Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout067David W. Johnson From: Swenson, Karen [kswenson@eaest.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 1:36 PM To: David W. Johnson Subject: RE: SETS Contracts Attachments: image001.jpg Thank you, David, for forwarding the letter from Garth dated November 14th that we received electronically on November 26th. We have reviewed his comments and have provided the following thoughts regarding the issues raised in the letter: Communication — It appears that Garth is concerned that no direct communication would be allowed between the applicant and the consultant. In other third -party contracts, we have allowed this type of direct communication if notification is given to the jurisdiction and a meeting/phone call summary is drafted or an e- mail exchange is copied to the jurisdiction. If the County feels comfortable with this approach, we can easily implement such protocol on this project. Binding Site Plan - It is our understanding from our previous conference call with the applicant that the reconstruction of the marina structures will not be analyzed as proposed actions in the SEPA SETS due to prior approval of a Binding Site Plan and SEPA compliance for the marina area. The BSP approval was not described in the scoping notice for the SETS, and the location described in the notice included the full property. Therefore, the BSP approval will be acknowledged in the SETS and will include a description of past and current approvals and actions for this area. However, analysis of the elements of the environment and associated mitigation measures will not include the marina area. Completion Date — The applicant requested a completion date of May 1St. While we understand that there are other associated deadlines and construction windows that the applicant is trying to meet, given assumed internal County/applicant review and required public review, this deadline may not be achievable. Our initial schedule forecast a completion date of mid -summer. To the extent possible, we will work on separate components concurrently and welcome the scheduling of joint or coincidental public meetings. We are eager to commence on the SEIS once the contract is signed in order to complete the project in a timely manner. 4. Fixed Price —The applicant has requested that the contract amount is in the format of a fixed price contract. We prefer a Time and Materials contract with a Not -to -Exceed amount. This provides the applicant with some certainty of the final contract amount. A fixed price contract is typically not suited to a SEPA EIS project where unanticipated public or agency comments could be received during the public review required by SEPA. For example, although not anticipated, a major scope change such as a new alternative could arise, limiting our ability to complete the project within the budgeted amount. Based on the current scope of services, we fully intend to complete the project within the budgeted amount. Peer Review - We understand that all the existing technical reports have been peer reviewed. The applicant is concerned that the SEIS will also be peer reviewed. The decision on this issue is up to the County, but as we discussed, peer review of an EIS is generally not necessary at this stage. 6. Accounts Payable deadline —We have noted the deadline for invoices and will coordinate with the County so that our invoices are submitted to the applicant by the 25th of each month. indemnification —The applicant requests that "All Parties to the Agreement should mutually indemnify the other Parties." Our legal staff has reviewed the existing contract under consideration and is okay with the existing language in the contract. If the sentence here changes the existing contract language, our legal staff will need to re -review the language. 8. FEIS Conditions - The applicant asks if the SEIS is a validation of satisfaction of the FEIS conditions. The SEIS will include a section that will outline how the proposal meets each of the conditions and where in the SEIS/technical reports a detailed explanation can be found. We hope these responses address each of the applicant's comments and we can swiftly move on to contract acceptance. Thank you, Kase v SWe*V0-w NVOSAL Karen Swenson, AICP Senior Planner 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 707 1 Seattle, WA 98121 206.452.5350 x 1716 kswenson@eaest.com From: David W. Johnson [mailto:dwjohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 2:15 PM To: Swenson, Karen Cc: Schipanski, Rich Subject: FW: SEIS Contracts FYI - Garth's Contract issues. From: Ursula Kurth [ma iIto: ursulak@statesmancorporation.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 1:47 PM To: David W. Johnson Cc: Garth Mann; Stacie Hoskins; peckassoc(-Ocomcast.net Subject: RE: SEIS Contracts Good Afternoon David, Regarding the letter from Garth..... We sent the letter on November 16th via Registered Mail. I have subsequently tracked the letter and learned from Canada Post that registered mail to the US can take up to 1 month to be delivered! So you could potentially receive it any day up to and including December 16th (one month from sending it). I have attached a scanned file of the original, which is on it's way to you. Kind regards, Ursula Ursula G. Kurth Office Administrator The Statesman Group of Companies (403) 256 - 4151 ursulak[a@statesmancorporation.com David W. Johnson From: Swenson, Karen [kswenson@eaest.com] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 1:46 PM To: David W. Johnson Cc: Stacie Hoskins; Schipanski, Rich Subject: Pleasant Harbor - Debrief of 12/12 meeting with Sandy Mackie Attachments: image003.jpg Our meeting yesterday with Sandy Mackie of Perkins Coie, Garth's attorney, went very well. JT Cooke from Perkins Coie was there, as was Craig Peck of Craig Peck & Associates. Here are some of the key issues we discussed: 1. Confirmation that the SEIS would not analyze alternative methods of mitigating impacts. Sandy requested that if the method proposed by the applicant mitigated the identified significant impacts, then the SEIS would not require analysis of additional methods. For example, if the applicant proposed a wastewater treatment method that mitigated significant impacts, then the SEIS would not request analysis of additional wastewater treatment methods. We confirmed this approach. 2. Format of the SEIS to utilize existing documentation to the extent possible. Sandy recommended that because this is a supplemental EIS, the document would best utilize the same DEIS chapters when appropriate, and add what's new or what's changed since the 2007 DEIS. For example, if the 2007 Draft EIS said that there would be no discharge to Puget Sound, then he recommended that the SEIS would reference the DEIS and provide the stormwater plan that shows that there will be no discharge to Puget Sound. We will begin to draft an outline for the SEIS after the contract is signed and we have reviewed the existing materials. 3. Ensuring we have all the environmental review documents necessary to proceed. Perkins Coie asked us what information we had at this point, and we indicated that the only documents we have at this time is what is available on the County website, including the 2006 Pleasant Harbor Comp Plan amendment application, the DEIS and FEIS, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ordinance (with the 30 conditions), and the scoping notice. Perkins Coie provided us a hard copy of the 2007 DEIS, the DEIS appendices and the FEIS. They also provided us a hard copy of a memo that included two tables. The first short table compared the 2007 DEIS and the 2012 Preferred Alternative in terms of acreage, impervious surface, units, units dedicated for staff, and total commercial square footage. The second larger table listed the 30 FEIS conditions, listed whether they have been addressed, and in what document the condition was addressed. Responses to the conditions were not all filled in at this time. Perkins Coie stated they would provide us with hard copies of each of those documents in the table as well as the draft zoning ordinance and development agreement, and would provide the County with the exact same documents at the same time. We also requested digital copies if they were available, and Perkins Coie indicated they would look into how to share those documents with us and the County (potentially a FTP site?). 4. Clarification of BSP area Sandy drew a rough picture of the marina area to show the area covered under the existing Binding Site Plan. He stated that Craig Peck would provide us clear copy of this area, and Craig said he would send us a map of the existing BSP area, as well as the BSP Amendment application recently submitted to the County. We reassured them that this BSP area would not be analyzed in the SEIS but would be described in the document for reference. 5. Schedule and Budget We discussed the applicant's concern regarding the schedule and budget, and we stated that based on the assumptions in the scope, we intend to remain within budget with no anticipated cost adjustments. Sandy reiterated the applicant's desire to complete the SEIS by May, and we discussed how we could maintain and potentially shorten the schedule, with particular attention to adhering to the review times for the County and applicant stated in the current contract. 6. Site visit Craig Peck said that when we head to Pleasant Harbor for a site visit to give him a call. A date has not yet been set for the site visit, but we'd like to conduct the visit soon after the contract is signed. 7. Follow-up meeting We set a date for a follow-up meeting at Perkins Coie's office on January 91h at 2pm (Sandy is in town between January 7th -11th). Between now and then, Perkins Coie and Craig Peck will have provided us all the materials from the above-mentioned memo and any other materials pertinent to drafting the SEIS. We will have reviewed these materials and can discuss if any additional documents/information is necessary to proceed. Sandy indicated he would recommend to Garth that he sign the contract by year's end, based on our discussion. We look forward to working with everyone very soon. Kare v S wevv o -vv Karen Swenson, AICP Senior Planner 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 707 1 Seattle, WA 98121 206.452.5350 x 1716 kswenson@eaest.com