HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog009
. Jerry Smith
al..rom:
~ent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Josh Peters
Thursday, June 13, 2002 12:27 PM
David Alvarez
AI Scalf; Jerry Smith; Randy Kline
RE: PLA
Hello David:
Thanks for the quick feedback.
What I meant by "The Ordinance has actually already been amended" is that the Port Ludlow Ordinance (No. 08-1004-99)
appears to have been amended at the time the UDC was adopted, since the UDC includes the Port Lud Ord as Appendix
B. Maybe I'm missing a legal technicality here, in that the Port Lud Ord wasn't really amended, and the line-in/line-out text
is draft or something. We thought it was a real change and were either actually implementing it or assuming that we were
supposed to...only after I read over the Dev. Agreement and after PLA pointed out that we should be sticking with the
LUPO for process did we realize that the Port Lud Ord shouldn't have been amended without written permission to alter
the Dev. Agreement.
To see what I'm talking about, look up the Appendix B version of the Port Lud Ord in the UDC. You'll note the line-in/line-
out, such as on page 4, for example. Seems pretty clear to me (under #8 of Section 1.40) that we're only talking about
procedures, including SEPA implementation, enforcement, and similar things, but not anything else. There are other
amendments on pages 20 and 21 saying the same thing, essentially--Le., cutting the LUPO out of the loop.
Do you still not agree with the statement? Are you saying that you don't think the Port Lud Ord was actually amended
through adoption of the UDC and the inclusion of the Port Lud Ord as Appendix B? If so, why would the line-in/line-out be
in there? (Do you remember, Randy?)
.hanks,
Josh
P .S. If PLA just wanted to implement certain sections of UDC Section 8 or 9 or 10, that's fine. Our wish is to retire the
LUPO for good so that we can just use one permit process (Le., eliminate the Type A and Type B stuff in favor of Type I
through Type IV for project applications). We said they could make a counterproposal right in our original letter. Again,
what's the delay? They should have responded by now. We could employ the Dispute Resolution/Mediation mechanism
at Section 4.11 of the Dev. Agreement, if they continue to fail to respond in writing to our request to amend the Agreement,
if we choose that path.
Oh yeah, and now that I re-read Section 4.6 of the Dev. Agreement on amendments to same, it looks like a public hearing
would be necessary, the amendment to the Port Lud Ord through adoption of the UDC (if that really happened),
notwithstanding. .
-----Original Message-----
From: David Alvarez
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 12:01 PM
To: Josh Peters
Subject: RE: PLA
.
-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Peters
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 11:32 AM
To: David Alvarez
Cc: AI Scalf; Jerry Smith
Subject: PLA
LOG ITEM
# q
page_l ~.of_~
Hello David:
I scanned a recent note of yours on PLA inquiries and concerns. One of the issues is whether to accept our
1
.
.
.
offer/request to use the UDC for procedures rather than the LUPO. They appear to be confused about the extent
of the request, which concerns only the procedures involved in processing an application, ll.Q1 the standards
applied with regard to critical areas or anything else clearly delineated in the development agreement and the Port
Ludlow Ordinance.
[David Alvarez] I think the devil is in the details, what portions, or perhaps all, of Section 8 of the UDC do they
want to accept? AI Scalf has asked them to analyze what portions of Section 8 they could accept.
I thought we made this very clear in our letter of last fall asking them to amend the development agreement.
The Ordinance has actually already been amended, via the adoption of the UDC.
[David Alvarez] I don't agree with this statement. The whole purpose of the Develop. Agreement was that they
could freeze in place the regulations then in force regardless of what we did later.
I would say that this satisfies the development agreement amendment stipulation requiring a public hearing.
What is missing is written acceptance on their part. Or perhaps legally we would need to hold the public hearing
after the written acceptance, though the section doesn't specify the order--maybe it's implied; maybe not.
Just thought I'd throw this thought in the ring. Not sure how you've interpreted the development agreement
amendment process or our request letter from a legal standpoint. While I can understand their concern regarding
"unintended consequences," those consequences do not involve application of UDC standards to PLA projects.
One would simply need to inspect the current edition of the Port Ludlow Ordinance to see this, which makes me
think that their unwillingness to address our request is for some other unstated reason.
Regards,
Josh
2
Jerry Smith
From:
.sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Josh Peters
Thursday, June 13, 2002 11 :32 AM
David Alvarez
AI Scalf; Jerry Smith
PLA
Hello David:
I scanned a recent note of yours on PLA inquiries and concerns. One of the issues is whether to accept our offer/request
to use the UDC for procedures rather than the LUPO. They appear to be confused about the extent of the request, which
concerns only the procedures involved in processing an application, not the standards applied with regard to critical areas
or anything else clearly delineated in the development agreement and the Port Ludlow Ordinance. I thought we made this
very clear in our letter of last fall asking them to amend the development agreement.
The Ordinance has actually already been amended, via the adoption of the UDC. I would say that this satisfies the
development agreement amendment stipulation requiring a public hearing. What is missing is written acceptance on their
part. Or perhaps legally we would need to hold the public hearing after the written acceptance, though the section doesn't
specify the order--maybe it's implied; maybe not.
Just thought I'd throw this thought in the ring. Not sure how you've interpreted the development agreement amendment
process or our request letter from a legal standpoint. While I can understand their concern regarding "unintended
consequences," those consequences do not involve application of UDC standards to PLA projects. One would simply
need to inspect the current edition of the Port Ludlow Ordinance to see this, which makes me think that their unwillingness
to address our request is for some other unstated reason.
Regards,
.JOSh
.
1