HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog131
,
e
e
Page 1 of 2
Josh Peters
From: Josh Peters
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 2:25 PM
To: David Alvarez
Cc: AI Scalf; Jerry Smith
Subject: FW: Port Ludlow Marina
Hello David, et al:
What follows is the brief exchange between me and Mr. Funke after I provided him my edits to his written
summary of our January 2002 telephone conversation. For your information.
Regards,
Josh
-----Original Message-----
From: William G Funke [mailto:wgfunke@olypen.com]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 4:34 PM
To: Josh Peters
Subject: Re: Port Ludlow Marina
Josh,
A quick note of thanks.
I leave tomorrow am returning the end of February but will maintain e mail and telephone answering
machine contact. Please keep me on your notification list.
Regards,
Bill Funke
-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Peters <jpeters@co.iefferson.wa.us>
To: William G Funke <wgfunke@olypen.com>
Cc: Mark Dorsey (E-mail) <MDorsey@portludlowassociates.com>; Nicole Faghin (E-mail)
<nfaghin@reidmidd.com>; AI Scalf <a.scalf@co.iefferson.wa.us>
Date: Monday, January 28, 2002 8:44 AM
Subject: RE: Port Ludlow Marina
Hello Bill:
Consult this website for information on the term "preferred alternative" in SEPA review:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/handbklhbframe.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 expans~,,~~~native. ,j:? L._._.
--1---- --~
7/26/02
,
e
e
Page 2of2
.'
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 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
, ,----,L?l
'L _.:;:~;._~~,.._"
'-,~~,___., ... t,.... ,
=..-........,~, "-""'""'"'".... ---"'"-
7/26/02
I'
e
e
Page 1 of 2
Josh Peters
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 ABa eleeteEJ to Bet Bais the appropriate -"Lead~ B~()Aey Agency" for review of this proposal
under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) per WAC 197-11-932. iA ElifeetiA!jJ BAa eeerElil'lBtiA~ tA0
vBriel::lB etAerThe State and Federal agencies that also have regulatory iurisdiction in the review of this proposal
wRielT-will review and J3Ba8 sAutilize the environmental impact statement (SEPA) now being prepared by a
professional consulting company hired and financed by the developer, Port Ludlow ,^,saseiateEl Associates
(PLA). and approved by the County.
The PLA-contracted Consultant.....-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 enlargir#J..:~e_marina \':1;1
3--"---"'-"
-~-___ .Lt
--~"'-........
7/26/02
e
e
Page 2 of 2
outward from the resort owner's property away from the Scott Court property FI'It:lst alsewill 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 CSl:IFlP/a County. fele-as "Lead" agencyJor SE;P8.,review. has a responsibility
to facilitate timely multi-agency review of the proposal. Therefore, l3erl'l'lits tAia l3aFtieLllar, FI'Il:Ilti B!;jeAey
rSEjl::lirocl Bl3l3fe"BI,the Marine expansion EIS ~is going ~forward without a complete Resort plan and Resort
expansion EIS ~ in order for the other agencies involved to be able to revi~wJ!le 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 (Leo. 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 I'l'lBFiAB B)(I3BAaisFI eJeterFl'liFlBtieFlthe "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 fs.'je.....sell3y tAB Cel:lFlPy tAsAbe made public for Community response. A Final EIS
(FE IS) that addresses public and agency comments will be made available to the public and used by State and
Federal agencies with iurisdiction for their permit review. The Marina expansion FE IS 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 also will also accept comment through today.
Sincerely,
William G. Funke
,,".,~_~.,,~l ':3l__.,,___
.Lf ,.,q
^"_"""-,='C.--,~_....'~,,..:... ~'_~.-L......,,_"
7/26/02