The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLog197 ...;. ;: .Me~sage Page 1 of 4 ~. .. ."/ Michelle Farfan From: Josh Peters Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 10:00 AM To: AI Scalf; Michelle Farfan; David Alvarez Subject: FW: Port Ludlow clarifications From: Stewart, Jeff R. [mailto:jste461@ECY.WA.GOV] Sent: Wednesday, June 30,20049:59 AM To: 'de Sa e Silva, Marco' Cc: Lund, Perry; Mark, Tom; Young, Tom (ATG); Josh Peters Subject: RE: Port Ludlow clarifications Good morning, Marco Thanks for your note, and I most assuredly keep an open mind as I work, and will listen to the case you have in mind to make. I have also listened to the" point of view of some very vocal individuals..." as you note. Ecology's determination of shoreline jurisdiction was not based on the assertions of individuals, it was based on the statutes being applied to the landscape. Historical information is worthy of consideration, but in making contemporary land use decisions, RCW 90.58 directs us to "Recognize and protect the statewide interest over the local interest; Preserve the natural character of the shoreline; Result in long term over short term benefit; " and to "Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline;" so these legislative policies are what guide our thinking as we evaluate past landscape conditions and previous land-use decisions. I do look forward to hearing your legal analysis- preferably along with Tom Young, Tom Mark, Perry Lund, and perhaps others, including Jefferson County- (answering the question from your previous message). Thanks again for your note, and I trust we'll talk soon. Good day! Jeffree Stewart Shoreline Specialist Washington Department of Ecology 360-407-6521 -----Original Message----- From: de Sa e Silva, Marco [mailto:MarcodeSaeSilva@DWT.COM] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 6:37 PM To: Stewart, Jeff R.; Lund, Perry Cc: 'Mark Dorsey'; 'Ismith@portludlowassociates.com'; 'Greg McCarry' Subject: RE: Port Ludlow clarifications Jeffree: Thanks very much for sending me your message below. I think you have represented yourself very well by doing that. You and I have an honest disagreement about the pond, but I hope that you will keep an open mind about how it is characterized until after you have given me and my client a chance to tell you our side of the story. You have heard the point of view of some very vocal individuals, and they certainly deserve to be heard, but there is background histo[t9~ll~Rffmation about that pond that #-1 q7 _.. 6/3012004 Page__l_._..of~_.... M~sage .'" Page 2 of4 you need to hear, and an analysis of the relevant regulations that I will provide for you to discuss with your colleagues, and until you have evaluated all of that I don't believe you have all of the information that you need in order to make a sound determination what that pond is and how the local over-water construction regulation should be interpreted. So I will be in touch again soon. Thank you again. Marco de Sa e Silva Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 2600 Century Square 1501 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Tel: 206-628-7766 Fax: 206-628-7699 E-mail: marcodesaesilva@dwt.com -----Original Message----- From: Stewart, Jeff R. [mailto:jste461@ECY.WA.GOV] Sent: Tuesday, June 29,20045:45 PM To: 'de Sa e Silva, Marco'; 'carolsaber'; Lund, Perry Cc: Anest, Jim; Mark, Tom; AI Scalf; 'Josh Peters'; Lux, Gretchen; 'powers_therrien@yvn.com'; 'bertl@cablespeed.com'; 'amundson@cablespeed.com'; 'genec@olypen.com'; 'marielytal@cablespeed.com'; 'mlarkin@olypen.com'; 'dwilcox@cablespeed.com'; 'billschoe@msn.com'; 'afdurham@olypen.com'; 'genesee@comcast.net'; 'golden@olympus.net'; 'doug~oyherring@hotmail.com'; 'pnorwine@mindspring.com'; 'bruce.s@olypen.com'; 'margecarter@cablespeed.com'; 'rullmann@olypen.com'; 'otness@cablespeed.com'; 'r&kshelley@waypt.com'; 'fsiler@waypt.com'; 'conniewilkinson@cablespeed.com'; 'vpace@olypen.com'; 'Inobles@cablespeed.com'; 'elin@cablespeed.com'; 'j&d@waypt.com' Subject: FW: Port Ludlow clarifications Marco, and Carol, Please review the clarifications below, made in response to the email message Carol sent to a number of persons last Friday, after Carol and I spoke over the phone, and which text I saw for the first time this morning (6/29). I'm hopeful these notes will also reach the other parties who received the first message. Thanks! Jeffree Stewart Shoreline Specialist Washington Department of Ecology 360-407 -6521 Carol Saber wrote: .. I just received an email from Jeff Stewart for the Washington State Department of Ecology. He and his boss and a habitat biologist made an incognito visit to Port Ludlow yesterday to inspect the site and check on my allegations." Jeffree Stewart responds: On our way to Port Townsend, the morning of t~'lfEKt"und, Gretchen Lux, and I visited the Port p# i q 7 . ~~'_ 6/30/2004 age__,6-._.of _~{ . " Mft>sage Page 3 of 4 , . Ludlow resort and looked around the lagoon area. Our visit was not coordinated in advance because we were unsure there would be time in a day of previously arranged site visits further north. Our purpose was a science -based appraisal of the waterbody, that would help us better understand the degree to which statutory provisions dealing with wetlands might apply to the lagoon. Carol Saber wrote: "Jeff has also received all the many emails related to this current DSEIS affair. I am happy to report that not only do they (Department of Ecology) concur completely with my article in the VOICE but they complimented me on how well it articulated the issues." Jeffree Stewart responds: I have received numerous email messages, though probably not "all the many" that have circulated, from various parties about proposed developnments at Port Ludlow. One of those I did read contained the text for an article to be published in the Voice. I complimented Carol for the writing, saying it was generally concise, on-point, clear and pretty well- grounded in the relevant statutes. That's more than can be said for many articles in news venues, and the compliment was sincere. However, it is inaccurate to say, as Carol wrote in this email, Ecology concurs completely with the article, and I did not say it did. Carol Saber wrote: "They say that Greg's many comments are just way off base and that the Department of Ecology clearly has jurisdiction over the lagoon. They have notified Jefferson County (County Planner Josh Peters) that Ecology is involved in these issues and that Jefferson County must enforce the law." Jeffree Stewart responds: Regarding Greg McCarry's written comments protesting the Voice Article: I said to Carol that Mr. McCarry was entitled to his opinions, but that from my point of view the main point of how shoreline jurisdiction applies to the lagoon was being obscured by numerous irrelevant points. The "notification" I gave to Jefferson County was the email messages of June 4 and June 25, making clear to Josh Peters we considered the lagoon to be within shoreline jurisdiction. I told Carol Saber that while Mr. McCarry appears from his words to prefer his own interpretations, that Ecology has statutory responsibility for determining where the Ordinary High Water Mark is located, and thus where shoreline jurisdiction applies. I also said that Jefferson County master program provisions were applicable to proposed development because of the waters being located in jurisdiction.. Carol Saber wrote: "He also said that PLA's attorney, Mark de Silva called him and was told that Ecology does have jurisdiction over the lagoon and that PLA is in violation of the law. De Silva tried to equate the lagoon to a birdbath, can you imagine that?" Jeffree Stewart responds: Over the phone, on June 23, Marco de Sa e Silva, representing Port Ludlow Associates, had opined that Jefferson County did not intend to regulate ALL bodies of water, for example not puddles or bird baths, and he said by extension that the artificial lagoon was not a wetland.... I said to him that for determining whether it was or was not a wetland, I would rely on the expertise of others in my agency who are qualified to make that call. I also told Mr. de Sa e Silva that before writing the June 4 message to Josh Peters, I had concluded the shorelands/shorelines definition applied to the lagoon based on its location within 200' of Port Ludlow Bay. Carol Saber wrote: "Jeff thanked me and all of those who are working so hard for the citizens of Port Ludlow. Community support, as I said in my article, is key to enfortre~ ~EIVl # /Cf7 Page 2 of v" 6/30/2004 -;;;;J-~..."._.,L. . . M~sage - . Page 4 of 4 Jeffree Stewart responds: Recognizing the statewide importance of waterfront lands as a public resource, the Shoreline Management Act expressly encourages citizen involvement in decisions about land use adjacent to the water. See RCW 90.58.130, where it says: "To insure that all persons and entities having an interest in the guidelines and master programs developed under this chapter are provided with a full opportunity for involvement in both their development and implementation, the department and local governments shall: Make reasonable efforts to inform the people of the state about the shoreline management program of this chapter and in the performance of the responsibilities provided in this chapter, shall not only invite but actively encourage participation by all persons and private groups and entities showing an interest in shoreline management programs of this chapter." Jeffree Stewart Shoreline Specialist Washington Department of Ecology 360-407 -6521 LOG ITEM # /q7 Page __y_ 0(:1._.. 6/30/2004