The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLog355 Page 1 of 4 , , AI Scalf From: Sent: To: AI Scalf Monday, December 05, 2005 10:15 AM Michelle Farfan Subject: FW: Hearing on Major Revision -----Original Message---n From: AI Scalf Sent: Tuesday, November 29,20054:35 PM To: 'Powers & Therrien'; Michelle Farfan Cc: Elizabeth Van Zonneveld; Bruce Schmitz; Gregg & Pat Jordshaugen; LewisHale@aol.com; Dwayne Wilcox Subject: RE: Hearing on Major Revision Les See responses within your letter. AI -----Original Message----- From: Powers & Therrien [mailto:powers_therrien@yvn.com] Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 6: 15 PM To: AI Scalf; Michelle Farfan Cc: Elizabeth Van Zonneveld; Bruce Schmitz; Gregg & Pat Jordshaugen; LewisHale@aol.com; Dwayne Wilcox Subject: Re: Hearing on Major Revision AI: I appreciate the prompt response. I must respectfully dissent the conclusions implicit therein. I have spoken with members of the delegations that met with you from the community. It was not their understanding that the issues of location and time for the open record hearing were the purpose of the meetings although mention of the tentative time may have been mentioned by you. I am more concerned with the absence of notice to the various interested parties who provided written comment to DCD about the major revision.[AI Scalf] formal notice will come later You admit that you set the meeting after consultation with and in response to the proponent.[AI Scalf] yes, I met with PLA on November 23, they want the hearing ASAP Why were the remaining interested parties not consulted.[AI Scalf] it would not be practical to call everyone They, with other members of the Ludlow Bay community, will suffer the consequences of the decisions resulting from the hearing. It is not DCD, the proponent, or even the hearing examiner that will reside at Ludlow Bay in the future. Rather it is the residents, the persons who were not consulted that ill be. At least those that were interested enough to respond should have been consulted about the new hearing date and location if the proponent was consulted. I understand that the proponent objected to DCD's decision without prior notice to delay the hearing. For at least as pertinent a reason, in my view more so, namely to assure that the critical issues underlying the proposed major revision be thoroughly vetted with the community, I urge that the setting of the hearing should take into consideration the participation of the community.[AI Scalf] I understand this In connection therewith, I wish to draw attention to the voluminous response from the Ludlow Bay community to SEPA compliance on this same matter. To make the participation of this population segment difficult, would violate the purpose of the hearings process and the obligation of the public officials to watch after the interest of the public. The list of discussees that you provided is without contact information, or, for that matter, complete names. I would appreciate a complete list to permit me to confer with such persons about the matter of the hearing, its time and 10cation.[AI Scalf] talking with my staff will only prompt them to ask me, setting the hearing is up to Michelle and myself, to go beyond this you should contact my boss John Fischbach I also request that you provide me with copies of correspondence or email exchanges with the proponent or its 1/1312006 LOG ITEN! # 2SS'""' Pa~,l....._,=':~:;f.~~l... Page 2 of 4 representatives about the cancellation of the prior hearing and the setting of the new hearing.[AI Scalf] I'll forward you some of the emails Finally, I ask, considering the imminent appointment of a new land use planner, whether she should not be involved in this decision. I would appreciate a response to this letter. Les Powers ----- Original Message ----- From: AI Scalf To: Powers & Therrien; Michelle Farfan Cc: Elizabeth Van Zonneveld ; Bruce Schmitz; Gregg & Pat Jordshaugen ; LewisHale@aol.com ; Dwayne Wilcox Sent: Monday, November 28,20052:12 PM Subject: RE: Hearing on Major Revision Les Scheduling of a land use hearing is part of the Project Planner responsibility along with the Planning Clerk in cooperation with the Hearing Examiner. The key word is public. So I agree with you on this matter. That is why most of us do this type of work. I did talk with PLA after I had cancelled the Dec 6 hearing, they called to complain that I didn't seek there consultation prior to cancellation. I have talked with Elizabeth, Dwayne, John, Larry and Bruce at other times as well. As well as Mike Bergstrom and Michelle, Rose Ann, Stacie, John, Allen and Loring. Irv wants the Fort. I think he likes the setting. Including audio, seating with good views, layout of the room, ability to take public comment. AI -----Original Message----- From: Powers & Therrien [mailto:powers_therrien@yvn.com] Sent: Monday, November 28,2005 1:02 PM To: AI Scalf; Michelle Farfan Cc: Elizabeth Van Zonneveld; Bruce Schmitz; Gregg & Pat Jordshaugen; LewisHale@aol.com; Dwayne Wilcox Subject: Re: Hearing on Major Revision AI: You make reference to "impossible" and "everyone's schedule". I have not received any notice of any final schedule of a hearing or making inquiry whether the hearing is convenient to my schedule. Hence, "everyone" must exclude me. Who else is excluded? Perhaps the Port Ludlow community? Did scheduling involve the proponent? If so, who was contacted? If so, is the proponent more important than the Ludlow Bay community? I think you need to consider whose convenience is important, the public who is to be served by "public servants", the "public servants" themselves, or the proponent. Please give me a list of persons with telephone numbers and em ail addresses of each person whose schedule is adversely affected. I will undertake to correspond with each. Please understand, the purpose of the hearing is to involve public input. You appear to consider one or more unidentified persons' schedules more important than facilitating public input. 1/13/2006 I would apprectOGri{mFn this matter. # 3~-:- 51 page_,.,~""of.,~,~ ",- 1/1312006 Page 3 of 4 Les Powers ----- Original Message ----- From: AI Scalf To: Powers & Therrien; Michelle Farfan Cc: Elizabeth Van Zonneveld ; Bruce Schmitz; Gregg & Pat Jordshaugen ; LewisHale@aol.com; Dwayne Wilcox Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 10:23 AM Subject: RE: Hearing on Major Revision Les It's impossible and won't work out trying to accomodate, or make exceptions for everyones's schedule. I reviewed the options with Irv, as we had a three day hearing at the Fort a couple of week's ago. He wants the Fort. AI -----Original Message----- From: Powers & Therrien [mailto:powers_therrien@yvn.com] Sent: Monday, November 28,20059:54 AM To: AI Scalf Cc: Powers & Therrien; Elizabeth Van Zonneveld; Bruce Schmitz; Gregg & Pat Jordshaugen; LewisHale@aol.com; Dwayne Wilcox Subject: Re: Hearing on Major Revision AI: I spoke with Mr. Jordshaugen yesterday. He said that he and Mr. Lewis will not be able to attend a meeting in January. Because of the importance of their participation, I ask that the meeting be rescheduled to a time when they are able to participate. Your assistance is appreciated. As to the remaining issue, I do not believe Mr. Berteig's convenience trumps the needs of the community that is most affected by the proposed Major Revision. Mr. Berteig lives in Seattle. He is certainly able to attend a meeting at Port Ludlow as easily, if not more so, than at Fort Warden. Since the proponent has held meetings, including scoping meetings at Port Ludlow, to discuss the proposal in prior iterations, I think it is only reasonable that the hearing be held here also. I renew my request that the meeting be scheduled where the residents and property owners impacted by the proposal are located. I appreciate your consideration in these matters. Les Powers ----- Original Message ----- From: AI Scalf To: Powers & Therrien; Michelle Farfan Cc: Elizabeth Van Zonneveld ; Dwayne Wilcox Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 9:20 AM Subject: RE: Hearing on Major Revision Les DCD is trying to confirm Jan 17 and 18. The location became difficult as the BOCC LOG ITEM # .?JS=~ ._. Page ~_3r...ot.,_~[, . . 1/13/2006 Page 4 of 4 courthouse chambers has a occupancy limit of 28 and the courthouse first floor conference room holds the same. The Superior courtroom is not available for such long hearings, nor is District court. In talking with Irv he preferred Fort Worden over Port Ludlow. So that is where the hearing will be held. Notice will be provided once the site and time is confirmed. AI -----Original Message----- From: Powers & Therrien [mailto:powers_therrien@yvn.com] Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 8:42 AM To: AI Scalf Cc: Powers & Therrien; Elizabeth Van Zonneveld; Dwayne Wilcox Subject: Hearing on Major Revision AI: I was told by another resident at Ludlow Bay that the hearing on the Major Revision has been rescheduled for, I recall, January 17th, and that the hearing would be held at Fort Warden. I have not received notice of either. I would appreciate formal notice as an interested party. I also wish to suggest that the hearing be moved to one of the convention facilities at Ludlow Bay to encourage local participation. Our community is composed to a significant extent of retired persons. It would be much easier for them to attend and participate if they did not have to drive twenty extra miles each way. Ludlow Bay is the situs of the matter. It is closer for Mr. Berteig. It has been used by the proponent to hold meetings in the same issue at which it promoted the project. It seems fair, cost effective, and in keeping with the purpose of obtaining local involvement in land use decisions to hold the hearing at Ludlow Bay rather than at Fort Warden. Neither is officially the court house where the hearing should formally be held. I would appreciate consideration of this matter. Les Powers Powers & Therrien, P.S. 3502 Tieton Drive Yakima, WA 98902 Phone: 509-453-8906 Fax: 509-453-0745 This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This message and any attachments hereto may contain confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this email from your computer. LOG ITEM # 2CS- ~-"." - '-g- Page _~""!:{<'"'>ot_..._,~..~