HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog110
;1-.
_ it
e
e
Page 1 of 1
Josh Peters
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
-----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.
B ill Funke
LOG \TEfvl
#: lit). .-
- .if: 1-
If'"
P. 8...g8. l ,~'" --...--......--
},,.; y ~=~....-.........-.-_.
7/1/02
. ..
. It( ..
.
e
tit
E-mail MEMORANDUM TO:
Mr. Josh Peters
January 23, 2002
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::' agency Agency" for review of this proposal
under the State Environmental Policv Act (SEP A) per WAC 197-11-932. in directing and coordinating the
various otherThe State and Federal agencies that also have regulatorv iurisdiction in the review of this
proposal wffieh-.will review and :f*tS5-OOutilize the environmental impact statement (SEP A) now being
prepared by a professional consulting company hired and financed by the developer, Port Ludlow
L^.ssoeiated Associates (PLA), and approved by the County.
The PLA-contracted Consultant.l...-Reid-Middleton, Inc., will address all issues identified by the County in
the "scope" of the 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 County ,rele-as "Lead" agency for SEP A review, has a
responsibility to facilitate timely multi-agency review of the proposal. Therefore, permits this particular,
multi agency 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 iurisdiction, the Marina expansion.".
The County will enforce the resort area Ordinance requirements to require a complete resort plan and EIS
prior to issuing anv 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 mariHa expaHsiofl determiaatioathe
"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
rep6ft(DEIS). After receipt the .QEIS will revi8\ved by the County thenbe made public for Community
response. A Final EIS (PElS) that addresses public and agency comments will be made available to the
public and used bv State and Federal agencies with jurisdiction for their permit review. The Marina
expansion FEIS will serve as a component of the Resort expansion EIS to follow and may be modified
accordingly, as stated above.
Bill Funke
Wgfunke@olypen.com
LOG ITEM
t{. tI b
"}i? ___"'-"'~'
Panp 1- ol k
It. "',,"~;;} ....:;~ ,~_,___.-~"~,,.__..~., _.._" ,,-''''-'-'' ',' ..,,".'-- ".~"