HomeMy WebLinkAbout013David W. Johnson
From: Rose Ann Carroll
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 8.21 AM
To: David W. Johnson
Cc: Stacie Hoskins, Zoe Ann Lamp
Subject: FW: Concerns About Preparing the SEIS for the Pleasant Harbor Resort Project
fyi
From: Leslie Locke
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 8:18 AM
To: Rose Ann Carroll; Stacie Hoskins
Subject: FW: Concerns About Preparing the SEIS for the Pleasant Harbor Resort Project
From: Barbara Moore'lewis[SMTP.MOOR ELEB44 EMBARQMAIL.COMI
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 7:59:28 PM
To: Phil Johnson; David Sullivan; John Austin
Subject: Concerns About Preparing the SEIS for the Pleasant Harbor Resort Project
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Dear Commissioners,
We'd appreciate if you could address some concerns we have about the process of preparing the
SEIS for the Pleasant Harbor Resort project.
The first concern is whether Statesman staff are inappropriately preparing materials the county
should be responsible for. Don Coleman states in a December 3, 2011 email to Garth Mann:
"David has not completed the needed description for consultants to complete their reports.
Craig has been trying to help David write this. I don't see Craig helping as a negative or as
"working" for the county. I see it as a member of our team helping the County to provide a
description that meets their requirements and is most useful for other team members."
However, the April 20, 2011 letter written by Stacie Hoskins to Garth Mann states:
A key component to the success of the SEIS in terms of legal sustainability is the clear and
definitive separation of the applicant from the drafting for technical information and subsequent
SEIS ... What this means in terms of you as the applicant, is that you must not influence or be
involved in directing the content of the technical reports or the conclusions they reach."
Who proposed that Statesman provide this help? Did David Wayne Johnson ask for it? Who
approved it and why? Doesn't having Statesman's contractor review the points of mitigation bias
what even is brought up?
Please investigate this conflict and let us know what you find.
./
Our second concern is about Statesman's compliance with ordinance 01-0128-08. Minutes from
Statesman's November 10, 2011 meeting in Calgary state:
"It is important that we minimize the obstacles and make sure that the Peer Review Consultants
and the County understand that the character of the Resort Development has improved, and as
a result the interpretation of some of the 30 conditions to meet alternative forms of compliance
has been a process of developing the Best Management Practices. David Wayne Johnson felt
this item could be reasonably accommodated with a memorandum in the reports dealing with
such issues."
Has David Wayne Johnson decided that the new alternatives are ecologically better? Does he have
this authority? How has he arrived at this conclusion? Does his job require that he have an opinion
about this? Are the portions of the ordinance called "the conditions" to be changed in some sort of
internal county process? Will this process be transparent? Will citizens be involved with these
changes, commenting on them or giving testimony?
Please investigate what changes are being made to "interpreting" this ordinance and what citizen
involvement you have planned for these changes.