HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog119
r
e
e
~
E-mail Messaqe
DATE: July 25, 2002
TO: Department of Community Development, Att'n: Mr. Josh Peters
cc: Ms Susan Glenn, US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle
Messrs. Grant Colby, D.A.Routt and Dr. Paul Thomas-Smith
RE: Port Ludlow Marina Expansion, Draft SEIS
FR: William G. Funke
75 Scott Court
Port Ludlow
In response to the referenced Marina Expansion, Draft SEIS, I question the validity of the marina
expansion map shown in the Draft as Alternative 3.
This Alternative 3 map purports to be the original marina expansion plan considered as part of the 1993
FEIS 100 slip marina expansion approval which. as drawn. shows a shoreline expansion to the West of the
existing docks. reaching to and overlapping the current "Scott" docks.
Although the Reid Middleton document of September 17, 2001 lists a 1993 proposal amongst three
alternatives, and the County Scoping document of November 30, 2001 lists a 1993 proposal amongst four
alternatives, in response to my interest is seeing documentation of the 1993 Marina Expansion FEIS, Mr.
Josh Peters advised me there was no record at the County that such a map existed.
Subsequently, I made a thorough search of the complete 1993 FEIS file in storage at the Beach Club
without fmding any marina expansion map nor a reference to one.
I call attention to this matter because at last fall's marina expansion scoping meeting, Mr. Greg McCarry
made the comment that Scott Court residents knew prior to buying our properties that the marina expansion
would be built off shore of our Scott Court property. As all Scott residents will attest there is no record of
such disclosure. Mr. McCarry's statement was false
The appearance and inclusion of an Alternative 3 map as part of the Draft SEIS appears to be the
Developer's attempt to lay basis and support any claims, as first made by Mr. McCarry, that the
unrestricted water view Scott Court properties we purchased from Mr. McCarry were in fact encumbered at
the time of sale by prior 1993 County approval for a Marina expansion.
Accordingly, I would appreciate your soonest validation and supporting documentation that the Draft SEIS
Alternative 3 map is that plan originally proposed by the Developer and the map specifically considered by
the County in the 1993 FEIS.
Another issue with respect to the Draft SEIS is that while the Draft SEIS records the Scott Court residents
objections to any Marina Expansion and Marina activity off shore of our Scott Court property, the specific
objections I raised in my letter to Mr. Peters relating Pope Resources marketing our lots as water front
property and the May 1999 shoreline bank collapse and loss of my shoreline property were not included in
the Draft. Accordingly I have included herewith copy of my September 20,2000 letter on these subjects.
It is further noted Scott Court residents will be directly impacted by construction noise.
Finally, I will repeat the opinion set forth in my letter to Mr. Josh Peters dated November 1,2001 that the
County has violated the intent and requirements of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Ordinance #0-
10-1004-99. specifically:
'l~r~\i1
Ii t:!v
.....~._.>.-JLq_.-:~-
\ ~..,~+.:' I)..
.".._.....'..______.~.__ ~..i~"'.~ _~"_.,,.,
~-
e
e
Section 3.902, Paragraph 1. "Environmental review of the Resort Plan shall not be piecemealed or broken
into small segments" and
Section 3.902. Paragraph 3. "Architectural drawings including a detailed site plan, and architectural
sketches or drawings showing approximate elevations, sections, and floor plans are reQuired, however, to
ensure that the SEIS considers proiect-level details.".
Along with Mr. Greg McCarry, then representing Olympic Resources Management division of Pope
Resources, I served as one of the County appointed "stakeholders" on the Mediation Group charged with
developing these Zoning Ordinances for Port Ludlow.
I can attest the Resort Development process, as set forth in Section 3.902, was agreed to by all Mediation
Group parties and specifically addressed and resolved the previously deadlocked position differences
between ORM and Jefferson County, i.e. the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission, with respect to
RCW requirements for a "Resort Plan" prior to creating and adopting Ordinances for a Master Planned
Resort.
Mr. Josh Peters indicated the County Attorney approved the "piece meal" SEIS study for the Marina
Expansion based on existing RCWs relating to shoreline studies. I would again remind the County the
County Attorney approved the Resort Ordinances as worded, to specifically codify development
requirements in compliance with and beyond those RCWs now used to justify this SEIS variance.
The above-cited Ordinance requirements were formulated and must be followed to evaluate the on -shore
impacts of Marina Expansion to the ORM Resort Development conceptual proposals or whatever Port
Ludlow Associates now plans, not to the existing Resort area structures and uses.
The ORM Resort Development proposals were presented to the Port Ludlow community and Mediation
Group with artist conceptual paintings which illustrated maior planned changes in the areas immediatelv
adiacent to the existing marina. These included an outdoor amphitheater replacing the existing lake, the
current marina parking lot area replaced by four single family houses, a new restaurant on the current
overflow parking space and an under ground parking facility to be developed upland of the current marina
parking area.
It is noted the ORM artist concept showed the Marina Expansion water ward only out from ORM property
only.
It should also be noted that these ORM concepts were used during the Mediation to calculate the Resort
Plan development limits as set forth in Ordinance Section 3.901
For the County to ignore the required Port Ludlow Resort Development EIS process citing convenience of
accommodating and scheduling the many involved government agencies party, makes mockery of the
Ordinance creation efforts and, in my belief, is an illegal action.
Respectfully submitted,
William G. Funke
Attachment: 1
LOG ITErvi
",.4. I JI7I
"S'l" " J
"_,."~..,.,.".,,,,,_~,,,,~,,,.'w."""'"
1- 2--