle just the 100-slip marina expansion is defensible from the WAC standpoint under the phased review criteria.
However, the Port Ludlow Ordinance appears to contain language intended to prevent disparate Supplemental EISs
that do not address at one time all the elements on the list of potential expansion pieces.
I asked David yesterday about this and he expressed reluctance in allowing ORM to go against the ordinance. One
scenario is that a citizen of Port Ludlow could complain about how this was handled. On the other hand, we've already
noticed their project in the paper and other agencies are involved. For example, the Corps of Engineers is doing a site
visit on October 31, along with WDFW and potentially NMFS and USFWS. Putting up a barrier now stops a barge of
momentum.
From what I've been told, the pre-application consultation meeting did not include discussion about SEPA, since that
discussion was being held between our legal counsel and theirs. When I got the application materials, I recall asking
whether Mr. Rose's cover letter accurately reflected the agreement reached between the parties regarding SEPA. My
impression at the time was that the matter was resolved, and so the application process was initiated. Later, in looking
over the documents and thinking about how to proceed with a threshold determination, it appeared worth discussing
again, in terms of reconciling the ordinance with the marina expansion project. Turns out that the matter was not fully
resolved.
David asked me to bring this up with AI. I'm including "everyone" in the message in case anyone has input.
Essentially, we need to decide what to do (cancel their application and refund the money...continue with a threshold
determination) or whether further communication/negotiation is necessary between the legal counsels. If you need
copies of Mr. Rose's letter or any other materials, let me know.
Thanks for your help,
Josh
LOG ITEM
#\01
Page_ \ of_i__
1