Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog371 ~ , Page 1 of 2 # AI Scalf Sent: To: Cc: From: Powers & Therrien [powers_therrien@yvn.com] Tuesday, January 10, 2006 10:30 AM AI Scalf Powers & Therrien; Rick Rozzell; LewisHale@aol.com; Gregg & Pat Jordshaugen; Jeanne & Peter Joseph; Elizabeth Van Zonneveld; Teresa Smith; Kaysins@wellsfargo.com; Gary & Kathy Hashbarger Subject: Re: Staff Report AI: Will it then be permissible for me to appear by written comment. I assume that the log will include the records responding to my document request from you. If not, let me know how to describe these matters. Do I need someone to sign in for me at the hearing if I can't appear in person? I have one further question on Ludlow Bay. I have again been reviewing the FSEIS as to utilities. I note they are provided by the developer through Olympic. The disclosure is limited to Olympic's response on the state of the utility. There is nothing about the reserves that Olympic should maintain to repair and replace the facility or upgrade same for additional use or for deterioration. Does the County require any audit of Olymlpic's books to assure itself that the services will be provided in the future? Does the County inspect the equipment and fixtures to be certain they are adequately maintained and replaced as they become inadequate, obsolete, or in disrepair? My concern is that PLA, as confirmed by Mr. Verrue, intends to sell off its commercial ventures such as the golf course in the course of the disposition of its residential development. It has already sold the convention center which should have been one of the facilities that supported the Inn. It seems to me that it is not logical to consider that PLA will continue at Ludlow Bay after the liquidation of its commercial and residential assets to provide collateral services such as paying budget deficiencies to the Townhouse Association, maintaining the roads, or providing or maintaining Olympic's assets. Under the development agreement, Jefferson County is responsible for some of the public services and facilities. If the remaining facilities are not maintained and reserved and PLA leaves town, I assume it will become responsible for providing those services also. If Ludlow Bay devolves to Jefferson County, it seems to me the cost of the roadway upgrades to meet County code requirements must be borne by someone. Again, it seems to me that Jefferson County is the likely party, particularly if the proposed major revision by reducing the scope of the resort results in a loss of master planned resort status. These are not hypothetical issues. There is already an opinion of the Western Washington Growth Management Hearing Board that Ludlow Bay does not qualify as an IUGA, now a UGA. It is not a PUD. What happens if the MPR status is challenged with respect to a decision permitting the major revision. I have not seen the staff report. However, the prior staff reports on Olympic Terrace II and Ludlow Cove II avoided the "significant integration" issue as well as the issue of continued qualification of the MPR. I know there is concern about this sort of problem at the Growth Management Hearing Board. I spoke to a representative not too long ago about the problem and was told that there was concern at the GMA and probably the DOE about enforcement of the MPR requirements namely that the resort be of a scope that the residential buildout permitted under its aegis meets the subordinate and supportive tests. You may attach this letter to the log for the proposed major revision as well as the log, if any, for the minor revision of the resort plan involving the disposition of the convention center. I appreciate your assistance. Les 1----- Original Message ----- From: AI Scalf To: Powers & Therrien LOG ITEM #~J71 - yJ!ageM_ .. L.. . of d- 1/13/2006 ~ \ Page 2 of 2 .. Cc: LewisHale@aol.com ; Rick Rozzell Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 9:25 AM Subject: RE: Staff Report Les Yes, we will email all of you and others the staff report sometime later today, we also have a list of over 200 to mail out hard copies to. All of you have standing based upon your submittal of previous comment letters. Make sure you describe the issue as to records in either oral or written testimony to the Hearing Examiner. AI -----Original Message----- From: Powers & Therrien [mailto:powers_therrien@yvn.com] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 9:37 PM To: AI Scalf Cc: Powers & Therrien; LewisHale@aol.com; Rick Rozzell Subject: Staff Report AI: Would it be possible for you to email thestaffreporttoMr. Hale, Mr. Rozzell and me when it is complete. Also, I want to make sure that we are all considered as parties to the hearing whether we attend with rights to appeal administratively or judicially if necessary and rights to notice of any SDP filing with the DOE. We will be sending you supplemental requests for information that we want included in the logs. We do not want to deliver the information because much of it is voluminous and virtually all of it is in the records of Jefferson County. We do not want Mr. Berteig to exclude it or if he does we want the exclusion preserved as an appeal issue. This issue was raised in the hearing before Mr. Galt on Trend West. I appreciate your assistance in 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. 1/13/2006 lOG ITEM #-3:1 page___~ oLd:, ~ -"