Marian Meadows - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Kittitas County Fire District #3 May 24,2021 Page l3 The District also completely ignores the additional tax revenue that will come from the MarianMeadows development. New homeowners will pay their fair sh"r. "u"ry year, in line with theexpectation the District imposes on everyone else within its boundariet. ritir is why tt " oistri"t,,focus on the delta it claims between iurr.nt and future demand is misplaced. The one-timemitigation.contemplated by ordinance 2018-006 is not intended to fund thi District on a day-to-day basis, but would.instead be for capital expenclihn'es, which as ERLC detailed in its last letter,tlre District has hardly identified, let alone having un uppar.nt flan for implementation, despiteover a decade to prepare for Marian Meadows. It is too late for the District to argue for new SEPA-related measures. The Final Els for MarianMeadows came out long ago and the District did not appeal it. Lim;ting the height of structures inMarian Meadows to 2.4 feet is unacceptable. As stated above and demonstrated in the attachedmaterials, the District has seen many new hornes since the Firral EIS, and to ERLC,s knowledge, 19 olt else is subject to this reguirement. This appears to be yeianother tactic to starve MarianMeadows into oblivion. Marian Meadows trar pi'.timinarity approval pursuant to, and shall bedeveloped in accordance witlt, Kittitas county iode. The oistrict does not get to unilaterally re-write.Kittitas county.development regulations, especially noi-in ru"n a-cteurly turg",.a unopunitive manner, and this point is non-nigotiable. with regard to medical response' according to the FEIS, "The standard for Hospital District No. 2to respond to the Easton area' which is ibout l7 rniles fi.om its station, is 45 minutes or less(KCEMS 20aq' According to the local fir'e chief, actual response tirn.s to the area north of I-90are in the 8' to l2-minute range (McCaw 2008)." The Districi has provided no evidence that theseactual response times have degraded. Even with the addition of 'lt4arian Meadows, it is hard tobelieve they will fall belor.v the rnedical response standards included in the FEIS. The 2008 FEIS's conclusiott was "the addition of 443 residents adds about 30 percent to thenumber of potential sources of residential fires-" The FEIS anticipated (alternatives I and 2) 443units with additional development at rural densities, resulting;;ui;" 273 cumulative lots or.unitsin the project vicinity with development of existing lots and-undeveloped parcels. enJy.t, *rrireMarian Meadows it ..Yft .nlly proposing just 89 residential lots with equivalent commercialfeatures, the District still clairns ttrat rvraian Meadows will add 3040%demand, even after theaddition of new homes in the Distlict since 20ll? These numbers do not add up. trto,lJo* tt"claim that, with just 89 residential lots, Marian Meadows will add 240 new residenis in comfarisonwith the 480 residents currently in the District. The District has known of this proposalsince theearly 2000s, and your clairn that ERLC must accept the District's numbers or wait for the Districtto conduct an appropriate study bring to mind the prior statements of Fire District commissionersthat they do not want to see it happen at all. ln ordinance 2018-006, paragraph 30.2.5, the Board of county commissioners directed asfollows; The FEIS identified additional equipment to mitigate Fire and Medical Responseimpacts associated_with the project. Project coitribution to these measures isidentified in the FEIS. such contributions can be made a condition of aDevelopment Agreement, with amounts identified uppropriate to the g9 unit current JouNs.MoNRoE MrrsuNAGA.KoLousKovA . PI,LC