Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout090Michelle Farfan From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Hollinger, Kristy < khollinger@eaest.com > Tuesday, October 06, 2015 1L:58 AM David W. Johnson (djoh nson @co jefferson.wa.us);' peckassoc@comcast.net' No Action and Fiscal Response Key Topic Areas.docx; No Action.docx Hi David and Craig, As per our discussion yesterday, attached for your review is the expanded No Action Alternative discussion that we propose to insert into Chapter 2 of the Final SEIS, and the 'Key Topics'discussion that will respond to fiscal-related comments. The No Action Alternative willalso be expanded under each element of the environment in Ch.3. Thanks, Kristy Kristy M. Hollinger Planner EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, lnc., PBC 2200 Sixth Ave, Suite 707 | Seattle, WA 98121 O 206.452.5350 ext. 1726 | (f)206.443.7646 khollinser@eaest.com http://www.eaest.com gt 1 CHAPTER KEY TOPIC AREAS Consistent with SEPA requirements, a public comment period was provided for the November 2014 Draft Supplemental ElS. During the public comment period a total of 70 comment letters were received and public testimony was provided during a Planning Commission meeting. All of the comments received, as well as responses to the comments, are provided in Chapter 4 of this Final SEIS. A number of comments (written and verbal)were received that identified common subjects; these have been referred to as "key topic areas". Rather than providing a similar response to each comment that shares a common theme, this chapter of the Final SEIS identifies the key topic area and provides a discussion for each topic area. Responses to specific comments provided in Chapter 4 of this Final SEIS which pertain to these topic areas refer back to the applicable discussion provided in this chapter. The following key topics are discussed on this chapter of the Final SEIS: a Fiscal Considerations -.1 FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS lntroduction Land use development proposals inherently provide both fiscal costs and benefits. Land use development costs can include increased demands for public services, decreased housing affordability and increased infrastructure maintenance, while fiscal benefits can include tax revenues, development fees and job creation. Fiscal costs to local service providers and corresponding tax/fee revenues both typically occur incrementally, with revenues realized generally commensurate with costs. lt should be noted that these costs and benefits are not borne or enjoyed equally by all people, but tend to vary by location, socioeconomic characteristics, general preferences, etc. Pleasant Harbor Proiect Conditions of Approva! ln November 2OO7 Jefferson County issued the Final EIS for the proposed Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Course Project. Through the public review process for the proposed project and associated Comprehensive Plan Amendment, public comment was received regarding a number of issues including the potential to negatively impact local service providers (school, fire, police, EMS, parks, etc.), ability of the project to foster local job creation, and ability of the project to provide affordable housing opportunities for new employees on the site. ln response to these public comments, ln 2008 the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners conditioned the approval of the Pleasant Harbor project with 30 conditions of approval (Ordinance 07- 0128-08), several of which were intended to address public services, employment and affordable housing issues. The November 2OL4 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS reflects revisions to the proposed master plan to reflect the Jefferson County Commissioners conditions of approval, and provides discussion on the relationship of proposed site development with the conditions of approval. Public Services and Utilities Summorv of Droft SEIS Environmental Anolvsis As identified in Section 3.L7 of the Draft SEIS (Public Services), construction and master plan operations on the site under the EIS alternatives would result in additional demands on local service providers including schools, police, fire, EMS and health service. Section 3.16 of the Draft SEIS (Utilities) indicates that construction and operations under the EIS alternatives would increase demands on utility providers for solid waste management, sewer service and water distribution. As is typical of residential and commercial development projects, the costs associated with incremental increased demand on public service and utility providers in the area would be balanced by tax revenues and development fees paid by the applicant (construction fees and construction sales taxes) and future residents and businesses on the site (retail sales tax, business and occupation tax, property tax, utilities tax, and other fees, licenses and permits); thus, a portion of the tax revenues generated from site development would accrue to Jefferson County and area service/utility providers to help offset costs associated with increased demands. ln addition, as indicated above the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners conditioned the approval of the Pleasant harbor project with additional conditions intended, in part, to further mitigate the potential for impacts to area service/utility providers. Conditions of approval that specifically relate to public service and utility providers include: @ The project developer will be required to negotiote memorondo of understanding (MOU) or memoronda of ogreement (MOA) to provide needed support for the Brinnon school, fire district, Emergency MedicolServices (EMS), housing, police, public heolth, porks ond recreotion, ond transit prior to opprovol of the development ogreement. Such agreements will be encouroged specificolly between the developer ond the Pleasont Harbor Yacht Club, and with the Slip owner's Associotion regording morino use, costs, dock occess, looding ond unlooding, ond parking. (bbl Verification of the obility to provide odequote electricol power shall be obtoined from the Moson County Public Utility District. Add iti on a I I nf o rm oti on Provided for Final SEIS Costs for infrastructure and service demands generated by the proposal would be offset by payments and improvements by the project. The following list highlights some of the key infrastructure improvements and services to be provided by the project: Local agency (Jefferson County) reimbursement for staff time reviewing and processing project application. Realignment of Black Point Road resulting in a safety improvement. Adding width to Black Point Road at the site entrance Providing acceleration and deceleration lanes required by WSDOT at Highway 101 and Black Point Road. Reconstruction of the service road to the WDFW boat launch (this road does not currently comply with standards). Creation of a utility district intended to eliminate impact to the surrounding community. This district would provide the following; - Pay for management and staffing of the waste water treatment plant. - Pay for PUD extension of transmission lines and new transformers. - Monitor the condition of the aquifer. a Provide secu rity services a Provide a medical clinic that would be available to the community Housing Affordabilitv Summorv of Droft SEIS Environmentol Anolvsis Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners conditioned the approval of the Pleasant harbor project with additional conditions intended, in part, to ensure affordable housing for new operational employees generated by the proposal. Conditions of approval that specifically relate to public service and utility providers include: lgl The developer sholl commission o study of the number of jobs expected to be created os o direct or indirect result of the MPR thot earn 80% or less of the Brinnon oreo overage medion income (AMl). The developer shall provide offordoble housing (e.9., no more thon 30% of a a a a a a household income) for the Brinnon MPR workers roughly proportional to the number of jobs creoted thot eorn 80% or less of the Brinnon oreo AMl. The developer moy sotisfy this condition through dedicotion of lond, poyment of in lieu fee, or onsite housing development. As identified in Section 3.11 of the Draft SEIS, development of new employment-generating land uses could result in up to 225 new operational jobs. lt is estimated that 223 of the 225 total operational jobs (99 percent) would earn an average wage of 80 percent or less of the Brinnon area average median income (534,143). The Draft SEIS also indicates that affordable housing is defined as housing that costs no more than 30 percent of household income. lntended to comply with conditions of approval (g), it is proposed that onsite housing be provided for up to 208 employees at a cost of no more than 30 percent of employee income. No Action Alternative Scenarto A- Continuation of Existing Conditions Under Scenario A, no redevelopment of the site would occur. The existing buildings (Pleasant Harbor House, Bed & Breakfast, campground structures, etc.), roadways, paths, and infrastructure would remain. Many of the existing buildings and facilities would continue to age, with some degradation over time. The amount of vegetated area on the site would remain as existing conditions. Scenario B - Redevelopment under Existing Land Use Desrgnations Reflecting the No Action Alternative described and analyzed in the 2007 ElS, Scenario B assumes that the site would develop as a single-family residential area along with a 9-hole golf course and retail area consistent with underlying Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations. Under this scenario a total of 30 single-family residential homes would be developed on the site, including 24 homes associated with a 9-hole golf course south of Black Point Road and six homes in the Maritime Village area. A 9-hole golf course is assumed to be located in the Black Point Campground area and an approximately 5,000 square foot retail facility on the west side of U.S. Highway 101 is assumed (also no longer part of the site area). Table 2-_ compared development assumption under No Action Alternative Scenario B with the development alternatives analyzed in the SEIS (Alternative 1, 2 and 3). Table 2-_ ASSUMED NO ACTION SCENARIO B/SEIS ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON Alternative I Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action - Scenario B Site Area 231-acres 231-acres 231-acres 256-acres Total Residential Units 890 units 890 units 890 units 30 units Total Retai l/Commercial sq.ft. 49,772 sq. ft.56,608 sq. ft.56,608 sq. ft.5,000 sq. ft. (Tudor/Jupiter property, no longer part of SEIS site area) Under the No Action Alternative, it is assumed that the site's current land use designations would remain (Comprehensive Plan MPR and Rural Residential zoning designations) and the site would remain primarily in rural residential use. Two scenarios are analyzed for this alternative in this Final SEIS; Scenario A - Continuation of existing conditions; and, Scenario B - Redevelopment of the site under existing land use designations. Further descriptions of these No Action scenarios are provided below. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action - Scenario B Maritime Village location Black Point Road/U.S. Hwy 101 intersection Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 NA Golf Course Area 220-acres 220-acres 220-acres o Residential Units a 828 units . 822 units o 822 units o24 o CommercialSq. Ft.. 36,000 sq. ft.. 36,000 sq. ft.. 36,000 sq. t.a NA Maritime Village Area 1 1-acres 1 1-acres 1 1-acres . 36 acres o New Residential Units a 60 units a 66 units a 66 units a 6 r CommercialSq. Ft.o 13,772 sq. fi.. 20,608 sq. ft.o 20,608 sq. ft.a NA Golf Course Cut and Fill 2.2 million cy 1 million cy 990,000 cy ?? The overall number of residential units under Scenario B of the No Action Alternative would be 860 units less than underAlternatives 1,2 and 3, and site population and associated vehicle trips would be less. The amount of clearing and grading would be less than under Alternatives 1,2 and 3, and the amount of retained open space would be more. It is assumed under this scenario that the site would be developed by others over time. Due to staggered development and potentially multiple property owners/developers, this scenario could include piecemeal residential development (i.e. multiple short plats), less control over design standards, uncoordinated utility systems (i.e. individual septic systems). Development standards under local and state regulations would apply.