The Port of Olympia is considering allowing Panattoni Development Company to begin the development of the 29-acre South Sound Commerce Center without a habitat conservation plan.
The port currently has an option lease agreement with the company, giving the company the exclusive right to enter into a ground lease for almost 200 acres of land in what is called the New Market Industrial Campus.
But the project has been contingent upon the completion of a habitat conservation plan, which the port is jointly working on with Tumwater, as the property is considered gopher habitat.
The plan, if approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, would allow for development in areas where there are species listed under the Endangered Species Act.
The initial terms of the port and Panattoni’s option lease agreement assumed the plan would be completed by 2022. Delays on the plan also meant setbacks for Panattoni’s project, but that is changing.
Warren Hendrickson, the port’s director of operations, told the Port of Olympia Commission on Monday, Feb. 24, that at Panattoni’s own expense, the company identified two parcels, which are gopher-free and should be exempt from the habitat conservation plan.
“Panattoni, at its own expense, surveyed the option property (and) determined whether or not there was any particular property within its option to parcel that would be gopher-free and would allow development without (a habitat conservation plan). In fact, they have discovered there are two such parcels right now that are, in fact, gopher-free,” Hendrickson said.
The two parcels are the very same property which the South Sound Commerce Center is to be constructed on. The other parcel is another 29-acre property called the Center Street Commerce Center, which the website for South Sound Commerce Center describes as its second phase.
Hendrickson said the city would have to certify the two parcels as gopher-free and the project’s final site plan should also reflect the same.
To reflect these changes on the option lease agreement, port staff is recommending an amendment that would exempt the two parcels from requiring a habitat conservation plan.
“Almost 50 acres is not subject to the (habitat conservation plan), so therefore we can begin to execute the purpose of the option agreement and initiate development, which was the goal. By doing so, we will increase revenue to the port earlier than expected, increase local employment and increase tax revenue to the city of Tumwater,” Hendrickson said.
The amendment would also modify the option lease agreement so the rest of the property to be leased will be dependent on the completion of the habitat conservation plan. The port has previously tied the contract to specific dates they assumed the plan would be complete.
The commission would not vote on the proposed amendment until March 10.
Hendrickson reminded the commission that approving the amendment would not mean the immediate approval of an actual ground lease, which staff aims to present to the commission in April should the commissioners approve the proposed amendment.
Mike Reid, the port’s director of community and economic development, highlighted the various financial and economic benefits of the project.
Once a ground lease has been formalized, the port would earn $51,000 per month just for the parcel where the South Sound Commerce Center would be built. Panattoni is also paying a $14,934 good faith cash deposit once the amendment has been approved and a $4,335 monthly payment for the rest of the land that will remain under the option lease agreement.
Reid added that Tumwater would earn $1.22 million just in city fees for the development of the South Sound Commerce Center.
The revenue includes traffic impact fees, mitigation fees for Interstate 5 and Tumwater Boulevard improvements, and building permit fees. In terms of taxes, Tumwater would earn around $496,500 in property tax annually and $602,093 in construction sales tax.
Reid also mentioned the project would bring several employment opportunities. While tenants have not been fully identified, tenants from the following sectors are anticipated: industrial distribution and warehousing, e-commerce, light manufacturing, and technology or life sciences.
Despite the economic boon the project promises, local residents have long expressed their opposition to the project due to environmental reasons.
According to the project’s formal site plan, Panattoni plans to remove all trees within the 29-acre property to achieve requirements set by the city’s water runoff and groundwater requirements. The company stated it would replant 1,050 trees on the property.
As Reid spoke highly of the project’s economic benefit, Commissioner Sarah Montano asked about its direct benefits to the community given there were talks of having a walking path.
Hendrickson said that component of the project was supposed to be included in a development agreement between Panattoni and Tumwater, which never came to fruition.
“As a result, there was no other requirement within the basic agreement itself to provide that. It was going to be subject to an amendment, and it was conditional upon the city and the port and the developer coming to terms, and that did not happen,” Hendrickson said.
Still, Reid assured the committee that the conversation with Panattoni about having public amenities is in a “very positive space.”
“While we don't have it immediately in writing, I do feel that the conversation with Panattoni, to be able to highlight those or address those as we move forward, that door feels very open to me right now,” Reid said.
Commissioner Jasmine Vasavada also expressed concern that there is nothing to keep the development accountable to any sort of vision.
She mentioned the commission has never adopted the New Market Industrial Campus master plan despite being worked on by two previous sets of commissioners. The plan also envisioned the creation of a master plan for "district four,” an area that encompasses the campus, which also never happened.
“There is nothing holding the broader development accountable to any specific vision because it's in the private sector. I just want to underscore this conversation about things like a ball field, a buffer from the school area, retention of the densest trees,” Vasvada said.
“These were things that were part of what was envisioned in that district ... that have no embodiment in reality. There is no lever I'm aware of for us other than our partnership with Panattoni and the desire to do it,” she continued.
11 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
BobJacobs
I fear JOLT is becoming a fan and/or apologist for the Port. That would be too bad.
In this case, it seems like planned public amenities didn't materialize. And there is no mention of the salary structure of the jobs that will be created on the property. Will they at least match the current level for primary sector jobs?
We need more balance and analysis in the reporting.
Bob Jacobs
Tuesday, March 4 Report this
Southsoundguy
We are king to become the Kent Valley. Abolish the port.
Tuesday, March 4 Report this
Southsoundguy
Going*
Tuesday, March 4 Report this
Tamioly
Another planning failure- the cart before the horse.
Wednesday, March 5 Report this
Qphillips
I think this is a balanced article. The community benefits are spelled out clearly. Jobs, tax revenue, lease revenues etc.How are citizens going to find work if there are no new jobs? Everything is a trade off in these matters. The developer has agreed to replant over 1000 trees. Looks like much thought went into this project.
Wednesday, March 5 Report this
GFelsen
It’s interesting to note those who consistently criticize the Port for not being profitable and putting a tax burden on the community are always ready to criticize or oppose any development or profitability efforts.
This project makes a lot of sense, especially considering its strong potential for job creation and tax revenue. It also has a relatively low environmental impact compared to most options.
Wednesday, March 5 Report this
Boatyarddog
Sounds to me The Pro port Crowd didn't Really listen to commissioners statements...
"Commissioner Jasmine Vasavada also expressed concern that there is nothing to keep the development accountable to any sort of vision.
She mentioned the commission has never adopted the New Market Industrial Campus master plan despite being worked on by two previous sets of commissioners. The plan also envisioned the creation of a master plan for "district four,” an area that encompasses the campus, which also never happened.
“There is nothing holding the broader development accountable to any specific vision because it's in the private sector. I just want to underscore this conversation about things like a ball field, a buffer from the school area, retention of the densest trees,” Vasvada said.
“These were things that were part of what was envisioned in that district ... that have no embodiment in reality. There is no lever I'm aware of for us other than our partnership with Panattoni and the desire to do it,” she continued.
Wednesday, March 5 Report this
Boatyarddog
The Same has been true in past dealing with P.O.O.
Wednesday, March 5 Report this
Boatyarddog
At The Least Commissioner Vasavada is keeping the public aware of Port Agenda... which I would commend her for Having seen the Port take advantage of The Public in the recent past.
Wednesday, March 5 Report this
fuzzyland
Did anyone ask the gophers? The requirement for a HCP places a hardship on every private land owner who wants to do anything with their property. I am not convinced that the promises of benefits from this project should override the obligation to follow the law.
Thursday, March 13 Report this
LindaFretts
Well heck, if the criteria for project approval is merely that it is economically beneficial, then why bother with habitat conservation plans at all? Or any permits?
The facts are that all trees will be removed, and the footprint for this 29.27-acre project leaves less than 3 acres of pervious surface. Most of the 1050 trees are ornamental with the bulk of the 'native tree species' being crammed into the 1.46 acre "Tree Tract'. The 'Walking Path" within the "Tree Tract" mentioned is laughable as it is not even 500' long. Okay to stretch your legs on a break, but the only beneficiaries, at best, will be the employees who bother to leave the building...and maybe a few of the multitudes of displaced birds and other animals. The track at the middle school is longer.
The Port is chomping at the bit to develop, build out and increase revenue...justifying more development and more revenue. They should stop trying to sugar-coat their motivations as a benefit to the community.
4 days ago Report this