HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit261
RECEIVED
t"';-
o 9
JEHfRSON COUNTY DCO
BEFORE THE JEFFERSON COUNTY APPELLATE HEARING EXAMINER
LEWIS J. HALE, GREGG D. JORDSHAUGEN,)
LESLIE A. POWERS, and LUDLOW )
MAINTENANCE COMMISSION, a
Washington nonprofit corporation, ~
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appellants,
v.
JEFFERSON COUNTY, a political subdivision
of the State of Washington, and PORT
LUDLOW ASSOCIATES LLC, a Washington
limited liability company,
Respondents.
Summary
FILE NOS. ZON03-00044,
SDP05-00019, and SUB05-00030
FINAL DECISION ON APPEAL
The final decision of Mr. Berteig in this matter is sustained subject to a few modifications
of moderate significance as outlined in the Decision section below. Perhaps the most
significant modification is that town homes are subjected to the bulk and dimensional
standards of single-family homes in the MPR code. The MPR code could not be clearer on
this requirement and the Appellate Hearing Examiner ("AHE") had no choice but to follow
it. The MPR code is equally clear that shoreline permits may not issue until all land use
applications for the proposed development have been resolved. Mr. Powers raised some
interesting arguments on whether the shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet landward of
the lagoon. The AHE clarified Mr. Berteig's decision to only apply to development 200
feet landward of Ludlow Bay. If development 200 feet landward of the lagoon is subject
to shoreline jurisdiction, PLA will have to acquire a separate shoreline permit for
development 200 feet from the lagoon that is not covered by the shoreline permit sustained
in this decision. Finally, the Ludlow Maintenance Commission ("LMC") raises some
compelling points about the loss of recreational amenities. Mr. Berteig's decision has been
modified to provide for a replacement of those amenities.
LOG ITEM
?-b.\
\ of 5 L.l
FINAL DECISION ON APPEAL - 1
{P A0683408 .DOC; 1/13043.9000001}
ORIGINAL
#
Page
The Appellants' discomfort over Mr. Berteig's recusal is understandable. He employed a
poor choice of words in explaining why he chose to recuse himself. However, the
evidence does not support a finding that he had any bias towards any party or that he
would conduct an unfair proceeding. From the documents on this issue, it is clear that he
recused himself solely because of his displeasure at being second-guessed by another
hearing examiner.
Many of the arguments of the parties focus upon alleged noncompliance with private
covenants. Mr. Berteig's decision does not require the violation or modification of any
private covenants. If any of PLA's applications involve a violation of private covenants,
the Appellants will have to seek enforcement in court. The Appellants cannot, however,
enforce them in this proceeding. The covenants would only have relevance to this
proceeding ifPLA's applications implicated RCW 58.17.215. They do not. PLA probably
is using the boundary line adjustment process to circumvent more stringent subdivision
requirements. This tactic is nothing new in Washington municipalities. As discussed
below, the courts recognize that boundary line adjustments can serve as an abuse of the
subdivision process. Despite this recognition, the courts choose to broadly qualify
divisions as lot line adjustments in order to avoid any ambiguities in the application of the
boundary line adjustment statute.
I. Summary of the Proceedings
This decision addresses four appeals to a final decision issued by Irv Berteig in the above-
captioned matter, dated February 7, 2007. Mr. Berteig filed a decision on several motions
for reconsideration on March 15, 2007. Gregg Jordshaugen filed an appeal on March 29,
2007. LMC filed an appeal on April 2, 2007. Les Powers filed an appeal on March 30,
2007. Lewis Hale filed an appeal March 29, 2007. All appeals were timely and all parties
had standing. The Examiner issued a prehearing order dated September 24, 2007,
addressing the record, briefing and hearing dates. A closed record hearing on the appeals
was held on December 6,2007. The parties were given until December 14, 2007 to submit
written closing arguments and rebuttal. The record for below, as specified in the
prehearing order, is attached as Exhibit A. The pleadings for appeal are attached as
Exhibit B. Correspondence between the AHE and the parties regarding the appeal is
attached as Exhibit C. All contacts by the AHE with parties outside of the hearing were
done by the emails referenced in Exhibit C.
II. Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact are addressed under conclusions, below. The AHE must be deferential to
the factual findings made by the highest forum with fact finding authority. See Schofield v.
Spokane County, 96 Wn. App. 581, 586 (1999). The highest fact-finding forum in this
case was Irv Berteig, and the AHE must provide deference to his factual findings.
LOG \TEM
# ?-b \
Page _ )..... of_
FINAL DECISION ON APPEAL - 2
{PA0683408.DOC; 1/13043.90ooo0/}
III. Standard for Review
Paragraph 3.13 of the Port Ludlow Development Agreement provides that the Land Use
Procedures Ordinance governs review of development within the Port Ludlow Master
Planned Resort. Section 18(D)(2) sets the standards of review for a closed record appeal as
follows:
The Appellate Hearing Examiner may grant the appeal if, following a
review of the record, one of the following standards has been met:
a. The land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law;
b. The land use decision is not supported by evidence that is substantial
when viewed in light of the whole record;
c. The land use decision is a clearly erroneous application of the law to
the facts.
d. The land use decision is outside the authority or jurisdiction of the
Hearing Examiner.
IV. Conclusions
The arguments of the party will be addressed in the order in which they are presented in
their opening briefs and other pleadings below.
Jordshau2en Appeal Hearin2 Brief
1. Completeness of Maior Revision Application. At page 2 of his Appeal Hearing
Brief, Mr. Jordshaugen asserts that the major revision application is incomplete. He
specifically focuses upon the requirements of MPR 3.906(1)(h), which requires a map,
illustration or other materials necessary to assist in understanding and visualizing the
design and use of the proposed revision. The applicant, Port Ludlow Associates ("PLA")
points to attachment #4 of its amended major revision application (log item #93, dated
April 29, 2004). Attachment 4, in its discussion of MPR 3.906(1)(h) references attachment
#3, which is composed of an 8 x 11 site plan map of the revision area as well as an 8 x 11
site plan of the proposed marina expansion. The maps show the location of proposed uses
and topographical features. Precise bulk and dimensional data are missing. Mr.
Jordshaugen does not identify what additional information he needs to assess the project.
Given comments made throughout the process in other briefs, it appears that
Mr. Jordshaugen and other parties would like to see precise dimensional standards, such as
setbacks and building heights.
PLA and Jefferson County correctly observed that the level of detail requested by the other
parties is beyond the requirements of the code. MPR 3.906(1)(h) is notably broad in its
submission requirements. "Maps, drawings, illustrations or other materials" are sufficient
to meet the submission requirement. This is at odds with the position that the applicants
must submit a map that contains detaileq qimensional information. When the Jefferson
FINAL DECISION ON APPEAL - 3
{P A0683408 .DOC; 1/13043.9000001}
LOG ITEM
# 0.Co \
Page. 2 'of_
County code requires a level of detail advocated by the opposing parties, those
requirements are expressly stated. For example, Jefferson County Code S 18.40.100(2)
lists 16 requirements for information to be provided in the site plan for industrial,
commercial and multiple-family development. These requirements include the depiction
of proposed and existing structures, including building envelopes and building setback
lines; distances between all proposed and existing buildings; roadway width; existing and
proposed grades; and locations of all existing and proposed utility connections. These are
the type of requirements that one would expect if the level of detail advocated by project
proponents were actually required for a Master Plan Resort and major revision. Instead,
MPR 3.906(1) requires "maps" or even "illustrations" that "assist" in understanding and
visualizing the proposed design and use.
The more specific requirements of site plan review, JCC 18.40.100(2), also supports the
position that master plan review is intended to be a conceptual review. JCC 18.40.100(2)
applies to any commercial, industrial or multi-family development of their Master Plan
Resort. The Examiner must determine if the information provided is consistent with all
applicable development regulations (JCC 17.50.070(3)( c)). If the level of detail advocated
by the applicants was required for master plan review, the Examiner would have to
conduct site plan review. The Examiner would essentially be conducting the site plan
review that the Jefferson County code would require at the building permit stage of permit
review. There would be no purpose served in such a duplicitous review process.
The wording of MPR 3.906(1)(h) is consistent with what one would usually expect from
Master Plan review, which is a conceptual design that facilitates a public discussion of the
overall layout and proposed uses of a major development proposal. The precise locations
of buildings, roads and utilities are already fully addressed by the building and
constructions codes and the zoning code standards incorporated into the Port Ludlow
Development Agreement. The level of detail advocated by the appellants is only necessary
for site plan review, as required by Chapter 18.40 JCC.
2. Completeness of Lot Line Adiustment Application. At page 4 of his Appeal
Hearing Brief and also in his response brief, Mr. Jordshaugen asserts that the PLA
boundary line adjustment fails to comply with submission requirements, including
intended future use of adjusted lots; location and dimensions of all structurelimprovements
existing upon affected lots; location, rights-of-way widths and names of all existing and
proposed future method of sewage disposal for each affected lot; and location of all
existing and proposed water and storm drainage facilities. Mr. Jordshaugen references the
lot line adjustment application form as setting the requirements for submittal. The
application form is probably based upon the requirements of the Jefferson County Code.
However, Paragraph 3.13 of the Port Ludlow Development Agreement vests PLA to the
Land Use Procedures Ordinance for application requirements. Section lO(A) of the Land
Use Procedures Ordinance specifies that the Director shall set application requirements.
The information cited by Mr. Jordshaugen as missing at page 4 of his Appeal Brief is not
required under the Land Use Application Procedures Ordinance. R ECEll\ir.."'l'
,\ l,\/1Cr:D'
, '" !J21
LOG ITEM
FINAL DECISION ON APPEAL - 4 # ?-G 1
{PA0683408.DOC;1I13043.900oo01} Page ~of__
2 9 2a08
nro
JJL
3. Plat Alterations. At page 4 of his Appeal Hearing Brief, Mr. Jordshaugen
contends that PLA should have applied for a plat alteration under RCW 58.17.215 as
opposed to a boundary line adjustment. PLA and the County contend that PLA did not
need to apply for a plat alteration because boundary line adjustments are exempt from
Chapter 58.17 RCW underRCW 58.17.040(6), which exempts the adjustment of boundary
lines which do not create any additional lot, tract, parcel, site, or division. The Examiner
finds that the alteration 1 proposed by PLA does qualify as a boundary line adjustment and
is, therefore, exempt from requirements in Chapter 58.17 RCW, including the plat
alteration requirements of RCW 58.17.215. The more specific arguments raised by
Mr. Jordshaugen on the requirement for plat alteration review are addressed below in the
order in which they are presented in his Brief.
Mr. Jordshaugen cites MPR 3.903, which provides that plat alterations in partially
developed plats shall be "processed as set forth in state law and in applicable County
ordinance." As noted previously, applicable State law exempts boundary line review from
plat alteration review processes. As shall be further discussed below, there is no County
ordinance that requires a more strict review process than that set by state law.
Mr. Jordshaugen also references paragraph 3.15.1 of the Port Ludlow Development
Agreement, which provides that an "option" that parties may exercise regarding any
required plat alteration is to process and consider the plat alteration in conjunction with the
resort complex proposal. PLA has exercised this option by having its boundary line
adjustment processed in conjunction with its major revision. A lot line adjustment is
simply one form of plat alteration.
Mr. Jordshaugen at page 5 of his Appeal Hearing Brief also references paragraph 3.15.2 of
the Port Ludlow Development Agreement, which provides that a public hearing shall be
required for any necessary plat alteration and the review process shall consider the criteria
of RCW 58.17.215. PLA has complied with the public hearing requirement of paragraph
3.15.2. Further, PLA has also complied with the requirements of RCW 58.17.215, which
expressly exempts lot line adjustments (by its reference to RCW 58.17.040(6) in the first
sentence) from plat alteration criteria.
At page 8 of his Brief, Mr. Jordshaugen asserts that the adjustment proposed by PLA does
not qualify as a boundary line adjustment under RCW 58.17.040(6) because it creates
additional parcels. Mr. Jordshaugen states that PLA will create some condominium tracts
on the portion of the property subject to the lot line adjustment, increasing the density of
the area from 33 residential units to 42 residential units. This argument fails because RCW
58.17.040(6) provides that a boundary line adjustment may not "create" any "lot, tract,
parcel, site, or division . . .." The proposed lot line adjustment in this case does not
1 The AHE finds that an RCW 58.17.215 plat alteration and a RCW 58.17.040(6) lot line
adjustment are both plat alterations, using the common dictionary meaning of alteration.
This is consistent with RCW 58.17.25, which identifies lot line adjustments as an exempt
plat alteration.'
','''., ..,;,
FINAL DECISION ON APPEAL - 5
{P A0683408.DOC; 1/13043.900oo0/}
#
Page
LOG ITEM
tLbJ
5" 'of
"create" the condominium tracts. PLA will create the condominium tracts at a subsequent
stage of development through the condominium process governed by Chapter 64.32 and
Chapter 64.34 RCW. In addition, the creation of condominium tracts is exempt from
subdivision review under RCW 58.17.040(7). Even if PLA were construed as "creating"
the condominium tracts, the division of the lot for purposes of condominium tracts would
still be exempt from Chapter 58.17 RCW, including the plat alteration statute. It is worth
noting, of course, that the lot line adjustment of any large parcel could potentially create
the opportunity for a property owner to subsequently create condominium tracts. There is
nothing in Chapter 58.17 RCW that suggests that if a property owner discloses that he or
she intends to further divide an altered lot into condominium tracts at subsequent point,
that he or she will lose the exempt status of a lot line adjustment.
At page 9 of his Appeal Hearing Brief, Mr. Jordshaugen raises the compelling argument
that the proposed division does not qualify as a lot line adjustment because it creates a new
"division." The meaning of "division" in RCW 58.17.040(6) is very difficult to ascertain.
The beginning of RCW 58.17.040(6) characterizes a lot line adjustment as a "division."
Consequently, if RCW 58.17.040(6) is to be read literally, no division would qualify as a
lot line adjustment if every alteration were considered an "additional" division. Mr.
Jordshaugen argues that a new division will be formed in the alteration proposed by PLA
because the resulting condominium development will result in a separate homeowners
association and separate form of ownership. Mr. Jordshaugen seeks to distinguish amongst
divisions based upon the private legal relationships of adjoining lots owners.
Mr. Jodshaugen's argument may have worked under older case law, but that law has been
reversed and current law does not support his position. The older court opinion that
supports his position is R/L Associates v. Klockers, 52 Wn. App. 726 (1988); reversed by,
City of Seattle v. Crispin, 149 Wn.2d 896, 71 P.3rd 208 (2003). Klockers involved a home
that straddled a property line. Under Seattle regulations, the property owner could not
place a home on each of the two underlying lots because the existing home was located on
both. The property owner sought a lot line adjustment in order to remove the home from
one of the lots, thereby clearing the way to build a second home. Seattle found that the
alteration proposed by the property owner did not qualify as an RCW 58.17.040(6) exempt
alteration because RCW 58.17.040(6) does not allow lot line alterations to create
additional "sites." Seattle found the division proposed by the applicant to constitute a
second site because it resulted in an additional building site (as a result of the alteration,
the applicant would have two homes on the two lots as opposed to just one). The Court of
Appeals agreed with this interpretation, holding that every term in RCW 58.17.040(6) had
to have a separate meaning and that the interpretation made by Seattle was reasonable for
"site." The Court also found support in this interpretation from the degree of change
associated with the division:
The Director's interpretation of the Code is also consistent with the
purposes underlying lot boundary adjustments. SMC 23.28.010 provides:
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a method for summary
approval of lot boundary adjustments which do. not create any
LOG ITEM
# ?-~
Page ~ of
FINAL DECISION ON APPEAL - 6
{P A0683408.DOC; 1/13043.9000001}
additional lot, tract, parcel, site or division, while insuring that
such lot boundary adjustment satisfies public concerns of health,
safety, and welfare.
To "adjust" is to "settle or arrange; to free from differences or
discrepancies." Black's Law Dictionary 40 (5th ed. 1979). It is therefore
evident that a lot boundary adjustment is intended to apply to minor
boundary changes, but not to changes that result in increased development
or density otherwise regulated by the applicable land use code. RlL's
argument ignores the fact that the proposed lots are substantially different
from the two existing platted lots. The drastic boundary change proposed
by RlL creates two essentially new lots. Moreover, a lot boundary
adjustment is a summary procedure that is not subject to the public scrutiny
and control required by significant divisions of property; approval of the
adjustment is mandatory when the criteria are met. SMC 23.28.030. For
this reason, we believe boundary adjustment provisions should be strictly
construed to effectuate their purposes. See R. Settle, Washington Land Use
and Environmental Law and Practice 92 ( 1983). The lot boundary
adjustment provides an efficient and low-cost procedure for minor or
insignificant changes in property lines. If we were to focus scrutiny merely
on the resulting quantity of lots, as urged by RlL, while ignoring the
substance of the boundary changes, we would be subjecting the process to
considerable abuse. See Settle, Washington Land Use, supra.
52 Wn. App. at 732-33.
The Court's reasoning above is dead on with Mr. Jordshaugen's well-crafted argument.
"Division" needs to be given a separate meaning from the other types of lot alterations
identified in RCW 58.17.040(6). The definition by Mr. Jordshaugen serves to prevent the
"abuse" of the lot line adjustment process that would occur if scrutiny were focused merely
on the resulting quantity of lots.
The compelling reasoning of the Klockers decision, however, was tossed by the State
Supreme Court in City of Seattle v. Crispin, 149 Wn.2d 896, 71 P.3rd 208 (2003). In
Crispin, opponents to a lot line adjustment attempted to argue that a lot line that
substantially changes a plat does not comply with RCW 58.17.040(6), relying upon
Klockers. The Supreme Court reversed Klockers, holding as follows:
...the statute [RCW 58.17.040(6)] does not support the distinction the Court
of Appeals draws between adjustments that are minor compared with
substantial. Nor would such a rule be workable, and would perhaps be
unconstitutional. We have recognized that the regulation of land use must
proceed under an express written code and not be based on ad hoc unwritten
rules so vague that a person of common intelligence must guess at the law's
meaning and application.
]Rl Tf]'
" JL~'
Y"rj)
J;
'LJ
Dca
LOG ITEM
# ?~
Page 7 of
FINAL DECISION ON APPEAL - 7
{P A0683408.DOC; 1/13043.90ooo0/}
.~
u
149 Wn.2d at 212.
The Crispin case is particularly devastating to Mr. Jordshaugen's interpretation because
Seattle's interpretation of RCW 58.17.040(6) was clearer. Under Seattle's interpretation,
anytime a lot line adjustment resulted in an additional building site the lot line adjustment
exemption would not apply. The Crispin court found this too vague. In comparison, under
the Jordshaugen interpretation, exempt status would be lost whenever the form of property
ownership of a subset of a subdivision changed or when an entity such as a homeowner's
association relinquished its control over some lots. Determining what degree of change in
entity or property status is necessary to trigger a division is at least as vague as the Seattle
site plan interpretation. Given Crispen, there is little chance that a court would require an
RCW 58.17.215 plat alteration for the PLA proposal. The end run on full subdivision
review that was a concern of the Klockers court is not a concern to the State Supreme
Court.
4. Violation of Plat Covenants. The remainder of Mr. Jordshaugen's Appeal Hearing
Brief argues that the proposed lot line alteration violates applicable plat covenants. Mr.
Jordshaugen's argument in this regard is completely premised upon the applicability of
RCW 58.17.215, which requires that all parties subject to the covenants must approve of
any alteration that would violate those covenants. Since RCW 58.17.215 does not apply to
the alterations proposed by PLA, there is no statutory duty to acquire approval from the
other parties to the covenant if they are violated by the proposed alteration.
Powers Memorandum Of Points And Authorities
5. Plat Alteration. Mr. Powers also contests the applicability of the lot line
adjustment exemption to the state subdivision code. His argument, at page 5 of his
Memorandum of Points and Authorities, is based upon two points: specifically, that the
PLA alteration results in an illegal division, and that lot line adjustments do not include
removing platted lots into unplatted lots or removing platted lots from one plat adjoining
them to another plat.
Mr. Powers asserts that the divisions created by the PLA plat alteration will create illegal
lots due to alleged inconsistencies with private covenants, conditions, and restrictions that
apply to the property. Nothing in RCW 58.17.040(6), or any other applicable state or local
regulation, requires consistency with private covenants, conditions, and restrictions. For
this reason, this argument is without merit.
Mr. Powers' assertion that a lot line adjustment may not result in a conversion of platted
lots into unplatted lots or removing platted lots from one plat adjoining them to another
plat is similarly without legal basis. Nothing in RCW 58.17.040(6) prohibits this practice.
RCW 58.17.040(6) clearly allows the adjustment of boundary lines "between platted or
unplatted lots or both." Since only platted or unplatted lots were involved in the proposed
plat alteration, RCW 58.17.040(6) clearly authorizes the ~ClA0~QffJin~sb~tw~en all of
those lots without the restrictions asserted by Mr. Powers. ~" \l~.J ",~/ ~;'/ ji IV lUl Ii b
t_~. _ _,';'
LOG ITEM
# ~~ \
,
Page 1L of_
FINAL DECISION ON APPEAL - 8
{P A0683408.DOC; 1/13043 .900000/}
At page 10 of his Memorandum, Mr. Powers also that Seattle v. Crispin does not dictate
that the PLA proposal be processed as exempt under RCW 58.17.040(6). This argument is
addressed in Conclusion No.3, supra.
In footnote 28 of his Memorandum, Mr. Powers also asserts that the residences proposed
on the lots resulting from the lot alteration would fail to comply with setback requirements
to the lagoon. RCW 58.17.040(6) only requires that resulting lots meet minimum
requirements for width and area for a building site. This does not include setbacks for
proposed buildings. If a proposed building will not comply with the setback requirements,
the building will have to be modified at the building permit stage in order to comply with
those requirements.
At page 11 of his Memorandum, Mr. Powers asserts additional alleged inconsistencies
with applicable private covenants. As noted previously, RCW 58.17.040(6) only prohibits
resulting lots that fail to meet width and area requirements. At page 11 of his
Memorandum, Mr. Powers appears to be arguing that the resulting lots would fail to
comply with density and use restrictions of private covenants. Even if the private
covenants were included in the "width and area" requirements ofRCW 58.17.040(6), those
are not the type of covenants identified by Mr. Powers. If the densities or uses proposed in
the resulting lots are inconsistent with the private covenants, PLA will have to modify its
proposed uses accordingly. This mayor may not require a major or minor revision to the
master plan resort. At any rate, the proposed uses and densities of the lots resulting from
the plat alteration are irrelevant to the lot line adjustment criteria of RCW 58.17.040(6).
At page 11 of his Memorandum, Mr. Powers also raises the Jordshaugen argument that the
contemplated creation of condominium lots should be considered additional lots in
violation of RCW 58.17.040(6) and also that the lot line adjustment will result in
additional division. These issues are addressed in Conclusion No.3, supra.
6. Condominium Tracts in Subdivisions. At pages 8 through 9 of his
Memorandum, Mr. Powers asserts that the proposed use of the resulting 11 parcels as the
condominium is not possible within the context of the Ludlow Village Plat. He bases this
position upon the premise that the definition of a condominium tract is not consistent with
the definition of a subdivision lot. No such consistency is required or necessary. Nothing
in state law prohibits the division of a subdivision lot into separate condominium tracts.
Given that the majority of modern lots are created from the subdivision process, it would
be difficult to site a condominium project if not all subdivision lots could be used for such
a purpose. The division of a Ludlow Village Plat lot into condominium tracts would not
require removing the property from the Ludlow Village plat or dissolving applicable
private covenants. It is quite possible that the private parties that prepared the covenants
did not adequately address the impacts of lot alterations and other modifications to the plat
in those covenants. Whether and to what extent the covenants must be modified to correct
this situation is an issue between private parties as well. R]R C . . 7'. .
Ld /Elf\lE][)
t,'
s
LOG ITEM
~b \
" of
FINAL DECISION ON APPEAL - 9
{P A0683408.DOC; 1/13043.900oo0/}
#
LlffFERSON COUivTY DeD Page
7. Violation of Covenants/Private Property Rh~hts. Pages 15-19 of Mr. Powers'
Memorandum assert that the proposed major revision and accompanying permit
applications violate the property rights of the appellants because the requested permit
approvals conflict with applicable private covenants. There is no violation of private
property rights here because there is no action by Jefferson County to modify or alter the
private covenants. PLA either does or does not have a right under the private covenants to
revise the plat master plan resort and convert some of the parcels to condominium tracts.
If it has this authority under the private covenants, then the fact that the ability to do so
creates inconsistencies with other covenant provisions is a defect from the drafting of the
covenants. If PLA does not have the authority under the covenants to make modifications
to the master plan resort, then the appellants are free to run to court and enjoin the
implementation of any Jefferson County approval of any such modification. The central
point here is that the interpretation and enforceability of the covenant provisions is a matter
to be addressed between the private parties to the covenant. The Jefferson County Hearing
Examiner and AHE have no jurisdiction or authority to interpret or enforce the covenants.
The only authority the examiners would have on this issue is to apply the covenant
requirements of RCW 58.17.215. As to Mr. Powers' constitutional arguments regarding
the covenants, that hearing examiners do not have the authority to enforce, interpret, or
rule on constitutional challenges, see Exendine v. City of Sammamish, 127 Wn. App. 574,
586-7 (2005).
The cases cited by Mr. Powers to support his arguments have no relevance to the issue at
hand. Mr. Powers cites Viking Properties v. Home, 155 Wn.2d 112 (2005) and Mains
Farms Homeowners Assoc. v. Worthington, 120 Wn.2d 810 (1993). In both cases, a party
attempted to invalidate a private covenant on the basis that it violated public policy. In this
case, no one is attempting to invalidate any private covenants. Both of those cases
required strong legislative intent to declare a general public policy sufficient to override
contractual private property rights. In this case, there is no intent to override any private
covenants. Consequently, as previously stated, the private covenants at issue are still in
place and fully applicable. Whether they have been drafted well enough to address a
change in circumstance that arises from approval of any of PLA's requested applications is
a different matter that does not involve the constitutional rights of the appellants.
8. Compliance with Growth Mana2ement Act. At pages 19 through 32 of his
Memorandum, Mr. Powers asserts that the proposed major revision is contrary to the
requirements of the Growth Management Act and violates the adoption process mandated
by the Growth Management Act. These issues are beyond the authority of the AHE.
Administrative agencies such as the AHE are creatures of the legislature without inherent
common law powers and may exercise only those powers conferred either expressly or by
necessary implication. Chaussee v. Snohomish County Council, 38 Wn. App. 630 (1984).
No County code provision or state law authorizes the AHE to rule on the validity of any
county ordinance. Consequently, the AHE only has the authority to interpret and apply
those ordinances. MPR 3.906(3) outlines the criteria for a decision on a major resort
revision application. The AHE's authority is limited to applying those criteria. None of
the criteria for a major revision require compliance with the Growth Management Act.
The Growth Management Act may certainly be used to assist in resolving any ambiguities
lOG ITEl\il
# ?-lo\
Page ~of._~"
FINAL DECISION ON APPEAL - 10
{P A0683408.DOC; 1/13043.900000/}
in the application of those criteria, but Mr. Powers has not identified any instance where
that would be necessary nor is it readily evident from the applicable criteria that resort to
the statutes is necessary. Similarly, MPR 3.906 delegates review of a major revision
application to the Hearing Examiner and this is appealable to the AHE under the Land Use
Procedures Ordinance, incorporated into the Port Ludlow Development Agreement. The
AHE has no authority to invalidate those review procedures either. It is also worth noting
that the review process for a major revision was adopted by ordinance and subject to
challenge to the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. Since no
challenge was made within 60 days of adoption as required by RCW 36.70A.290(2), it is
likely that any challenge to the major revision review process is time barred from further
appeal to the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board.
Mr. Powers' concern that the major revision process could be used to undermine the
Growth Management Act restrictions of a master planned resort is a valid one. However,
the revision decision criteria (MPR 3.906(3)) ensures perpetual compliance with the
requirements of RCW 36.178.362. RCW 36.70A.362 expressly authorizes permanent
residential uses if they "are integrated into and consistent with the on-site recreational
nature of the resort." MPR 3.906(3)(e) incorporates these requirements by requiring that a
proposed revision compliments existing resort facilities and provides for unified
development, integrated site design and protection of natural amenities. Mr. Powers
asserts that the proposed revision conflicts with the requirements of Comprehensive Plan
LNP 24.5,2 which requires a newly sited master plan resort to consist of predominantly
short-term visitor accommodations and associated activities. However, LNP 24.5
implements goal LNG 24.0, which applies to newly sited master plan resorts under RCW
36.70.360. RCW 36.70A.360 is for new master plan resorts, as opposed to existing master
plan resorts designated under RCW 36.70A.362 - the statute used to designate the Port
Ludlow master plan resort. The requirement that a master plan resort consist of
"predominantly short-term visitor accommodations and associated activities" is language
directly out of RCW 36.70A.360. This language is inapplicable to the Port Ludlow master
plan resort because it was designated as an existing master plan resort under RCW
36.70.362. This difference in language is understandable, given that existing master plan
resorts may have already had a permanent residential component, whereas in a newly
planned master plan resort, existing residential components are not a factor.
9. Adequacy of Water and Sewer. At page 25 through 27 of his Memorandum, Mr.
Powers asserts that the proposed revision will not be served by adequate water or sewer.
MPR 3.906(3)(d) requires that a major revision have sufficient onsite and offsite
infrastructure, including water and sewer. Part of Mr. Powers' argument is based upon the
premise that the equivalent residential unit ("ERU") calculation at MPR 3.80 conflicts with
2 Mr. Powers cites this Comprehensive Plan policy as Comprehensive Plan LNG 26. This
is a citation to the 1998 edition of the Comprehensive Plan and only addresses the goal, as
opposed to the more specific implementing policies. All citations to the Comprehensive
Plan in this decision shall be to the current 2004 edition of the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan.
RECEKV]~: D
FINAL DECISION ON APPEAL - 11
{PA0683408.DOC; 1I13043.900oo0/}
J
n, Cl
'0 u
LOG ITEM
# ~.h\-
Page~of_
~1[HfRSON GDUN1Y Den
superseding state requirements. MPR 3.801(3) sets a development cap at 2,575 ERUs.
Mr. Powers asserts that if the ERUs assigned by the Washington State Department of
Ecology are used instead of the ERUs assigned by the MPR, the 2,575 development cap
will be exceeded before reaching the residential build out of the proposed major revision.
Mr. Powers' premise that there is a conflict is faulty. MPR 3.801(2) expressly states that
the ERUs used for purposes of the development cap are assigned values of 200 gallons per
day for residential dwelling units and that these are not to be construed as the same ERUs
used in other state regulated contexts. The "conflicting" sewer provisions referenced by
Mr. Powers are those very provisions that MPR 3.801(2) states do not apply. This specific
exemption, being more specific, supersedes the more general clause in MPR 1.40. It is
quite possible that in actual practice residential dwelling units within the master plan resort
will exceed 200 gallons per day per dwelling unit, but they will only be counted as 200
gallons per day for purposes of the 2,575 development cap.
Mr. Powers also asserts that the water utility that serves the master planned resort does not
have the resources to accommodate the build out. In Conclusion of Law No. 18 of Mr.
Berteig's decision, Mr. Berteig finds that water and sewer impacts have been fully
considered, based upon the final supplemental environmental impact statement ("SEIS").
Given that Mr. Berteig is the highest trier of fact in this review process, his factual findings
are due deference from the AHE. Given the information provided in the SEIS, the AHE
agrees with Mr. Berteig's factual findings in this regard.
At page 26 of his Memorandum, Mr. Powers also takes issue with whether the county has
performed the monitoring requirements of MPR 3.802. This obligation is irrelevant to
review of the master plan revision and other permits involved in this hearing. The revision
criteria at issue is whether adequate provision has been made for sewer and water. The
factual finding is that adequate provision has been made.
10. Scope of Maior Revision Process. At page 29 of his Memorandum, Mr. Powers
claims that MPR 3.901 prohibits changes to the Resort Plan unless those changes are
limited to reducing the sizes outlined in MPR 3.901, due to a sentence in MPR 3.901 that
provides "changes to this resort plan that decreases sizes noted below are allowed." This
quoted sentence merely provides that the developer is free to develop less than that
outlined in the Resort Plan. The preceding sentence allows the developer to exceed the
scope of development set forth below if a major revision is approved. That is precisely
what the applicants are doing in this case in order to increase residential use. MPR 3.906
expressly allows the use of a major revision to increase intensity, size, and density or
create changes that may have a substantial impact on the environment beyond those
reviewed in previous environmental documents. MPR 3.905(1) identifies when a
comprehensive plan and related zoning action is required, which is when there is a
proposed change to the MPR boundary or zoning designation. PLA proposes no change in
the MPR boundary or a change in the zoning. All the changes proposed by PLA are within
the changes authorized by MPR 3.906.
11. Limitations on Permanent Residential Development. At page 31 of his
Memorandum, Mr. Powers asserts that Jef~efsoPiiCOU~t1[ ~~Pf~nsive Plan LNP 24.5
.--~ '1 L\__~i- ;:
LOG ITEM
# 'J.-b\
Page~of
FINAL DECISION ON APPEAL - 12
{P A0683408.DOC; 1/13043.9000001}
and provlSlons of the Unified Development Code ("UDC") require that 65% of the
residential units in the master plan resort be devoted to visitor accommodations. LNP 24.5
has no 65% limitation. As noted previously, the policies implementing LNG 24.0, such as
LNP 24.5, only apply to newly sited master plan resorts governed by RCW 38.70(A).360,
not resorts such as the Port Ludlow resort, which are governed by RCW 36.78.362. Since
Mr. Powers does not identify any specific UDC provision imposing the 65% requirement,
there is no reasonable way to address the merits of his argument based on the UDC.
12. Prior Permit Violations. At Page 32-34 of his Memorandum Mr. Powers alleges
several violations of the requirements of a prior shoreline substantial development permit.
As explained in Mr. Berteig's decision, the Hearing Examiner (and AHE) have no
jurisdiction over this issue. No shoreline permit review criteria, or any other applicable
criteria, authorizes either Examiner to condition or withhold permit approval on the basis
of prior permit violations.
13. Laeoon as a Shoreline. Mr. Powers raises a significant issue in his assertion that
the area 200 feet landward from the lagoon qualifies as "shorelands" under RCW
90.58.030(f) and that any development within these shorelands is subject to the Jefferson
County Shoreline Management Master Program. This issue is of particular importance to
Mr. Powers because if he is correct, residential structures proposed along the perimeter of
the lagoon would be subject to SMMP 5.160, Policy 11, which provides his property with
some protection from view blockage. Related to, and potentially encompassed in this
issue, is whether development around the lagoon is subject to shoreline setbacks.
Mr. Powers cites an October 25, 2004 letter from the Washington State Department of
Ecology ("DOE." Log No. 222) as support for his position. In that letter DOE primarily
concludes that the lagoon is subject to the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program
("SMP") because it is within 200 feet of the Ludlow Bay, a shoreline of the state. DOE
did not have to find the lagoon qualifies as a shoreline to reach this conclusion. However,
without much explanation, DOE determined that the lagoon qualifies as a "water of the
state" under RCW 90.48.020. If true, this would arguably qualify the lagoon as a
shoreline, since shorelines are defined by RCW 90.58.030(d) as including "all of the
waters of the state." PLA disputes this characterization, point out that RCW
90.58.030(d)(iii) exempts lakes less than twenty acres in size from the definition of
shoreline. Mr. Powers claims that the lagoon should not be considered a separate lake
because of its hydraulic continuity to the Ludlow Bay shoreline. 3 If the lagoon does
3 Twin Bridge Marine Park, LLC v. DOE, SHB Nos. 01-016 and 01-017, determined that a
moorage lagoon was a part of the adjoining shoreline for purposes of establishing shoreline
jurisdiction because it connected directly to the shoreline and altered the ordinary high
water mark of the shoreline. As discussed in the 10/25/04 DOE letter, the Port Ludlow
lagoon has also resulted in an alteration of the Ludlow Bay ordinary high water mark.
Two culverts provide a direct connection to Ludlow Bay, but this connection to the Bay is
certainly less in degree than the boat access points presumably in place in the Twin Bridge
decision. Overall it appears a bit of a stretch to argue that the Port Ludlow lagoon is a part
of Ludlow Bay because of two culverts, but t~ ~y..~fflis,s~ ~ Jefferson County
JL'( lt~ \tJ Jt~ Jl V JJ~ lLj)
FINAL DECISION ON APPEAL - 13 - ~ LOG ITEM
{PA0683408.DOC;1I13043.90ooo01} Cc..;~ # ~lo.. \
Page_ \3 of_
~r~"'rr'f~:1nftl {~~~~~~,,?-'7 ~"t.,,,,
qualify as a shoreline, then all land 200 feet from it would qualify as a shoreland pursuant
to RCW 90.58.030(f), necessitating a shoreline substantial development permit for any
substantial development.
The shoreline substantial development permit application submitted by PLA does not
precisely identify whether development along the lagoon is a subject of the permit. The
analysis in the staff report of consistency with permit criteria could apply to residential
development along Ludlow Bay interchangeably with residential development along the
lagoon. However, the staff report and Mr. Berteig's decision do not address the parking lot
on the east side of the lagoon or, apparently, the view impacts of residential development
along the northeast comer of the lagoon. Given these factors, it appears that the shoreline
permit decision only applies to the shorelands of Ludlow Bay, not the lagoon. Mr.
Berteig's permit decision will be clarified to address this point.
As clarified, the project is consistent with the Jefferson County SMMP. The SMMP will
prohibit any substantial development without a shoreline permit along the lagoon if the
lagoon has its own shorelands. Condition lO(a) conditions residential construction upon
compliance of any applicable shoreline setbacks, which will include the lagoon if its
shoreline triggers shoreline setback requirements.
14. Heron Road Safety Issues. At pages 35-37 of his Memorandum Mr. Powers
raises another serious issue regarding the safety of Heron Road. The site visit and site
plans reveal that garages along the eastern leg of Heron Road are within just a few feet of
Heron Road. The turning and site distance limitations of this configuration could well
constitute a safety hazard, as evidenced by the engineering studies presented by Mr.
Powers. Fixing these problems would presumably involve the widening of Heron Road,
which in turn would involve the conveyance of PLA property for that purpose.
Municipalities may "take" property from a developer in the permitting process if the
municipality can show that the property is necessary to correct a public problem created or
exacerbated by the proposal. See Burton v. Clark County, 91 Wn. App. 105 (1998). It is
important to note that the burden of proof is on the municipality to justify the condition.
If the proposed revision results in an increase in traffic along Heron Road or increases
conflicts in turning movements, the project could4 be found to exacerbate safety issues
along the road. However, the major revision actually serves to reduce traffic along the
eastern leg of Heron Road (where most of the safety issues are present) by eliminating the
may wish to acquire additional direction from DOE in order to determine if an additional
shoreline permit is necessary for construction around the lagoon.
4 In determining whether the major revision "exacerbates" the current safety issues, the
baseline of the safety problem may not be the current condition but rather what the
conditions are at approved build out. Given the amount of additional commercial
development authorized for the project and the additional traffic this could create for
Heron Road (especially with the connection to the Inn intact)ntiSq~st~9~l:>le)\!h~t~er
the Major Revision does exacerbate safety issues on the road:~' ..d..;J)...
#
Page
n
LOG ITEM
U\
.
J l-\ of
FINAL DECISION ON APPEAL - 14
{P A0683408.DOC; 1/13043 .9000001}
connection of Heron Road to the Inn. At page 59-60 of the January 16, 2006 staff report,
staff concludes that removal of the connection will remove vehicl ~~. .c_~..... J-lPTOn
Road and will separate Inn traffic from residential traffic. There is
along Heron. Road will increase due to PLA's proposal, includi l ~ _ 2b"', ~
studies. The 15 mph speed limit also puts into question the sig
issues associated with conflicting turning movements. Given tr
staff's conclusions, the record does not support the widening of He
Absent a take of PLA' s property, the safety issues could bt
development. Limiting residential development on the northeast end of the lagoon CUUIU
potentially reduce safety issues. However, for the reasons above, the record does not
support the need to impose such a requirement given the restrictions on vehicular traffic.
In his discussion on Heron Road safety issues, Mr. Powers asserts various violations of
subdivision and zoning regulations for existing structures and Heron Road. To the extent
that Mr. Powers is arguing these alleged violations should be addressed now, these issues
result from prior permitting decisions and his issues are time-barred. See Chelan County v.
Chelan County, 146 Wn.2d 904 (2002)(challenges to illegally issued permits must be
raised within appeals period of permit approval). Mr. Powers also asserts that Section
6.309(9) of the Subdivision Ordinance prohibits the hammerhead proposed for Heron
Road. Section 6.309(9) does not prohibit hammerhead intersections.
15. Incomplete Applications. At page 37 through 40 of his Memorandum, Mr.
Powers asserts that PLA failed to submit complete applications. The Examiner addressed
this issue in Conclusions 1 and 2, supra, in the assessment of the Jordshaugen Appeal
Brief. In addition, Mr. Powers asserts that the applicants should have applied for a binding
site plan for the proposed condominiums. If a binding site plan is required for these
structures, PLA is not required to apply for binding site plan approval at this stage of
development review. Section 7(A) of the Land Use Procedures Ordinances provides that
consolidation of permit review is optional, not mandatory.
16. Timine: of Shoreline Permit Approval. At Page 38 of his Memorandum, Mr.
Powers correctly asserts that Jefferson County cannot make a final decision on the
shoreline substantial development permit until PLA acquires its hydraulic permit. The
criteria for shoreline substantial development permit approval do not appear to be included
within the SMMP. However, WAC 173-27-150(1)(c) requires compliance with the SMMP
for permit issuance. SMMP 6.40 provides as follows:
A shoreline permit is considered the last governmental approval prior to
construction or issuance of a building permit. If a proposal involves other
governmental approvals, as in a rezone or subdivision approval, those other
issues shall be resolved prior to final action on a shoreline permit
application.
RECEIVED
FINAL DECISION ON APPEAL - 15
{P A0683408.DOC; 1/13043.9000001}
~J G ::
'i('rl~l
iIJU,l1
LOG ITEM
# ~b\
Page~of
ntH
tJ....iU
There is little question that the language above prohibits the issuance of a shoreline permit
prior to the issuance of any other land uses permits for the project. What is not so clear is
what is intended by the term "final action." It is revealing that "final action" is used
instead of "approval," suggesting that something after approval of a permit would qualify.
The last County action on a shoreline permit identified in the SMMP is the filing of permit
approval with the Washington State Department of Ecology. SMMP 6.401(9).
Construction may only commence more than 30 days after filing. In order to comply with
SMMP 6.40, a condition will be added to the shoreline permit that does not allow filing
with DOE until all land use permits (excluding construction permits) have been acquired.
Since RCW 90.58.140(6) requires the transmittal of the shoreline decision to the applicant
concurrently with the filing with DOE, the shoreline permit will be transmitted to the
applicant separately (from the rest of permit approvals) concurrently with filing with DOE.
This condition will satisfy the apparent policy of SMMP 6.40, which is to prevent
alterations of shorelines that turn out to be unnecessary because permits issued after
shoreline permit approval prohibit the alteration.
17. Consolidation. At page 38-40 of his Memorandum, Mr. Powers takes issue with
some plans of PLA to apply for short plats and binding site plans in the future. ~ 7(A) of
the Land Use Procedures Ordinance specifically provides that consolidation is optional for
the applicant. PLA is not required to consolidate all of its applications. The issue of what
future applications are necessary to complete development is not relevant to the criteria for
approval of the applications before the AHE at this time.
18. Berteh! Recusal. Pages 40 through 44 of Mr. Powers' Memorandum address the
recusal of Mr. Berteig. Mr. Berteig's Log Exhibit 97 statement that he "may agree" that he
could not make a fair decision is disturbing. As PLA notes in its briefing, Mr. Berteig does
not reveal any bias or impartiality to any specific party, which would be the grounds for
recusal under the appearance of fairness doctrine. Mr. Berteig's concerns, as expressed in
Log Exhibit 97, were limited to the appellate hearing examiner system. It is within the
realm of possibility that his concerns could be linked to a specific party, but there is no
evidence of this in the record and it is up to the objecting parties to show specific bias. Cf,
Opal v. Adams County, 128 Wn.2d 869 (1996).6 Similarly, under the "impartiality may be
S The AHE was careful to use the term "land use" permit here to distinguish it from
construction permits, such as building, electrical and plumbing permits. SMMP 6.40
clearly anticipates that construction permits will be issued after shoreline permit approval.
6 The Opal case demonstrates the significant burden the courts place on parties to prove an
appearance of fairness violation. In Opal, prior to the approval of a quasi-judicial county
permit for a regional landfill, records established that one of the County Commissioners
had received 63 long distance phone calls from the permit applicant at his home. During
this same period of time, the County Commissioners were also adopting a solid waste
management plan. At the hearing on the landfill permit application, the Commissioner that
had engaged in the long distance phone calls disclosed that he had engaged in a few phone
conversations with people on the application. The same Commissioner also had a couple
of phone conversations with the applicant after he made his disclosure. The court found no
FINAL DECISION ON APPEAL - 16
{P A0683408.DOC; 1/13043.90ooo0/}
LOG ITENi
# ~\
Page U, of
reasonably questioned" standard in the case law referenced by Mr. Powers, there must be
some reasonable indication of bias towards a party, but none is mentioned by Mr. Berteig
and none is shown in the record.
In addition to the appearance of fairness doctrine, Mr. Berteig's comments about being
unable to render an unfair hearing implicate concerns of constitutional procedural due
process, which is premised upon the conduct of a fair proceeding. However, all of Mr.
Berteigs comments point to his belief that the appellate hearing examiner system may
result in an unfair decision, not that he would otherwise issue an unfair decision. As with
the appearance of fairness doctrine, if the parties believe that they the proceeding before
Mr. Berteig was unfair, they must provide evidence of specific examples to prove this
point.
In relation to the recusal of Mr. Berteig, Mr. Powers also argues that Mr. Berteig had no
right to reconsider his decision to recuse himself. Applicable code provisions do not
identify whether a decision to recuse is subject to reconsideration. However, the courts
have recognized that the authority to reconsider may be implied in a decision-making
process even though enabling statutes or other authority may not expressly grant such a
right. See Lejeune v. Clallam County, 64 Wn. App. 257 (1992). There is a strongly
implied right of reconsideration for recusal decisions. Recusal decisions are not addressed
in the Land Use Procedures Ordinance or the Rules of Procedure for Land Use Hearings
(Appendices E and C to the Port Ludlow Development Agreement, respectively).
Consequently, all the procedural rules for a request and decision on recusal are implied,
with some guidance from case law and the general mandates of JCC 18.05.085. The
consequences of a decision to recuse can have a significant impact on a case, given that
jurisdiction must redo the case when a decision maker recuses him or herself. See
Bjamson v. Kitsap County, 78 Wn. App. 840 (1995). There are strong policy
considerations in favor of reconsideration of a recusal decision, including conservation of
administrative resources and the opportunity to correct mistakes. The fact that the County
asked Mr. Berteig to reconsider his recusal decision shows that staff interpreted its
procedures as allowing reconsideration, which is due some deference. See Faven Point
Neighbors v. City of Mercer Island, 102 Wn. App. 775 (2000). The parties themselves
throughout the course of this appeal requested the Examiner to reconsider various
decisions on scheduling and the record, evidencing a common understanding the Examiner
should have an opportunity to correct or render more fair decisions. Given these factors,
the Examiner concludes that Mr. Berteig had the authority to reconsider his decision to
recuse himself.
Mr. Powers also takes issue with ex parte communications between Mr. Berteig and
County officials. As noted by Mr. Berteig in his Decision, p. 18-19, none of those
communications dealt with this case. There is no evidence to the contrary. As previously
FINAL DECISION ON APPEAL - 17
{P A0683408.DOC; 1/13043.900oo0/}
appearance violation because the litigant failed to establish that the subject matter of the 63
phone calls pertained to the landfill permit as opposed to the solid waste management plan,
the latter not quasi-judicial and not subject to the appearance of fairness doctrine
prohibition of ex parte contacts. RECEIVE D LOG ITEM
~fo\
\ '1 ' of
f'tI
#
Page
t./
discussed in Footnote 6, supra, case law requires the objecting party to prove that the
substance of an alleged ex parte communication concerned the quasi-judicial proceeding at
hand. The parties have not shown that Mr. Berteig engaged in any communications with
County staff that violates the appearance of fairness doctrine.
19. SEP A Noncompliance. At page 44 of his Memorandum, Mr. Powers alleges
noncompliance with the Washington State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C
RCW ("SEP A"). No SEP A appeal is before the AHE and none is allowed for the issues
raised by Mr. Powers. WAC 197-11-680(3)(a)(iii) provides that municipalities may only
allow administrative appeals of final threshold determinations and final environmental
impact statements. Jefferson County limits appeal rights even further. JCC 18.40.810(5)
prohibits administrative appeals to the adequacy of environmental impact statements and
also restricts appeals of threshold determinations. Mr. Powers contests the adequacy of the
supplemental EIS for this project. This issue can only be addressed upon judicial review.
Hale Appeal Brief
20. Berteh! Recusal. In the first page of his Appeal Brief, Mr. Hale requests that any
remand not go to Mr. Berteig due to personal bias against him. Mr. Hale bases this belief
upon Mr. Berteig's opposition to the appellate hearing examiner system and Mr. Hale's
success in appealing Mr. Berteig's decisions. Although Mr. Berteig has been very critical
of the appellate examiner process, he has not expressed any bias against Mr. Hale, and it is
unlikely that Mr. Berteig would have to recuse himself based upon the information
provided by Mr. Hale (see Conclusion 18, supra). At any rate, since Mr. Berteig no longer
works for Jefferson County the issue is probably moot.
21. Townhomes as Sine:le-Familv Dwelline:s. At page 3 of his Appeal Brief, Mr.
Hale is absolutely correct that town homes are subject to the single-family bulk and
dimensional standards of MPR 3.105. Not only does MPR 3.103(3) expressly provide that
townhouses are "single family attached" for purposes of the MPR ordinance, but MPR
3.105 expressly states that the single-family bulk and dimensional standards apply to single
family attached units. Since the Uniform Development Code would only apply to resolve
an ambiguity, it has no application here because there is no ambiguity. Further, the past
practice of Jefferson County in the interpretation of this ordinance has no bearing, since
deference to administrative interpretation is only justified in construing an ambiguous
provision. See Faven Point Neighbors v. City of Mercer Island, 102 Wn. App. 775 (2000).
Conclusion of Law D(4) of Mr. Berteig's decision will have to be modified accordingly.
The AHE will also modify the conditions of approval to require compliance with MPR
3.105 or to replace the town homes with stacked flats, as suggested in PLA's Post-Hearing
Closing Memorandum.
22. Plat Alteration. At page 5-6 of his Appeal Brief, Mr. Hale raises six arguments as
to why PLA should have applied for an RCW 58.17.215 plat alteration as opposed to an
exempt RCW 58.17.040(6) lot line adjustment. The first, second, fifth and sixth arguments
are addressed at Conclusion 3, supra. In his third argument, Mr. Hale contends that
LOG ITEM
# ~\
Page I. 'of
FINAL DECISION ON APPEAL - 18
{P A0683408.DOC; 11l3043.90ooo0/}
Section 14.201 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires signatures of all persons who have
an ownership interest in the area subject to the proposed plat alteration. However, Section
3.40(4) of the Subdivision Ordinance exempts lot line alterations from the Subdivision
Ordinance, which would include the signature requirements of Section 14.201.
The fourth argument addresses past interpretations of the County. As previously
discussed, administrative interpretation is due some deference in interpreting vague
ordinances. See Faven Point Neighbors v. City of Mercer Island, 102 Wn. App. 775
(2000). However, the correspondence cited by Mr. Hale does not show any County
interpretation of whether an RCW 58.17.215 plat alteration was required as opposed to a
RCW 58.17.040(6) lot line adjustment. Rather, PLA had applied or was going to apply for
a RCW 58.17.215 plat alteration, and PLA and Jefferson County were discussing what was
required for such an application. The fact that PLA had not come up with the bright idea
of employing the RCW 58.17.040(6) lot line adjustment process to get out of the RCW
58.17.215 signature requirements does not necessarily mean that the lot line adjustment
process was inappropriate.
At pages 6 through 7 of his Appeal Brief, Mr. Hale takes the position that the reduction in
resort amenities violates the requirements of RCW 36.70A.362. This issue is addressed in
Conclusion 8, supra. Mr. Hale makes the point that some of the existing amenities are
only available to members of various homeowner associations. RCW 36.70A.362 does not
require that all amenities be available to the public. Even if it did, as discussed in the
analysis of the Powers Memorandum, that issue would not be relevant to this review since
the AHE is limited to applying the major revision criteria and none of those criteria require
amenities to be available to the public. Mr. Hale is correct in pointing out that the MPR
purpose clause to the RCICF zone encourages limited permanent residential use. It may be
a stretch to conclude that the residential development proposed by PLA is "limited."
However, a purpose clause does not in itself restrict development and functions only to
clarify other ambiguous provisions. The purpose language could arguably be used to
restrict permanent residential development via MPR 3.906(3)(e) through the requirement
that revisions "complement" existing resort facilities. However, the location and design of
proposed residential uses support Mr. Berteig's conclusion that the proposed revision
complies with MPR 3.906(3)(e).
23. Application Completeness and Revisions. SEP A compliance. At page 7 of his
Appeal Brief, Mr. Hale states that the application should submit new applications due to
substantial revisions. However, the revisions reduced the scope of the project and were
subject to intense public comment. For these reasons a new application was not necessary.
At page 7 Mr. Hale also contests the completeness of the applications. This issue was
addressed in Conclusions 1 and 2, supra. At page 8 Mr. Hale contests the adequacy of the
supplemental environmental impact statement. As noted in Conclusion 13, supra, the
adequacy of the supplemental environmental impact statement is not subject to
administrative appeal.
24. Condominium Bindin2 Site Plan. At page 8 of his Appeal Brief Mr. Hale
identifies noncompliance with condominium bindinf.. site plan standards. The1f.G~\TEM
1~J..~CEIvlED # ~.JD \
~~~0~~0~~~~3~~9~~0~PPEAL - 19 " ,,, Page _ \ C\ 'of
'j f.)
~nnflli (l(HH'....' nr:,,,
condominium binding site plan application before the AHE and the review criteria do not
compel the AHE to set requirements for future applications. As discussed in Conclusion
17, supra, if a binding site plan application is required, PLA can submit that application
subsequent to this proceeding. PLA will not qualify for any building permits and will
violate subdivision laws if it attempts to build and sell condominiums without any required
binding site plan approval.
25. Opportunity for Public Comment on Revised Staff Report. At page 9 of his
Appeal Brief, Mr. Hale objects to the lack of opportunity for public comment on the
January 5, 2007 staff report. The staff report may contain new conditions, but does not
address any issues that had not been exhaustively discussed during the hearing process.
Further, as noted in PLA's response brief, the public had notice that the staff report would
be issued prior to the close of the hearing. Given the extensive public involvement of this
case, Mr. Berteig did not have to provide additional opportunity for public comment on the
revised staff report.
LMC Appeal Brief
26. Compliance with Private Covenants. Pages 1 through 4 of the LMC Appeal
Brief assert noncompliance with private covenants. As discussed in Conclusions 4 and 7,
Jefferson County and its hearing examiners do not have authority in this case to interpret or
compel compliance with private covenants. LMC raises a compelling argument when it
asserts that the rights and responsibilities of the proposed condominium owners are not
integrated into the master planned resort. However, the applicable integration requirement,
MPR 3.906(3)(e), requires an "integrated site design." Private covenants are not a feature
of site design.
27. Stormwater Impacts. Page 5 of the LMC Appeal Brief addresses the adequacy of
storm water drainage. Mr. Berteig found provision for storm water control to be adequate
at Conclusion 18 of his decision. Given the significant extent of environmental review, the
detailed storm water regulations that apply (Appendix C to the Port Ludlow Development
Agreement), and the deference due to Mr. Berteig's factual findings, the AHE agrees in
Mr. Berteig's conclusion. In addition, the Port Ludlow Development Agreement sets the
standards for storm water control. Given this constraint, Jefferson County cannot impose
the standards of the Port Ludlow Drainage District as advocated by LMC.
28. County Assumption of Road Ownership. Pages 5 and 6 of the LMC Appeal
Brief request that the County assume ownership and maintenance of the roads within the
resort core. LMC does not identify why County assumption of ownership and
maintenance of the road is relevant to the criteria for permit approval, nor is there any
reason readily discemable from the record. As noted in Conclusion 14, supra, any
deficiencies in the road system are the result of prior permitting decisions and the AHE is
barred from considering those issues anew in this proceeding. Unless PLA's proposed
development will exacerbate a public problem (such as a safety hazard) created by the
RECEIVED
FINAL DECISION ON APPEAL - 20
{P A0683408.DOC; 1/13043 .9000001}
u
#
Page
LOG ITEM
?tn\
~ of__
n t\l"1
~.! 1..1 !J
alleged road deficiencies, there is no grounds for addressing those deficiencies in this
proceeding.
29. Ownership of land for Proposed Trails. Pages 6 and 7 of the LMC Appeal Brief
assert that some of the trails proposed by PLA are LMC property. This issue is waived
because it was not raised below.7
30. Architectural Control Board Review. At Page 7, the LMC Appeal Brief asserts
that covenants require the LMC Architectural Control Board to approve all new
construction. As discussed in Conclusions 4 and 7, Jefferson County and its hearing
examiners do not have authority in this case to interpret or compel compliance with private
covenants.
31. Completeness of Applications. At Page 8, LMC contests the completeness of the
PLA applications. This has been addressed in the analysis of the Jordshaugen brief. This
issue was addressed in Conclusions 1 and 2, supra.
32. Loss of Recreational Amenities. Page 8 of the LMC Appeal Brief raises concerns
over the replacement of an existing park and playground with a smaller park of ill-defined
dimensions and amenities. Mr. Berteig's decision should be modified to provide greater
specificity. MPR 3.906(3)(e) requires a revision to "meet the needs of residents and
patrons." The record shows that the amenities identified by LMC at page 8 have served
the recreational needs of resort residents. These amenities were probably required or at
least proposed as part of the initial approval of the master plan to serve the recreational
needs of residents and patrons. The amenities proposed by PLA, including the new
recreational area required by Condition 5 and the public trail and boardwalk, fall short of
replacing the loss incurred by the proposed revision. Given these factors, the PLA
Decision will be revised to require the amenities identified at Page 8 of the LMC brief to
the extent site constraints permit at the location currently required by Mr. Berteig's
decision if LMC, the Port Ludlow Village Councilor Jefferson County assume ownership
of the facility. If either LMC or the Port Ludlow Village Council accept ownership, the
entity accepting ownership shall be consulted in the design of the facilities.
LMC also seeks a capital contribution for maintenance of the facilities required in
Condition 5. From a constitutional due process standpoint. conditions imposed on
development must be proportionate to the impacts created by the development. Requiring
a capital contribution for ongoing use of the park facilities after requiring their dedication
is not proportionate to the impacts created by the project. The AHE is not aware of any
jurisdiction that has successfully imposed maintenance costs as a condition of development
approval. The users of the recreational facilities, who create the need for maintenance,
should be responsible for the costs of that maintenance. The LMC and Port Ludlow
7 The AHE asked the parties to respond in their written rebuttals to the objection of PLA
in its Response Brief at Page 15 that the appellants did not raise the trail issue below.
LMC did not provide any response in its rebuttal. Given the absence of a response, the
AHE concludes that LMC and the other appellants did not raise the trail issue below.
..... LOG ITEM
FINAL DECISION ON APPEAL - 21 # I) f \
{PA0683408.DOC;11l3043.9000001} 0'10 \
Page 2-.\ Of
Village Council have the authority to assess members for maintenance costs. If that
authority does not extend to users of Admiralty III, LMC and Port Ludlow Village Council
can certainly negotiate that into their covenants as a condition of assuming ownership.
33. ButTeriDi! of Laeoon. Page 9 and 10 of the LMC Appeal Brief assert that the
proposal "erodes" into a shoreline permit requirement that 50% of the lagoon shoreline be
provided for a bird loafing area. In its use of the term "erode" it is unclear if LMC is
asserting that the PLA proposal will develop more than 50% of the lagoon shoreline. Page
7 of Log 121, the September 13, 2006 PLA Major Revision application, shows less than
50% development of the lagoon shoreline. The record does not support an alleged
violation of the 50% permit requirement.
34. Shoreline Permit Violations. Pages 9 and 10 also assert ongoing violations of
shoreline permits. As noted in Conclusion 12, supra, the AHE has no authority in this
proceeding to address alleged noncompliance with the conditions of previously issued
permi ts.
PLA's Response Brief in Support of Hearin2 Examiner's Decision
At Page 4 of its Response Brief, PLA objects to the review of four issues because they
were not raised below. First, PLA asserts the issue of applying for a binding site plan was
not raised below. As stated by Mr. Powers in his written rebuttal, this issue was
encompassed within his arguments that all permits should be submitted prior to shoreline
permit approval and in his position that the PLA applications lacked sufficient detail.
Second, PLA states that the issue of Mr. Berteig reconsidering his recusal was not raised
below. The AHE recalls PLA withdrawing this objection during the closed record hearing.
At any rate the record contains a written argument against reconsideration from recusal by
Mickey Gendler. In his written rebuttal, Mr. Powers also references a motion he made
objecting to the reconsideration, as well as other comments. Third, PLA asserts that the
legal authority of the Examiner to modify the MPR plan was not raised below. Mr. Powers
states he raised this in his reconsideration request to Mr. Berteig. For the reasons cited, the
AHE finds that the first three issues addressed by PLA's objections were properly
addressed below. PLA's objections to those issues are overruled. PLA also asserted that
LMC did not raise the issue that some proposed trails are on LMC property. LMC does
not deny that this was not raised below. PLA's objection on the trail issue is sustained.
v. Decision
The Findings, Conclusions and Decision of the Port Ludlow Resort Build-Out and Marina
Expansion Project, dated February 7, 2007 is sustained, subject to the following
modifications:
1. SDP05-00030 is approved only as to development within the shorelands of Ludlow
Bay. .If the lago?~ has its o~n shorela~ds, development wit~~~CE!'If~~
necessItate an addItIOnal shorelme substantIal development perml~\...........d j 1 ~1 r11U
LOG ITEM
FINAL DECISION ON APPEAL - 22 # I}((') \
{PA0683408.DOC;111 3043.900oo0/} P ,
age.. ~~~.of_.
::-J-J
(.;i
COUNTY D CD
2. SDP05-0030 is only deemed approved upon PLA's acquisition of all other land use
approvals, including hydraulic permits, necessary for the development subject to SDP05-
00030. Jefferson County shall issue notice of SDP05-0030 approval to all persons entitled
to notice of the final decision upon acquisition of all land use approvals. Within ten
calendar days of the issuance of this decision, PLA shall file a written waiver of objection
to delays in permit processing caused by this condition. If PLA does not file the waiver,
SDP05-0030 shall be deemed denied for failure to comply with Jefferson County SMMP ~
6.40. Jefferson County shall not file the permit approval with the Washington State
Department of Ecology, as required by RCW 90.58.140(6), until PLA has acquired all
other required land use permits.
3. Conclusion of Law D(4) is repealed. A new condition is added to the decision to
provide as follows:
MPR 3.103(3) expressly provides that townhouses are "single family
attached" for purposes of the MPR ordinance. MPR 3.105 expressly states
that the single-family bulk and dimensional standards apply to single family
attached units. Any proposed town homes shall be subject to the single-
family bulk and dimensional standards as specified in MPR 3.105. PLA is
free to replace its proposed town homes with stacked flats in order to avoid
the requirements ofMPR 3.105.
4. The following shall be added to the terms of Condition 5:
PLA shall replace the amenities lost from the existing park and playground
in the park/play area required by this condition, to the extent practicable
within space and site constraints. These amenities include a basketball
court, volleyball court, horseshoe pits, children's play equipment, barbeque
pits and ball playing area. PLA shall consult with PL VC or LMC in the
design of the play area if either entity agrees to assume ownership of the
play area.
DONE this 8th day of January, 2~~ ~
PHIL A. OLBRECHTS
Right to Appeal:
The Decision of the AHE shall be final unless within 21 calendar days after issuance of a
decision an appeal is filed with Superior Court in accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW.
Reconsideration:
Written motions for reconsideration must be filed within 10 days of the date of the
Examiner's decision, as specified in ~ 13 of the Rules of Procedu.re for~and lJse.lIe~ngs,
Appendix C to the Port Ludlow Development Agreement.
LOG ITEM
# ;lb\
Pag~ ~~' of
--
FINAL DECISION ON APPEAL - 23
{P A0683408.DOC; 1I13043.90oo00/}
Table 1: Port Ludlow SEIS, ZON03-0044 - CLOSED LIST at 390 (continue
wI Hearing Exhibit List)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
6 Ideas by John Rose
Letter from William G. Funke to AI Scalf
Email from Josh Peters to Jerry Smith
letter from AI Scaif to Greg McCarry
Email from Josh Peters to Nicole Faghin
Email between Josh Peters and Mark Dorsey
Email between Josh Peters, Nicole Faghin & Jerry Smith
Email between Anne Shaffer & Mark Dorsey forwarded by Kevin Russell to
Jerry Smith
Email between Josh Peters & David Alvarez
Email between Josh Peters, Mark Dorsey & Jerry Smith
Staff notes by Jerry Smith
Staff notes by Jerry Smith
Potential timeline for Port Ludlow Marina Expansion
Email from Mark Dorsey to AI Scalf forwarded to Jerry Smith
Email between Jerry Smith & Mark Dorsey
Staff notes by Jerry Smith
Letter to Greg McCarry from AI Scalf & Jerry Smith
Fax Transmittal to Mark Dorsey & Greg McCarry
Email from Zbigniew Konofalski to Jerry Smith with hand written notes
Email between Jerry Smith & Zbigniew Konofalski
Email between Jerry Smith & lyn Keenan
Email from William G. Funke to Jerry Smith
Staff notes by Jerry Smith
Email from Jerry Smith to AI Scalf
Email from Lyn Keenan to Jerry Smith
Email between Jerry Smith and Mark Dorsey
Letter from Mark Dorsey to Jerry Smith
Cases, finding, conditions, permissions for APN 821093001
No date
No Date
8/3/2000
11/8/2001
11/30/2001
12/14/2001
12/17/2001
12/18/2001
4/26/2002
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6/13/2002
8/20/2002
8/28/2002
10/29/2002
11/25/2002
11/27/2002
12/4/2002
12/12/2002
12/12/2002
3/21/2003
3/21/2003
5/29/2003
6/18/2003
6/18/2003
6/19/2003
6/20/2003
6/25/2003
6/25/2003
6/26/2005
~D
LOG ITEM
o 9 # ~~J
'RSUN COUNTY ~e..-.2!.Lof_
EXHIBIT
!\
'I' ,
.",
~.
29 Parcel info for APN 821093003
30 Parcel info for APN 968600007
31 Page 2 of the Ludlow bulletin
31a Artides on Port Ludlow Village Council
32 Reviewer letter unsigned
33 Letter of substantially complete application
34 EmaU between Jerry Smith and Mark Dorsey
35 Email between Jerry Smith and Mark Dorsey
36 Certification of mailing notice of EIS Scoping
37 Leader newspaper article
38 EmaU from Jim Pearson
39 Affidavit of Posting Notice
40 Returned notice from post office for Shirley Walters & Robert Saum
41 11" x 17" copy of Ludlow Bay Village recorded plat
42 Port Ludlow Resort conceptual site plan (large)
43 11" x 17" GIS copy of Ludlow Bay Village aerial vicinity
44 Staff n.otes by AI Scalf
45 Email between Jerry Smith & Lyn Keenan
46 Fax transmittal to Lyn Keenan from Jerry Smith
47 Email from Lyn Keenan to Jerry Smith
48 Hand written testimony by Jerry Smith on scoping meeting
49 Staff introduction for scoping meeting
50 Staff introduction for scoping meeting with hand written notes
51 Guest sign-in sheet
52 Tape recording of EIS scoping meeting from 7/16.2003
53 Verbatim transcript of EIS scoping meeting
54 Copy of letter from Larry Smith (PLA) to AI Scalf
55 SEIS proposed project and alternatives
56 Carbon memo from Jerry Smith to Dale Witt
57 Email between Lyn Keenan & Jerry Smith
58 Email between Lyn Keenan & Jerry Smith
6/26/2003
6/26/2003
6/27/2003
No date
6/23/2003
6/23/2003
6/27/2003
6/30/2003
6/30/2003
7/2/2003
7/2/2003
7/3/2003
717/2003
No date
717/2003
4/102003
7/9/2003
7/11/2003
7/11/2003
7/16/2003
7/16/2003
7/16/2003
7/16/2003
7/16/2003
7/16/2003
No date
7/24/2003
6/25/2003
7/25/2003
7/30/2003
, "';,.8fl~2003
" ,. "
JHHB
LOG ITEM
# Q.b I
page ~. of
EXHIBIT
A
59 Comment letter from Larry Nobles, Chair PL VC
60 Email between Lyn Keenan & Jerry Smith
61 Email between Lyn Keenan, Jerry Smith & Jim Pearson
62 Email between Lyn Keenan & Jerry Smith
63 Affidavit of publication
64 Email with attachment from Lyn Keenan to Mo-chi
65 Email between AI Scalf, Lyn Keenan, & Mark Dorsey
66 Letter from Mark Dorsey to AI Scalf
67 Email from Lyn Keenan to Mo-chi
68 Fax to Lyn Keenan from Michelle
69 Letter from Jeffrey T araday to AI Scalf & David Alvarez
70 Email from David Alvarez
71 Fax letter from Marco de Sa e Silva
72 Letter from AI Scalf to Jeff T araday
73 Fax from Michelle to Mark Dorsey
74 Fax from Mark Dorsey to Michelle
75 Copy of fax from Greg McGarry to SOCC
76 Letter from Marco de Sa e Silva
77 Email from Audrey Pederson to David Goldsmith & Dan Tittemess
78 Letter from David Goldsmith to PL VC (5-issues)
79 Fax from Michelle to Mark Dorsey
80 Pre-draft Draft SEIS
81 Transmittal letter of PL EIS from Lyn Keenan
82 Letter from Larry Nobles, PL VC, to David Goldsmith
83 Email from Lyn Keenan to Michelle on typed EIS scoping guest sign in sheet
84 Email from Sue Smith (Reid Middleton) to AI Scalf, Michelle, Mark Dorsey
85 Transmittal memo submittal of Draft SEIS from Lyn Keenan
86 Notice of Availability of Draft SEIS
87 Certification of Mailing notice of availability of Draft SEIS
88 Affidavit of Publication of Notice of Availability from Peninsula Daily News
89 Memo from Bert Loomis to David Goldsmith
EXHIBIT
A
8/1/2003
8/4/2003
8/5/2003
8/5/2003
9/8/2003
10/31/2003
11/3/2003
11/21/2003
12/11/2003
12/16/2003
1/6/2004
1/14/2004
1/14/2004
1/20/2004
2/17/2004
2/17/2004
2/25/2004
2/24/2004
2/26/2004
3/9/2004
3/16/2004
3/15/2004
3/16/2004
3/31/2004
4/14/2004
4/15/2004
4/14//2004
4/23/2004
4/27/2004
4/30/2004
, 4/17/2004
LOG ITEM
~l\
~b of._
#
Page
90 Memo from Bert Loomis to Michelle 4/2182004
91 Draft SEIS 4/22/2004
92 Letter from William Weir to AI Scalf 5/4/2004
93 Letter from Mark Dorsey to AI Scalf 4/29/2004
94 Comment letter from Keith & Maggie Brown 5/11/2004
95 Comment fax from Fire District 3 5/13/2004
96 Comment letter from William G Funke 5/14/2004
97 Comment letter from Barbara & George Hill 5/14/2004
98 Comment email from Bob Wilkinson 5/17/2004
99 Original comment letter from Fire District 3 5/17/2004
100 Comment letter from Tom and Mary Ann Callahan 5/17/2004
101 Comment letter from Hugh & Ann Jenings 5/18/2004
102 Comment email from Les Powers to Michelle 5/19/2004
103 Comment email from Les Powers to Michelle 5/19/2004
104 Comment letter from Ray Benedict 5/20/2004
105 Comment email from Greg & Pat Ordshaugen 5/20/2004
106 Comment email from Delos Dunn 5/21/2004
107 Comment email from Teresa L Smith 5/21/2004
108 Comment email from Gary & Susan Kaysinger 5/21/2004
109 Letter from Larry Nobles, PLVC, to AI Scalf (request for extension of comment 5/18/2004
period
110 Comment email from Bill Master 5/24/2004
111 Comment email from Gary & Kathy Hashbarger 5/24/2004
112 Letter from AI Scalf to Larry Nobles (comment extension granted) 5/24/2004
113 Comment email from Richard Ullmann 5/24/2004
114 Comment letter from Gary & Kathy Hashbarger 5/24/2004
115 Comment letter from Fred OelMissier 5/24/2004
116 Comment email from Rick Rozzell 5/25/2004
117 Comment letter from Robin S Brown 5/25/2004
118 Comment letter from Jan Van Zonneveld 5/25/2004
119 Comment letter from Dorothy & Allen Wright 5/25/2004
RECEIVED
f ~;"~ '; i~.
t.;-,;:'.,',~.J v
EXHIBIT
A
LOG ITEM
# ~b\
Page rn of
,'r'tQ{l1) ~l r-r'l
,~'~,~ ~"~,"1~~;::~ l,bi;!
p
U:
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
137a
138
139
.140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
Duplicate of Log Item 112
Comment letter from Jim Brannaman
Comment letter from Marian Peterson
Comment email from Don Plorde
5/24/2004
5/26/2004
5/26/2004
5/26/2004
5/26/2004
5/27/2004
5/27/2004
5/27/2004
5/27/2004
5/27/2004
5/27/2004
5/27/2004
5/27/2004
5/28/2004
5/28/2004
5/28/2004
611/2004
611/2004
617/2004
6/8/2004
5/21/2004
5/28/2004
5/28/2004
5/28/2004
5/28/2004
6/1/2004
611/2004
611/2004
611/2004
6/1/2004
6/1/2004
Comment email from Douglas Schebel
Comment email from Edward Knogle
Comment email from Ralph Archung
Comment email from Carolyn Schiebel
Eleanor Peters
Comment letter from Robert & Barbara Phinizy
Comment letter from Michael & Hilda Cahn
Comment letter from Elizabeth 0 Harmon
Certification of mailing of public comment extension letter
Comment letter from Mona L Steffre
Comment email from Larry Lawson
Comment email from Richard Duce
Comment email from Wayne & Rosalie Barber
Comment letter from Carol Higley Saber
Comment memo from Bert Loomis
Letter from Greg McCarry to Board of PL VC
Returned notice from post office for John Storck
Comment letter from Burke Gibson
Comment letter from William & Bonnie Schoenemann
Comment letter from Christine Whitehurst & Robert Smith
Comment letter from Carol Barnes
Comment letter from Mona L Stefflre (duplicate of Log Item #133
Comment letter from Grant & Wenonah Sharpe
Comment letter from Rosalind Plorde
Comment letter from Richard McDonald
Comment letter from Cameron Sharpe
Comment letter from Harvey Fleming
EXHIBIT
A
LOG \TEM
# ?-b\
Page_l)~ of
150 Comment letter from Wayne & Stephanie Buehler
151 Comment letter from Kathleen Muir
152 Comment letter from Dale Witt
153 Comment letter from Susan & Steve Siegiel
153a Comment letter from Bruce & Magdalena Henricus
154 Comment letter from Kevin & Susan Ryan
155 Comment letter from Carence Miller
156 Comment letter from Peter & Jeanne Josph
157 Comment email from Wayne & Rosalie Barber (duplicate of Log Item #136
158 Comment letter from Barbara Tiplon
159 Comment letter from Polly Peters
160 Comment letter from Port Ludlow Bay Club President Anthony Durham
161 Comment letter from R E Sowatsky
162 Comment letter from Frederick King
163 Comment letter from Gerald & Diane Purdy
164 Comment letter from PLDD
165 Comment letter from Larry Lawson
166 Comment memo from PWD
167 Comment letter from Daniel & Esther Darrow
168 Comment letter from Lenetta & Bud Johnson
169 Comment letter from Lot Owners Association with signed petition
170 Comment letter from Dwayne Wilcox
171 Comment letter from Les Powers to Michelle
172 Comment letter from Michael Derrig
173 Comment email from John & Lynne March
174 Comment letter from Robert Herbst
175 Comment letter from Stephen Failla
176 Comment letter from the members of the PLVC
177 Comment letter from Howard & Carol Slack
178 Comment letter from Vaughn Bradshaw
179 Comment letter from Mary Bannaman
6/1/2004
61112004
6/2/2004
6/2/2004
6/3/2004
6/3/2004
EXHIBIT
A
7B; fbG ITEM
() f) 2C{jrj#; 9t, \
JEffER~'lj~I' ,..f" Page ,2.q of_
t l.li ~ U UI4j.Tyl fJ.
Vf~i!. f.fl'n
180 Comment letter from John Golden
181 Comment letter from Frederick King
182 Comment letter from John Annes
183 Comment letter from Ray & Marcet Benedict
184 Comment email from Les Powers
185 Comment letter from Harvey Williamson
186 Comment email from Robert & Marlene Balck
187 Fax comment from Mike Derrig
188 Comment letter from Larry Lawson (duplicate of Log Item #165)
189 Comment from Ludlow Maintenance Commission
190 Comment email from Doug Baker
191 Comment email from Mark Pearson
192 Comment email from Pat Pearson
193 Comment letter from Paul & Margaret Yturri
194 Comment email from Les Powers
195 Comment email from Les Powers
196 Newspaper Article from Leader
197 Email between Jeffre Stewart & Marco de Sa e Silva
198 Fax letterfrom Marco de Sa e Silva
199 Comment letter from Carol Sabr, President PLVC
200 Fax approval letter from DOE dated June 14, 1993
201 Comment memo from Bert Loomis
202 Letter from Greg McCarry to Francis Wickeham
203 Fax letter from Marco de Sa e Silva
204 Original letter of Log Item #203
205 Copy of letter from Greg McCarry to PL VC Board of Directors
206 Letter from AI Scalf to Carol Sabr, President PL VC
207 Letter from John Fischbach to Les Powers
208 Letter from David Alvarez to Mickey Gendler
209 Revised Final Comments and Issues Matrix from Lyn Keenan
210 Letter from David Alvarez to Bert Loomis
EXHIBIT----IL-
LOG ITEM
# 1.~\
/~~ge 3D of_
tJ/.;jJ
211 Letter from David Avarez to Marco de Sa e Silva
212 Letter from David Avarez to Les Powers
213 Letter from David Alvarez to Mickey Gendler
214 Letter from John Fischbach to Carol Saber, President PLVC
215 Letter from Gordon White to Dwayne Wilcox
216 Comment letter from Arthur & Patricia Gough
217 Letter from Gordon White to Bruce Schmitz, President LMC
218 Comment letter from Carol Saber, PLVC to BOCC
219 Letter from Gordon White to Les Powers
220 Letter from Gordon White to Carol Saber, President PLVC
221 Letter from Marco de Sa e Silva to David Alvarez
222 DOE letter regarding over-water construction
223 Letter from AI Scalf to Paula Ehlers, DOE
224 Email from Marco de Sa e Silva
225 Email from Marco de Sa e Silva
226 Letter from AI Scalf to Marco de Sa e Silva
227 Letter from AI Scalf to Marco de Sa e Silva
228 PLA handout of comparisons from 12/15/2004 public meeting
229 Mill pond assessment report prepared by GeoEngineers dated 9/20/2004
230 Sample of marked up comment letters & comment matrix
231 Letter from Greg McCarry on amenities discussion
232 Notice of availability of final supplemental environmental impact statement
233 Letter from Greg
234 FSEIS Technical Appendices
235 FSEIS
236 Certificate of Mailing FSEIE & Notice of Availability
237 Letter from Mark Dorsey - new & revised applications
238 Letter from Mark Dorsey - request to extend shoreline permit
239 Received out of order / Fax from Les Powers
240 Received out of order / AI's notes on meeting with DOE
241 Certification of Mailing Applications and Notices
2/23/2005
5/18/2005
6/24/2005
6/24/2005
8/13/2004
9/23/2004
10/4&5/2005
RECEK'{I1ED
I f.J g
",,: >W VI
EXHIBIT---5-
LOG ITEM
# ~~ t
Page ~\ of
t~nr.RW'M pnmnv rlf'rl
242 Letter to BOCC from Les Powers
243 Email from Richard Rozzell to Loma 0
244 Email from Bernard Super to Lorna 0
245 Letter to BOCC from Raydean Patterson
246 Email to Loma D from Robert Azen
247 Affidavit of Posting Notice
248 Email between Les Powers & AI Scalf
249 APO Returned Notice from PO
250 APO comment letter from Dr. R Sakae
251 APO comment letter from Burke Gibson
252 Email comments from Peter Joseph
253 Email comments from Les Powers
254 Comment letter from Peter Joseph
255 Comment letter from Bill & Judy Master
256 Comment letter from Joan Reynolds
257 Comment letter from Hilda & Michael Cahn
258 Comment letter from Glen Hubbard
259 Comment letter from Gregg & Patricia Jordshaugen
260 Comment letter from Gary & Susan Kaysinger
261 Comment letter from Shirley Porter
262 Comment letter from Marian Peterson
263 Comment letter from Stan Zonneveld
264 Comment letter from Carol Grieves
265 Comment letter from Dwayne Wilcox
266 Comment letter from John Golden
267 Comment letter from Kathy Muir
268 Comment letter from Carol Shamhart
269 Comment letter from Virginia Smith
270 Comment letter from Jack Manning
271 Comment letter from Shirley Fleming
. 272. COll1JT\~Dt!e,l1e,r from Gary & Kath Hashbard
12/20/2004
12/20/2004
12/20/2004
12/20/2004
12/20/2004
1017/2005
10/11/2005
10/12/2005
10/20/2005
10/21/2005
10/24/2005
10/24/2005
10/24/2005
10/25/2005
10/25/2005
10/26/2005
10/31/2005
11/1/2005
11/1/2005
11/282005
11/2/2005
11/2/2005
11/2/2005
11/2/2005
11/2/2005
11/2/2005
11/2/2005
11/2/2005
11/2/2005
11/3/2005
11/3/2005
EXHIBIT
A
#
Page
LOG ITEM
f}b\
~~'of
nOn.
ULD
273 Comment letter from Diane & Ron Campo
274 Comment letter from Hank West
275 Comment letter from Sue & Kenvin Ryan
276 Comment letter from F. E. Wickeman
277 Comment letter from Lewis Hale
278 Comment letter from Frank & Linda McCann
279 Comments from Bill Clark
280 Comments from Anette & Phil Otness
281 Comments from Clail & Lois Ruggles
282 Comments from Richard & Judith Smith
283 Comments from Dan & Betty Quail
284 Comments from Sandra Flaherty
285 Comments from Esther & Dan Danon
286 Comments from AI & Carla McCloskey
287 Comments from Dan Collins
288 Comments from Bill & Beverley Brown
289 Comments from Monica Brown
290 Comments from Terence O'Brien
291 Comments from Rochelle O'Brien
292 Comments from David & Sallly Pendergast
293 Comments from John Golden
294 Comments from Kathy McCluskey
295 Comments from William & Peggy Harju
296 Comments from Pat & Mark Pearson
297 Comments from Dale & Della Witt
298 Comments from Ernest Orton
299 Comments from Barbara Wagner-Javro
300 Comments from Janet & Terence Barnes
301 Comments from Mina Sefflie
302 Comments from Les Powers
303 Comments from L1MC
EXHIBIT Il
11/3/2005
11/3/2005
11/3/2005
11/3/2005
11/3/2005
11/3/2005
11/3/2005
11/3/2005
11/3/2005
11/3/2005
11/3/2005
11/3/2005
11/3/2005
11/3/2005
11/3/2005
11/3/2005
11/3/2005
11/3/2005
11/3/2005
11/3/2005
11/3/2005
11/4/2005
11/4/2005
11/4/2005
11/4/2005
11/4/2005
11/4/2005
11/4/2005
11/4/2005
va
DLOG ITEM
# ?-"'-l
Page. S ~ "of____
304 Comments from PL VC
305 Comments from Fire District 3
306 Comments from Amy Nicht & Dorothy Wente
307 Comments from Harry Clouter
308 Comments from Dorothy & Bruce Schmitz
309 Comments from Bud & Marcet Benedict
310 Comments from Bonnie & Bill Schoenemann
311 Comments from Ron & Diane Campo
312 Comments from William & Theodora Clark
313 Comments from Carol Grieves
314 Comments from Robert McQueen
315 Comments from James Brannanan
316 Comments from R E Sowatsky
317 Comments from William Weir
318 Comments from PLDD
319 Comments from Floyd Thoren
320 Comments from Catherin & Allen Standers
321 Comments from Richard Grieves
322 Comments from Bill & Margaret McCaughlin
323 PWD Comments
324 Comments from Sue & Gary Kaysinger
325 Original Comments of Log Item #305/Fire District 3
326 Copy of letter to BOCC from LMC
327 Returned Notice (Sallae)
328 Retumed Notice (McCann)
329 Transmittal of Affidavit of Posting Notice
330 Affidavit of Posting Notice of Hearing Cancel
331 Comments from Greenview Village Home Owners
332 Email from Les Powers to BOCC
333 Email from Les Powers to AI Scalf
334 Email between Les Powers & AI Scalf
EXHIBIT A
11/4/2005
11/4/2005
11/4/2005
11/412005
11/4/2005
11/412005
11/4/2005
11/4/2005
11/412005
11/4/2005
11/4/2005
11/4/2005
11/4/2005
11/4/2005
11/4/2005
11/4/2005
11/412005
11/4/2005
1117/2005
11/8/2005
11/9/2005
11/10/2005
11110/2005
11/16/2005
11/16/2005
11/18/2005
11/18/2005
11/22/2005
11/28/2005
11/29/2005
t6G \TEM
#~
page_3 t\ of.-
-
335 Email between Les Powers & AI Scalf
336 Email between Les Powers & AI Scalf
337 Email between AI Scalf & Bruce Schmitz
338 Letter response to comments from Marco de Sa e Silva
339 Returned Notice - No forwarding address
340 Returned Notice - No forwarding address
341 Email from Bruce Schmitz - forwarded by Leslie
342 Email from PL VC - forwarded by Leslie
343 Email from Tom McCay - forwarded by Leslie
344 Certification of Mailing - PH Notice
345 Returned Notice - No forwarding Address
346 5/10/1993 HE Decision w/attachments
347 SDP91-D17 & related documents
348 Email from Lewis Hale
349 Email from Lewis Hale
350 Email btwn Lewis Hale & AI Scalf
351 Email btwn Les Powers & AI Scalf
352 Email from Marco forwarded to Les Powers
355 Email from Les Powers wI comments by AI
356 Email from Marco
357 Email btwn Les Powers & AI Scalf
358 Email btwn DCD & Irv & David Alvarez
359 Email from Bruce Schmitz
360 Email from Les Powers
361 Email from Les Powers
362 Email from Les Powers
363 Email btwn Les Powers & AI Scalf
364 Email btwn John Fischbach & Elizabeth V.
365 Email from Les Powers
366 Email from Les Powers
367 Email from Les Powers
11/28/2005
11/30/2005
11/2/2005
12/13/2005
12/29/2005
12/29/2005
1/382005
1/3/2005
1/3/2005
12/23/2005
1/3/2005
1/5/2005
1/5/2005
11/30/05
11/30/05
12/1/05
12/5/2005
12/5/2005
12/5/2005
12/19/2005
12/21/2005
12/21/2005
1/2/2006
1/3/2006
1/4/2006
1/4/2006
1/4/2006
1/5/2006
1/6/2006
1/6/2006
1/6/2006
RECEKVIED
<...---""
! {1 ~ ')~~o
o ~J t.i L.~.hJJ
EXHIBIT
A
LOG \TEM
# QJJ
Page_ 35 of_
HiSCW~IH! mrrlJ flNI
368 Email from Mike Bowen 1/6/2006
369 Email from Marco 1/6/2006
370 Email btwn Les powers & AI Scalf 1/10/2006
371 Email from Les Powers 1/10/2006
372 Email from Cara - Staff Report 1/10/2006
373 Staff Report 1/10/2006
374 Email from Les Powers 1/11/2006
375 Copy of Master CCR's for Ludlow Bay Village 1/11/2006
376 Email btwn Les Powers & AI Scalf 1/11/2006
377 Certification of Mailing Staff Report 1/11/2006
378 Email from Les Powers 1/12/2006
379 Email from Les Powers 1/12/2006
380 Email from Lewis hale 1/13/2006
381 Email from Marco - PLA's witness list 1/13/2006
382 Email from Lewis Hale 1/13/2006
383 Email btwn Les Powers & AI Scalf 1/13/2006
384 Email from Marco - PLA's supplemental witness list 1/1412006
385 Letter from William & Katherin Funke 1/16/2006
386 Email from Marco 1/14/2006
387 Email from Terry Smith 1/16/2006
388 Email from Susan Kaysinger 1/16/2006
389 Email WI Attached pages from Les Powers 1/1/6/2006
390 Email W attachments from Les Powers 1/16/2006
Table 2: Port Ludlow Buildout of South Portion of Resort Complex.
SDP04-0028
EXHIBIT
lJ
,
LOG ITEM
# ?J,\
Page ~.'l.{~ of
;nji~!.Tl: f~ f"i':
LUtmn uw
4 Master Land Use Permit Application Form 717/2004
5 Port Ludlow Shoreline Development 717/2004
Sheet 1: Port Ludlow Resort - Site Plan
Sheet 2: Port Ludlow Resort - Section thru Boardwalk
Sheet 3: Typical Elevations
Sheet 4: Typical Floor Plan, Elevations, & Sections
Sheet 5: Conceptual Lagoon Landscape & Planting Plan
6 JARP A Application 717/2004
7 Copy of letter from Marco de Sa e Silva requesting application be 812/2004
put on hold
Table 3: JARP A for Buildout of Ludlow Bay Village Plat & Port Ludlow
Marina, SDP05-00019
1 Cases, findings & conditions, permissions No Date
2 Copy of letter from Mark Dorsey - new and revised application 6/24/2005
3 Copy of letter from Mark Dorsey - request for extended shoreline 6/24/2005
permit term
4 JARPA application for Marina expansion & build out of Ludlow Bay 6/24/2005
Village
5 Copy of cert for mailing - Notice of Application 10/5/2005
6 Copy of Mfidavit of Posting Notice 1017/2005
7 Email between Les Powers & AI Scalf 10/11/2005
8 Comment letter from Burke Gibson 10/21/2005
9 Comment letter from William Funke 11/3/2005
10 Comment letter from Grant Colby 11/4/2005
11 PWD Comments 11/8/2005
12 Letter to Mark Dorsey - Request response to comments 11/9/2005
Table 4: Boundary Line Adjustment for Ludlow Bay Village Plat,
SUB05-00019
EXHIBIT
A
LOG ITEM
~ge j~ of
1 Cases, fmdings & conditions, permissions for APN 9680002, 06, 08- 8/2/2005
12, 32-38
2 Copy of receipt #73341 & check #214 6/24/2005
3 Transmittal letter of applications and fee 6/24/2005
4 Master Land Use Application 6/24/2005
5 BLA Statement of Intent with legal descriptions 6/24/2005
6 BLA application 6/24/2005
7 Fax letter from Marco de Sa e Silva - request for public hearing 8/19/2005
8 Original letter from Marco de Sa e Silva - request for public hearing 8/22/2005
9 Copy of original letter (Log Item 8) from Marco de Sa e Silva 8/15/2005
10 Copy of new & revised aps MLA04-428, SUB04-495, SDP 6/24/2005
11 Copy of Cert of Mailing - Notice of Application 10/5/2005
12 Copy of Affidavit of Posting Notice 10/7/2005
13 Email between Les Powers & AI Scalf 10/11/2005
14 Email between Lewis Hale & AI Scalf 11/1/2005
15 Email between Lewis Hale & AI Scalf 11/1/2005
16 Email between Lewis Hale & AI Scalf 11/2/2005
17 Comment letter from PLVC 11/4/2005
18 Comment letter from Allen Standish 11/7/2005
19 Letter to Mark Dorsey requesting response 11/9/2005
20 Certification of Mailing PH (12/6/05) - cancellation 11/14/2005
n 1D 'C' n 1['1 YTr~ '0
ll~ li~d \ JI:,. 1. \YlC:d J _ '
? ~ A ,If"",
.",' ~::.,.:'
EXHIBIT
A
LOG ITEM
# ~bJ
Page_ ~~ of
n f!rl
lJW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
,
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
-
W
APPBNDI:X B .r:cJ 2/07/07 ~.
..)
TABLBS OF EXHIBITS
PORT LUDLOW RESORT PLAN HEA.RING - January 17 & 18; 20~6
. .
. Continued on November 30, 2006
EXHIBIT SUBMmED BY DOCUMENT Document Date
1 PLA 2003 Proposed Resort Plan Map (1g exhibit) 1117flOO6
2 Mike Bergstrom Sheet 3 of 6, Marina Expansion Plan from EIS (Ig exhibit) 1/1712006
3 PLA Drawing of Proposed BLA Ludlow Bay Vdlage (Ig exhibit) 1117f.Z006
4 PLA Monitoring Repofts 1995-2005 WIO Appendices 3115flOO5
5 PLA Sheet 2 of 6 Reed Middleton plan from EIS (Ig exhibit) 1/17f.Z006
6 PLA Sheet 4 of 6 Reed Middleton plan from EIS (lg exhibit) 1/17f.Z006
7 PLA Sheet 5 or 6 Reed Middleton plan from EIS (19 exhibit) 1117f.Z006
8 PLA Sheet 6 of 6 Reed Middleton plan from EIS (Ig exhibit) 1/17flOO6
9 PLA layout of Ihe Marina - Comparison (1g exhibit) . 1/17/2006
10 PLA Table 1 - Comparison of Marina alteration 1/17/2006
11 PLA Plat of Ludlow Bay ViUage MUI Pond Assessors information 1/17f.Z006
12 Mike Bergstrom Staff Report 1/11flOO6
13 PLA 15 Tab Notebook of Oocumenls for reference 1/1ll12OO6
14 Port Ludlow Drainage Dislrict Public Hearing comments 1/18/2006
15 PUO #3 letter from Ed Wilkerson, Fire Chief, to County 11/412005
16 Port Ludlow Vdlage Council Submitted wriIIen commenlS 1/18/2006
17 Ludlow Maintenance Commission Testimony Text 1/1ll12OO6
18 Peter Joseph, Townhome letter from Gregg & Patricia Jordshaugen 1/412006
Association
19 Peter Joseph, T ownhome letter from Lewis Hale 1/17/2006
Association
20 Peter Joseph, Townhome Letter from T any Smith 1/1ll12OO6
Association
21 Peter Joseph, Townhome letter from Tayloe Washburn 9129/1999
Association
22 Peter Joseph, Townhome Assesso(s information & Photo, the "lagoon' 1/1ll12OO6
Association
23 Dale Witt Submitted wriIIen commenIs 1/1812006
24 William Weir Statement and Addendum 1/1812006
25 William Weir letter from William Funke 1/16/2006
26 Willam Weir letter from Grant Colby 1/1812006
27 Wlliam Weir Map that Mr. Weir alleges was distributed by OCD 1/1812006
28 Richard Rozzel SUbmitted comments 1/17/2006
29 Elizabeth Van Zonneveld letter from DOE 1012512004
30 DCD Table 1-5 WI identified log items of case files
31 OCD Hearing guest sign up sheet 1/1812006 .
32 LesPowers EmaiI comments 1/13/2006
Q{t, l\JdlowAsSQ<::!(]fes Build-Out Page 45 findings, Conclusions
~~-o0497!". .".. . LOG ~TE.;vt and Decision
.".'~.,^~':,
EXHIBIT A -;;. -J.- f - L
.~
~SO"1-1
J'
1M
P3g !i.r .ct~ #
...
-
1
POR"( lUDLOW'RESORT 'piJ.t~rA~~I~~6'~'J~~iJa~.~~i~;'~~~~:2.~oo":. .:~~:h'\~' .: ,
. Continued on'Novernbe.r30. 2006.i:~;~".' . "',,'., .':.
.. ... ..
EXHIBIT SUBMITTED BY DOCUMENT Document Date
33 Las Powers EmaiI Comments 1I2OflOO6
34 Les Powers EmaiI Comments 112012OO6
35 Grace Allen Comment Letter 112012OO6
36 Les Powers EmaD - records request 1/2312006
37 Bill Master EmaiI Comments 111912006
38 Jan Kennedy EmaiI Comments 112012OO6
39 DCO Certilicalion of mailing HE Exhibits 1/2412006
40 Les Powers Email Comments 112612006
41 Las Powers EmaiI Comments 112612006
42 Gregg & Pal Jordshaugen EmaiI Comments 1127/2006
43 Bruce Schmitz Email Comments 1127/2006
44 Las Powers EmaiI Comments 1/3012006
45 Les Powers EmaiI Comments 2/1/2006
46 Les Powers EmaiI Comments 2/1612006
47 Les Powers Bert Loomis Declaratory Ruling 2I22l2OO6
48 Gregg Jordshaugen Email- Public Hearing 2/24/2006
49 WOFW Fax of letter - PL Marina Comments 2/ZT/2006
50 Pros AtlnlDavid A. Memo 312312006
51 oeD Letter from AI Scalf to Bruce Schmilz 312912006
52 Las Powers EmaH w/attachments (3 of 3) 41312006
53 Marco de Sa e Silva EmaiI wJletter attacl1ment 41312006
54 hv Berteig EmaiI wllnstruction for P .H. 41312006
55 Les Powers EmaD w/attachments (1 of 3) 4/412006
56 Marco de Sa e Silva Memo in Support of Applications 41412006
57 IIV Berteig Public Hearing Inslruclions 4/4/2006
58 Peter Joseph Copy of a Tape (9/29199) 41412006
59 Greg Jon:Ishaugen Commenls 4/412006
60 Lewis Hale Comments 41412006
61 Bruce Schmitz Commenls 4/4/2006
62 PlVC Response to Major Revision 41412006
63 Mike Bergstrom Memo on Revision 4/4/2006
64 N/A Guest SiglHlJl Sheet 4/412006
65 N/A Tapes 1,2 & 5 of Confd Public Hearing 4/412006
66 Marco de Sa e Silva Email-Community Outreach 4/52006
67 AI ScaIflLewis Hale EmaiI 4/13f2006
68 Les PoYtersIAI Scalf EmaiI 4/1312006
69 Les Powers Email w1attachments of Lagoon 4/117J2006
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Port Ludlow Associates Build-Out
MLA05-00407
ill' .1' Tr ~ T1r1 D
J.u1L \~/ ! j--1 , I
, J.Ld I j
Findings. Conclusions
and Decision
LOG ,TciVl
t:... r1l f ,6
P3g~ _~~.'~lZ!
Page 46
A
EX.HIBIT
OG ITEM
~~
.!:Io of
"
#
Page
t:
,~~nn ~'.ll:}"l"'I.~ .... ...._~
.,
e
1
.' ".' . ,..., ". .... ~ ,. < '. .., u..,...... .. .' ',~ ." ;-"', ".'
PORT LUDLOW RESORT PLAtI/.HEAR1NG*:Jam.iaryt7&: f8i~~OO6> ~.+1;~',~/">
., ., Continued on N~ember30.2~;:;;::", .', '.>> ..:';r~:-.-,'" ic'> .:,/
EXHIBIT SUBMITTED BY DOCUMENT Document Date
70 Marco de Sa e Silva Emaillletter request for extension 412012OO6
71 IIV Berteig Extension letter until 5122106 4/2112006
72 Les PcwersIAI Scalf Email 5/17/2006
13 Lewis HaJeJPOW8ISIBerteig Email 5/17/2006
74 Mike Bergstom Memo on Major Revision File MLA-00407 5/1712006
75 JordshaugenlBertieg Letter on Resort BuikI-Out & Marina Expansion 5/1812006
76 Lewis Hale/AI Scalf Ematl 5/3112006
n AI ScaIflLewis Hale Email 5/3112006
78 JoIshaugen/Berteig Letter on Resort BuiId-Out & Marine Expansion 6/1412006
79 PowersIBatb Nightingale CC&Rs 612012OO6
80 PowerslScalflNighlingale Email 613012OO6
81 PowersIScaIflNighlingale EmaR 613012OO6
82 PowersJNightingale Email 613012OO6
83 PoweIsINightingale Ematl 613012OO6
84 Scalf/PowersINightingale Email 7/312006
85 PowersJNightingale Email 71512006
86 PowersJNightingale Email 7/612006
87 HaleJNighlingale Email 7n12OO6
88 PowersIScaIf EmaiI 71812006
89 HalelPowersIScaIf Email 718/2006
90 PowersIScaIf EmlIIl 71812006
91 Lv from Marco requesting new Letter and email 7110/2006
hearing for a\t plan
92 PowersJNightingale Email 7/12/2006
93 Powers Slides of lagoon Histoly EmaiI wi ppl slides 7/1212006
94 PowelSIPeter Joseph EmaiI 7/1312006
95 PoweIsIPeter Joseph/Nightingale EmaiI 7/1312006
96 HalelScalflNightingale Email inquiry re: HE Decision 7/1412006
97 IIV Berteig Ltr. re: recusing self from Revision Decision 7/1412006
98 Marco de Sa e Silva Letter to IIV Berteig 7/1412006
99 IIV Berteig Email to County 7/1412006
100 Powers Email between Powers & Scalf 1/1612006
101 IIV Berteig Em8l1 between Marco, 11V & County 7/1712006
102 PoweIs EmaiI between Powers & Nightingale 1/1712006
103 RazzeD EmaiI from R. 7/1712006
104 RozzeD CC&Rs for PL MPR-Master Declaration 7/1712006
105 Rozzell CC&Rs for LMC-South Bay 7/1712006
106 Powets Email to AI Scalf 7/17/2006
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1<l
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Port Ludlow Associates Build-Out
findings. Conclusions
LOG iTEM and Decision
;: :;;L (~
P3g<'\.__1:7 .Cf_?'-O
Page 47
EXHIBIT
A
OG ITEM
# I)h\
Page~
.~. i;'~
H"
t ~
, .
W RESORT PlAN HEARING'";,, January 17. &'16;2006.,
. : Continued on November 30', 2006'
Y DOCUMENT
Order to Extend the Open Record to October 16, 2006
Supplemental Response
Reconsideration
EmaiI COIMleIlls on Reconsideration
Commenls on Reconsideration
Comments on Reconsideration
Email comments on Reconsideration
Email commenls on Reconsideration
Email on Reconsideration
..,
! 1
I 'PORT LUOLQ
I 2
3 EXHIBIT SUBMITTED B
107 Belteig
4 108 PowelS
5 109 IIV BerIeig
6 110 Schmitz
111 Loomis
7 112 Rozzell
8 113 PowelS
114 Powers
9 115 Powers
10 116 PowelS
117 Schmitz
11 118 Powers
12 119 Powers
13 120 Marco de Sa e SlIva
121 PlA
14 122 Jordshaugen
15 123 Hale
124 Port Ludlow Drainage Ois
16 125 Staff
17 126 Staff
127 Dale Will
18 128 L. PoweIS
19 129 Jordshaugen
130 Chesney
20
131 Powers
21 132 B. Schmitz
22 133 T. O'Brien for we
134 M. Gendler
23 135 R. Rozzell
24 136 E. Von ZDnneveld
137 l. Nobles
25 138 l. Hale
26 139 L. Nobles for PL VC
140 L. Powers
27
141 Nightingale (OeD)
28 142 Staff
29 143 M. VdlianI
Port Lucllow Associates BuHd-Qu
MlA05-OO407
EXHI
trict
BIT
-
Email commenls on hearing examiner issues
Email to John FlShbach re: reconsideration
EmaiI to John FlShbach
EmaiI to John Fisbach
Email to Serteig
Letter with Revised Resort Plan w/drawings
Comment Letter
Commenlletter
Comment Letter
Cert of MaRing .;. Hearing Notice
Hearing Agenda
Comment letter
EmaiI to Nightingale
Comment letter
Comment letter
Email to Scalf and Nightingale with comments
EmaiI wi attached Comment letter
Comment letter
Comment letter for Lewis and PoweIS
Emailwilh Comments
Commenlletter
Comment letter
Comment letter
Comment letter
Comment letter
Staff presentation
Hearing Guesllist
Fax of Affidavit of Posting
Page 48
A
.n LOG iTEM
11-~(h
P3g~__lf .z...C~
--
.......:.
Document Date
7/1712006
711712006
7117/2006
7117/2006
711712006
711712006
711812006
711812006
7/20/2006
712812006
81712006
811612006
8116/2006
8121/2006
9/1512006
10111/2006
1011612006
10116f.!006
11/14r.!005
1111412006
1111312006
11/1412006
11114/2006
1112512006
1112912006
1112912006
1112912006
1112912006
1112912006
11129/2006
11/3012006
11l3012OO6
11l3012OO6
1112912006
11l3012OO6
1113012OO6
1111612006
I
, '~'.lRC
~( h
'-"ell{~ '
L ,tTaJI l8:A
# ':';: :i "!'!ll'l
Lr ..... v ':::U~f{J
pa<1g" e" - (:'."",'1 c' Qf
~ $Jv~;{;:r,
~ff,ljU;lTriiCIJ
.-
-
1 '.' . ..... -'. .. -' .-.. - '-'.. . ..: ,: . ..'- .' . ..... ".-' . ,;......:. - . ,
PORTlUDlOW~E~OR!:~~,N..H~Tt<lG.:-"'~nUary 17 "&18,2006
2 .' I
CoiltinUed.-ooNoverllt>er~O,: 2006 '.,.' :. ..
3 EXHIBIT SUBMITTED BY DOCUMENT Document Date I
144 L Powers A.S. Gaurantee & LP. comments via mail 12/0112006
4 145
Staff 2 returned notices 11/1412006
5 146 Staff Returned notice 11f2012OO6
6 147 Staff Returned Notice 1112312006
148 Staff Retumed Notice 12/0112006
7 149 Staff Lanier tapes of 1113012OO6 hearing 12/0112006
!
8 150 Charles Ruggles Convnent amaU 1112912006
151 C. Wilkinson Convnent email 121512006
9 152 Gendler and Mann {for Loomis} Commenlletter on Recusal issue 12/7/2006
10 153 T. and M. Callahan Comment letter 12/11/2006
154 Jordshaugen Comment email 12/1112006
11 155 Convnent amail 12/1112006
Powers
12 156 Powers Comment amaU with news article 12/1112006
157 GitIs Comment emaH 12/1312006
13
158 P. Joseph Convnents email 1211312006
14 159 l. Hale Request for 4 month continuance (staff forwarded to Irv) 12/1412006
15 160 D.WIII Comments 1211412006
161 LHaIe Comments 1211412006
16 162 L Gauche Comments 12/1412006
17 163 M. de Sa e Silva Request for one week continuance (amail) 12/1412006
164 T. O'Brien (LMC) Ludlow Maintenance Commission Comment letter 12/1512006
18 ,
165 M. De Sa e Silva Proposed Decision and Conditions December 14, 2006 12/1512006
19 166 M. De Sa e Silva Rebuttal 10 comments 12/1512006
167 J and P. Welker Comments 12/1412006
20
168 M. Wellman Convnents 12/1412006
21 169 W. Biondi Comments 12/15flOO6
22 170 L and K. MacDuff Comments 12/1412006
171 G.Abbott Comments 12/1412006
23 172 LBrackenridge Convnents 12/15J2006
24 173 S. Graber Comments 1211512006
174 L. Brown Convnents 12/15flOO6
25 175 D. and N. Dennison Comments 12/15J2006
26 176 B. and C.lloyd Comments 12/15J2006 ~OG ITEM
177 R. Rozzeft Comments 12/15/2006 .JJ. 1~ (
27 ,;::-
178 W, Browne Comments 12/15flOO6
28 179 J. Richards Comments 12/1512006 I" -a ~ t::-H.L of
29 180 E. Larimer Comments 12/1512006
7'"
Port Ludlow Associates Build-Out
MLA05-00407
Page 49
; ..,~~,-""
Findings. ConclusiO~ j ~~
LOG iTEM and Decision
1::;](6
P3g~_7(t..cf2~
yr
)
EXHIBIT
A
'j:"
I .. i,'/.~; 'j,
......',
i
1
2
3 EXHIBIT
181
4 182
5 183
6 184
185
7 186
8 187
188
9 189
10 190
191
11 192
12 193
194
13
195
14 196
15 197
198
16 199
17 200
201
18 202
19 203
204
20
205
21 206
22 207
208
23 209
24 210
211
25 212
26 213
214
27
215*
28
29
.)
~
.... Pdltt L~6L6w:::~~'.~"!1~'~'-~~i;r,'~'~~
SUBMITTED BY DOCUMENT Document Date
J. Ouisenberry Comments 12/1512006
D. Herring Comments 1211512006
w. Weir Comments 1211512006 '
J. Richards Comments 1211512006
L McCany Comments 1211512006
D. and M. Padilla Comments 1211712006
G. KeIth Comments 1211712006
D and K. Mosier Comments 1211612006
Berteig Order for Continuance 1212012006
Kirner Celtificafion of Mailing 1212112006
Nightingale Request for continuance of comment period 1212912006
Hale Request for continuance of convnent period 112/2007
Berteig Order of Continuance (11112007) 11212007
Leckenby CertiIi:ation of Maifing 11512007
Loomis Comment 11612006
Jordshaugen Comment 1211112006
Hynden Comment 1211512006
Hale Comment 1211412006
Powers Comment 1211-412006
Van Zooneveld Comment 112/2007
de Sa eSilva Letter (supplements rebutlal of 1211512006) 114/2007
Loomis Comment 11512007
de Sa e Silva Response to staff supplemental report 111012007
Powers EmaiI with letter from Las Powers 11912007 .
Berteig Email refusing further continuance 111012007
Powe/S Comment 1/1112007
Hale EmaD 1N112OO7
Hale Comments 111112007
Loomis Comments 1N112OO7
Rozzell Comments 1N212OO7
Colby Comments 111112007
Funke Comments 111112007
Loomis Comments 1112t2007 I OG ITEM
Staff Returned notices Various # r')l Ii I
Marco de Sa e Silva Ema!1 to J Dalzell *out of order* 1210712OO6~ _~ ~ of
Port Ludlow Associates BuDd-Out
MLA05-00407
Page 50
LOG ;TE~ings. Conclu~i?ns
..u .., /:. I and DeCISion
.,.,.. 0'-1 F'
Pag<1 SCJ of SO
..----- ---
EXHIBIT
A
PORT LUDLOW APPEAL HEARING
Index to Pleadine:s/Motions/Record
No. Date Descriotion
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Marco Request for pre-hearing
1 09/04/07 meetina
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Hale Appeal, Jordshaugen
2 09/05/07 Appeal, LMC Appeal, and Powers Appeal
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Proposed Hearing Order on behalf
3 09/1 0/07 of Port Ludlow Associates LLC
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached code regarding Closed Record
4 09/14/07 Hearings
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Resort Buildout Hearing Examiner
5 09/1 7/07 Decision, dated 2/7/07
6 09/19/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached AHE Prehearing Order
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Resort Building Record and list of
7 09/20/07 items missing from the Record
8 09/24/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Resort Buildina Exhibit List
9 09/24/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached PLA Case Files Loa Item Tables
10 09/24/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Resort Buildout Record
11 09/24/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Resort Buildout Record
12 09/27/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Missing Record Items document
13 10/17/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Exhibit 108
14 10/26/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Ludlow Bay Village Hearing Brief
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Memo of Points and Authorities
15 1 0/26/07 and Brief from Les Powers
16 1 0/26/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Hale Appeal Brief
17 10/26/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached cover paae for Mr. Powers' brief
18 10/30/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached LMC Appeal Brief
E-mail form David W. Johnson with attached staff report (Log Item 373) and
19 11/13/07 Notice of Closed Record Appeal Hearina
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached PLA Response Brief and Motion to
20 11/20/07 Supplement Administrative Record
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Appeal Hearing Response Brief
21 11/30/07 from Jordshaugen
22 11/30/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached LMC Response Brief
23 11/30/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Hale Response Brief
24 11/30/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Response Brief from Les Powers
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached LBV/Jordshaugen's Rebuttal and
25 12/14/07 Closing Brief
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Hale's Rebuttal and cni7il,
26 12/14/07 Argument '.~ D Jr
--"-"" '--".ll...4
{P A0683330.DOC; 1/13043 .9000001}
EXHIBIT
B
LOG ITEM
~ge ~ of
VIED
" n
V J'
ifrui)I';
<ll..' f I. n,H]',>""! "
.. ,." ,( t.:
, ,
PORT LUDLOW APPEAL HEARING
Index to Pleadine:slMotionslRecord
27 12/14/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached LMCNan Zonneveld's Rebuttal
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached PLAlde Sa e Silva's Closing
28 12/14/07 Memorandum
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Jefferson County's Closing
29 12/14/07 Argument
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Powers' Rebuttal and Closing
30 12/15/07 Argument
31 01/07/08 E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached LOQ 184
32 01/07/08 E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached LOQs 37 and 70
33 01/07/08 E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached LOQ 66
34 01/07/08 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts with attached PLA II Final Decision
{P A0683330.DOC; 1I13043.90ooo0/}
#
- 2 -Page
LOG ITEM
&,b ~f
PORT LUDLOW APPEAL HEARING
Index to E-mails
No. Date Descrintion
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Marco Request for pre-
1 09/04/07 hearing meeting
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Hale Appeal,
2 09/05/07 Jordshaugen Appeal, LMC Appeal, and Powers Appeal
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding Port Ludlow Code and copy
3 09/05/07 of Development Agreement
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding Port Ludlow Code and copy
4 09/05/07 of Development Agreement
E-mail from Phil Olbrechts regarding best hearing dates for Port
5 09/05/07 Ludlow Appeal Hearing
6 09/05/07 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts regarding copy of Development Agreement
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding Port Ludlow Code and pre-
7 09/10/07 hearing conference
8 09/10/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding Port Ludlow Code CD
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Proposed Hearing Order
9 09/1 0/07 on behalf of Port Ludlow Associates LLC
E-mail from Phil Olbrechts regarding hearing date and CD of Port
10 09/1 0/07 Ludlow code
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding Pre-hearing conference and
11 09/11/07 Port Ludlow Code
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding walk-around as part of Pre-
12 09/11/07 hearing Conference
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding walk-around as part of Pre-
13 09/11/07 hearing Conference
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding Pre-hearing conference for
14 09/11/07 Resort Buildout Appeal
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding preparation for Pre-hearing
15 09/11/07 conference
E-mail from Phil Olbrechts regarding walk-around in a closed record
16 09/11/07 review
17 09/11/07 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts regarding scheduling hearing
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding Pre-hearing conference for
18 09/12/07 Resort Buildout Appeal
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding Pre-hearing conference for
19 09/13/07 Resort Buildout Appeal
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached code regarding Closed
20 09/14/07 Record Hearings
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Resort Buildout Hearing
21 09/17/07 Examiner Decision, dated 2/7/07
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding Rules of Procedure for
22 09/17/07 Closed Record Hearings -
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding Rules of Procedure for lit. 7f3;
23 09/17/07 Closed Record Hearings
CE;Il7JB; D
#
Page
LOG ITEM
~f1of~"
[J (1
.... v
{P A0683333.DOC; 1/13043.9000001}
EXHIBIT
c
PORT LUDLOW APPEAL HEARING
Index to E-mails
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding Rules of Procedure for
24 09/17/07 Closed Record Hearings
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding Rules of Procedure for
25 09/17/07 Closed Record Hearings
26 09/17/07 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts regarding ordering hearing transcript
27 09/17/07 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts regarding e-mail addresses of appellants
E-mail from Phil Olbrechts regarding forwarding Phil's e-mail to
28 09/17/07 appellants
E-mail from Phil Olbrechts sending David W. Johnson an e-mail to be
29 09/17/07 forwarded to appellants
30 09/17/07 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts regarding hearing transcript
31 09/17/07 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts recommending a court reporter
32 09/18/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson reQardinQ Pre-hearing Conference
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding another plea from M.
33 09/1 8/07 Bradshaw
34 09/18/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson regardinQ transcript transcription
35 09/18/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson reQardinQ transcript transcription
36 09/1 8/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson reQardinQ transcript transcription
E-mail from Phil Olbrechts regarding ex parte communications between
37 09/1 8/07 staff and HearinQ Examiner
38 09/1 8/07 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts regarding hearing transcript
39 09/1 8/07 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts regarding hearinQ transcript reimbursement
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding pre-hearing conference is
40 09/1 9/07 cancelled
41 09/19/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached AHE PrehearinQ Order
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding forwarding of e-mail from
42 09/19/07 Lewis Hale
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding forwarding of e-mail from the
43 09/19/07 Jordshaugens
44 09/19/07 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts reQardinQ forwardinQ of e-mails
E-mail from Phil Olbrechts regarding David W. Johnson keeping a file
45 09/19/07 of all e-mails sent to Phil
46 09/19/07 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts reQuestinQ final exhibit list
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding forwarding of another e-mail
47 09/20/07 from Lewis Hale
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Resort Building Record
48 09/20/07 and list of items missing from the Record
E-mail from David W. Johnson forwarding e-mail from Marco de Sa e
49 09/21/07 Silva
E-mail from David W. Johnson forwarding another e-mail from Marco
50 09/21/07 de Sa e Silva
51 09/24/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson forwarding e-mail from Les Powers
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding confusion between "record"
52 09/24/07 and "exhibit list"
53 09/24/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Resort BuildinQ Exhibit
{P A0683333.DOC; 1/13043 .900000/}
- 2-
#
Page
LOG ITEM
~ of--=-
lr
cJ rfEh:J'lhii
VfiF
PORT LUDLOW APPEAL HEARING
Index to E-mails
List
54 09/24/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding case file numbers
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding references in Berteig's
55 09/24/07 Decision
56 09/24/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson reQardinQ 10Q items
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached PLA Case Files Log Item
57 09/24/07 Tables
58 09/24/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Resort Buildout Record
59 09/24/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson reQardinQ error on Table 4
60 09/24/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Resort Buildout Record
61 09/24/07 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts regarding Exhibit List
E-mail from Phil Olbrechts regarding what constitutes the official
62 09/24/07 Record
63 09/24/07 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts regarding Berteig's log entries
64 09/24/07 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts regarding log items separate from exhibit list
65 09/24/07 E~mail from Phil Olbrechts reQardinQ "log" documents
66 09/24/07 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts reQarding 11/06 log summary and exhibit list
E-mail from Phil Olbrechts regarding what constitutes exhibits to the
67 09/24/07 Record
68 09/24/07 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts regarding requests for reconsideration
E-mail from Phil Olbrechts regarding omission of Berteig's final
69 09/24/07 decision in the list of exhibits
E-mail from David W. Johnson confirming Phil Olbrechts' request
70 09/25/07 regarding pre-hearing order
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding inclusion of Berteig's 5/10/93
71 09/25/07 Decision
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding Berteig's 5/10/93 Decision in
72 09/25/07 the Record
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Missing Record Items
73 09/27/07 document
E-mail from Phil Olbrechts regarding LBV Appeals - Missing
74 10/04/07 Documents
75 10/04/07 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts reQardinQ revised pre-hearing order
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding LBV Appeals: Missing
76 10/04/07 Documents from County Record
77 10/08/07 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts askinQ about requests to supplement
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding Port Ludlow Appeal Record
78 1 0/08/07 and HearinQ Schedule
79 1 0/08/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson reQardinQ requests to supplement
80 10/09/07 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts reQardinQ request to supplement record
81 10/09/07 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts approving hearing location request -
82 10/09/07 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts regarding extending brief deadlines lAD
E-mail from David W. Johnson confirming Phil Olbrechts' decision on
83 1 0/09/07 supplementing the record
84 10/09/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding location of hearing !l
IeCEllilE
41
(}('j
ll'\-;>
U
{P A0683333.DOC; 1/13043 .900000/}
- 3 -
#
Page
LOG ITEM
?-~ \
q'L. of -4 *~".'
It- .
iJd L!.,k:
.. "t;...:""
PORT LUDLOW APPEAL HEARING
Index to E-mails
E-mail from David W. Johnson with Mr. Powers' request for an
85 1 0/09/07 extension to file a brief
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding Phil's extension of brief
86 10/09/07 deadlines
E-mail from David W. Johnson with contact information of the parties in
87 10/11/07 the Port Ludlow Appeal
E-mail from David W. Johnson saying there are no objections to the
88 1 0/16/07 12/6 hearinQ date
89 10/17/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Exhibit 108
E-mail from Phil Olbrechts regarding extending deadline for LBV
90 10/25/07 Appeals Briefs
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding LMC request for extension to
91 10/25/07 brief deadline
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding Phil's decision regarding
92 10/25/07 extendinQ brief deadlines
93 10/26/07 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts reQardinQ deadline for LMC brief
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding PLA objection to extending
94 10/26/07 brief deadline
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Ludlow Bay Village
95 10/26/07 Hearing Brief
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Memo of Points and
96 10/26/07 Authorities and Brief from Les Powers
97 10/26/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Hale Appeal Brief
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached cover page for Mr.
98 1 0/26/07 Powers' brief
E-mail from Phil Olbrechts requesting copy of hearing tapes and
99 10/29/07 exhibits
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding pickup time for exhibits and
100 10/30/07 tapes
101 10/30/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached LMC Appeal Brief
102 11/05/07 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts regarding picking up exhibits
103 11/05/07 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts regardinQ pickinQ up hearing tapes
104 11/05/07 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts reQardinQ no public testimony at hearinQ
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding location of Beach Club for
105 11/05/07 hearinQ
E-mail form David W. Johnson regarding confirmation of Beach Club
106 11/05/07 for hearinQ location
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding hearing tapes and public
107 11/05/07 testimony at hearing It rIE;(~l~
108 11/05/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding no public testimony at hearin{f
109 11/06/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding room set-up for hearing
110 11/07/07 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts regardinQ table set-up at hearing
111 11/07/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson reQardinQ table set-up for hearing room
112 11/08/07 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts reQardinQ table set-up at hearing
.
{P A0683333 .DOC; 1/13043.9000001}
-4-
LOG ITEM
# ~(, \
Page so of
, '
PORT LUDLOW APPEAL HEARING
Index to E-mails
113 11/08/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding table set-up for hearing room
114 11/13/07 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts without text
E-mail form David W. Johnson with attached staff report (Log Item 373)
115 11/13/07 and Notice of Closed Record Appeal Hearing
116 11/13/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding damaged hearing tape
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding no text in received e-mail
117 11/14/07 from Phil Olbrechts
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding nature of public hearing as
118 11/14/07 Questioned bv Les Powers
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding revision of Notice of Closed
119 11/14/07 Record Appeal HearinQ
E-mail from Phil Olbrechts regarding revising Notice of Closed Record
120 11/15/07 Public Hearing
E-mail from Phil Olbrechts regarding date for hearing answer to David
121 11/15/07 W. Johnson's question
E-mail from Phil Olbrechts regarding answer to David W. Johnson's
122 11/16/07 Question about site visit
123 11/16/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson reQardinQ Phil Olbrechts' site visit
E-mail from David W. Johnson confirming Phil Olbrechts' request to
124 11/16/07 revise Notice for HearinQ
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding confirmation of Phil Olbrechts'
125 11/16/07 site visit
126 11/20/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding supplementing the record
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached PLA Response Brief and
127 11/20/07 Motion to Supplement Administrative Record
128 11/29/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding Hearing time limits
E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding PLA and argument about time
129 11/29/07 limits
130 11/29/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson reQardinQ site visit
131 11/29/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson reQardinQ meetinQ location
132 11/29/07 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts reQardinQ no time limits on presentations
133 11/29/07 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts confirming meeting and site visit
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Appeal Hearing
134 11/30/07 Response Brief from Jordshaugen
135 11/30/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached LMC Response Brief
136 11/30/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Hale Response Brief
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Response Brief from Les
137 11/30/07 Powers
138 12/04/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding time for exhibit pickup
139 12/04/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding hard copies of exhibits
140 12/04/07 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts regarding pickup of exhibits h lei
141 12/04/07 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts reQardinQ hard copies/CD of exhibits 4.\
142 12/05/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson reQardinQ hard copies of exhibits
143 12/06/07 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts regarding pre-hearing order ../;:1,
CEl'VJs: lJ
- 5 -
LOG ITEM
# ?-b \
Page 5\ of
00
...... e,j
{P A0683333.DOC; 1/13043.9000001}
};'f'"rrr'>
,I-., - ;.,!,,:_
J.. it"." l./! .. ; $"~ o'
.t f l~ii~JL,::,"
, .
PORT LUDLOW APPEAL HEARING
Index to E-mails
144 12/06/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding prehearinQ order
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached LBV/Jordshaugen's
145 12/14/07 Rebuttal and ClosinQ Brief
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Hale's Rebuttal and
146 12/14/07 Closing Argument
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached LMCNan Zonneveld's
147 12/14/07 Rebuttal
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached PLAlde Sa e Silva's
148 12/14/07 Closing Memorandum
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Jefferson County's
149 12/14/07 Closing Argument
E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Powers' Rebuttal and
150 12/1 5/07 Closing Argument
151 12/17/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding Powers' objections
152 12/27/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson reQardinQ PLA Binders
153 12/27/07 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts reQardinQ PLA Binders
154 12/27/07 E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding mailing of PLA Binders
155 01/05/08 E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding Resort Buildout Decision
156 01/06/08 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts reQardinQ LOQ exhibit and Decision
157 01/06/08 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts reQardinQ LOQ exhibits and Decision
158 01/07/08 E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached Log 184
159 01/07/08 E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached LOQS 37 and 70
160 01/07/08 E-mail from David W. Johnson with attached LOQ 66
161 01/07/08 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts reQardinQ LOQ exhibit
162 01/07/08 E-mail from Phil Olbrechts with attached PLA II Final Decision
163 01/08/08 E-mail from David W. Johnson regarding PLA II Final Decision
Jfll ~
it. ~ Iii fI,', '.
. \\..1I...:cf'\j
'l ^
.t/ [}
JEFFERSON CUUNTY DCD
{P A0683333 .DOC; 1/13043.90oooo/}
-6-
LOG ITEM
# ?-b ,
Page 5~ of
----...........
~.~'~~-=~
BEFORE THE JEFFERSON COUNTY APPELLATE HEARING EXAMINER
LEWIS J. HALE, GREGG D. JORDSHAUGEN,)
LESLIE A. POWERS, and LUDLOW )
MAINTENANCE COMMISSION, a
Washington nonprofit corporation, ~
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appellants,
v.
JEFFERSON COUNTY, a political subdivision
of the State of Washington, and PORT
LUDLOW ASSOCIATES LLC, a Washington
limited liability company,
Respondents.
FILE NOS. ZON03-00044,
SDP05-00019, and SUB05-00030
DE CLARA TION OF SERVICE
N. Kay Richards hereby makes the following declaration pursuant to CR 5(b)(B)
and RCW 9A.72.085: I am now and was at all times material hereto over the age of 18
years. I am not a party to the above-entitled action and am competent to be a witness
herein. I certify that on January 8, 2008, I mailed via First Class U.S. Mail a copy of the
Port Ludlow Final Decision on Appeal and this Declaration of Service to the following:
David Wayne Johnson
Port Ludlow Lead Planner
Jefferson County Dept. of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
Original:
FINAL DECISION ON APPEAL - 1
{P A0683479 .DOC; 1/13043 .900000/}
LOG ITEM
1:~
5'?> f
#
~g~
ORIGINAL
JIo", ;...
Copies:
Leslie A. Powers
Powers & Therrien, P.S.
3502 Tieton Drive
Yakima, W A 98902
Lewis J. Hale
10552 15th Ave. N.W.
Seattle, W A 98177
Gregg D. Jordshaugen
17435 S.E. 47th
Bellevue, W A 98006
Elizabeth Van Zonneveld
Vaughn Bradshaw
Ludlow Maintenance Commission
P.O. Box 65060
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
Port Ludlow Associates
70 Breaker Lane
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington that the
foregoing is true and correct.
o I/ogjo f
I /
Date and Place
~1k/A
/
n,~.~
N. Kay R1c ds
FINAL DECISION ON APPEAL - 2
{P A0683479 .DOC; 1/13043.900oo0/}
JEffEllfl{), .
Ir.NJI; l'i/;h
f.J U fJ /1/{711 /) f)
f 1 ij,'l'J
I.Jlj
LOG ITEM
# Q..b\
Page~of2i-