Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout024Michelle Farfan From: David W. Johnson <dwjohnson@cojefferson.wa.us> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 20118:38 AM To: Mackie, Sandy (Perkins Coie); Garth Mann; Don Coleman; jpurdy@geoengineers.com; peckassoc@comcast.net; Scott Bender; Natalie Proft-Carlson; Cooke, John T. (JT) (Perkins Coie); Michelle Wong; Wayne Dawson; hresvelt@earthlink.net; Tom Roberts; tmcdonald@cascadialaw.com Cc: Stacie Hoskins; Al Scalf, Rentz, Karen (Perkins Coie); Rentz, Karen (Perkins Coie) Subject: RE: DRAFT SEIS for Pleasant Harbor I have reviewed some of the materials Vicki provided and need comment on the "no action alternative" issue. What Vicki wrote, consistent with what we know is: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE If the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort did not proceed, it is presumed (based on the Comprehensive Plan MPR designation for the property and absence of site-specific zoning), that the site would not be further developed at this time. The owner would continue to operate the 286 -berth marina and could perform maintenance, repair and replacement on existing improvements until a Master Planned Resort could be successfully implemented, either by the present owner or by others. Campground use of the Black Point Peninsula property could resume under an existing Conditional Use permit. I believe this is the correct interpretation of the No Action Alternative because the comp plan amendment changed the map, the site is zoned Master Planned Resort but has not yet had zoning regulations applied to it. We can discuss this in further detail when we talk. From: Mackie, Sandy (Perkins Coie)[mailto:AMackie@perkinscoie.com] Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 12:03 PM To: Garth Mann; David W. Johnson; Don Coleman; jpurdy@geoengineers.com; peckassoc@comcast.net; Scott Bender; Natalie Proft-Carlson; Cooke, John T. (JT) (Perkins Coie); Michelle Wong; Wayne Dawson; hresvelt@earthlink.net; Tom Roberts; tmcdonald@cascadialaw.com Cc: Stacie Hoskins; Al Scalf; Rentz, Karen (Perkins Coie); Rentz, Karen (Perkins Coie) Subject: RE: DRAFT SEIS for Pleasant Harbor see notes below in italics Sandy Mackie I Perkins Coie LLP PHONE: 206.359.8653 From: Garth Mann [mailto:GarthM@statesmancorporation.com] Sent: Monday, May 02, 20119:30 AM To: Mackie, Sandy (Perkins Coie); David W. Johnson; Don Coleman; jpurdy@geoengineers.com; peckassoc@comcast.net; Scott Bender; Natalie Proft-Carlson; Cooke, John T. (JT) (Perkins Coie); Michelle Wong; Wayne Dawson; hresvelt@earthlink.net; Tom Roberts; tmcdonald@cascadialaw.com Cc: Stacie Hoskins; Al Scalf; Rentz, Karen (Perkins Coie) Subject: RE: DRAFT SEIS for Pleasant Harbor Sandy: "LOOKING AT THE BIG PICTURE" Thank you for your email... You will recall that the Consultants opening "Preface and Introduction" in the FEIS was inconsistent and contained 8 different versions of the property, of what was anticipated to be developed on the property. a) Based on this experience, I took it upon myself to consolidate the picture so everyone has the same starting data. There has been no representation to the Consultants on how to write their reports... simply use the correct data when presenting your "preface and background". Comment: The "Preface and Background" for the consultants reports are the maps and technical data I suggested Craig circulate to assure the "project description" is consistent across the full range of reports. Comparative data with other choices in terms of technical outcomes with certain choices (comparing existing codes and development standards with the suggested upgrades is certainly appropriate. It is for the environmental review officer, however, to decide whether the materials presented provide an adequate response to potential environmental impacts. Your materials were designed to "sell" the end result rather than objectively quantify the consequences of the chosen option. It is the latter and not the former approach which is to be included in the SEPA materials. b) The Alternatives are not all that complicated and are merely an extension of Common Sense *The No -Action Alternative has been stated in the FEIS.... and MIGHT from the perspective of some consultants, require further information in their SEIS.... AGREED.? Comment: The no action alternative looks required for the SETS looks at the development of the site in the event the County elected not to approved the master plan resort zoning for the site and you were to develop under the present zoning. Since the Original EIS was found adequate, despite challenges including challenges to the no action alternative my suggestion is to build on that model rather than trying to suggest some other model for review. As the Shoreline rules have changed, a brief reference to any implication of that change would be appropriate. Also if there have been any material changes in wither county plans or projected development because of other external factors, those could also be addressed. *The Alternative that was contemplated before the October 2009 SMP amended guidelines by the BOCC is really redundant now, since the guidelines for setbacks basically threw -out this Alternative before it was presented... You and I discussed a legal claim to argue our position, however, I agreed to respect the Board's decision regarding their SMP setback legislation..... AGREED? Comment: You elected to follow the updated SMP and revised your plan accordingly. Any data pertaining to the old option is obsolete and has no function in the EIS since alternatives must be reasonably achievable and going back to a model which cannot now be approved is not a viable option at this stage of the proceedings and need not be included in any SETS analysis *The Alternative that was presented and accepted January 14th, 2008 with 30 conditions is now the Preferred Alternative. This Alternative is the one that we have been working towards since October 2009. Craig Peck and I met with the County staff and from these discussions we agreed to have incorporated the proposed SMP Guidelines along with the amendments that included the 30 conditions... AGREED? Comment: My only concern is in changes in site plans, potential power sources and supplies and other technical changes, reviewed since January 2008 which bring you to your present layout. Modifying plans to meet changing technologies and improving on the original concept is precisely what the shift from programmatic to project level detail allows you to do. c) I have read a couple of the SEPA documents from other applications. We are doing our best to meet these accepted guidelines for approval ... and it seems to this writer that we are exceeding these accepted standards. Comment: The next step is to see the County's preliminary draft materials. My understanding was that they were going to follow the format of the adopted EIS both for continuity and to assure all issues are covered. I concur with this approach. The project description will be updated to reflect your preferred layout which is why it is important that all reports be tied to the same program Your technical reports were designed to address the specific requirements of both the EIS (which said a number of specific matters had to be addressed as part of any final proposal, and the issues raised by the ordinance and the Scoping process and scoping document. Your technical reports become part of the appendix to the SETS and are the materials from which the County will evaluate whether the environmental issues have been addressed and whether you have met the minimum threshhold for approval set forth in the ordinance approving the conceptual plan in the Comprehensive plan. The specific approval before the agency ( "the action" in the parlance of the environmental regulations) is the adoption of both the updated zoning ordinance language governing any future development for the site, and the development agreement which is designed to stabilize the rules for development for both parties to avoid confusion, delay or harmful changes in the future. This is both for your protection and the protection of the County. I seems to me that now that the County is assuming the drafting role, the next step is for the county to receive your technical materials which may then be used to craft an initial outline of their draft and identify issues (if any) which require additional clarification. EIS's are very fact and location specific so it is important that we focus on the specific issues we have in Brinnon. It is difficult if not impossible to compare documents from other projects and determine whether the level of information in one project is or is not adequate to the specific circumstances under review --That is what the environmental review process is designed to ascertain. Please call me if you have additional comments. Comment: You solicited answers which I have provided -Happy to answer any other questions you may have if I have left anything out. Sandy . Thank you. M. Garth Mann President & C.E.O P: 403-256-4151 MA03-899-9222 F: 403-256-6100 7370 Sierra Morena Blvd. S.W. Calgary, Alberta T3H 4H9 www.statesmangroup ca -----Original Message ----- From: Mackie, Sandy (Perkins Coie) [mailto:AMackie@perkinscoie.com] Sent: Monday, May 02, 20119:59 AM To: Garth Mann; David W. Johnson; Don Coleman; jpurdy@geoengineers.com; peckassoc@comcast.net; Scott Bender; Natalie Proft-Carlson; Cooke, John T. (JT) (Perkins Coie); Michelle Wong; Wayne Dawson; hresvelt@earthlink.net; Tom Roberts; tmcdonald@cascadialaw.com Cc: Stacie Hoskins; Al Scalf; Rentz, Karen (Perkins Coie) Subject: RE: DRAFT SEIS for Pleasant Harbor Garth: I need to clarify my comments. a. I did not recommend inclusion of the Background and Preface, as I noted in a previous memo, the Preface and Background did not follow EIS protocol and the EIS needed to Follow WAC guidelines. With Mr. Johnson drafting the EIS he will be responsible for the proper format. The technical memoranda are not the proper place for promotional materials. b. I did recommend that Craig Peck Circulate a present map with the specific elements of the project for inclusion in each of the technical reports to make sure that there is a continuity among all reports and , given the changes, that everyone is on the same page. c. I did make comments on the alternatives since the County SMP has not been adopted so an alternative which shows the original conceptual layout would not be a lawful use and therefore not a realistic alternate for review. I did suggest that alternate means of achieving the proposed layout, both standard code requirements and proposed upgrades has been an accepted method of considering "alternatives" under SEPA and the discussion of the scope of the action "alternative" needs to be addressed. The No action alternative should be the same as in the conceptual EIS as there is no material change in the alternatives considered except for the shoreline regulatory change which would have little impact on the no action alternative and that needs to be noted, It is very important that the EIS be the work of the County and not directed by you. in the latter case, the legal challenge is that the EIS is not an independent review and that is a grounds for reversing the work and requiring a restart --a result we do not want. Sandy Mackie I Perkins Coie LLP PHONE: 206.359.8653 From: Garth Mann [mailto:GarthM@statesmancorporation.com] Sent: Monday, May 02, 20118:38 AM To: David W. Johnson; Don Coleman; jpurdy@geoengineers.com; peckassoc@comcast.net; Scott Bender; Natalie Proft-Carlson; Cooke, John T. (JT) (Perkins Coie); Michelle Wong; Wayne Dawson; hresvelt@earthlink.net; Tom Roberts; Mackie, Sandy (Perkins Coie); tmcdonald@cascadialaw.com Cc: Stacie Hoskins; Al Scalf Subject: RE: DRAFT SEIS for Pleasant Harbor David: We have requested a meeting with you and Stacie and Al on the 18th of the month. The Preface and Background has been presented to the consultants based on comments from Perkins Coie so that each report has guidelines in order that there is CONTINUITY for their opening comments on location and standards ETC.. The requirements from the BOCC was that the SEIS be developed to either LEED or Built -Green standards. This is what we are representing. We have not been asked to go through the certification requirement for LEED Thank you. Please call me so we might discuss further Garth Mann M. Garth Mann President & C.E.0 P: 403-256-4151 M:403-899-9222 F: 403-256-6100 7370 Sierra Morena Blvd. S.W. Calgary, Alberta T3H 4H9 www.statesmangroup.ca -----Original Message ----- From: David W. Johnson [mailto:dwjohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us] Sent: Monday, May 02, 20119:29 AM To: Garth Mann; Don Coleman; jpurdy@geoengineers.com; peckassoc@comcast.net; Scott Bender; Natalie Proft-Carlson; Cooke, John T. (JT) (Perkins Coie); Michelle Wong; Wayne Dawson; hresvelt@earthlink.net; Tom Roberts; Mackie, Sandy (Perkins Coie); tmcdonald@cascadialaw.com Cc: Stacie Hoskins; Al Scalf Subject: RE: DRAFT SEIS for Pleasant Harbor Garth, Per our letter of April 20, 2011, you are not to be giving the Technical Team instructions on how to prepare their final reports. We need to discuss the County's requirements with each of the technical team members prior to final. Also, as a warning to you, you are not being certified under the LEED program and may not claim your project is LEED certified per the U.S. Green Building Council. From: Garth Mann [mailto:GarthM@statesmancorporation.com] Sent: Friday, April 29, 20116:56 PM To: Don Coleman; jpurdy@geoengineers.com; peckassoc@comcast.net; Scott Bender; Natalie Proft- Carlson; Cooke, John T. (JT) (Perkins Coie); Michelle Wong; Wayne Dawson; hresvelt@earthlink.net; Tom Roberts; Mackie, Sandy (Perkins Coie); tmcdonald@cascadialaw.com Cc: David W. Johnson; Stacie Hoskins; Al Scalf Subject: DRAFT SEIS for Pleasant Harbor The DRAFT SEIS reports are nearing completion, and are close to the stage for submission to David Wayne Johnson and Stacie Hoskins of Jefferson County. As per an earlier notification, V. Morris has retired from this SETS, and the County has kindly taken the task of completing the written presentation for their document . Please read the PREFACE and the BACKGROUND which was sent several weeks earlier as a guideline for the submission of your report(s). Continuity will be necessary for delivery of the expert(s) reports. Sandy Mackie of Perkins Coie has confirmed the requirement for 3 Alternatives as noted in the BACKGROUND. A meeting has been scheduled at Jefferson County for May 18th, 2011 at 3:00 pm at which time the discussion as to the quality of Report Information and MOU's will be on the agenda. As we have discussed during this process, the design criteria has been dedicated to protecting the environment, with an emphasis of setting exceptional standards towards LEED PLATINUM levels. Please email or call this writer should there be any questions. Thank you. M. Garth Mann President & C.E.0 P: 403-256-4151 M:403-899-9222 F: 403-256-6100 7370 Sierra Morena Blvd. S.W. Calgary, Alberta T3H 4H9 www. states m a n g ro u p. ca 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.