12.07.2015 Views

Volume 2: Draft Gorst Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement

Volume 2: Draft Gorst Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement

Volume 2: Draft Gorst Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURESand recovery, job growth has been slower. The County will revisit employment growth in its 2016 ComprehensivePlan Update.Table 3.14-2Estimated Net Land Demand by Unincorporated UGA, 2025Estimated Net New Jobs 2005 - 2025 Existing Vacant Land Supply (Acres)Estimated Net Land Need by2025UGA Commercial Industrial Total Commercial Industrial Total Commercial IndustrialBremerton East 75 331 406 6 - 6 insignificant very lowBremerton West 1,501 308 1,809 10 13 23 low lowCentral Kitsap 3,876 2,029 5,905 101 10 110 mid very high<strong>Gorst</strong> 86 606 692 31 6 37 surplus lowKingston 1,406 457 1,863 34 10 44 low lowMcCormick Woods 25 70 95 - 53 53 insignificant none*Port Orchard 2,237 1,115 3,352 231 19 250 none* midPoulsbo 729 681 1,411 - 10 10 low lowSilverdale 6,322 3,646 9,969 133 293 426 very high very highSKIA 529 3,196 3,726 - 1,575 1,575 very low none*ALL 16,787 12,440 29,228 547 1,988 2,535Notes:Source:Job forecasts for unincorporated UGAs begin with a straight line projection of observed growthbetween 1995 and 2004, and are then increased so that total unincorporated UGA job growth matchesthe county’s residual growth (after city growth is subtracted) of 29,228. This residual target is aproduct of a county-generated countywide forecast that included a policy commitment to significantlyincrease the county’s manufacturing jobs base. City forecasts, prepared according to varyingmethodologies, were subtracted from this total. The total unincorporated UGA target forecast reflectsambitious manufacturing growth targets, compensates for lower growth trends that cities may haveassumed, and assumes that most growth generated from rural area employment (approximately 13,000jobs in 2004) is allocated to UGA boundaries. Ten percent of residual county employment growth hasbeen reserved for rural areas outside of the Urban Growth Areas.*The past employment trends that ground this land demand analysis may or may not be carried intothe future (particularly if circumstances such as available infrastructure change). This data should beviewed as contextual information rather than a limiting factor in policy decisions.PSRC; Kitsap County, Kitsap County Updated Land Capacity Analysis (2005), E.D. Hovee &Company.Source: Kitsap County 2006Plan ConsistencyUnder GMA comprehensive plans must be internally and externally consistent. Internal consistency means that the“differing parts of the comprehensive plan must fit together so that no one feature precludes the achievement ofany other.” (GMA — procedural criteria WAC 365-196-500(1)). Externally, local comprehensive plans are requiredto be consistent with the comprehensive plans of other jurisdictions with common borders or related regionalissues. (WAC 365-196-510(1)) State Department of Commerce rules (WAC 365-196-510(2)) indicate that interjurisdictional (external) consistency is accomplished by consistency with CPPs discussed below.Each county or city that is preparing a GMA comprehensive plan or implementing development regulations, oramendments to them, is required to submit the proposed plan or regulations to the Washington State Departmentof Commerce and other departments for review and comment before final adoption.The <strong>Draft</strong> <strong>Gorst</strong> Creek Watershed Framework & Characterization Plan and <strong>Draft</strong> <strong>Gorst</strong> Subarea Plan weredeveloped in conjunction with federal, tribal, state and local partners (see Chapter 2), and are under review bystate agencies as part of the draft comment period (see Fact Sheet).SEPASEPA (RCW 43.21C), requires government officials to consider the environmental consequences of actions they areabout to take and consider better or less damaging ways to accomplish those proposed actions. They mustconsider whether the proposed action would have a probable significant adverse environmental impact on thenatural and built environment. This <strong>Draft</strong> EIS provides a programmatic analysis of the non-project <strong>Gorst</strong> CreekWatershed Framework & Characterization Plan and <strong>Gorst</strong> Subarea Plan. The SEPA process is more fully describedin Chapter 2 of this document.<strong>Draft</strong> | June 2013 3-241

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!