Loading...
Summary of Scoping Comments May 31Thurston Highlands Conceptual Master Site Plan EIS Scoping Comments Received April 25(May 26, 2006 General Comments 1 EIS and Scoping Process 1 Alternatives to be Evaluated in the EIS 3 Earth: Geology, Soils, Topography 3 Air Quality 4 Water Resources (also see Water Supply and Stormwater) 4 Wildlife, Habitat and Wetlands 5 Energy and Natural Resources 7 Noise 7 Land Use 7 Aesthetics 8 Light and Glare 9 Population Density, Rural Community Character 9 Cultural Resources 9 Transportation: Traffic Volumes and Roads 10 Transportation: Transit Service 14 Police Protection Services and Security 15 Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Aid Services 16 Schools 17 Parks, Recreation and Amenities 18 Public Services, Utilities, Infrastructure in General 19 Water Supply 19 Sewer Service: Wastewater Collection and Treatment, and Reclaimed Water 21 Stormwater 23 Solid Waste 25 Utilities: Electrical Power 25 Utilities: Natural Gas, Propane 26 Utilities: Communications 27 Local Improvement District [Killion Road] 27 Affect on Taxes 27 Affect on Jobs 28 Faith-Based Project Elements 28 General Comments Just because something can be done, doesn’t necessarily mean that it should be done. The scope of the combined projects [Tahoma Terra, Thurston Highlands, and L.I.D.] will overwhelm our previous resources and are an unwise pursuit for the City of Yelm and its neighbors: unincorporated Yelm and the City of Rainier. Is there anything that could stop this project? City management needs to be anything but “small town” in its vision and oversight of the Thurston Highlands application. Sincerest desire that the City will address all concerns with research and in fairness and integrity. The City is asked to look at this project from the highest perspective possible, and give its truest opinion. It’s very frustrating to live in a community where its local government clearly represents corporate issues versus its public. Suggest a complete hold on further building permits until a complete study, with specific and definite solutions, is available to the community. Hope there is enough concerned input to halt all proceedings until the impact of this development can be proven as viable. Infrastructure has clearly not kept up with the tremendous growth, and it is not apparent what is being constructively done to ease current traffic congestion, ensure safety, and preserve the culture of the area, not to mention what additional rapid growth will do to compound these problems. The City is urged to use temperance and vision for the future in granting new permits or allowing additional growth in lieu of the more tedious responsibility of addressing current community problems stemming from already existing congestion. It is important to know not only what each side of this debate wants but why, as well. This should be part of the decision-making equation. It should be remembered that there have been many examples where not developing turned out to be the smartest decision. EIS and Scoping Process Please start open house(s) at 7:00 PM rather than 5:00 PM. When will there be an opportunity to speak to express comments? I heard that comments and suggestions would be posted on the City’s website; I don’t see a place to post comments. Please consider the risk of identity theft; how about getting the comments typed so that personal information (including e-mail addresses) and signatures don’t appear? It would be very nice if people were able to send e-mail to City officials. Is this something that could happen? People don’t seem to be aware of this process; concerned that it’s too short. Is this the only opportunity to comment on the project? Good access to documents via the City’s website; promotes good quality and consistent participation. Outline of timeline and benchmark decisions is very well done and understandable. Easy to see where and when public input and comment is appropriate. All of the comments and concerns [posted at the May 18th public open house] are relevant. It would require quite a tome to readdress all of them. Maybe you could compile a comment sheet that people could vote on as relevant concerns. Maybe put it in the Nisqually Valley newspaper. How will environmental concerns expressed by the public be resolved? Given the City’s public statement of intent (and the public’s reliance) regarding the proposed scope of the EIS for this project [i.e., to address all elements of the environment setforth in WAC 197-11-444], any decision by the City to reduce this proposed scope should be the subject of a separate opportunity for public review and comment. The City’s specific activities related to expanded scoping should be described, especially the City’s efforts “to promote interagency cooperation.” Distribute technical reports before issuance of the Draft EIS, to invite comments in time to incorporate these in the Draft EIS. Request that the City surrender their status as responsible official. At face value, it seems that the City is the actual proponent of this project; that is to say, they want this project badly. The City, director of development, and a staff planner are too close to the developers to give a truly objective decision. Surrendering responsible official status will make this a fair process. There are many potentials for the Thurston Highlands area. Your sell to the citizenry may be better off if you allow them an opportunity to be part of the vision for what is developed. Suggest that you work with the developers to allow this to happen. Alternatives to be Evaluated in the EIS The City should require evaluation of at least one additional development alternative that is based on a significantly smaller-scale project, especially the residential and commercial components. This will enable the City and public to better evaluate the relative degree of adverse environmental impacts to all elements of the natural and built environment as a direct function of the size of the project. The City should require evaluation of alternative roadway configurations for each development alternative that are significantly different from the applicant’s “preferred” Hybrid Master Plan roadway configuration. The City should require evaluation of several transportation alternatives that would avoid a proposed major access from the Thurston Highlands project to 93rd Avenue SE. It will be important to integrate adequate environmental review on each component of the final alternative (likely to be an assimilation of components of the alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIS) to ensure that individual impacts from the various alternatives do not create larger cumulative adverse impacts when added together. The project needs to identify every transportation option possible. It may be that there is no transportation option that would allow the size of development proposed. This issue needs to be addressed. Development options are needed in the event that it is not possible to acquire all the water that would be needed to serve Thurston Highlands as currently envisioned. Earth: Geology, Soils, Topography What is the elevation of Thurston Highlands? Soil type/stormwater infiltration issues (also review those below): NRCS surficial soil mapping for the project site shows Alderwood and Everett soils. Much of the area projected to be developed as moderate to low-density residential and village center is in an area of Alderwood soils, which typically consist of 2 to 3 ft of gravelly sand overlying competent glacial till. This soil type does not accommodate stormwater infiltration very well, and generally cannot be made to perform in accordance with the Yelm Drainage Manual infiltration requirements. Development densities should be reduced in the area of Alderwood soils. Everett soil portions of the project site should be capable of infiltrating relatively large quantities of stormwater, and thus will likely be a major target for stormwater disposal. Simultaneously, however, Everett soils constitute an extreme aquifer sensitive environment. Everett soils typically occupy areas where regional aquitards or aquacludes are discontinuous, with the result that infiltrated stormwater will enter the deeper groundwater structure (locally the Advance Outwash), which contains the local area drinking water aquifer and is tributary to areas to the north. Stormwater to be infiltrated in these areas should undergo considerable extra treatment. Air Quality Best management practices for minimization of track-out and windblown dust should be required in applicable permitting. The City of Yelm and Thurston Highlands project area are located approximately 10 miles southeasterly of the Thurston County Particulate Matter Maintenance Area. Want the EIS to include the issue of air pollution being disgorged into the atmosphere from all the cars that are going to be in traffic. Children walking along the sidewalks to and from schools will be susceptible. Also, businesses along the heavy traffic routes ( every time their doors open to the public will be tainted by car pollution. Project residents may experience soil-related dust problems from the Army’s use of military ground vehicles on the Fort Lewis military reservation during the Summer and Fall seasons. Project residents may experience smoke from grenades, pots and generators, and the smell of gunpowder from the firing of blank ammunition or simunitions during training on the Fort Lewis military reservation. Water Resources (also see Water Supply and Stormwater) The City should require a rigorous analysis of all water quality and water quantity impacts of the proposed project. Given that a large part of Yelm’s Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) is under both the Berry Valley development and the proposed Thurston Highlands development, how to you plan to protect this critical resource? The increase in impervious surfaces will not allow full capacity recharge. Effective impervious surface over 10% alters the recharge regime forever. Questions that need to be answered: What is the cumulative impact of both large developments and all the smaller ones on Yelm’s CARA? How do you propose to protect the CARA from contamination? What will be the impact on available potable water if this CARA is adversely impacted, and the resultant impact on Yelm’s ability to provide potable water to its citizens? How do you propose to manage groundwater withdrawals and recharge impacts to maintain availability for drinking water sources?  Wildlife, Habitat and Wetlands Concern to “extreme concern” expressed about impacts on the environment, wetlands, wildlife, and the fragile watershed. The proposed land development is slated for an area that has an outstanding natural habitat; where are these creatures to go? Take extra efforts to protect native plants, especially the beautiful oak trees and their associated plants and animals. Oaks are part of the unique charm of Yelm. Asked wetlands consultant to review aerials from City presentation on website. Please evaluate the downstream (Thompson Creek) flooding effects of the concept being considered to “stack” water in wetlands. Who will be accountable for flooding impacts? What environmental safeguards have been implemented to preserve the existing wetlands? Wetlands on the site will certainly be affected by this project. Since there are laws governing these areas, how will the developers and the City ensure that these laws are respected? A Department of Ecology study shows that wetland mitigation projects only work about 13% of the time. Please do not let developers destroy so much land for their own pocket books. Current maps show an inordinate number of wetland acres. Request a thorough study and remapping of wetland boundaries by a fully accredited wetland scientist in order to determine once and for all where those wetlands are located. Then you can begin design patterns within the development area. If no disturbance is proposed within 300 feet of wetlands (the maximum buffer required by new joint Ecology, Corps of Engineers, EPA policies and guidance), it won’t be necessary to establish wetland ratings (per Ecology). A WDNR Forest Practices Permit will be required for site clearing. Mitigation for wetland fill or stream crossings will be required to comply with the new Ecology, Corps of Engineers, EPA policies and guidance document, Version 1, issued March 2006. From Fort Lewis’ perspective, there is a potential impact to the development from their management practices for the northern spotted owl. There is the possibility of reducing the habitat of other non-listed species. WDFW is concerned about water availability and potential impacts to instream flows, kettle wetland hydrology, and removal of wildlife habitat. WDNR Stream Typing Maps identify Thompson Creek as a Type F stream up to the eastern boundary of Thurston Highlands. WDFW will verify the stream location, typing and other characteristics during a June 2006 site visit, including the seasonal flow segment just upstream of SR-510, and the presence of a 40-ft waterfall downstream of SR-510. WDNR Stream Typing Maps designate the upper segment of Thompson Creek as Type N. WDFW strongly recommends investigating any potential impacts to downstream fish resources, instream flows, water quality and quantity that could result from consideration being given to the use of reclaimed water to augment instream flows and wetland hydrology. The WDFW Heritage and Priority Habitats and Species databases show the presence of Western blue birds within and adjacent to the subject property. These birds are listed as a state monitored species. The WDFW HPHS databases also show the presence of Western gray squirrel within and adjacent to the subject property. These squirrels are listed as a state threatened species. Habitat loss, fragmentation and road construction have been identified in the draft Washington State Recovery Plan for the Western Gray Squirrel (May 2006) as important impacts to avoid. The proposed road access to/from SR-507 may have adverse impacts to Western gray squirrel. Open areas on the site, visible on the aerial photograph, may be meadow/prairie habitats. This will be verified during a June 2006 site visit. If open areas of the site are determined to be prairie habitat, these areas will be investigated for use by Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, mazama pocket gophers, and streaked horned lark ( all recently listed as state endangered species. Additional human, traffic, and other project-associated impacts to these species and other species currently utilizing the subject property should be investigated. WDFW is concerned with the wildlife consultant’s desire to limit certain wildlife species from the site and do not support providing a wildlife corridor. The impacts of this should be investigated. WDFW recommends that a detailed fish and wildlife survey be performed for the property, to include terrestrial, riparian, and freshwater habitats (streams and wetlands). Connected habitats between uplands, wetlands and streams are important to note. Amphibian surveys are strongly recommended to determine species use and ultimately to determine buffer width needs around onsite wetlands. It may be necessary to provide over-land connections of native habitat between kettle wetlands to ensure amphibian populations are allowed to persist. Overall, WDFW recommends that impacts to freshwater habitats (instream flows downstream of the subject property, water quantity and quality, wetland hydrology), and to wildlife habitats and species (terrestrial and freshwater) be avoided or minimized to the greatest extent practicable, and that compensatory mitigation be provided for impacts that cannot be avoided. Energy and Natural Resources Construct “green” buildings; schools for sure. Noise The Army and Air Force will conduct fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft activities over the area. These activities will include propeller and jet aircraft flying at low elevations and at any time of the day or night, 365 days/year. The Army will routinely use blank ammunition, pyrotechnics, and grenade and artillery simulators in training on lands adjacent to the proposed development. Army vehicle traffic (military and logging) will occur nearby on the Fort Lewis military reservation. The Army will continue timber logging operations on land adjacent to the proposed development. Land Use Is the City of Yelm coordinating with the Rainier City Council? The impacts of this project will affect this whole area of the County. The Thurston Highlands model doesn’t show relevant streets or the existing community. The Hybrid Master Plan doesn’t even include Nisqually Meadows ( why? Isn’t this deceiving rather than realistic? Favor the concept of a planned community, but concerned that it be developed in such a way that maximizes natural open space. Favor planned development of the entire property; a superior approach to breaking-up the parcel and development of small segments at a time with no central theme or continuity. Include a small or large advanced academic campus in the development. Like the concepts presented; all promote the development of a healthy community through economic development/community development. Good alternatives for use of public spaces to create a liveable community; meets the needs of future and present residents of Yelm. Medium-density issues: Provide living units around public/park setting. Division between street side/public side/private side. Control of large enterprise use of tenant space/local business. The set-up is great. I view it as an asset to the community of Yelm. Especially impressed by the parks, shopping, etc. Favorable response to the “retail street” concept within the project; no strip malls. Preference expressed for the Urban Village concept because it will provide more open space for people and animals. Preferences for commercial uses: European café, Irish pub, walking area for retail, not the look of a strip mall. Would like to see terra-dome homes, berm homes. Review ESSB 6401 passed during the Locke administration re: encroachment on military installations (i.e., Fort Lewis). Consider potential personal safety and property damage issues along the project boundary with Fort Lewis: possibility of forest fires and wind storm tree blow-down or other arboreal debris. The Army must reserve its land for Army mitigation needs. Buildings or other structures constructed as part of the proposed development may adversely affect Army aviation operations if they result in the FAA reducing or otherwise altering airspace corridors or Gray Army Airfield approaches. Aesthetics Sightliness: Yelm is a beautiful community; I would hate to see it look like Monroe. Please leave a forest perimeter at property lines so existing residents don’t have an extreme change in view. Buffers at the extent of the project: What type? How much? Preserve as many trees as possible; retain old-growth trees. Would like to see cobblestone street “ambience.” Would like to see a beautiful streetscape, hanging baskets, outdoor cafes. Project residents will see military vehicles operating both on the ground and overhead at any time of day or night, 365 days/year. Light and Glare Please use shielded lights for street lights and for any other type of lighting so the area for residents around the project remains dark at night ( please no sky glow! What regulations have been put in place to prevent light pollution? Population Density, Rural Community Character People who live here don’t want to live in a higher-density community. Many moved here from cities, and don’t want that intensity to develop around them here. This development will mark the beginning of the end for this quiet family-oriented environment. Once pristine areas are destroyed they can never come back. This large chunk of land is the last of the rural land in the annexed City of Yelm. What a shame to see it destroyed. Unless the infrastructure could be greatly improved, proceeding with this project would be a serious violation against the people of Yelm, the surrounding area, and the environment. Who would this development benefit? Why does the City have to respond to the State mandate re: residential density? If the people want lower density, why can’t the City make this choice? Shouldn’t the existing population be taken care of first? Like better traffic control, a YMCA or Boys & Girls Club for kids and adults. Why crowd all these people into an area that doesn’t have anything to offer except crowded streets, stores and schools? Yelm voted down the proposed NASCAR track due to concerns over the negative effects it would have on the community and quality of life, yet we are looking at an even worse scenario; at least NASCAR would only occur at select times. Cultural Resources The Nisqually Tribe will provide a contact person with whom the City can discuss whether there are any known cultural resources or knowledge of Native American use of the Thurston Highlands site. The Nisqually Tribe will provide a description of what earthwork contractors should look for during construction, and can offer training on how to recognize cultural resources. The Nisqually Tribe will likely form a committee to review project documents and coordinate input to the City of Yelm. A Tribal Council election at the end of May (2006) may result in some new Council members. The Planning Department Director and Water Resources Manager will make a presentation to the Council regarding this project soon after the election. Transportation: Traffic Volumes and Roads Extremely concerned about traffic on Yelm Avenue, SR-507, 93rd Avenue SE, and traffic through Yelm, in general. What roads are planned for improvement to accommodate the increased traffic that will result from the growth in population that this project brings to the community? On a longer-term basis, does the developer and/or the City, and/or DOT have plans to construct new highways or additional lanes to existing highways in the Yelm/Rainier area? Consider the impact to SR-510 from Killion Road to Reservation Road. Have the Traffic Impact Study determine what the levels of service will be after the various stages of build-out. Don’t allow continued development when peak hour traffic reaches Level D until additional lanes are added to the highway. Extremely concerned about traffic between Yelm and Rainier. Manke Road is heavily used by people to bypass the SR-510/SR-507 intersection. This bypass traffic impacts Rainier. Please contact the City of Rainier officials about traffic management! Funnel into bypass as soon as possible. Make a sign at the front and back end of the bypass to alert drivers to the mini-bypass route to get them off the main drag. Get the Yelm City Council out in busy traffic handing out maps to folks to show them the new mini-bypass. Signs (requested above) should match the handouts. Concerned about funding/timing of bypass. Don’t assume it is a completed project by 2015. Evaluate impacts with and without the Y3 Bypass. What provisions are being made in case the Yelm Loop road is never finished (i.e., if political considerations 3 or 4 years from now are completely different with the result that funding may be curtailed)? How will the increased traffic from 5,000 new families impact SR-507 through Yelm? This number of new families means at least 10,000 additional car trips per day. These when combined with Tahoma Terra (say 2,500 trips per day) and Wal-Mart (say 8,000 trips per day) will add more than 20,000 additional car trips to the current traffic situation, which is already difficult. There are no major improvements to the present road system to absorb this additional traffic. The Y3 Loop project, when fully financed, will only come onstream in 2016. Since it is only one lane in each direction, the Y3 Loop will not resolve the coming traffic problem on SR-507. Amazed that Wal-Mart was allowed, generating 8,000 more trips through this congested town. Now 15,000 to 20,000 more are in the plans. This is just incredible. The Killion Road project will only bog down Rainier, as well. Please wait until after the bypass! The Thurston Highlands transportation plan shows a Y1 road from Tahoma Blvd to 93rd Avenue SE. This road appears to be redundant in that there is also a major access via Tahoma Blvd to SR-510. The Y1 road would only serve a small area that is just as well served by Tahoma Blvd. The Y1 road would require the purchase of additional properties, destruction of residences, and the ill-will of current landowners. Please reconsider. The suggestion to use 93rd Avenue SE for access to Thurston Highlands is not appropriate. The City already owns property on SR-507 and SR-510, and should use those access routes. Trying to purchase r.o.w. onto 93rd does not seem financially sound. In addition, it would have a tremendous impact on a dead-end road already overloaded with Yelm school buses using that entrance. If property adjacent to 93rd is in Thurston County and not owned by the City, I see no reason for the City to continually suggest and/or promote its use as an alternative access. Since you have an entrance on Berry Valley Road, maybe you could run a main highway around the perimeter of the Highlands. There is already major congestion in the area of 93rd Avenue SE from the Ramtha School of Enlightenment when students are coming and going from the school. Surely there is a better solution than routing traffic onto 93rd. Can we keep more new traffic away from 93rd? Object to the plan to widen 93rd Avenue SE 130 feet on each side of the centerline; object to any changes being done to 93rd that will change the natural environment presently enjoyed by residents on that road. The proposal to use 93rd Avenue SE as a major access route for Thurston Highlands is likely to result in significant adverse environmental and safety impacts. The current proposal for egress onto 93rd is not acceptable, nor is any egress that will impact 93rd, including using Rathbun as a future transportation corridor. Suggest looking at options for egress onto SR-507 in the area of George Road. That would put outgoing traffic nearer the currently-planned loop around Yelm. Has a combined-effect traffic analysis been done for these intersections [SR-507, SR-510, 93rd Avenue SE, Berry Valley Road] as well as the impact of the increased traffic from proposed homes? Are there other options to SR-507, Yelm Avenue, and 93rd Avenue SE for ingress and egress? Connect Y1 past 93rd to SR-510. No connection to 93rd. The City refers to Y2 being part of the traffic solution. How many parcels of land has the City purchased along that corridor? Many homes have been recently built along that area ( why are permits being issued to build homes that will only have to be purchased when the bypass goes through? Does this mean that the Y2 bypass is not that certain to be built? The amount of building permits issued with no solution in place for traffic is a major concern. The level of traffic service in Yelm is barely acceptable now. A turn-out lane onto Yelm Avenue seems inadequate at best, particularly given that the Loop will not begin construction, according to DOT brochures, until 2010(2016. Common sense certainly dictates that adding more traffic to our already overburdened roadways will not help the level of service. Traffic flows into the south part of town from any of the project egresses will eventually feed directly onto Yelm Avenue. This street’s intersections are already at LOS “D.” How will this increased congestion be addressed? Even if implemented, the Killion Road access to SR-507 will not be enough. How will the people of Yelm benefit by this additional traffic burden? How will emergency vehicles, police and fire get through town expediently? Traffic congestion indirectly decreases the potential for survival in emergency, first aid, and fire situations. Has this impact been considered? How will the children get to school on time? In original planning documents (1995(2001) for the Y1 and Y2 loops, these roadways connected directly with one another at a single intersection with SR-507. Upon overlaying the Y2 and Y1 alignments presented as part of this development, these roadways no longer line up, but intersect SR-507 at points that are approximately 1 mile apart. Observations and recommendations to be considered in the EIS: Future connection of the main Thurston Highlands thoroughfare to 93rd Avenue SE will add significant traffic to 93rd, which already has two major traffic generators located in the vicinity of the proposed 93rd connection: the Ramtha School of Enlightenment entrance, and Yelm High School bus access. The bus access will involve significant left-turn movements. The combination of these conditions will most likely overload 93rd Avenue SE, requiring an alternate route for the combined Thurston Highlands and regional traffic. The most likely alternate route would be to extend to the north and connect to SR-510 at a point further north of 93rd Avenue SE; however, this extension would not be acceptable to property owners to the north. Consequently, the Thurston Highlands arterial extension should be relocated to the west so that it connects with the existing Rathbun Road r.o.w., which would permit extension to the north along an existing r.o.w. and more suitable connection to SR-510 further from the center of Yelm. Connections of Y2 and Y1 with SR-507 do not represent the most efficient routing with respect to traffic flow around the Yelm urban area. Observations and recommendations to be considered in the EIS: In order to best serve Yelm and residents of the surrounding area, the Y2 Loop Road should be aligned with or connected to the Thurston Highlands main thoroughfare. This alignment would be consistent with the original Comprehensive Transportation Plan. This loop connection was obviously of future planning significance in 1995. The change to the post-2001 alignment is not thoroughly explained in the Yelm Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The change appears to have been made to simply accommodate the Thurston Highlands project, and ignores regional requirements. Loop roads are primarily designed to provide traffic flow around the Yelm Commercial Core, predominantly serving heavier commercial traffic, regional pass-through traffic, and outlying county resident traffic. Departure from such a major element of the original Transportation Plan to an alignment that does not effectively address regional needs should not be permitted. As such, the Y1 and Y2 alignments should be changed back to the pre-2001 alignment. Prior to final approvals, will a comprehensive traffic analysis be made to evaluate the impact of planned development within Yelm, as well as in the surrounding region over the next 5 to 10 years, and which will include impact at signalized and unsignalized intersections and on side streets? The project needs to identify every transportation option possible, study the current transportation patterns, ownership, environmental effects, and then select the most appropriate. It may be that there is no option that would allow the size of development proposed. This issue needs to be addressed also. A transportation cumulative impacts study is needed for the City of Yelm. The City should require a careful evaluation of all traffic capacity and safety impacts attributable to the proposed Thurston Highlands development to ensure that appropriate level of service standards are achieved, that all transportation-related public safety issues are fully addressed, and that all local and regional transportation impacts attributable to the proposed development are avoided or fully mitigated. Infrastructure (including transportation system improvements) will determine development phasing. Plan for ways to keep more trips internal to the project. Plan for pedestrian circulation to minimize vehicle trips. Develop trip origin/destination projections for the project. Update the City’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan to address phased development of Thurston Highlands. Coordinate Transportation planning with WSDOT, Thurston County, and neighboring cities and towns: circulate the project TIA outline as soon as available for agency review and input. Take traffic counts at study area intersections while schools are in session. Develop criteria for determining when roadway and intersection improvements are needed, and proportionate-share costs. I-5 Marvin Road/SR-510 Interchange Phase 2: If WSDOT does not fund (or contribute significantly to) upgrades to this interchange, impacts from outside Lacey’s UGA could have a potential financial impact on Lacey. There have been concerns in the past about the TRPC model. It was producing some recognized discrepancies, particularly in outskirts areas like Yelm and Rainier. A post-model calibration process will be required. Need a Thurston County-wide transportation model with expanded thinking re: the location of employment centers, commercial and recreational draws to effectively evaluate background traffic and trip distribution. The EIS should evaluate alternative(s) for additional points of access to serve the development. Coordinate design of the project road crossing of the Yelm/Tenino Trail with the Thurston County Parks Department. Transportation: Transit Service Coordinate development planning with Intercity Transit service. Transit service planning will rely on information to be generated in the Traffic Study. Route configurations will be influenced by traffic volumes, turning movements, location of traffic control lights (especially at intersections with SR-507 and SR-510), street widths, potential for locating bus stops on arterials or smaller collector streets, and location of a potential park-and-ride lot. For park-and-ride lot planning, consider whether transit service will remain on the street, or whether buses will come into a platform area off-street. Consider the co-location of a park-and-ride lot with amenities like shelters, lighting, pedestrian and bicycle access, and proximity to a commercial zone where daily parking and proximity to services (grocery, day care, restaurants, offices) can help reduce the number of separate vehicle trips. Roadway speed limits within the development will be of interest in co-locating bus stops with crosswalks. Coordinate with Intercity Transit for decisions re: the appropriate use of “pull-outs” or “bulb-outs.” Encourage pedestrian pathways that make it easier to traverse neighborhoods, including “safe pathways” to both public schools and bus stops. ADA accessibility is also paramount to providing good bus service. Planning should include sidewalks and bus stops designed with 6-inch curbing to accommodate newer low-floor buses that are now standard within the transit industry. Police Protection Services and Security Update the Capital Facilities Plan to add manpower over time to maintain existing levels of service, based on a development factor of approximately 250 housing starts per year for 20 to 30 years. The number of schools to be built within the development will affect police manpower needs. Explore future options to aid in law enforcement; e.g., electronic monitoring and alarm devices. Explore national trends, and experiences in other Washington State jurisdictions, that may indicate development patterns that minimize the need for police protection services. (Police Chief to provide information sources.) Neighborhoods with front doors on the sidewalk, parking in the rear are favorable to law enforcement. Explore Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) measures, especially associated with schools and activity centers. Develop Covenants and Restrictions that will control nuisance factors within the development; implement these through a strong homeowners association. Implement Neighborhood Watch programs. The Yelm Police Department budget includes hiring a Crime Prevention Officer by 2008 (with or without Thurston Highlands) to work with neighborhoods and citizens to implement deterrents. Coordinate the roadway access proposal with the Police Department: 1) minimize the number of points of entry and exit as an aid to law enforcement; 2) curved streets cause drivers to slow down; 3) provide continuity between areas, even a trail or pathway. Number roads within the development differently than they are numbered in town, for clarity during emergency response. City code does not presently provide for mitigation fees for police protection services; however, these can be imposed as a SEPA condition of project approval. Plan for a police station within the development (not a separate precinct), perhaps co-located with a fire station. Plan for alternate modes of transportation for police patrols within the development (e.g., bicycles, golf carts). New patrol districts will likely be created, and the daily schedules of police personnel will likely be restructured when service is extended to Thurston Highlands. Consider capital improvements within the development that would be of benefit to the Police and Fire Departments; e.g., a driver training track (EVOC), an indoor firing range, and/or a joint training facility. Presently have to send officers long distances at considerable expense for these types of training. Site security and deterrents to theft during construction will be the developer’s responsibility, coordinated with the Yelm Police Department; plan to install 24-hr surveillance cameras. Increased density brought about by the proposed development may increase the problem of unauthorized access on Army lands. Due to the nature of Army training and security issues, access to Army land (i.e., the Fort Lewis military reservation) is controlled. Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Aid Services Update the Capital Facilities Plan to add manpower over time to maintain existing levels of service, based on a development factor of approximately 250 housing starts per year for 20 to 30 years. Fire District #2 (Yelm) presently responds to approximately 1,000 calls per year for fire protection and emergency medical aid (75% to 80% basic life support) ( approximately 200 calls per year per 1,000 people. If this ratio of demand is representative of what could be expected with the Thurston Highlands resident population, the demand for service could approximately triple. In 2005, fire protection and emergency medical aid service vehicles traveled approximately 3,000 miles per month. This could approximately triple if the Thurston Highlands development were to generate a comparable demand for service. [Noted in relation to fuel costs, and shortening the useful life of vehicles.] Explore national trends, and experiences in other Washington State jurisdictions, that may indicate development patterns that minimize travel time, distance or increase efficiency in other ways related to the provision of fire protection and emergency medical aid services. (Fire Chief to provide information sources.) The more buildings within the development that are sprinklered, the better the reduction in demand for fire protection services. The presence of a 24-hour walk-in medical clinic within the project, a place where EMTs could transport patients, would save an enormous amount of travel time and expense compared to trips to the hospital in Olympia. Plan for a fire station within the development: a substation with quarters, a day room and office area, a fire engine and aid unit, one additional bay for future equipment; perhaps co-located with a police station. Industry-standard criteria for when a new fire station is required include: call volume for a particular service area exceeds 400 calls annually; response time within the specific response area exceeds the established service level goals more than 50% of the time. Thurston Highlands will trigger the need for a new fire station. The need for a new fire engine (“pumper”) meeting the requirements of NFPA 1901 will be based on state or national criteria that require the pumper to be located within 2 to 5 driving miles of residential development to maintain a Class 8 rating, or lower (i.e., better). Yelm currently has a Class 7 rating. Because approximately 75% of all emergency responses are medical in nature, it would be more efficient to operate an aid unit (if staff are available) than a fire engine for these responses. Consider capital improvements within the development that would be of benefit to the Fire and Police Departments; e.g., a joint training facility. Presently have to send firefighters long distances at considerable expense for this training. The fire impact fee adopted in 2005 must be updated to address the capital needs identified above. The code provides for mitigation to be paid in other forms; e.g., donating a fire station site, assistance with the cost of construction, assistance with the cost of updating the Capital Facilities Plan. Revenue generation timing (from taxes) vs. timing for increased demand in service: have been playing catch-up in recent years. Plan to have a fire truck onsite during construction, before fire flow is available to the site. Schools The Yelm/Rainier School District boundary goes right through the site. The majority of the residential portion of the site [shown on the conceptual site plan] is within the Rainier School District. How will this be addressed? Will Yelm get the tax dollars and Rainier the students? Consider a more equitable distribution of the potential tax base between school districts. How will the City of Yelm provide for the increased demand on both the Yelm and Rainier School Districts? Who is going to pay for all of these improvements? How are we going to provide adequately for all of these new students generated by these housing developments? The $430,000 assessment to the School District will simply be passed back along to the taxpayers. This does not seem fair. It’s important to provide schools for families that move in, and that impact fees are assessed to relieve the burden from taxpayers. Are plans clear as to how to school the many new students who will come into this development? Five elementary schools for 400 school kids (each) will be needed. The current cost to construct an elementary school (without land costs) is approximately $10 million. One middle school for 600 to 800 school kids will be needed. The current cost to construct a middle school (without land costs) is approximately $22 million. There may not be a need for a high school within the development, due to the proximity of the new high school for which construction is nearly complete; Thurston Highlands is projected to generate demand for one-half of a high school. The current cost to construct a high school (without land costs) is approximately $50 million. Provide land (serviced by infrastructure) to be dedicated to school districts to mitigate the impact on capital facilities, to satisfy the concurrency requirements of GMA. Discuss funding mechanisms for school structures, given the direct impact of the project on the capital facilities of schools. Show designated school sites on the site plan within residential areas. It is not yet clear what portion of the project will be within the Yelm Community Schools District and the Rainier School District. The districts welcome the opportunity to discuss with the project applicant appropriate locations for schools and a proportionate-share funding mechanism for construction. Revisit road access to provide arterial access [for school bus transportation] south to 118th Avenue SE and Manke Roads. Make provisions for sidewalks within the project, [school] bus turn-around areas, [school] bus shelters, and appropriate lighting. The districts welcome the opportunity to coordinate with the project applicant regarding transportation issues for those students that will not be within walking distance of schools located within the project. Parks, Recreation and Amenities Very supportive of the proposed recreation area, multiple ball fields, swimming pool(s). Other features would like to see: Special events, festivals Arts Center for visual and performing arts, educational component Summer theater, music camp YMCA, community center, and/or service center One community park for every 600 families Bicycle trails, walking paths, nature trails Bridle trails Waterfalls, water features Covered recreational facilities Daycare center Farmer’s market Community gardens, pea patches Livestock, community-raised, sustainable farming; a co-op farm Organic, community-share farm program (CS Association) Public Services, Utilities, Infrastructure in General The City of Yelm does not have the infrastructure in-place to handle the current population. I see no plan to handle an increase of 10,000 to 15,000 more people. The traffic and services are not in-place to handle this. These 6,000 homes will bring a huge strain on our small police and fire department, increase traffic to an unbearable level, overcrowd our schools and completely change the face of our community (not for the better). Extremely concerned about impact on services. Is there an Emergency Management Plan for this development? How will the City of Yelm provide for the increased demand of police, fire and emergency services? Who will foot the bill? How will Yelm finance and maintain water, sewer, roads, schools, police, etc. for 6,000 + new houses [Tahoma Terra + Thurston Highlands]? Water Supply How much water will be needed? Where will it come from? How large are the wells going to be? Very concerned about the sufficiency of the water supply for another 15,000 to 20,000 people. How is the City able to guarantee this? What if the tests are wrong? If they say there isn’t sufficient water supply, then what happens to this whole proposal? What aquifer would this development be drawing from, and what impact would this have on all surrounding private wells? Two years ago the Washington State Geologist said the Nisqually Aquifer was at its limit for the amount of water it could supply. Where will the water come from? My well is slow to fill in the summer as it is; what will it be like if there are 5,000 more housing units out there drawing on the aquifer in addition to those already on it? What will happen when those homes are built, and Yelm all of a sudden does not have water? Why would somebody buy this property before they knew if there is enough water to serve it? If there is not enough water, how do you propose to acquire it? How can this much water be provided without impacting existing wells and water supplies (County residents and neighboring towns and cities)? What is the plan for not affecting the water table, drinking water quantity in Rainier? Suggest beginning an aquifer drawdown study. This aquifer supports existing wells, both in the City and outside the City limits, and probably water quantity in the Nisqually River. An on-going or completed study measures the impacts of aquifer drawdown on the river. If that study is not sufficient to answer the questions of impact to not only the river but also to other area wells, then the City or proponents need another more comprehensive study for this EIS. Are the pump tests really drawing the aquifer down in the same amount if would take to serve 15,000 more people? Yelm has substandard water quality now; a lot of people have to buy their drinking water. Concerned about trying to serve more. How can potable water be supplied to new development when Yelm’s wells do not meet water quality standards? Since drinking water is solely from area wells, it is obvious that the risk of polluting our drinking water is growing and will only be multiplied by the contamination of groundwater from this development. How will this be controlled? The assessment of this is imperative. Since Yelm’s drinking water is solely from area wells, risk management decisions in the future will require more complex assessments of the vulnerability of a water supply source to unregulated contaminants, and an analysis of the appropriate combination of treatment processes in the context of water quality uncertainties to meet both current and future hazards arising due to these contaminants, taking cost into consideration. It becomes imperative that the risk of not only continued contamination but the exacerbation of groundwater contamination from this development be assessed. Take care about the aquifers. What is the impact on available potable water if the Critical Aquifer Recharge Area is adversely impacted? Where are the water rights for these properties coming from? Are the [water rights] in-place now, or are they being secured as development is completed in stages? Will these [water right] costs be included in the Local Improvement District? Water right applications filed in the early 1990s are pending for the City’s entire UGA, not just Thurston Highlands. The City currently has rights to 600 cubic feet to serve their existing population. Will need an additional 1,200 to 1,800 cubic feet to serve the Thurston Highlands population. Update the City’s Comprehensive Water Plan to address phased development of Thurston Highlands. Additional City well development is needed to serve Thurston Highlands. Well investigations are on-going on the property now; water rights are required. Investigate affect on other well users before development approval Model water supply, demand, and distribution City-wide, plus to serve Thurston Highlands. Examine alternatives for water system infrastructure (size, location, types of systems). Availability of infrastructure (utilities and transportation) will determine development phasing. Determine level of phased development that will trigger requirements for new system components. Consider infrastructure maintenance costs; can anything be done with system design to minimize maintenance costs? Plan for compatibility between new and existing systems. Sewer Service: Wastewater Collection and Treatment, and Reclaimed Water Since we do not have a treatment center, will this reuse water be going directly into the drinking water aquifer? And if not, where will it be draining? What would be in place to remove chemicals, medications and other materials from the wastewater? Where will the sewage be treated? The existing plant is not big enough to handle this many more homes. If another sewage treatment plant is required, where will it be located? How will the increased demands on the wastewater be handled? How will the additional costs be handled? How will the increased demand on the City’s water reclamation be served to adequately process the consumption from these additional homes? Impression that the Yelm reclamation project uses 100% of the reclaimed water. Questions: How often has the reclaimed water overflow into the [Centralia Power] canal and into the Nisqually River been used? How would an additional 5,000 homes change the current “overflow” situation? Would you publicly release the permits that have been granted [for this overflow] during the past five or six years? How will sewage be disposed of so as not to increase well pollution? If the plan for wastewater is to reintroduce it to the site as “reuse” water via injection wells, it should be noted that the treatment facility does not remove such things as chemicals and medications, especially hormones (most treatment facilities don’t remove these). The water supply being approved for residents [of Thurston Highlands] will at some point in time be unsuitable. Will the developer and the City inform prospective buyers of this situation? How will surrounding areas, such as Olympia, be safe from pollution when underground aquifers supply their potable water? How can residents be assured that sewage released in wetlands will not become standing in the rainy season? It is understood that sanitary waste from the project site will be treated at the existing City of Yelm treatment plant in the initial phases of construction, and potentially at a new Thurston Highlands regional treatment plant in the future. As part of both processes, it is understood that treated effluent generated by the newly-developed area will be disposed of as reuse water within the development area. Future trends in the City of Yelm appear to be to inject reuse water directly into the drinking water aquifer via injection wells. The drinking water aquifer will also be receiving treated stormwater. The combination of these recharge sources that will be less pure than natural recharge sources will, over time, degrade the quality of drinking water in the downstream aquifer flow area. Present sanitary treatment technologies do not remove medications contained in the wastewater stream, with adverse impacts in receiving waters. Observations and recommendations to be considered in the EIS: Reuse water should not be injected into the subgrade via injection wells. Disposal should make use of existing water bodies, man-made ponds and lakes, as well as irrigation of non-residential and non-school lawn and landscape areas. Install monitoring wells downstream of the disposal area and perform standard water quality testing and testing for medications on a monthly basis to ensure preservation of the existing water quality of downstream properties. Update the City’s Comprehensive Sewer Plan to address phased development of Thurston Highlands. Update the City’s Reclaimed Water Use Plan. Examine alternatives for sewer system infrastructure (size, location, types of systems). Additional wastewater treatment plant(s) needed? If so, where? Examine alternatives for reclaimed water use (effluent from wastewater treatment process; e.g., infiltration for groundwater recharge, irrigation, fire fighting water source, fire suppression sprinkler water source. Availability of infrastructure (utilities and transportation) will determine development phasing. Determine level of phased development that will trigger requirements for new system components. Consider infrastructure maintenance costs can anything be done with system design to minimize maintenance costs? Plan for compatibility between new and existing systems. Transition service through Tahoma Terra for first phase(s) of Thurston Highlands. The Army will be unable to provide wastewater treatment facilities for this project. Stormwater General concerns about how stormwater runoff, quantity and quality will be handled, particularly with regard to Thompson Creek. Without the trees and brush to absorb and slow down the rate of runoff during rains, downstream properties will be flooded again. Who will be accountable? Can anything be done about Anderson Dairy blocking culverts, causing (or worsening) Thompson Creek flooding during the winter? Water overflows 93rd Avenue SE, blocking access to homes for which there is no other access. The dairy leaves culverts blocked on their property all year around, so water accumulates for their cattle to drink. The culverts need to be cleaned out or enlarged. What safeguards have been put in place with regard to the pollution of Thompson Creek from stormwater runoff and residential chemical pollution? The City should require a rigorous analysis of stormwater runoff affecting Thompson Creek, the impact of the proposed project on the Thompson Creek drainage area, and all groundwater impacts related to the proposed project. With the poor caliber of drainage already evident, inadequately-draining soils on the Thurston Highlands site will tremendously add to the flooding conditions that already exist along Thompson Creek. The stormwater infiltration issue seems to be unclear. The developer indicates that most of it can be reabsorbed by the site; independent analysis indicates this is not the case. How will this issue be resolved? The City has apparently provided an initial design directive to the applicant to infiltrate all stormwater from the development, as there is no surface watercourse in the vicinity of the project that could sustain surface release. NRCS surficial soil mapping for the project site shows Alderwood and Everett soils. Observations and recommendations to be considered in the EIS: Much of the area [shown on the conceptual site plan] projected to be developed as moderate to low-density residential and a village center is in an area of Alderwood soils, which typically consist of 2 to 3 ft of gravelly sand overlying competent glacial till. This soil type does not accommodate stormwater infiltration very well, and generally cannot be made to perform in accordance with Yelm Drainage Manual infiltration requirements. Stormwater runoff from areas of Alderwood soils would have to be transported to an area where infiltration can be accomplished; i.e., to the Everett soil area that divides the easterly and westerly halves of the property. The stormwater conveyance system would have to be about 4,000 ft long. It is clear that Alderwood soils will not support proposed development densities; therefore, development densities in the area of this soil type should be reduced. Everett soil portions of the project site should be capable of infiltrating relatively large quantities of stormwater, and thus will likely be a major target for stormwater disposal. Simultaneously, however, Everett soils constitute an extreme aquifer-sensitive environment. Everett soils typically occupy areas where regional aquitards or aquacludes are discontinuous, with the result that infiltrated stormwater will enter the deeper groundwater structure (locally the Advance Outwash), which contains the local area drinking water aquifer and is tributary to areas to the north. If stormwater is to be disposed of in the Everett soils located on this site, it should receive considerable extra treatment; e.g., in the form of a two-element treatment train or Stormwater Management brand compost filters. Per the Yelm Drainage Manual, the hydroperiods of wetlands on the project site need to be preserved. Observations and recommendations to be considered in the EIS: Alderwood soils with shallow depth to glacial till convey considerable stormwater via interflow to local wetlands. Interruption of this process by conveying stormwater to disposal areas in Everett soils that provide higher infiltration rates (if proposed) would remove interflow from the wetlands and imbalance their hydroperiod. If stormwater from Alderwood soil areas is to be disposed in Everett soil areas, all wetland hydroperiods should be established and measures included in the stormwater design to maintain these hydroperiods. Large regional storm ponds should be avoided. Numerous small ponds should be used so as to spread the reintroduction of runoff into the ground over larger areas. Project stormwater considerations and recommendations as they relate to Thompson Creek: Stormwater infiltration facilities should not be located within 300 feet of Thompson Creek so as to maintain some degree of interflow transit time prior to infiltrated runoff reaching the creek. Direct input of runoff to Thompson Creek should not be permitted. Flow data in Thompson Creek should be collected over the next two wet seasons along with local rainfall data to provide input to a hydrologic model for the project area. A hydrologic model should be developed for the Thurston Highlands property, calibrated using the collected data for use in predicting the impacts of the development on Thompson Creek flows. A NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit will be required for logging, and for stormwater management during construction. During construction, the applicant will be required to comply with the current Ecology manual for stormwater detention and water quality treatment (per WDOE). Depending on the complexity of the site development proposal, this site may require an Individual Construction Stormwater Permit (as opposed to a General Permit). If impacts to streams and wetlands are substantially avoided, this will increase the likelihood that the project will meet the requirements of a General Permit. The developed-condition stormwater management system can follow whatever design manual the City requires (per WDOE). Investigate stormwater infiltration for groundwater recharge. Consider seasonal stormwater retention for use to augment Thompson Creek flow. Resolve Thompson Creek seasonal flooding problems due to blocked or insufficiently-sized downstream culverts. Army lands (i.e., the Fort Lewis military reservation) cannot be used as a stormwater runoff recipient. Solid Waste Unauthorized dumping is a significant problem on Fort Lewis. The increased population density brought about by the proposed development may exacerbate this problem. Utilities: Electrical Power Puget Sound Energy (PSE) has determined that there is capacity to serve the future growth [associated with Thurston Highlands] through its transmission and distribution systems. PSE will serve Thurston Highlands from the existing Yelm Substation (16300 Railway Road SE). In order to meet on-going development demands, PSE may install an additional transformer at this substation, contained within the existing substation footprint. The need for a new electrical substation (contemplated south of Thurston Highlands on SR-507) was identified through PSE’s long-range planning for general area growth conducted as part of the GMA. Based on available information, the project is estimated to require a 25 MVA substation. Consideration should be given to locating the new substation within Thurston Highlands. If sited within the development, the substation would include construction of transmission lines. Electrical distribution facilities for the proposed development will be constructed through an underground distribution system. If there will be any bridge crossings, coordinate attaching lines to these or boring beneath the stream. The underground distribution system will be implemented through Electric Tariff G ( Schedule 73. This tariff does not include PSE’s transmission or substation facilities. Centralia Utilities is agreeable to working with the project proponent to relocate their overhead electrical transmission line to follow the boundary of the Thurston Highlands development area. The EIS may examine electrical service provider options: PSE or Centralia Utilities. Plan for the siting of facilities and easements. Utilities: Natural Gas, Propane As part of Puget Sound Energy’s long-range planning program, natural gas improvements have been constructed in the Yelm area to meet existing and future demands. Example: recent completion of the installation of an 8-inch natural gas main along Longmire Road to accommodate existing and anticipated growth in the southwestern area of the City [where Thurston Highlands is proposed]. Based on available information, PSE has determined that there is available capacity to serve the Thurston Highlands development through its natural gas distribution system. PSE anticipates customary natural gas mains and services to be constructed throughout the development. If there will be any bridge crossings, coordinate attaching lines to these or boring beneath the stream. Anticipate greater detail (e.g., a load analysis) to be developed during the EIS process to refine infrastructure elements needed. The EIS may examine natural gas and propane options, as well as service provider options. Propane service to the development would require installing onsite storage tanks (multiples of 30,000-gallon tanks) and underground lines. Tank installation could be above ground, underground, or mounded. Consideration may be given to examining in the EIS the option of onsite power generation using direct-drive gas turbines powered by propane. Plan for the siting of facilities and easements. Utilities: Communications The telephone company would need to set small offices (node locations) at probably two locations on the site (20 ft x 20 ft) in which to install communications equipment. Service lines would be extended from these. Sites should be near the boulevard, but not necessarily on the boulevard. The EIS may examine options for communications service providers: Ycom, Comcast, Digiteria. Plan for the siting of facilities and easements. Local Improvement District [Killion Road] Who in the City will be responsible for administering/maintaining the LID? Is this person appointed by the City Council? Does their salary come out of the City Fund or the LID? How many hours will they be required to work? What are their benefits? It is my understanding that the accumulation of LID assessments eventually leads to the sale of bonds to investors. Questions: Who will be handling the administration of these bonds? Which financial institution? Is this accomplished through bidding or through appointment? If by appointment, who makes this decision? Will there be a bond counsel, underwriters, financial advisors? How much will this cost? Are these costs included in the assessments to property owners? Have property owners been advised that these costs are included in their assessments? Are the property owners aware that to incur this debt may result in a lien on their property if the assessment is not paid? If the loan is in default, is the City responsible for the payment? Can the City take over ownership of the defaulted property? Will these documents be available to homeowners for review before consent and signing? How will challenges to assessments be resolved? To whom should these challenges be addressed in writing? Affect on Taxes How much of my tax dollars will go to support this development? Would this project change the tax for the community? How will the taxes change for the citizens who already live here? Even with the LID working correctly, the infrastructure required to support this number of new people will require some adjustment to taxes on existing residents as well as the new ones. What is the projection on this? During public discussion of the Wal-Mart store proposal, the City indicated that it didn’t want to become a bedroom community, since revenues from residential areas don’t produce the tax revenue required to support themselves with infrastructure. Please advise as to where the revenue to support the infrastructure for the 5,000 additional homes in this project will come from. Affect on Jobs The economic development report commissioned by the City last year was heralded by City government because it justified further development of big-box and other retail facilities in order to capture “retail dollar leakage.” Unfortunately, the greater leakage from Yelm is “income leakage.” Yelm doesn’t provide its present population with adequate opportunities. It appears that all that will be provided even within Thurston Highlands is fast food chains, convenience outlets, drug stores, and big-box retail stores. Where will the quality jobs come from? The master plans show only minimal space for “commercial” development. Two of the alternatives shown at the open house only allocated about 1.5% of space for commercial uses. This could be an opportunity for the City to provide for and attract quality commercial businesses, research facilities, medical facilities, etc. that might actually add to the character of the City, generate revenue, and provide quality jobs for people in the area. Jobs within the development would offer new residents the advantage of not having to commute long distances to work. Faith-Based Project Elements College Street Christian Church of Lacey intends to start and build a satellite church in Yelm. We may be interested in building this church and facility in this development. Thus far, the only input outside of the developers is some fellow with a vision for a Christian-based community. If you offer him a table at the open house, why not offer a table for others? I’m told that recruitment for residents in Thurston Highlands will be slanted to encourage “Christians” only to apply. This is in direct opposition to our Country’s non-discrimination on the basis of religion. What will be done about this?