Loading...
staffreplySTAFF REPORT City of Yelm Community Development Department To: Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr., Yelm Hearing Examiner From: Grant Beck, Director of Community Development Date: September 23, 2005 Subj: Response to Yelm Commerce Groups post hearing brief SPR-05-0091-YL The Responsible Official made an independent analysis of the environmental impacts of the project. The claim by the Yelm Commerce Group that the Responsible Official failed to failed to make an independent analysis of the environmental documents before issuing a threshold determination fails with even a cursory review of the record. The Mitigated Determination of Non-significance contains findings of fact regarding the transportation system that are not based on the traffic impact analysis submitted by Wal-Mart. Some of the traffic mitigation measures in the MDNS were not derived from the environmental documents. Perry Shea testified that the 103rd connection requirement was based on the City’s independent review of the project impacts. The MDNS conta?????ins findings of fact about high groundwater and the critical aquifer recharge area also not found in the environmental documents. The condition of the MDNS relating to high groundwater was not derived from adopted City Code or from the environmental documents. Although not appealed, the findings and condition of the MDNS relating to noise went beyond the discussion found in the environmental documents. In several instances, particularly urban blight and wetlands, the testimony from Yelm Commerce Group’s expert witnesses failed to show a probable or significant environmental impact, indicating that the Responsible Official’s determination that additional study of these issues was correct and certainly not clearly erroneous. September 23, 2005 Page 2 of 3 The Responsible Official did not rely solely on compliance with regulations to evaluate impacts under SEPA The Yelm Commerce Group also claims, in conflict of the record before the Examiner, that the Responsible Official did not go far enough beyond the minimum requirements of the code to analyze environmental impacts. As noted previously, the Yelm’s SEPA regulations actually indicate that the opposite is true, in that compliance with development regulations is the primary consideration when evaluating potential environmental impacts. This recognizes the previous environmental evaluations, decisions on options for development, and planning that has taken place in Yelm over the years. However, the record is clear that the assertion that the Responsible Official relied too heavily on ‘concurrency’ and ‘existing regulations’ to evaluate environmental impacts is simply false. Although the Yelm Commerce Group continues to misapply concurrency standards and the level of service methodology used consistently by the City, the testimony of Perry Shea shows that it is the City’s practice to require traffic studies to show both the average LOS calculation at affected intersections, but also the worst turning movement. As noted by Mr. Shea, this requirement is in place to help evaluate impacts beyond the concurrency standards. Similarly, the requirements imposed in the MDNS regarding the protection of the high groundwater area and the critical aquifer recharge area are well beyond what would be required by the Stormwater Manual adopted by the City of Yelm. Level of Service F is the appropriate and adopted standard for the urban core. In an argument not raised during the hearing, the Yelm Commerce Group misquotes the Yelm Comprehensive Transportation Plan in order to attempt to show that the City’s adopted level of service standard in the urban core is LOS D. The Comprehensive Transportation Plan states: In the urban core, LOS F is recognized as an acceptable level of service where mitigation mitigation to create traffic diversions, bypasses, and alternate routes and modes of transportation are authorized and being planned, funded, and implemented. September 23, 2005 Page 3 of 3 Read correctly and with the comma omitted from the Yelm Commerce Group’s brief, this section establishes an LOS F in the urban core when “mitigation to create traffic diversions, bypasses, and alternate routes and modes of transportation are”: ?? Authorized and being planned, ?? Authorized and being funded, ?? Authorized and being implemented. Perry Shea indicated in his testimony that he has been working for years with the City of Yelm and the Washington State Department of Transportation on the planning of the SR 510 Yelm Loop. Mr. Shea also testified that his firm has been working for the last year on the design of the Loop for the Washington State Department of Transportation, which is implementation of the plan and certainly implies funding. There was much testimony from the public as well as Perry Shea that the SR 510 Yelm Loop is currently funded, although that funding may be in question in the future based on a citizen initiative which would repeal the gas tax. The record is clear, from both sides, that the SR 510 Yelm Loop is an alternate route that has been planned, is being funded, and being implemented.