05-0621 Appeal Report
Staff Report
City of Yelm
Community Development Department
To: Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr., Hearing Examiner
From: Grant Beck, Director of Community Development
Date: July 3, 2006
Subject: Appeal of Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance APR-05-0540-YL
Appellant: Rebecca Galbreath
Location: 903 Crystal Springs Road, Yelm, WA.
Proposal: Appeal of a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance issued for the proposed McCammant four-plex units.
I. INTRODUCTION
Rebecca Galbreath appeals mitigation measures attached to a Mitigated Determination of Non-significance for a proposed site plan review to construct two four-plex multi-family dwelling
units.
II. BACKGROUND
Bryan McCammant has applied for site plan review to demolish an existing dwelling unit and construct two four-plex multi-family dwelling units. The property is zoned Moderate Density
Residential (R-6), and the proposed development is allowed in the R-6 zone, based on site plan review approval.
The City of Yelm reviewed the SEPA checklist and issued an MDNS on June 5, 2006. The MDNS included the following mitigating measures:
The developer shall mitigate transportation impacts based on the new residential P.M. peak hour trips generated by the project. The Transportation Facility Charge (TFC) shall be based
on .60 new peak hour trips per residential unit. The proponent will be responsible for a TFC of $450.00 per dwelling unit which is payable at time of building permit. Credit should
be given for the existing single-family dwelling.
Temporary erosion control systems to be approved by the City of Yelm.
The developer shall dedicate the Shoreline Jurisdiction area as open space.
The developer shall enter into an agreement with Yelm Community Schools to mitigate project impacts to the School District.
III. ISSUES
The appellant appealed the City’s issuance of the Mitigated Determination, without listing any specific condition that is being appealed, and without clear identification of potential
significant impact that should trigger the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. The following analysis will respond to the six general issues listed in the appellant’s
statement.
IV. ANALYSIS
1. How will the developer mitigate transportation impacts? Shouldn’t the mitigation be in place and approved prior to development? Shouldn’t mitigation be reviewed and accepted by
neighbors?
Chapter 15.40 Yelm Municipal Code (YMC), Concurrency Management provides measures to assure mitigation for impacts to public facilities. Using the concurrency code, it is the City’s
responsibility to review and condition site plan review approvals to assure that all respective code requirements are met. The Washington State Growth Management Act and the SEPA environmental
review requirements allow the public to review the City’s determinations to assure a public process during development review.
Specifically for traffic impacts, Section 15.40.020(B)(5) YMC lists three ways to assure concurrency. These measures include on-site frontage improvements, off-site improvements if
needed, and financial contributions in the form of a transportation facilities charge (TFC).
These items are all concurrency issues which can be implemented as part of a site plan approval, and are not required to be listed as SEPA mitigation measures. The TFC charges are listed
in the MDNS, however the on-site frontage improvements are listed as a condition of approval of the Site Plan Review application. The amount of traffic generated from the site at build
out does not require a transportation impact analysis per the City of Yelm’s Transportation Plan, and no off-site improvements were identified that were significant and attributable
to the proposal.
2. Developer claims that the quality and extent of the underground aquifer is unknown at this time. Shouldn’t there be a study to determine the extent of the aquifer prior to development?
How will the developer make sure that oils, grease, and fertilizers be kept out of the aquifer?
The Site Plan Review Committee during review of the SEPA checklist noted that the underlying aquifer is extremely sensitive. This is the case for all of the City of Yelm. Staff comments
also noted that the project will be on City sewer service, and that stormwater treatment will be pursuant to the Department of Ecology 1992 stormwater manual.
Developer claims that no waster materials will enter ground or surface water, and that all run off will be treated. How? Is there on-site treatment standards that he will be required
to install?
The applicant shows on the site plan, a proposed underground stormwater treatment facility. This final stormwater treatment plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior
to approval for construction. The City of Yelm has adopted the 1992 Department of Ecology stormwater manual, and all impervious and pervious surface areas will be treated. Again, the
site will be connected to City sewer service.
4. The developers answers to the transportation impacts are wrong. He claims that there will be 16 cars added to the site, but only 15-20 trips per day.
The applicant’s answer regarding trips per day was not computed correctly. It appears that he used the peak hour trips generated, not the daily trips generated. Staff comments on the
SEPA checklist note that there will be .6 new pm peak hour trips per unit. This equates to 4.8 new pm peak hour trips for the 8 proposed units. The City bases its trip generation numbers
on the “pm peak hour trips” listed in The Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation manual, as adopted in Table 15.40.030.B.1 YMC.
Developer claims that there are no proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts. This seems critical that the answer be yes, and those measures be addressed prior to
development given the cumulative impacts of traffic in Yelm.
Based on the City of Yelm’s concurrency code, the required frontage improvements, and the TFC charges per unit adequately mitigates the impacts from this development.
6. The parcel is 1.27 acres in an R6 zone. The site includes a creek critical area and FEMA Flood Hazard area. Critical Area Buffer for this creek is 50 to 100 ft. The 50f ft buffer
added to the critical area amounts to 0.2 acres. At 100 ft the area involved is .33 acres. These areas are no build areas and amount to 1 to 2 lots. As such, the property can only
support 6 lots by my estimation.
Section 17.06.260 YMC defines gross density as “the permissible number of dwelling units that may be developed on a specific amount of gross area, measured in number of dwelling units
per gross acre”, and Section 17.06.410 YMC defines a lot as “a platted or unplatted parcel of land unoccupied, occupied, or intended to be occupied by a principal use or building and
accessory buildings, together with all yards, open spaces, and setbacks required by this title.”
The code clearly states that density is calculated on the parcel to include all areas, including setbacks, and open spaces.
VI. CONCLUSION
The City of Yelm is the lead agency for purposes of SEPA. In this situation, the responsible official for threshold determinations is the Community Development Director [Section 14.04.030
YMC].
The Mitigated Determination of Non-significance (MDNS) appealed here is a negative threshold determination, a procedural decision under SEPA. Pursuant to Section 43.21C.075(3)(d) RCW
procedural determinations of the responsible official shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding.
Section 197.11.158 WAC (1) states “In reviewing the environmental impacts of a project and making a threshold determination, a GMA city may, at its option, determine that the requirements
for environmental analysis, protection, and mitigation measures in the GMA city’s development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable
local, state, or federal laws or rules, provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for some or all of the specific adverse environmental impacts of the project. Specifically, Section
197.11.158(5) states “If a GMA county/city’s comprehensive plan, subarea plan, or development regulations adequately address some or all of a project’s probable specific adverse environmental
impacts, as determined under subsections (1) and (2) of this section, the GMA county/city shall not require additional mitigation under this chapter for those impacts.
The Mitigated Determination of Non-significance should be upheld.
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Appeal Notice and Letter
Mitigated Determination of Non-significance, and SEPA Checklist