Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog096 . .'" . William G. Funke 75 Scott Court Port Ludlow, W A 98365 May 4, 2004 t1AY1-42OM ~j.:FE~ "RSONCOlJNn' DCb LOG ITf:"'M # G1(0 Page -L-of ~ Mr. Al Scalf, Director Department of Community Development Jefferson County 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Al: This letter is submitted under the provision for Public Comment in the Port Ludlow Resort Draft EIS which process requires reconsideration of the December 31, 2002 Final Supplemental Port Ludlow Marina Expansion EIS at this time. Accordingly, it is requested my three communications dated July 25 and July 26, 2002 and September 20, 2000 published in the Marina FSEIS be reconsidered along with the following additional comments and all included in your Findings of Fact for the Resort EIS. It must first be noted the comments in opposition to the proposed marina expansion published in the FSEIS document, including my own, were all afforded published rebuttal by the Developer's agent and these were presumable considered by your department at face value, without addressing further response from the opposition. A significant case in point is the lengthy documented objections and conclusions submitted by Ms. Randi Thurston, Area Habitat Biologist for the Department of Fish and Wildlife who argues against any westward shoreline expansion and recommends two alternatives only: No Action or Deep Water Expansion with additional mitigation. I spoke this morning with Ms. Thurston who was unaware you had ignored her findings in favor of permitting expansion westward along the shoreline as set forth in the new Resort Draft EIS nor has she had opportunity to comment on the developer's rebuttal to her letter. 10 With respectJthe developer's response to my previous comments in the Marina Expansion FSEIS: In that neither Mr. Josh Peters nor I could locate the "Alternative -1993 Design" and by the developer's admission it is unknown to what extent this drawing was or was not circulated, I think it in order you require documentation this "drawing" was in fact part of the 1993 additional marina slip consideration. Regarding the developer's other rebuttals to my objections, my determination remains the Marina EIS process was in violation of the MPR ordinances. Finally, it is also noted the Marina Expansion FSEIS does not include statements from the other agencies listed under the Required Permits and Approvals, page FS-2 other ~If" ;' .-.. . .. than the previously mentioned Department ofFish And Wildlife letter. Doesn't the Department of Natural Resources license the area covered by the marina? Aside from the above stated considerations and irrespective of all ecological or ordinance requirements, the fact that the County has approved under the Marina Expansion Final EIS an expansion in favor of a commercial operator and developer westward that directly negatively impacts and degrades the value of my and of my other Scott Port neighbor's properties is unacceptable to my wife and me. I respectfully request to be included as a stake holder in all meetings and discussions in this Resort Supplemental Environmental Impact Study. It is further requested your office advise me of all appeal procedures and date requirements of the County and State and other authority to stop the westward Marina expanSion. and, Protect_::;~. p~p..enjoYment a,nd value. Respect; '. ' ,~ ~ CC: The Honorable Pat Rodgers, Jefferson County Commissioner, Port Ludlow Dr. Paul Taylor-Smith, Scott Court Dr. William Wier, Scott Court Mr. Grant Colby, Scott Court