HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog334
I. Message
Page 1 of 3
.
Powers & Therrien [powers_therrien@yvn.com]
Wednesday, November 30, 2005 5:53 PM
AI Scalf
Powers & Therrien; Elizabeth Van Zonneveld; Bruce Schmitz; Jim Brannaman; Dwayne Wilcox;
LewisHale@aol.com
Subject: Re: Port Ludlow Associates LLC: Ludlow Bay Village
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
AI:
I am willing to consider other methods of participation but they must precede the hearing. The comments need to
be available to all who participate in the hearing and part of hte log records. Yesterday, if you heard, Mr. Hale
confirmed he offered testimony to Mr. Berteig at an open record hearing that Mr. Berteig refused to take, probably
because it was in the public sector. Mr. Galt refused the evidence. That situation will not occur again. The form
of discussion with the community must eliminate that possibility. I realize the proponent is motivated to proceed
quickly. However, I think the interests of the community trump the developer. It is the community and Jefferson
County that will be left with the result of the decision. The effect is forever. It requires careful consideration.
Les
----- Original Message -----
From: AI Scalf
To: Powers & Therrien
Cc: Elizabeth Van Zonneveld ; Bruce Schmitz; Jim Brannaman ; Dwayne Wilcox; LewisHale@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 4:58 PM
Subject: RE: Port Ludlow Associates LLC: Ludlow Bay Village
Les
We could do some other type of outreach to the community to prepare them for the hearing. We could have a
Q and A session. Meet with the CD subcommittee... Or if you have any other ideas on how to prepare the
citizenry to be informed so they can participate more effectively, I am open to addtional ideas.
AI
-----Original Message-----
From: Powers & Therrien [mailto:powers_therrien@yvn,com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29,20056:17 PM
To: AI Scalf
Cc: Powers & Therrien; Elizabeth Van Zonneveld; Bruce Schmitz; Jim Brannaman; Dwayne Wilcox;
LewisHale@aol.com
Subject: Re: Port Ludlow Associates LLC: Ludlow Bay Village
AI:
I appreciate the copy of the letter. However, my position as to PLA remains the same. They are only
one potential participant in the process. Their interests do not trump any other interests. The residents,
and I include myself, will be left at the end with the result of PLA's proposals to the extent approved by
DCD or the Court. We are the ones who suffer the ultimate consequences. Those of us who have made
our views known are entitled to be heard at least to the same extent as PLA. Under those
circumstances, I question any decision to hurry the hearing to the exclusion of any significant number of
the community members that have already expressed views on the subject matter. The County's job is
not to make PLA happy; but to enforce the rules in an even handed manner consistent with its duty to
protect residents and property owners. That job is not performed by excluding comments from those self
same persons. This is particularly true to the extent that appeals become more difficult or limited as a
result of changes in the appeal process that will apparently go into effect on January 1,2006. You were
LOG ITEM
1/13/2006 p~gt3HrO~.:S
1 Message
Page 2 of 3
at the hearing today. The confusion about the zoning of the property and the applicable law should be
adequate evidence of the need to make decisions transparently and in the interest of the residents. It is
hard enough for persons with legal training but without specific training in land use law to participate.
Think how difficult it is for residents of retirement age who live here at Ludlow Bay.
Les
----- Original Message -----
From: AI Scalf
To: Powers & Therrien
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 20054:35 PM
Subject: FW: Port Ludlow Associates LLC: Ludlow Bay Village
Les
This came from Marco
AI
-----Original Message-----
From: de Sa e Silva, Marco [mailto:MarcodeSaeSilva@DWT.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 3:01 PM
To: AI Scalf
Cc: Greg McCarry; Mark Dorsey; faith@lumsdeninc.com; Diana Smeland; Randy Verrue (HCV); Troy
Crosby (HCV); Michelle Farfan; David Alvarez
Subject: Port Ludlow Associates LLC: Ludlow Bay Village
Al: I have just heard from Mark Dorsey that our December 6
hearing on the Ludlow Bay village applications has been
postponed to a date not yet determined. As I understand the
facts, this was done without good cause and without advance
notice to PLA. This postponement will cause enormous damage to
PLA.
I understand from Mark that the County's decision to postpone
the hearing might have had something to do with the process for
making an administrative code interpretation or boundary line
adjustment. please remember that PLA requested in writing in
June 2005 that the administrative code interpretation and
boundary line adjustment decisions be made by the Examiner, not
by staff, under the procedures for consolidating land use
decisions. None of the pending applications is a staff
decision.
Mark gave me other possible reasons for the postponement, which
I would like to discuss with County staff and David Alvarez.
There might be a good reason for the postponement, but none of
the reasons I have heard constitutes good cause. If the County
has postponed the hearing in response to any comment made by a
citizen, without giving PLA an opportunity to respond and in
contradiction to earlier decisions made by the County, then the
County has denied PLA due process of law.
I cannot adequately express my disbelief and disappointment in
the County's action today. On behalf of PLA, I respectfully
request a meeting with David Alvarez, Michelle, you, and Mike
1/13/2006
LOG {lEM
#3~
Page~--.of -3.
· Message
1/1312006
Page 3 of 3
Bergstrom either Thursday or Friday of this week to discuss
this matter further.
Marco de Sa e Silva
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
2600 Century Square
1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Tel: 206-628-7766
Fax: 206-628-7699
E-mail: marcodesaesilva@dwt.com
LOG ITEM
# ~~L( >
Page..---3..., ot3=