Loading...
HEX 18-001 Withdrawl of AppealFrom: Becky Chapin To: CK Subject: FW: Karl Family Trust, Federal Way, WA Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 4:48:14 PM Attachments: imaae001Jpa image002.pnna imaae003.p_na RE Maurine Karl Trust PropertyPerteet Inc..msg Hi Stephanie, I've attached an email I sent to Mr. Nortness following a conversation with Mark Orthmann. Mr. Nortness agreed that the issuses addressed in the appeal, Hex #18-001, filed 8/23/18, can be addressed with a site visit by the City's consultant, Perteet, and subsequent phone conversations. Also, based on the email below, the City has not heard back from Mr. Nortness regarding Karl Family Trust property following the revision to the wetland memo. Is this sufficient information to withdraw the appeal? I can follow-up with Mr. Nortness, if needed. Thanks, Becky Chapin Senior Planner E 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone: 253-835-2641 1 Fax: 253-835-2609 www.cityoffederalway.com From: K.C. Nortness [mailto:kcnortness@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 1:32 PM To: Becky Chapin Cc: Doc Hansen; Alexis Singletary (alexis@singletarylawoffice.com); Ikellyutah@aol.com Subject: Re: Karl Family Trust, Federal Way, WA Becky and Doc: I appreciate receipt of the Perteet memo, and the additional attention given this matter.. I will consult with my client and counsel, and speak with the City again soon. Happy holidays -- Kevin C. Nortness On Friday, December 14, 2018, 4:36:09 PM PST, Becky Chapin <Becky.Chapin@cityoffederalway.com> wrote: Hi Kevin, See attached revised memo from Perteet. After consulting with Ecology, Perteet adjusted the rating forms accordingly. Wetland X is still a Category III wetland, but with a habitat score of 4 points that requires a 60-foot wide buffer. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this revised memo please let me know. Thanks, Becky Chapin Senior Planner 0 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone: 253-835-2641 1 Fax: 253-835-2609 www.cityoffederalway.com From: Becky Chapin Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2018 3:14 PM To: 'K.C. Nortness' Subject: RE: Karl Family Trust, Federal Way, WA Hi Kevin, Perteet has reached out to Ecology to review Wetland X rating, with regards to the land use intensity issue. As soon as they hear back from Ecology they will provide a Memo. Thanks, Becky Chapin Senior Planner 0 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone: 253-835-2641 1 Fax: 253-835-2609 www.cityoffederalway.com From: K.C. Nortness [mailto:kcnortness@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 8:26 PM To: Becky Chapin Subject: Re: Karl Family Trust, Federal Way, WA Looking for an update on this matter when available, and thanks. KCN On Wednesday, November 14, 2018, 3:13:52 PM PST, Becky Chapin <Becky.Chapin@cityoffederalway.com> wrote: Hi Kevin, I wanted to provide an update since receiving your email last week. I had a discussion with Jason and Bill with Perteet today. Perteet will be looking into the rating forms further. They will evaluate the information and provide a reply back in a timely manner. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Becky Chapin Senior Planner 0 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone: 253-835-2641 1 Fax: 253-835-2609 www.cityoffederalwa, From: Jason Walker [mailto.jason.walker@perteet.com] Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 3:43 PM To: K.C. Nortness Cc: Becky Chapin; Bill Kidder; Alexis Singletary; AJ Bredberg; Kelly Lynn Subject: RE: Karl Family Trust, Federal Way, WA Hi Kevin. I can look at this next week. I have not yet reviewed your email in detail or what you provide as enclosures — I will schedule time to look over. We did agree to many observable rating questions and items while on site. Our memo explains that and the findings our GIS evaluation relevant to the rating subsequent to the site visit. Have a good weekend. Jason Walker, PLA, PWS Environmental Planning Manager Perteet Inc. 2707 COLBY AVENUE, SUITE 900 1 EVERETT, WA 98201 425.252.7700 1 DIR 425.322.02511 CELL 425.753.1294 jason.watker@pertect.com PERTEET.COM Better communities, by design 0 From: K.C. Nortness [mailto:kcnortness@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 9, 2018 1:34 PM To: Jason Walker <jason.walker@perteet.com> Cc: Becky Chapin <Becky.Chapin@cityoffederalway.com>; Bill Kidder <bill.kidder@perteet.com>; Alexis Singletary <alexis@singletarylawoffice.com>; AJ Bredberg <ajb@wa.net>; Kelly Lynn <lkellyutah@aol.com> Subject: Re: Karl Family Trust, Federal Way, WA I will cc Becky Chapin, as your email included her in the conversation. Will also include estate executor Lynn Kelly, estate counsel Alexis Singletary, Esq., and AJ Bredberg. I reviewed the response provided by Bill. Jason, the marked up data sheet was somewhat difficult to decipher. But your statements to AJ Bredberg and I in the field were definitive. You can change your mind, of course. But your report doesn't indicate why you made statements in the field which are inconsistent with Perteet's subsequently -issued report. I am asking you now to explain how and why you changed your mind, or why you made statements in the field which conflict substantively with the report you issued. Bill didn't tell us, and you haven't offered to let us know what has changed since we were in the field. I regret that I left that meeting confident that you would produce a data sheet consistent with the marks you made in our presence. In any case, I think it's reasonable for this applicant to be informed why you and Bill both told us that you agreed that we had a 60 foot buffer. You will understand that I would not have considered that meeting concluded had I known that despite your stated representation in that regard -- and Bill's, because he participated in the conversation -- your report was going to go so completely sideways. But it did. I have to consult with my client and their counsel. I will endorse proceeding to hearing. I think the applicant will prevail. I regret the additional, and I think unnecessary cost to all parties that we did not in fact reach a workable common understanding in the field. I recognize that Perteet has been paid more than your company would have been paid had we not asked for the field meeting, may for that matter be paid an even greater amount if you participate in a hearing, and that the property owner may wind up paying me a greater amount for my services than would have been paid had Perteet produced a report consistent with your statements in the field. Frankly, I would just as soon have this project off my desk. But I wish not to walk away while in my judgment the outcome for my client is unjust. Even by degrees. Right is right, and fair is fair. It is a separate issue that the City has stated that they will challenge the applicant's right to a hearing at this time. Therefore, I don't know where we're all going on this. But it doesn't look like resolution. If I made an error in reading your sheet based on all the scribbles and alterations, I'll own that error. But I'm not in error about your representations, and I know what statements AJ Bredberg and I made to you. We had all agreed that the first time the wetland was rated, there was more than 50% high intensity. You changed your mind on that. I think it's reasonable for Perteet to let us know the basis for that change. You have also repeatedly changed the rating system. On two different air photos, there was more than 50% high intensity. There are houses and parking lots in there. Perteet used the King County air photo. In the 2018 photo, there is clearly far more development than there was previously. That photo seems to be pretty clear evidence. I'd like to know if I'm wrong about that. It matters. If there is more than 50% high intensity, we have a 60 foot buffer. I think we are correct that points also should be removed from your rating with reference to priority habitat. My client, and the City, both deserve to know why your original wetland rating said that there was more than 50%. Is there less development now? If not, you have changed it for another reason. Let me know, if you would. You're the experts. You know that you must have critical species. You know that as to logs and snags, you don't check that box unless the site shows up on the State website as a log and snag area. You know that while a site may be a critical habitat, it matters if it has no critical species. I am attaching to this email three figures which show the high intensity land use. As you will see, one of those if the air photo I'm referring to. The next is the tax map. This shows more than 60% high intensity. I have all attached the Perteet drawing marked up, showing all of the areas which did not note high intensity. The experts should be able to inform my client and the City why Perteet did not note high intensity. No doubt you have a reason. Let me know, if you would. There are detention ponds, parking lots for a City Park along with buildings, freeway exists, industrial sites and their detention ponds, high intensity horticulture (rhododendron garden), and graded areas. With two maps showing over 60% high intensity, it strikes me as reasonable that the Perteet map should reflect — at the very least, and I assert this respectfully — 4% more high intensity in all of the areas noted. Perteet's findings as to high intensity land use, if based on current conditions, will be adjusted by this reputable company. Finally, I am attaching to this email a memo sent to me today — as requested — from AJ Bredberg. You will understand AJ's response to my queries on the Karl site and the latest Perteet report. I can refrain, therefore, from summarizing it for you. Kevin C. Nortness Jason Walker, PLA, PWS Environmental Planning Manager Perteet Inc. 2707 COLBY AVENUE, SUITE 900 1 EVERETT, WA 98201 425.252.7700 1 DIR 425.322.02511 CELL 425.753.1294 jason.walker 12erteet.com PERTEET.COM Better communities, by design From: Bill Kidder Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 11:10 AM To: Jason Walker <jason.walker 12erteet.com> Subject: RE: Karl Family Trust, Federal Way, WA Jason, Mr. Nortness's email is asking about our update to question H2.3 that changes the H2.x score from -1 (low) to 1 (medium). This value change was based on our GIS exercise mapping and calculating high intensity land use pursuant to the 2014 Rating Manual guidance now that we had an actual wetland boundary to build the map upon. We provided the resulting GIS figure in our most recent review memo to support our score decision. In his email Mr. Nortness is observing the H2.x total score of 1 should equate to a Low on the summary page. I can understand that a rapid reviewing of the rating form may mistakenly observe that a 1 score should be a Low. The rating form, though, values a Low score as equaling <1 (less than one). A medium score equals 1 to 3. Our result of a Medium score that results in a habitat value of 5 points on the rating summary page is correct. A habitat score of 5 for a Cat III wetland has a 105-foot buffer per FWRC wetland buffers as explained in our October review memo. Bill Kidder, PWS Lead Ecologist 425.252.7700 1 DIR 206.617.3740 From: Jason Walker Sent: Monday, November 5, 2018 5:54 PM To: Bill Kidder <bill.kidder 12erteet.com> Subject: Fwd: Karl Family Trust, Federal Way, WA Please look over. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "K.C. Nortness" <kcnortness yahoo.com> Date: November 5, 2018 at 4:52:10 PM PST To: Jason Walker <jason.walker"erteet.com> Subject: Karl Family Trust, Federal Way, WA Jason: I'm addressing you with my questions in advance of contacting Becky at Federal Way. I have attached the Rating Summary, as rated by Bill Kidder -- with red markups. I have also attached page 12 of 12. Take a look at page 14, and tell me whether I'm correct that it should be a Low instead of a Medium. Bill came up with a Medium on H 2.0 on page 14. I see 1 point total for H2. That should be an L, and not an M. If I refer back to page 1, however, it is listed as an M. This appears to be a simple error. Check it and let me know if you agree. Per the summary, a Medium/Low/Low (as opposed to a Medium/Medium/Low) is a 4. With a wetland score noting 3-4 habitat points, a Category III wetland has a 60 foot buffer. With a habitat point of 5, I understand that it is a 105 foot buffer. In sum, on a Cat. 3 wetland, minimum buffer width is 60 feet for a wetland score of 3 to 4 habitat point, and we have a 4. [see page 12 of 12] I would appreciate an opportunity to discuss this with you at your earliest convenience. As noted above, I wish to hear from you before I discuss this with the City, or take any further action. Let me know. Kevin C. Nortness This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient and receive this communication, please delete this message and any attachments. Thank you. Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here. This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient and receive this communication, please delete this message and any attachments. Thank you. Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here.