Opening Statement SEPAIt has been a struggle to prepare for this report as the Yelm Commerce Group has yet, other than member testimony heard yesterday, to provide any analysis or comment on either the environmental
information submitted by Wal-Mart or the Mitigated Determination of Non-significance ultimately issued by myself in my role as the City’s Irresponsible Official. So, as the ‘dueling
experts’ portion of the hearing begins, I see the City’s role starting today as providing a framework for the Examiner’s analysis of the information that will be provided through the
kabuki dance of the expert witnesses.
Towards this end, Perry Shea will be providing background information on the City’s review of the traffic analysis and I will try to address some of the testimony from yesterday.
To begin, I take deep exception to Don McCullough’s comments yesterday that the Examiner should require an Environmental Impact Statement in order to allow an adequate comment period.
During the two week comment and week long appeal period after the issuance of the MDNS, the City did not receive a single comment on the findings or conclusions of the MDNS from anyone
other than consulted government agencies. Neither Mr. McCullough nor the Yelm Commerce Group submitted any evidence at that time that the MDNS was not appropriate.
As I stated yesterday, I waited almost 2 ½ months after the application was complete before I issued the MDNS. The traffic study was available for review and comment during this entire
time. I waited in order to give ample time for the public to submit comments. I specifically held off issuing the MDNS after the Yelm Commerce Group said that they had retained a traffic
consultant. I invited them to submit their study, but they chose not to do so at that time. In deciding not to participate in the process, the Yelm Commerce Group took away my ability
to reconsider the issuance of the MDNS pursuant to Chapter 197-11-340 (2)(f) WAC. I am left to wait and listen to the expert testimony during the next two days and then to provide you
with my opinion on the matter as a Responsible, Responsible Official.
From the testimony yesterday, it appears that there is a significant misunderstanding that the City simply ‘rubber-stamped’ the environmental information submitted by Wal-Mart. This
is simply not true, as my team in the Community Development Department reviewed all the environmental information submitted together with existing regulations and based our own background
and experiences as Planners, Engineers, Building Officials, and Planning Commissioners. We reviewed the proposal against the elements of the environment as found in SEPA and determined,
on a case by case basis if:
There was sufficient information in the entire submittal to determine if there were potential significant environmental impacts.
If there were impacts, did existing regulations address them.
If not, could they be mitigated.
Simply reading the Mitigated Determination of Non-significance dispels the misconception that no independent analysis was conducted. Findings related to Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas,
Noise, Traffic, Police Protection, and Fire Protection are not based on solely on the environmental documents and result in conditions that are not proposed by the studies submitted
by Wal-Mart. The following conditions are supported solely by the City’s independent analysis of the environmental documents:
Road connection to 103rd Street and improvement of 103rd.
Police Sub-station in the building.
Emergency vehicle parking.
Security camera integration requirements
Fire Department mitigation fee.
Stormwater infiltration gallery vertical separation from groundwater.
Exemption from ‘exemption’ from noise standards.
Speaking of Noise. A couple key procedural issues pursuant to SEPA were raised during the public comment portion of the hearing. James Zukowski and
Carol GiaMarco raised the issue of noise and requested the Examiner require further study of this issue or change the conditions of the MDNS. The appeal before you, though, does not
raise noise as an issue and it would be inappropriate to raise the issue at this late date.
The issue of school bus traffic was raised by a number of people yesterday. There were also comments about Thurston County rules, and how the County may have treated the proposed development.
Yelm Community Schools and Thurston County both received copies of the Mitigated Determination of Non-significance as well as the notice of application. Neither agency submitted comments
on the threshold determination. Section 197-11-545(1) WAC states that:
“if a consulted agency does not respond with written comments within the time periods for commenting on environmental documents, the lead agency may assume that the consulted agency
has no information relating to the potential impact of the proposal as it relates to the consulted agency's jurisdiction or special expertise.”
Neither Yelm Community Schools nor Thurston County has submitted written comments on the MDNS.
And now, Perry Shea of Parametrix is here to cover the City’s perspective on the traffic study and the mitigation measures of the Mitigated Determination of Non-significance. Perry
has been working with Yelm for over 18 years on transportation issues and he was key in the preparing the background material for the SR 510 Yelm Loop and, recently, has been leading
the design of the Loop for the Washington State Department of Transportation. Perry also worked with the City on its most recent Comprehensive Transportation Plan update.
Issues for Thursday – Public Comments
26,000 cars per day (Greg May)
Facts and Figures v. Emotion (Greg May)
Size not contemplated by Vision Plan (Valintin Fryst)
Small Town Rural Yelm (various)
MDNS Effect of no comment (Thurston County, Schools, WSDOT)
Poor planning by Council = traffic (Connie Holt)
Roads before development (various)
Adequate comment time (Don McCoulloch)
Why have GMA if we aren’t managing growth (Tom Foley)
Base adding 11,000 families (Bill Nichols)
Downtown Core and economic plan (Bournet)