Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog180 I : r- LAW OFFICES Powers & Therrien, P.s. 3502 T1ETON DRIVE YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98902 LESLIE A. POWERS KEITH R. THERRIEN E-Mail: Powers_Therrien@yvn.com TELEPHONE (509) 453-8906 FAX (509) 453-0745 October 27, 2006 Via Email STEPHEN CAUSSEAUX McCarthy Causseaux & Hurdelbrink Inc. P.S. 902 S. 10th Street Tacoma, W A 98405-4537 Ph 253-272-2206 RE: Powers vs. Jefferson County and Port Ludlow Associates LLC Jefferson County Cause No. 06-200339-9 Dear Mr. Casseaux: I am sending this letter to advise you that I filed a LUP A Petition respecting LUP A compliance issues on Ludlow Cove II. If my contact with you is not appropriate, please advise me. I am copying Jefferson County Department of Community Development ("DCD") with this letter. I have addressed this letter to you because DCD has emailed me that it will not necessarily add evidence that I identify to it to the Log for MLA06-00221. Accordingly, I have no way to determine whether DCD has added the LUPA Petition and motion for stay to the Log for MLA06-00221 and whether you will otherwise be notified of the action that I have commenced in this matter. I filed an administrative appeal of DC D's SEPA compliance for MLA 06-00221 in September, 2006, within the appeal period treating the receipt ofa copy of DC D's Staff Report as notice. On October 2, 2006, DCD emailed me that it refused to entertain the administrative appeal because I had not administratively appealed SEP A compliance for SUB05-00004, the application that was rejected by AHE Galt and the SHB. What makes DCD's position more strange is that it solicited my response along with that of a number of government agencies, including the Washington Department of Ecology ("DOE") to its proposed decision to utilize the MDNS issued with respect to SUB05-00004 to comply with SEP A requirements for MLA06-00221, I responded within the response period identified in the notice that the proposed compliance was not proper because it conflicted Mr. Galt's legal and factual conclusions as to the nature of use posed by Trend West on Ludlow Cove II. Clearly, at that time DCD considered that its decision on MLA06-00221 respecting SEP A compliance was independent of its approval of an MDNS for SUB05-00004. I administratively appealed DCD's decision not to permit my SEPA appeal of MLA06-00221 within the appeal period thereafter. I asked DCD to confirm that my second appeal would be heard by you. DCD has promised to address but has not yet confirmed my right to appeal its second decision. I asked DCD to confirm my judicial appeal rights of its decision LOG ITEM ,I. /w. , L 2- Page _~_, I I .. p. Stephen Causseaux McCarthy Causseaux & Hurdelbrink Inc. P.S. October 27, 2006 Page 2 respecting LUP A under MLA06-00221. It has not provided me confirmation. After filing a LUPA petition, I offered to dismiss same, ifDCD would confirm that my appeal rights under LUPA respecting the SEPA compliance would commence with the decision of the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners ("BoCC"). Although Mr. Scalf said that he thought that was the case, he did not confirm my rights. By email ofevendatewiththisletter.Mr. Scalf confirmed that I had appeal rights under LUPA of the BoCC's decision on MLA 06-00221 but did not confirm that I had appeal rights of the SEP A compliance or handling of my appeal thereon. I so advised Mr. Scalf that his correspondence did not confirm my SEP A appeal rights. I am writing this letter to notify you that I have filed a LUP A petition based on DCD's failure to provide notice of its threshold determination that the MDNS issued under SUB05-00004 would be used to comply with SEPA for MLA06-00221 and the opportunity administratively to appeal that determination and its denial of my administrative appeal rights thereon. I have also moved for a stay of all proceedings to approve the consolidated permit application under MLA06-00221 pending the resolution of my SEP A appeal rights. That motion is scheduled for hearing on November 17,2006. I believe serious consideration should be given to the deferral of the hearing scheduled for November 3, 2006 until DCD either confirms my appeal rights and I dismiss the appeal or the Court disposes of my motion for stay. If my LUPA petition or motion for stay is given effect, prior administrative proceedings will be adversely affected. I would have preferred that this matter be handled by DCD' s recognition of my SEP A petition, by its confirmation of my appeal rights or by its confirmation of my right to appeal its failure to provide notice of its threshold decision on MLA 06-00221. DCD has chosen not to provide any such rights or assurance. Given that DCD has not provided me notice of its threshold determination to use the MDNS from SUB05-00004 to comply with SEP A requirements for MLA06-00221, I have no notice of the date of DC D's decision to utilize the MDNS from SUB05-00004 to comply with SEP A requirements for MLA06-00221, I am left no choice but protectively to file judicially. I would appreciate a response on the request contained in this letter. I will make the same request ofDCD. This letter covers emails to and from Jefferson County, the LUPA Petition, the Declaration, and the Motion for Stay. Your consideration of this matter is appreciated. Sincerely yours, POWERS & THERRIEN, P.S. Le4ft'e 11. Pot(/e~~ LESLIE A. POWERS LO. ~;!'- _k~ f, . #-L..9t7(} Page ~ --;-- LAP/dms Enclosure(s)