Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog121 ~ " e e Page 1 of2 . Je!~m~~i~h.m__ ................. ....................................... .... From: Josh Peters Sent: Friday, July 26,20022:17 PM To: David Alvarez Cc: AI Scalf; Jerry Smith Subject: FW: Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Hello David, et al: I am forwarding these comments to you for two reasons. The first is the fact that Mr. Funke raises legal questions or challenges in the documents attached to the email we received today during the comment period for the Draft SEIS for the proposed Port Ludlow Marina Expansion. The second is because you are mentioned on the second page of Mr. Funke's letter dated July 25,2002. For your information, I do not recall making the statement attributed to me by Mr. Funke, nor do I believe that I made that statement, primarily because I would not have used the word "piecemeal" to describe this process and I do not know to what RCWs relating to shoreline studies Mr. Funke believes I would have referred. I may have used the words "phased environmental review" instead of "piecemeal," those being two separate and specific terms in SEPA. Following is correspondence sent to me in January of this year by Mr. Funke. He asked me to review his notes from our phone conversation for my concurrence. You will note my input in strike-through and underline format. I provided Mr. Funke a copy of his original correspondence together with my edits. The original correspondence between myself and Mr. Funke is part of the file for SDPOO-00014, as is this correspondence. You can see from the written summary of the telephone exchange that the word "piecemeal" was employed by Mr. Funke in a question to me. For your information, the environmental review process being utilized by Jefferson County and other participating agencies is discussed in the current DSEIS on p.1-4 and 1-5. The document is available on our website on the Permit Database Search page and we can route you a hard copy upon request. Regards, Josh 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 1'188 elesteel te 8St 88is the appropriate -"Lead~ B~eRey Agency" for review of this proposal under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) per WAC 197-11-932. iR elirestiR~ 8ReI eeefeliR8tiR~ tAe v8fiet:ls etAerThe State and Federal agencies that also have regulatory iurisdiction in the review of this proposal whteA-will review and ~8SS eFlutilize the environmental impact statement (SEPA) now being prepared by a professional consulting company hired and financed by the developer, Port Ludlow Asssei8teel 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 biase. d. or inco,mplete report. LOG \TEM l2=L--- .~-'- (,.f '1 -- , 'Jll_..J::::::"_ -..-,...,..,.....'-"~.&-''"'''''............. 7/26/02 .. e e Page 2 of2 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 fl'll:lst slsewill 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", Le. 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 Cel:lRty's County. t'8le-as "Lead" agency for SEPA review. has a responsibility to facilitate timely multi-agency review of the proposal. Therefore. ~eFfl'lits tRis ~sFtiel:llsr, fl'll:llti s~eRey reEll:lireEl s~~revsl,the Marine expansion EIS ffi-is going ~forward without a complete Resort plan and Resort expansion EIS ~ 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 any land use approval (Le.. 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 tReir fl'lSriRS e)(J:3sRsieR Eleterfl'liRstieRthe "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 ~(DEIS). After receipt the QEIS will re'/ie'ueEl 8Y tRe CetlRty tReRbe made public for Community response. A Final EIS (FEIS) that addresses public and agency comments will be made available to the public and used by 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 -----Original Message----- From: William G. Funke [mailto:wgfunke@olypen.com] Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 12: 11 PM To: Josh Peters Cc: Paul Taylor-Smith; DA Routt; Grant Colby; sussan.s.glenn@usace.army.mil Subject: Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Mr. Josh Peters Jefferson County Office of Community Development Josh: In response to your offer to accept comments concerning the Marina Expansion Draft SEIS through today, I have attached herewith to this cover Email my response to this Draft. There is also attached a copy of my memorandum of September 20, 2001, referred to in today's submittal. I have copied Ms. Glenn of the Army Corps of Engineers who'l:1lso will also accept comment through today. Sincerely, William G. Funke LC)G ITEfVi "".._--~--_.,-_. _,,__~b _ ._ ~_" 7/26/02