HomeMy WebLinkAbout064David W. Johnson
From: Garth Mann [Garth M @states mancorporation.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 8:53 PM
To: David W. Johnson; Swenson, Karen; Stacie Hoskins
Subject: Review of SEIS Document
Hello David, Stacie, Karen, and Rich :
I have had an opportunity for an initial review of the proposed SEIS agreement and offer the following inclusions for
expediting the process
while recognizing the significant steps that have preceded this document.
1) Since the FEIS was processed in January 2008 and approved with 30 conditions, it should be a necessity to recognize
that the
substantive changes presented within the preferred Alternative of the SEIS address those conditions for approval on
this basis.
The current reports are presently for the entire area within our MPR, however, as the County is aware we amended the
preferred
Alternative to comply with the 2010 revisions to the Shoreline Management Plan. With this revision, the existing
buildings were
under an existing BSP, that provided for improvements to these buildings as long as the footprint and volume did not
appreciably change.
This application has been submitted to the county under this BSP for part 1 (demolition permit), prior to the submission
for part 2 (re -construction).
It does not make any sense to audit through the SEIS this BSP area, except for upgraded utilities and the Resort
Management District.
This will save substantially as to time and costs .
2) The Reports have been submitted since March 2012, and relate to LEED shadowing standards, especially Ambient
Temperature Geothermal
for the Main Resort's Heat and Cooling. We also included the MOU's as a series of reports that are retained by the
County.
3) The in-depth Fiscal Analysis report has been submitted as an incentive to stimulate needed employment in a Rural
Regional Center.
This report as well as others have been scrutinized and reviewed by various experts with recommendations that have
been incorporated in reports.
To further review and communicate and address questions, is unnecessary for both time and costs.
It is important to note that the Peer Review process was not a requirement of SEPA, and a further review would be
considered redundant.
4) Timing is important.
The review and public participation after 6 years of endless meetings requires intelligent adjudication, where the
Planning Board and the
Board of County Commissioners may schedule simultaneous discussions, with one additional public hearing.
Duplications simply add to inefficiencies of time and costs.
SUMMARY:.
I understand that the Governor's office for the State has recognized the extreme abuse of time and cost for applications
for development such as
Pleasant Harbor Resort.
We published over 200 copies of the FEIS, and have received immense numbers back, or remain at Jefferson County
(unread).
Thank you for considering these points as aforementioned, in order to advance this process to the spring of 2013.
Garth Mann
M. Garth Mann
President & C.E.O
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