The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About009Michelle Farfan From: garthmann <garthmann@telus.blackberry.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 9:33 AM To: Sandy ((Perkins Coie) ) Mackie; Garth Mann; David W. Johnson; vmorriscs@aol.com Cc: peckassoc@comcast.net; NProft-Carlson@gmharchitects.com; scott@benderllc.com; Al Scalf; Stacie Hoskins; Rentz, Karen (Perkins Coie) Subject: Re: Pleasant Harbor Technical Team and Management Group Coordination Sandy; I understand there is a legal suit in the works from a group in Jefferson County, arguing the legality of the new SMP? Since we have agreed to follow the new SMP guidelines, is there not some form of benefit that we might derive from taking this action...... especially considering the ultimate Standards to protect the environment? Our SEIS that will be submitted includes the criteria mentioned in your email and more. Garth Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with B1ackBerry From: "Mackie, Sandy (Perkins Coie)" <AMackie@perkinscoie.com> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 09:10:33 -0800 To: Garth Mann<GarthM@statesmancorporation.com>; David W. Johnson<dwjohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us>; <vmorriscs@aol.com> Cc: <peckassoc@comcast.net>; <NProft-Carlson@gmharchitects.com>; <scott@benderllc.com>; Al Scalf<ascalf@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Stacie Hoskins<shoskins@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Rentz, Karen (Perkins Coie)<KRentz@perkinscoie. com> Subject: RE: Pleasant Harbor Technical Team and Management Group Coordination I had a good conversation with David this morning --We revisited condition 63B which states that any development permit is required to have a determination of significance under SEPA (no dns or MDNS) unless the construction is considered minor. What this means is that if we only address planning issues now (the required elements of the current SETS) we would have to have a new environmental impact statement for the grading plan, the sewer plan and development, the water plan and development, the golf course, hotel housing etc --at every permit request. Since an SEIS typically takes six months or more --and the construction seasons are typically the summer months, that will often add at least one year tot he development schedule for any phase. Also, the purpose of the development agreement is to identify those uses and techniques approved to serve the project (and the final layout due to the changes) here again, any matter not covered now is not covered by the development agreement will be subject to new SEPA review at the time of application, and new substantive decisions of whether an approach is adequate. In speaking with David, I recommended that Vicki provide he and Stacey with a copy of the draft development agreement with the list of required items to make sure (1) the development agreement covers all necessary items, and (2) they agree with the chosen level of detail that Garth would be free to seek grading and development permits consistent with the ordinance SEIS and development agreement in 2011 without a new SEIS so long as there are no material changes. Sandy Mackie ! Perkins Coie LLP PHONE: 206.359.8653 From: Garth Mann [mailto:GarthM@statesmancorporation.com] Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 2:27 PM To: David W. Johnson; vmorriscs@aol.com Cc: peckassoc@comcast.net; Mackie, Sandy (Perkins Coie); NProft-Carlson@gmharchitects.com; scoff@benderllc.com; Al Scalf; Stacie Hoskins Subject: RE: Pleasant Harbor Technical Team and Management Group Coordination David Wayne Johnson: Please let us know of the County's level of detail that makes sense both Practically and Financially. Thankyou Garth From: David W. Johnson [ma iIto: dwjohnson@co jefferson.wa.us] Sent: Mon 2/1/2010 3:10 PM To: vmorriscs@aol.com; Garth Mann Cc: peckassoc@comcast.net; AMackie@perkinscoie.com; NProft-Carlson@gmharchitects.com; scott@benderllc.com; Al Scalf; Stacie Hoskins Subject: RE: Pleasant Harbor Technical Team and Management Group Coordination Regarding the second paragraph and Sandy's recommendations for level of detail, I put a call into Sandy and left a voice mail for him last week — have not yet heard from him. guy From: vmorriscs@aol.com [mailto:vmorriscs@aol.com] Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 11:32 AM To: GarthM@statesmancorporation.com; David W. Johnson Cc: peckassoc@comcast.net; AMackie@perkinscoie.com; NProft-Carlson@gmharchitects.com; scott@benderllc.com Subject: Re: Pleasant Harbor Technical Team and Management Group Coordination In a message dated 1/21/2010 10:37:49 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, GarthM@statesmancorporation.com writes: Might I suggest one meeting with the whole team in order to review the status of outstanding items for the Draft SEIS submission? Thank you for your suggestion, Garth. I think a team meeting (or team conference call) would be costly and would result in little benefit at this time. I believe that technical team members are all clear about the specific comments they will be asked to address in their final reports as a result of having just completed their review of the Scoping comments, County staff and Peer Review Team comments on their draft reports. As indicated in my 1/20/10 e-mail message, the next steps for completing instructions to the team for final report revisions are: 1) Craig and I to complete the uniform introductory text and description/illustration of the alternatives to be addressed; 2) Craig and I to meet with David, Stacie and Al to confirm County staff acceptance of the introductory text, alternatives, comments to be addressed in the technical reports, and the structure of the impact analysis and mitigation measures; and 3) legal counsel to review and accept the alternatives to be addressed in the technical reports and SETS. It will be most productive to stick with this orderly sequence of events to finalize the information to be conveyed to technical consultants regarding their report revisions. Another matter has come up that also requires a meeting or conference call with the County before we convey final instructions/requests to the technical team. There are some differences between Sandy's recommendations and County staff expectations re: the level of detail to be prepared in documents that will define the proposal to be addressed in the SETS. Consensus should be reached on these matters before Craig and I meet with David, Stacie and Al. I believe Sandy and David Wayne Johnson are in communication re: this (or will be shortly). Agenda: Review Reports that reflect the SMP amendment. Review the issues from the Peer Review comments and the Scoping meeting Finalization of the MOU's Construction and Forestry Reports for Controls during construction Sandy's Ordinances for building setbacks etc. Other Issues Most of these items do not need to be addressed with the full consultant team. I encourage you to meet with or have a conference call with Craig and/or Sandy to discuss these issues following Sandy's communication with David Wayne Johnson so that we can all move forward on the basis of the same understanding. Thank you for the opportunity to consider your suggestions. Vicki Vicki Morris Consulting Services 7732 18th Avenue NE Seattle, WA 98115-4426 206.522.8057 Cellular: 206.501.8227 FAX: 206.523.4648 ********** IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with Treasury Department and IRS regulations, we inform you that, unless expressly indicated otherwise, any federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written by Perkins Coie LLP to be used, and cannot be used by the taxpayer, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein (or any attachments). ********** NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.