Form revised: December 6, 2011

FISCAL NOTE FOR NON-CAPITAL PROJECTS

Department:	Contact Person/Phone:	CBO Analyst/Phone:
Planning & Development	Dave LaClergue/733-9668	Calvin Chow/684-4652

Legislation Title:

AN ORDINANCE relating to redevelopment at Yesler Terrace, designating certain future proposed projects as planned actions pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, through use of a Planned Action Ordinance, and establishing certain requirements for these planned actions.

Summary of the Legislation: The proposed bill is part of a package of legislation that includes a rezone and Land Use Code amendments, a planned action ordinance, and a cooperative agreement, all intended to support redevelopment of Yesler Terrace.  The proposed Yesler Terrace Planned Action Ordinance would establish new environmental review procedures and stimulate development, resulting in increased review and monitoring time for City staff, but no direct budget impacts are anticipated.

Background:  In 2011, the Seattle Housing Authority (SHA) Board of Commissioners adopted a phased redevelopment plan for Yesler Terrace. The plan includes a mix of residential and nonresidential uses, a substantial increase to residential density, and a major reconfiguration of the streets.   The SHA plan cannot move forward without a variety of regulatory changes from the City, including a rezone and a street vacation.

Also in 2011, City Council approved the creation of a new “Master Planned Community” designation in the Comprehensive Plan, and applied that designation to Yesler Terrace on the Future Land Use Map.  Those actions were intended to support Yesler Terrace redevelopment efforts, and to start the process of developing new zoning.

Since that time, departmental staff have been engaged with SHA to develop legislation consistent with Comprehensive Plan, the SHA redevelopment plan, and other stakeholder priorities.  As part of the proposal, the Yesler Terrace Planned Action Ordinance would establish new environmental review procedures that would provide greater predictability in the permitting process and a greater ability to mitigate cumulative impacts.  For a full description of the inter-related legislative proposal, please see the Director’s Report to the Ordinance introduced as Council Bill ___________________.

____ This legislation does not have any financial implications.

_X_     This legislation has financial implications.

Appropriations:

Fund Name and Number	Department	Budget Control Level*	2012 Appropriation	2013 Anticipated Appropriation
TOTAL

Appropriations Notes:  No anticipated impacts.

Anticipated Revenue/Reimbursement Resulting from this Legislation:

Fund Name and Number	Department	Revenue Source	2012 Revenue	2013 Revenue
TOTAL

Revenue/Reimbursement Notes: No anticipated impacts.

Total Regular Positions Created, Modified, or Abrogated through this Legislation, Including FTE Impact:

Position Title and Department	Position # for Existing Positions	Fund Name & #	PT/FT	2012 Positions	2012 FTE	2013 Positions*	2013 FTE*
TOTAL

Position Notes: No anticipated impacts.

Spending/Cash Flow:

Fund Name & #	Department	Budget Control Level*	2012 Expenditures	2013 Anticipated Expenditures
TOTAL

Spending/Cash Flow Notes: No anticipated impacts.

Other Implications:

a) Does the legislation have indirect financial implications, or long-term implications?

While the legislation does not pose direct impacts to annual budgets, it is expected to require additional review and monitoring time from staff in several departments (see section “c” below).  At this time, it is expected that additional staff time would be paid for through existing fee structures.

b) What is the financial cost of not implementing the legislation?

There are no direct financial costs of not implementing the legislation.  Not implementing a planned action ordinance may impact SHA’s ability to draw private investment to Yesler Terrace redevelopment, and could result in greater dependence on City funding for redevelopment.  Not implementing a planned action ordinance would also mean less mitigation of cumulative impacts of development, and would forgo certain public amenities such as pedestrian pathways through large blocks.

c) Does this legislation affect any departments besides the originating department? 

We anticipate impacts to staff time in DPD, HSD, DON, and SDOT, but expect that these impacts can be absorbed through existing fee structures.

d) What are the possible alternatives to the legislation that could achieve the same or similar objectives?

There is no alternative way to achieve the same objective of planned action environmental review.

e) Is a public hearing required for this legislation? 

Yes.  DPD presented draft versions of the proposal at a variety of public meetings, and Council will hold a public hearing when legislation is introduced.

f) Is publication of notice with The Daily Journal of Commerce and/or The Seattle Times required for this legislation?

Yes.  Notification about draft legislation was published in the DJC in February 2012.

g) Does this legislation affect a piece of property?

See Attachment A for the affected area.

h) Other Issues:

List attachments to the fiscal note below:

ATTACHMENT A: Project Area

MPC-YT zone and Yesler Terrace Redevelopment Area

The MPC-YT zone depicts the area where the new zoning requirements would apply.