public comment letters2(360) 458-3835 (360) 458-3144 FAX www.ci.yelm.wa.us City of Yelm Community Development Department 105 Yelm Avenue West P.O. Box 479 Yelm, WA 98597 May 20, 2005 Knoll D. Lowney Smith
& Lowney, P.L.C. 2317 East John Street Seattle, WA 98112 Dear Mr. Lowney: Thank you for your letter of May 12, 2005, on behalf of your clients, the Yelm Commerce Group, regarding the
application by PACLAND to construct a Wal-Mart supercenter in Yelm. First, I would respectfully decline your recommendation that the City transfer SEPA lead agency status to the Washington
Department of Ecology. I firmly believe that not only is the City more than capable of carrying out the duties prescribed under the State Environmental Policy Act, as you correctly note
in your letter, but that there is no better team to fully review the potential impacts and potential mitigation measures than City staff of the Community Development Department, which
was created by the Council for just this type of coordinated review. While I appreciate your concer?????n for the cost of defending any decision the City may make on this development
application, my expectation is always that it will be a defensible decision due to the consistent and thorough review process. As you may be aware, the City is still reviewing the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed development and has not yet issued a threshold determination. It would be appropriate, therefore, for you to submit on your client’s behalf the
information regarding traffic and ‘urban decay’ at this time to be evaluated prior to making the threshold determination. I have indicated to your clients through Dr. May that now is
the time to submit this type of information to the City for consideration. Rather than meeting with your traffic expert, however, it would be more appropriate at this time for you to
submit their report for the City to review at this time, as the City retains its own traffic expert with whom it consults when appropriate and is also coordinating with the Washington
Department of Transportation on review of the Traffic Impact Analysis.
May 20, 2005 Page 2 of 2 On a somewhat separate matter, I am enclosing for your information a letter from Brent Dille, City Attorney, to the Mayor and City Council regarding continued
testimony during the public access portion of the Council agenda regarding big box retail development. As you may be aware, your clients attend most City Council meetings and generally
speak during public access time, mostly regarding the application for Wal-Mart, although many euphemisms have been substituted for the ‘W’ word. As statements at a Council meeting by
Dr. May and your letter clearly indicate that the Council will eventually be hearing an appeal, the City Attorney has opined that it is time to stop continued testimony to the City Council
regarding the application. I would ask that you convey this to your clients and hopefully help them understand that the intent is a fair land use permitting process for all sides. I
look forward to reviewing any data or analysis you wish to submit and, as with everything submitted submitted as part of the land use process, will give it full consideration. Sincerely,
Grant Beck, Director Department of Community Development
Grant Beck From: Raymond Bell [raymondbell@ywave.com] Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 11:33 AM To: Community Development Subject: Fw: Wal-Mart application 5/6/2005 -----Original Message
-----From: Raymond Bell To: grantb@ci.yelm.wa.us Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 11:03 AM Subject: Wal-Mart application Dear Grant; I am writing concerning the application filed by Wal-Mart.
1. I understand by reason of their application that the new structure will be about 188,000 square feet in size, with a parking lot that will cover the rest of the 17 acre site. 1a.
I object to a building used for retail purposes that equals 2 times all of the rest of the retail space in Yelm combined for the following reasons. (1) The impact of traffic that the
additional 8,000 plus cars will make a choke through Yelm all day long. I have occupied my vehicle for over an hour now when I have to pass through Yelm from the 510 side toward McKenna
or the opposite direction. When the freeway dumps through Yelm it is impossible to get through NOW! ((I always find a way to get out of Yelm when this happens.) a. This will destroy
the small businesses in Yelm that I have grown to enjoy. This will send people away from our city not to our city. (2) The site chosen is very close to Yelm Creek and since my wife works
as a Nisqually Stream Steward with the Nisqually Indian Tribe that is monitoring many of the streams that feed into the Nisqually River, (including Yelm Creek) it has come to my attention
that many of the creeks in the Nisqually River basin area have serious problems with pollution as the tiny organisms are indicating problems. Now the applicant must be required to complete
a true and proper study of Yelm Creek that will be affected by thier construction and future parking lot with oil and other residue pollutants dripping and running off into Yelm creek
as well as the ground water. I am requesting that a thorough and complete study be made by a reputable firm that will be concerned with the impact the structure and parking lot will
make plus the 8,000 cars or more dripping in and out of the parking lot. 2. I Object, to Wal-Mart purposefully causing over 400 jobs be lost in Yelm. They are saying that 400 will work
for them. But, where will the 400 come from? That is not stated on the application. Also what is not stated is that the 400 displaced are currently earning more than minimum wage, as
well as business people that are earning much better than minimum wage. The majority of the 400 that Wal-Mart will hire will be hired at minimum wage without medical or other benefits
for the management 6 months and for the part-timers 2 years. This will place an increase of people on wel-fare and increase our taxes that is already higher than they should be. The
net result is that the prosperity of this area will decrease and then you and I are left with the burden. I Object to the decrease in dollars circulating in Yelm as a result. Plus, I
Object to the increase in taxes to support the store and its functions by myself and all taxpayers in the Yelm area. 3. Wal-Mart has a stated business policy of destroying all competition
by all means. I Object.
4. I presently spend a good amount of money with the local businesses that stays in Yelm area and circulates. Wal-Mart is a Corporation registered outside the United States and sends
a good portion of its profits out of here. I Object Thank you for your consideration and please make this e-mail a part of the record. Dated this 5th day of May, 2005. Raymond Jarlik-Bell
P.O. Box 2336 Yelm, Washington [98579] 360-894-7917 5/6/2005
Grant Beck From: m lancaster [goldnbludancer@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 7:34 PM To: Grant Beck Subject: walmart 5/3/2005 I strongly object to Walmart in this town and my objections
stand of issues of traffic and mobility problems, which would endanger our children and seniors' access to facilities for one. There are other issues which i do not have time to go into
now and also which i urge you to listen to and consider as the voices of the people come forward and deserve to be heard and I and others learn more about these and feel you and the
others on town council should be accountable for. As a prior state employee, I even have recent emails from the state workers union for social service workers/case managers, where at
least in one of the articles there is such strong statements against this company its stores and its policies toward its workers and other practices that if our own STATE has such knowledge
and judgement of what are we doing having it here now???..There are much better options. Marian Lancaster __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam?
Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Grant Beck From: billha [billha@ywave.com] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 8:50 PM To: Grant Beck Cc: 'Ed Wiltsie' Subject: Comments on the Walmark SEPA Checklist 4/29/2005 Grant, What
follows are my simple comments on the SEPA checklist for Walmart. 1. Element 2. Air a. It is important that the applicant address the issue of air pollution, not just from customers
but also from their own vehicles. The extra thousands of vehicles a day will definitely have an impact on air quality. They need to quantify the potential impact and then to mitigate
those impacts. 2. Element 2. Air c. Unless I am missing the question, the applicant needs to address any mitigation efforts to control emissions not just during construction but also
after construction. 3. Element 3. Water b 2) How does the applicant know whether groundwater will be improved. Will they be required to continually monitor the quality of the aquifer,
which I think is a good idea, and then to mitigate impacts to area drinking water. Applicants need to address mitigation for groundwater contamination of area wells when that happens.
This element should trigger a full EIS. 4. Element 3. Water b 3) Does Yelm's WWTP have the capacity to carry the extra waste from Walmart? It is quite a distance from the proposed Walmart
site to Yelm's WWT facility. I am assuming Walmart will be paying for the line otherwise you will have quite a time explaining to the citizens of Yelm why their tax dollars will be subsidizing
the largest corporation in the world. 5. Element 7. a) There will be extensive runoff of pesticides from produce grown in the third world. I can share with you studies that have shown
runoff is laden with pesticides when they wash their produce from a typical walmart retail store. The potential to contaminate groundwater and thus the areas stores is high. In addition,
stormwater runoff carrying hazardous materials will enter groundwater. This needs to be addressed in an EIS and through mitigation measures. This element should trigger a full EIS 6.
Element 7. 7. 2) This is a very applicable element that needs to be addressed with mitigation, if any can be found. 7. Element 8. j. Walmart's answer that 400 jobs will be displaced
is a devestating environmental impact on the land use of Yelm. This alone must trigger a full EIS. Land use is a component of the environment under SEPA 8. Element 9. b. Given Walmart's
answer to 8j, there will be a loss of income and resultant displacement of people living in Yelm 9. Element 13. a. Have any archeological digs substantiated this claim. Even though this
site is not listed with DNR, there has never been a dig to substantiate Walmart's answer. I request a full archeological investigation by well qualified archeologist.
10. Element 14. g. This project will be devestating to the transportation routes in and around Yelm in the short term (10 years) with no guarantee that the long term (>10 years) will
be mitigated with the new loop road. In both cases, Walmart needs to satsify the people of Yelm and surrounding areas who use Yelm's thoroughfare that this project will not create more
duress than is currently found. This element should trigger a full EIS. William A Hashim 9330 El Camino Lane SE Yelm, WA 987597 4/29/2005
(360) 458-3835 (360) 458-3144 FAX www.ci.yelm.wa.us City of Yelm Community Development Department 105 Yelm Avenue West P.O. Box 479 Yelm, WA 98597 April 21, 2005 Edward A. Wiltsie, PE
P.O. Box 946 Rainier, WA 98576 Dear Ed: This letter is in response to your letter dated April 15, 2005 (received April 18, 2005), your email dated April 18, 2005, and a letter dated
April 19, 2005, sent via an email with the subject line ‘RE: Public Disclosure Request’. April 15 Letter This letter provides comments on the Wal-Mart application, but the first two
paragraphs castigate the City, the Community Development Department, and myself for your preception that the City has not provided you and the Yelm Commerce Group with sufficient education
regarding the land use process and notice of specific actions taken. As should be obvious to you through my past public statements regarding the land use application process, I take
strong exception to your theory that special consideration should be given to any interest group, be it it applicant or opponent, involved in the permitting process. The fact is, however,
that the Community Development Department has gone to extraordinary measures to ensure that the public at large, and your ‘collective’ in particular, have access to full and complete
information regarding this particular application. The Department is posting in a timely manner all application material, comments, and correspondence and notices issued by the City
on the Yelm web site. This information includes a summary of the process which addresses your specific concern that you missed a deadline for public comment. This process summary was
made available at the Nisqually Valley News forum held in January of this year, and is on the web site on the Wal-Mart page. You were personally notified of this process for the distribution
of information regarding the Wal-Mart application in an email from me dated March 15, 2005. This email was a response to a public records request you made for ‘a complete copy of the
Wal-Mart submittal, SEPA Checklist, Drainage Report, Plans, etc.’ In response, I indicated that: ‘The Site Plan Review application from PACLAND for Wal-Mart has been scanned and posted
on the City web site as of this afternoon
April 21, 2005 Page 2 of 3 (3/15/2005). We are continuing to convert letters and emails received prior to the application to Adobe Acrobat *.pdf format to be posted in the near future,
I would expect by the end of the week. Any public record relating to the Wal-Mart application will be posted to the web site weekly, within seven days of receipt. This email was copied
to Bill Hashim, Danielle Graham, James Flick, Jean Handley, Louise Oliverio, and Bettye Johnson. This email also referenced the process summary prepared by the City and indicated that
it also was posted on the web site. I do not believe your claim that you and the group are attempting to learn the process through ‘direct conversations’ with me is accurate. My staff
and I are always available to discuss the land use review process and the status of applications at the counter or via telephone, but only Dr. Greg May has taken steps to utilize this
resource. I have not read in either the tone or language of the letters, emails, and statements at Council made by yourself and others expressing opposition to Wal-Mart as expressing
any interest in better understanding the land use process. April 18 Email Via this email, you request the number of times and dates that the ‘Commercial Zoning Ordinance’ for Yelm was
changed since 1993 when the area of the proposed Wal-Mart was annexed into the City. As I indicated in an email to you dated March 7, 2005, responding to a public records request, a
records request needs to be for a specific record which does not involve research on the part of City staff in order to fulfill. The specific request would involve just this type of
research which is not covered by the Public Disclosure Act. In this case, the Community Development Department maintains an index of Ordinances which have amended the Zoning Code (to
which I assume you refer when mentioning the ‘commercial zoning ordinance’) since 1995. The City Clerk maintains an index of all City Ordinances. Both these indices are available for
review during normal business hours and can be used to identify specific records of which you may request copies. April 19 Letter In this letter, purporting to be a public records request,
you request the following records: ?? Standard and site specific criteria used by the City to evaluate the Wal-Mart application for completeness. ?? Staff review comments and notes.
?? Final City ‘acceptance/approval documents’ with ‘conclusion’ regarding the criteria to evaluate for completeness.
April 21, 2005 Page 3 of 3 ?? The names, addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses for the individuals at Thurston County and the State of Washington that the ‘file is being
forwarded to for associated review’ Further, you demand in the letter that the ‘documents provided include coverage of the impacts’ on a variety of environmental impacts. I will address
the records request in the order presented. ?? I direct your attention to Section 17.84.060 YMC and the application for site plan review, which contains a checklist of required information
for a complete application. ?? Pursuant to Section 42.17.310 (1)(i), preliminary drafts, notes, and recommendations are not records subject to public disclosure. ?? I am not clear from
your request to what document you refer. I believe it may be the letter dated March 24, 2005, determining the application to be complete. This document has been posted on the web site
since March 24, 2005. ?? The notice of application mailing list and email list is attached to this letter. There are no other public records which provide any additional information
which may be responsive to your request (such as telephone numbers). I am uncertain as to what documents to which you refer in the final request for coverage of environmental impacts.
Finally, because you use the term ‘accepted’ the application, I hope that you understand that the determination that an application is ‘complete’ does not mean that it has been ‘approved’.
Sincerely, Grant Beck, Director Department of Community Development