Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout068JEFFERSON COi. NI'Y DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street I Port Townsend, WA 98368 1 Web: www.co.jefferson.wa.us/communitydevelopment Tel: 360.379.44501 Fax: 360.379.4451 1 Email: dcd(Dco.iefferson.wa.us Building Permits & Inspections I Development Consistency Review I Long Range Planning I Watershed Stewardship Resource Center December 4, 2012 Pleasant Harbor Marina & Golf Resort, LLP Attn: Garth Mann 9300 E Raintree Drive Suite 100 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Dear Garth, We are in receipt of your letter dated November 14, 2012 regarding the contractual agreements for preparation of the SEIS which we forwarded to you for review and comment. Your comments and our response to each are listed below: 1) The Scope of the work is based on the Preferred Alternative only. In this regard, the SEIS relates to an understanding through meetings with the Applicant. The Applicant and the Consultant are required to initially meet in order to identify the history, the issues, the objectives, and the system for the delivery of the information to be presented. This was the program followed by Perkins Coie (Mr. Sandy Mackie) and the accepted protocol for the FEIS report. It is entirely redundant that the Consultant and the Applicant are unable to communicate without involving the County. County response: The scope of work is based upon an analysis of three alternatives, one of which is the Preferred Alternative. You appear to be referencing Section VII of the contract regarding communication protocol. This protocol is standard for our high profile, controversial projects that require detailed records on communication and necessitate an active role by the County to track progress and be kept "in the loop" on what is being done. We would be willing to entertain modifying that protocol as long as it achieves the goals stated above. 2) Recognizing the important aspect of the BSP which i has been followed for the r edeve!opment of the Marina Structures; the scope of work for the consultant is impacted by the reconstruction of the Marina Buildings as determined by the Shoreline Management Plan of 2010. It is important that both the County and the Consultant concur that this area has been approved for redevelopment outside of the SEIS. By acknowledging this point, time will be spent writing the report that provides clear understanding that this work has been completed and inspected and approved by the County. Our concern is obvious in terms of the creation of redundancy, since the only items planned for the area within the BSP application, is in keeping with the SMP, Letter to Garth Mann — 12-4-2012 1 1 P a g e current Building and Fire Codes especially for safety, and the redevelopment of the road network and amenities required for the Resort. County response: We and the Consultant understand and agree that the Marina will be re -developed under the Binding Site Plan (BSP) and environmental analysis in the SEIS is unnecessary. However, the BSP approval will be acknowledged in the SEIS and will include a description of past and current approvals and actions for the Marina since it is included as part of the Master Planned Resort. We are not aware of anything in the contracts or Attachment A that state otherwise. 3) In other Jurisdictions, it has proven most effective to set a date for completion of the final SETS. If the date of May 1st were concluded as a reasonable due date, then the County and the Consultant are encouraged to move forward the process in a number of time and cost saving measures. Combined meetings, especially for Public input, is a very practical opportunity to respect the time of the constituent as well as the costs to the Applicant. The Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners have the flexibility to organize coincidental times for their meetings. County's response: It is in everyone's interest to complete the SEIS as soon as possible. However, a date for final completion cannot be set until contracts are finaled. Once we know we have agreement on the terms of the contract, and have been through Risk and Legal review we can establish target dates for completion in Attachment A (scope of work). Because of the intense interest and importance of the project, preliminary meetings with the Board and Planning Commission were scheduled to better inform the decision makers and produce a better SEIS. 4) The contract amount must be in the format of a FIXED PRICE contract. County response: We understand your request, but prefer a time and materials, not -to -exceed amount with a contingency for cost overruns to be approved by the Applicant. This provides the applicant with some certainty of the final contract amount while allowing the SEIS to be completed under circumstances that cannot be known at the time of contract signing, such as the need to address unanticipated public or agency comments. 5) Since we have been at this process for an inordinate amount of time, and since the direction of this firm has always reflected the highest intentions of ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP, we spoke last Spring to Carl and Stacie requesting that, other than the Peer Reviews completed to date, there should not be further requirements for additional Peer review reports. We have discussed this topic extensively, and it has been acknowledged that the Peer Review Process is arbitrary and not a compulsory component of SEPA. County response: The County agrees that Peer Review of the draft SEIS is not necessary, and will not require it, even though Attachment C (attached) of Applicant's contract with the County to pay for Peer Review clearly outlines that process. 6) The Accounts Payable here at this firm requires that approved invoices be received by the 25th of the month for payment at the end of the following month. This computer generated system is ingrained within the system. County response: Section V of the contracts will be adjusted accordingly Letter to Garth Mann —12-4-2012 2� e 7) All Parties to the Agreement should mutually indemnify the other Parties. County response: Our legal counsel advises against this. 8) The County approved the FEIS subject to 30 conditions for a Master Planned Resort. Considering that the Applicant has satisfied these conditions through the Preferred Alternative, as well as abiding by the Shoreline Management Plan amendment, would it not be a valid conclusion that the SEIS is a validation of these findings within the expert reports? Finally, the superb environmental process and procedures were a directive of the Statesman Resorts Management, in a continuing effort to not compromise standards. We, at Statesman resorts, feel it is important that the County, and The Consultant and the Applicant meet to advance this SEIS. County response: 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. Advancing the SEIS can best be done by agreeing to the terms of the contracts, signing them and commencing work. I hope we have addressed your concerns, Garth. Please provide us with any feedback and/or actual edits to the contracts so we may proceed with Risk and Legal review and drafting the SEIS. Stacie Hoskins, SEPA Responsible Official Letter to Garth Mann — 12-4-2012 3 1 P `� € `' Attachment C Clarification of Subtask 1B -Meetings The following sequence of events shall be followed in the Peer Review process 1) The Applicant's consultants will submit their Draft Technical Reports to Jefferson County, the Peer Review Team, and the EIS Consultant for review. 2) The Applicant will establish a date for a Site Inspection to be attended by the County, the Peer Review Team, the Applicant's Consultants, and the EIS Consultant. The Draft Technical Reports shall have been reviewed in advance of the Site Inspection. 3) The County, the Peer Review Team, and the EIS Consultant shall finalize their comments on the Draft Technical Report, and a selected group shall meet to discuss these comments. Concurrence shall be achieved regarding the revisions to be requested in the Technical Reports, and these comments shall be provided to the Applicant's Consultants. 4) The County will host the Brinnon Community Scoping Meeting. Similar comments presented will be "bundled" and only new comments, not comments previously addressed from prior scoping meetings, will be prepared and sent to the Applicant, EIS Consultant, and the Peer Review Team Project Manager by the County. 5) The County, the EIS Consultant, and the Peer Review Team Project Manager shall participate in a conference call to discuss Scoping Comments received, and whether any changes to the EIS Scope of Work of Technical Reports are required as a result of these comments. 6) The Applicant's Consultants will revise their Draft Reports. "Best Available Sciences" shall prevail for logical applications. The revised reports, when accepted by Jefferson County, will be used by the EIS Consultant to prepare the Draft SEIS. 7) The Draft SEIS will evaluate mitigation measures as alternatives to the proposal, consistent with the Board of County Commissioners' January 14th, 2008 Report, in which the Statesman proposal for the Master Planned Resort was approved. 8) The EIS Consultant will prepare a Preliminary Draft SEIS (PDSEIS) for review by the County and the Peer Review Team. 9) The County and the Peer Review Team will provide comments on the Draft SEIS to the EIS Consultant. 10) The EIS Consultant will revise the PDSEIS in response to internal review comments, and will provide a "pre -publication" Draft SEIS to the County for final review and acceptance. F 11) The EIS Consultant shall provide to the County a�number of hard copies of the Draft SEIS, and compact disks (CDs) for distribution to agencies, Tribes, and the public. 12) The County shall be responsible for public notice of the Draft SEIS comment period. 13) When comments are received on the Draft SEIS, the County, the EIS Consultant and the Peer Review Team Project Manager shall review the comments and discuss the approach and responsibilities for drafting the response to these comments to be published in the Final SEIS. � LIni'tia-Is