Final EIS 3-1993
SOUTHWEST YELM
ANNEXA TION
'~:bWfJ:h~'1l1~~.~,~~;I,1~i~~i1#ff;~~';'" :t1.\~~J~.o::~"':J~flJtf'l'tq~.t~~.t"~~~~"~,<'vt'~~k"'':' :..'r~~l f ./i ',1 ~<,~"i. . .~ ~ ,,';Pct&,~ F.t;~, ...q"~Qt~",'~1rrrf-:"h'f~:\r-;",,;~'-~~'
t;~\il..o;~~t~W!l-ltJl;,~Jt~,~~", 'i'~',\,\{!\';fff.'~;""", 'b'~"},,,."t""';',ll~r:'.i\'I'i""'" ,'t",.. f ,'. '-"" d,"'< ;, "I""",;,"'~'k!' '!'1iI.J~'
f~:,'i~~~~f~;S"'~V".,P:!"Koi~/ ."~'!;',,"'""~ ~~ !t~II!+"I"t":,';g .~":""'~~.'3"i ~i~~V.-+r~#,.~, '41"" .~. .,"" <f,':' '" ~",f .~~',. ~<-I- q'A.""'~".'l~,'J]f,'~ii. "''''.M
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
CITY OF YELM
MARCH 1993
R.W. THORPE AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INe.
S. CHAMBERLAIN AND ASSOCIATES, INe.
INDEPENDENT ECOLOGICAL SERVICES
MUNDY AND ASSOCIATES
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
for the
SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXATION
City of Yelm Planning Department
Yelm, Washington
In Compliance With
State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) of 1971
Revlsed Code of Washington 43.21C
Chapter 197-11 Washington Administrative Code and the Thurston County
SEP A Ordinance NO 7889
State Growth Management Act (GMA)
House Bills 1025 and 2929
Fact Sheet
Fact Sheet
Proposed Action and Alternatives
Alternative 1: No Action
The proposed annexation would not occur and future development would take place under Thurston
County regulations.
Alternative 2: Proponents' Scenario
Local property owners are proposing to annex to Yelm approximately 2000 acres southwest of the current
city limits. Annexation would allow development of the site under City of Yelm regulations. As
proposed, the development mix would include residential, recreational and commercial uses. Proposed
development would include landscaping and buffers as well as roads, open space and public service
improvements.
Alternative 3: Compact Scenario
The proposed mix of uses under this alternative would remain largely similar to those of the proposal.
Potential land uses would be clustered to allow the same level of development on less land area thus
providing more open space and landscape buffering in the area. This approach would also result in
lower facility costs for the proposed annexation area.
Alternative 4. The Village Scenario
The proposed residential uses would decrease under this approach and additional office and
commercial space would be provided. The focus would shift to an employment center as part of the
Master Plan. The overall area of residential uses on the site would be decreased.
Proponent:
Thurston Highlands Associates
1917 First Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Contact: Dennis Su, AlA, Project Manager
Phone: (206) 443-3537
Lead Agency:
City of Yelm
105 Yelm Avenue West
P O. Box 479
Yelm, Washington 98597
Contact: Shelly Badger, City Administrator
Phone: (206) 458-3244
Authors and Principal Contributors:
This document has been prepared under the direction of the City of Yelm, pursuant to the State
Environmental Policy Act. The following firms have provided research and analysis in this report:
EIS Preparation, Land Use, Public Facility and Services Fiscal Analysis
R.W Thorpe and Associates, Inc.
705 Second A venue, Suite 910
Seattle, Washington 98104
Contacts: Robert W Thorpe, AICP
Gareth V Roe, Environmental/Land Use Planner
Peter Rosen, Environmental Planner
Phone: (206) 624-6239
i
Civil Engineering, Public Services
Barghau5en Consulting Engineers
18215 72nd Avenue South
Kent, Washington 98032
Contact: Dana Mower, P.E.
Phone: (206) 251-6222
Transportation
S. Chamberlain and Associates, Inc.
719 Sleater-Kinney Road SE, Suite 120
P.O Box 3485
Lacey, W A 98503-0485
Contact: Bob Hazlett, P.E.
Phone: (206)493~2
Wetlands, Plants/Animals
Independent Ecological Services
1514 Muirhead Avenue
Olympia, Washington 98502
Contact: Rex Van Wormer, Senior Biologist
(206) 943-0127
Population Growth and Housing Demand
Mundy and Associates
Watermark Tower, Suite 200
1109 1st Avenue
Seattle, W A 98101
Contact: Rhoda Bliss, Senior Analyst
(206) 623-2935
Date of Issue: March 15,1993
Cost of Copies: $5.00
Location of EIS Background Material:
City of Yelm
105 Yelm Avenue West
POBox 479
Yelm, Washington 98597
R.W Thorpe Associates, Inc.
705 Second A venue, Suite 910
Seattle, Washington 98104
if
Aberdeen
o
.....
d
f '2/12/93
=igure 1
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
1
i
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
LO
~
.
longview
R W. Thorpe & Associates, Inc. Sealll./Anchor~fDenver
. 7llll2ndA_ Seallle, WA 981()l 12061 624 6239
ePI."tlift"
. Londacape
. E".lron",.,,'.'
_lcDftofft\c.
NTS
(ID
SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXATION
Location Ma
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
sea\\\e
~o
Pierce County
FORT LEWIS
Nisqually
Indian
Reservation
,..."
o
I/')
I
cr
Cf) G;
"2
"(ij
a:
TO TENINO
SOURCE. RWT/A - 2/93
R. W. Thorpe & Associates, Inc. SullIe/Anchorage/Denver
1110 7OIS2nclA.... Sullie, WA 98104 (206) 624 6239
NTS
. Plen"'"G
. Lenet.cepe
_E"...ro"",."'.'
. EconoMiC.
@
SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXATION
Vicinity Map
'2\
1
\
SIi s \.~
1~~.
LuJ ')
Pierce
County
----- - ,CENSUS TRACT BOUNDARY
I
I
L__~
~-
CITY OF YELM
RAINIER SCHOOL
DISTRICT BOUNDARY
~:
..
tl
_.~
r--
,
I
:h,"3
~
..
:1'--
:k
:t....~
rI-
.'
.1
.1
'1
:J
'1
.....~ :.
. oJ
. :1
: .t
. '1
. :1
. .1
:.....,
1
CITY OF
RAINIER
,
..,
L_ _, ,..__..,
~________.J .
PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA
I
.~'--. !
') l-~
.) ;J
) L,
L 1
..~ ~i8q ,.J
'\:- '~/y ,
~ Ii/Iter
YELM SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDAR~'~')~
Thurston
County
:.....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
....
~01
I:;,v.
.
.
.
...........
. .
..........
r..
NTS
,=igure 3
R.W. Thorpe & Associates, Inc. S.anle'Anchor8ve
. , 2nd ~venue Seattle WA 981 (206112. 6239
C 00 Istnct
Census Tract
. ~."",f'IG
-Lend.ca..
_En,,+rOftfftefttal
. EcOftOfftlca
(ID
SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXATION
oundaries
Figure 4
SEPA PROCESS CHART
Annexation Request
J,
Threshold
Determination
-I
EIS Scoping
I
Environmental Analysis
Annexation Petition
Submittal
Draft EIS Issued
J,
Comment Period
J,
Public Hearing
J,
Final EIS Issued
J,
Preliminary Decision
J,
Boundary Review
Board
J,
J,
Final City Council Decision
Boundary Review
Board Decision
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FACfSHEET
INTRODUCTION, SUMMARY MATRIX & ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS
i i
Lt::ll t:KS ON DRAFT EIS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PUBLIC AGENCIES
Washington State Department of Community Development
Washington State Department of Ecology
Washington State Department of Transportation
Washington State Department of Wildlife......
Thurston County Planning Department
Intercity Transit.
Nisqually Indian Tribe
Rainier School District (1/4/93)
Rainier School District (1/13/93)
Nisqually River Council (1/11/93)
24
26
28
31
36
46
48
54
57
60
II INDIVIDUAL LETIERS
Shapiro & Associates, Inc..
National Food Corporation
Mary Lou Oemons
62
66
68
III PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT EIS
Mark Carpenter 71
Rainier School District 71
Ed Kenney 72
Tom Connan 73
Tim Schlosser 73
vii
IV COMMENT LETrERS RECENED AFTER CLOSING OF COMMENT PERIOD
Washington State Department of Health (2/23/93)
Nisqually River Council (2/13/93)
79
81
DISTRIBUTION UST
87
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Public Facility and Services Fiscal Analysis A-I
Table 1 Summary of Assumptions for Fiscal Analysis A-2
Table 2: Estimated Infrastructure Costs by Alternatives.... A-3
Table 3. Estimated Public Service Costs (Per Capita Costs) A-4
Table 4. Estimated City of Yelm Public Service Costs (2 Methods) A-6
Table 5 Estimated School Costs.. A-7
Table 6: Summary of Total Estimated Costs for Infrastructure and Services
Under Proposed Alternatives A-8
Table 7 Land Revenue Estimates (Undeveloped Land) A-lO
Table 8. Estimated Revenues From Developed Land............................... A-II
Table 9' Estimated Revenues From Developed Land A-12
Table 10: Potential Property Tax Revenue A-13
Table 11 Yelm Millage Rate Breakdown A-14
Table 12: Potential Sales Tax Revenue A-IS
Table 13 Estimated Sales Tax Revenues From Proposed Annexation A-IS
Table 14. Potential Revenue from Property and Sales Taxes A-16
Table 15: Summary of Projected Costs and Revenues to Local Jurisdictions A-16
Appendix B: Revised Wastewater Facilities Section..... r.
Appendix C: Wetlands
Figure 1 Proponents Scenario With Wetlands Overlay
Figure 2: Compact Scenario With Wetlands Overlay
Figure 3 Village Scenario With Wetlands Overlay
Appendix D: Wildlife - Priority Species Habitat
B-1
C-l
C-3
C-4
C-S
D-1
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Location Map
Figure 2: Vicinity Map
Figure 3 Census Tract / School District Boundaries Map
Figure 4 SEP A Process Chart
Figure 5 Alternative 2 - Proponents Preferred Scenario
Figure 6: Alternative 3 - Compact Scenario
Figure 7 Alternative 4 - Village Scenario
iii
iv
v
vi
21
22
23
ERRATA SHEET
IES Wetlands Map
Coot Co. Wetland Map
Errata 1
Errata 2
Erra ta 3
ix
Introduction
Summary Matrix and Alternative Scenarios
INTRODUCTION
The City of Yelm is considering annexation of approximately 2,000 acres southwest of the current city
limits. The Draft Environrnentallmpact Statement (DEIS) was published on the 14th of December 1992
and presented information concerning potential impacts that may occur from the annexation of 2,OOO:!:.
Acres into the City of YELM. Annexation proposals are considered "nonproject" actions according to the
State Environmental Policy AcnSEPA) under the provisions of WAC 197-11-704 (2) (b) (iv). As such,
the contents of The Southwest Yelm Annexation DE IS were limited to general discussion of potential
impacts and proposed mitigation measures (WAC 197-11-442), rather than an examination of impacts
specific to those associated with a site-specific detailed development proposal.
In accordance with these rules, The Southwest Yelm Annexation DEIS provided a general review of
impacts associated with the annexation proposal and various conceptual development scenarios within
the proposed annexation area. The DEIS also included several elements that discussed the
relationship of the proposed annexation to requirements mandated by the 1990 Growth Management
Act (GMA). While this analysis provides information on how the proposed annexation would be
affected by GMA requirements, it was not intended to analyze the GMA itself.
Unless otherwise noted, the potential impacts and proposed mitigation in the Southwest Yelm
Annexation DEIS refer to conceptual development scenarios as presented under the Description of the
Proposal and Alternatives. In some instances mitigating measures refer to various techniques that
would be suitable in a certain case. These are guidelines and mayor may not be used, depending on a
given project. The exact nature of future development within the proposed annexation area is not known
at this time. Future site-specific, project level environmental review will occur as development takes
place.
At the time of submittal of a site-specific development proposal, a list of required mitigation will be
prepared based on the final project specific EIS, and the share of mitigation attributed to that
development. The developer will be required to a) install all mitigation improvements totally
attributable to the development, and b) pay a fee for their proportionate share of larger area
improvements, with these improvements to be installed upon completion of funding for said
improvements.
The State Environmental Policy Act includes public participation in the environmental review process.
Opportunities for public involvement are required during the impact statement scoping process and after
publication of a draft environmental impact statement. During the preparation of an EIS, other
opportunities may arise for public involvement. Frequently a lead agency will involve members of
organized groups in technical meetings or other discussions on document content. Informal public
meetings may also be held to discuss environmental issues. Citizen participation is part of both
nonproject and project actions. The Lead Agency, Oty of Yelm has prepared this Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS) in accordance with SEP A under the provisions of WAC 197-11-560 All
substantive comments on the proposal submitted during the required comment period, either in written
form or from a speaker at a public hearing, have been considered and responded to in this FEIS. This
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is an attempt to respond to all substantive comments that
were received on the DEIS. The FEIS process involved three draft revisions that were reviewed by the
City of Yelm, local jurisdictions within Yelm's sphere of influence and subconsultant teams that were
involved with the writing of the DEIS. Response to comments were addressed in one of the following
forms: A) a modification of the alternatives, including the proposed action, B) identification and
evaluation of alternatives not previously given detailed analysis in the DEIS. C) a supplement,
improvement, or modification of the analysis provided in the DEIS D) factual corrections to previous
data and analYSIS, or E) an explanation of why the comment does not warrant further consideratIon.
1
SUMMARY MATRIX
SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXATION
IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES
Nahu:al Errvironmnlt
AIR
N
1 of 19
Alternative 1
NO ACTION
New development would
not be expected to occur at
the same rate as under
annexation, and air
quality would thus
remain largely at present
standards.
Alternative 2
PROPONENTS' SCENARIO
The proposed annexation
would result in both long
and short term air
quality impacts
associated with
construction, potential
development. and traffic
increases after develop-
ment occurs. New
emission levels from
these sources are not
expected to exceed state
and local standards.
Alternative 3
COMPACT SCENARIO
This alternative would
have largely the same
impacts as those of the
Proponents' Scenario.
Alternative 4
VILLAGE SCENARIO
Development under this
approach would generate
more trarric and could
result in greater vehicle
emissions than the
Proponents' Scenario,
although provisions for
alternative
transportation methods
are intended to help
reduce dependence on
automobile use within
the area.
MI1lGA nON MEASURES
Typical dust suppression practices
such as watering exposed soils,
landscaping disturbed areas and
covering vehicles during construction
would be followed
Vehicle emission standards are
expected to help control emissions
from increased traHic. Residences
with wood stoves would be expected
to follow State of Washington
regulations applying to wood burning
devices.
RWT/A 12/92
SUMMARY MATRIX
SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXATION
IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1
NOACrION
WATER
The estimated rate of
development within the
proposed annexation area
would not take place
Master planned drainage
improvements associated
with potential large
scale development under
the Proponents' Scenario
would not occur
~
2 of 19
Alternative 2
PROPONENTS' SCENARIO
New development would
result in increases in
impervious surfaces and
surface water runoff
Additional sources of
potential pollutants to
surface waters could
result. Existing
pollutants associated
with some farm
activities could be
removed. Development
adjacent to wetland areas
would occur, with limited
wetland filling proposed.
Alternative 3
COMPACT SCENARIO
Impacts would be similar
to the Proponents'
Scenario. A reduction in
impervious surface and
resulting runoff may occur
by increasing open space,
Some wetland areas may
be avoided and a !;Teater
buffer capacity may also
diminish potential water
impacts.
Alternative 4
VILLAGE SCENARIO
Water impacts under this
scenario would not differ
greatly from the
Proponents' Scenario.
Although the
development mix may
change. runoff and
potential discharges
would be the same, as
would potential impacts
to wetland areas.
MITIGA nON MEASURES
Subsurface and surface conveyance
systems would be used to handle
additional water from potential
development. Storm drainage
detention will be required to limit
runoff rates to pre-development
conditions. Biomtration swales may
be used to preserve surface water
quality Storm water retention will
also be needed to percolate water
directly into the ground where
conditions will allow treatment
before percolation will likely be
required. Appropriate wetland
setbacks would be followed.
RWT/A 12/92
SUMMARY MATRIX
SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXATION
IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES
GROUNDWATER &c
AQUIFER
RECHARGE AREAS
IIlo.
3 of 19
Alternative 1
NO ACTION
No Action would not
impact the local aquifer
Alternative 2
PROPONENTS' SCENARIO
The Proponents' Scenario
would result in
additional demands for
groundwater in the
annexation area. A well
system with an estimated
pumping capadty of 2300
to 4400 gallons per minute
would be needed for
future development.
Potential recreational
facilities would require
sprinkling zones of 2500
gallons per minute for
irrigation needs. The
Proponents'Scenario
could also introduce new
sources of pollutants that
could affect the local
aquifer
Alternative 3
COMPACT SCENARIO
The potential impacts
would be the same as
those of the Proponents'
Scenario.
Alternative 4
VILLAGE SCENARIO
Alternative 4 would
reduce potential
development densities
and thus may result in
less impact on
groundwater
MITIGA nON MEASURES
Offsite sewage treatment is
recommended and slorage of large
quantities of hazardous wastes and
chemicals on site should be
prohibited.
Fertilization of all areas should be
carefully managed to avoid
groundwater contamination.
Proposed biofiltration techniques
would also be expected to help
prevent potential pollutant impacts
to groundwater
Recycled water could be used for
recreational irrigation.
RWT/A 12/92
SUMMARY MATRIX
SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXATION
IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES
FREQUENTL Y
FLOODED AREAS
en
VEGETATION &.
WILDLIFE
4 of 19
Alternative 1
NO ACTION
Development would not
occur at the the rate
identHied by the
Proponents' Scenario and
thus would not impact
these areas. Seasonal
flooding of Thompson
Creek would continue to
occur.
Habitat areas would not
be disturbed by the future
development under the
Proponents' Scenario.
Existing c1earcut areas,
with natural growth, on
the annexation site would
remain.
Alternative 2
PROPONENTS' SCENARIO
The Proponents' Scenario
would contribute
additional surface water
runoff to those areas
identified as being subject
to frequent flood
conditions. Post
development runoff is to
be limited to the pre-
development rate.
Potential development
under the proposed
annexation would result
in loss of wildlife and
vegetation habitat in
much of the area.
Wildlife would be
displaced and vegetation
would be removed. These
losses would likely be
greatest under the
Proponents' Scenario since
it would consume more
area than the
alterna tives.
Alternative 3
COMPACT SCENARIO
Alternative 3 would
provide more potential
absorption area. It would
decrease overall
impervious surface and
concentrate development
within the area
Alternative 3 is intended
to include greater buffer
areas and utilize less
space than the
Proponents' Scenario.
The enhanced open space
is not expected to make
the area significantly
more compatible to plants
and animals than the
more dispersed
development under the
Proponents' Scenario.
Alternative 4
VILLAGE SCENARIO
Alternative 4 would
provide similar
developable area as the
Proponents' Scenario and
is expected to result in
similar runoff rates.
Alternative 4 would
reduce proposed
residential densities
which could provide
more area for open space
for plant and animal use,
than the Proponents'
Scenario. However,
potential future uses
within the area would
still likely result in
similar displacement as
described by the
Proponents' Scenario.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Siltation control measures for storm
drainage control of release rates
should be provided. Design and
construction of biofiltralion facilities
prior to discharge of drainage water
should be followed.
Impervious surfaces should be
minimized to control flooding.
Development under the Proponents'
Scenario would include landscaping
and open space which would provide
habitat and protect existing species
in these areas.
The use of native species for
landscaping should be promoted.
Natural vegetation around wetland
areas would be preserved.
RWT/A 12/92
SUMMARY MATRIX
SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXA nON
IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES
Allernalive 1
NO ACTION
NOISE
Current noise levels
would continue and short
and long term impacts
associated with new
noise sources within the
annexation area would
not occur The new
residential and
commercial uses
associated with the
Proponents' Scenario
would not be introduced
adjacent to existing
military facilities under
this scenario.
'"
S of 19
Alternative 2
PROPONENTS' SCENARIO
Short term impacts would
result during construction
activity and long term
impacts would result from
additional traffic to and
from the annexation area
and residential
activities. Complaints
regarding military noise
could increase as a result
of new residents adjacent
to local facilities.
Allemalive 3
COMPACT SCENARIO
Additional noise levels
would be similar More
open area would provide
for greater dispersal of
noise before it leaves the
area, Larger buffer would
not significantly alter
noise perceptions
regarding Fl. Lewis
activity
Allernative 4
VILLAGE SCENARIO
Less residences would
reduce some noises, but
commercial area would
potentially have new,
mostly transport related
noises.
MITIGA nON MEASURES
Typical noise reduction measures such
as limiting hours, and requiring
equipment mufflers during
construction could be followed.
Landscaping and buffer areas would
help to reduce offsite noise impacts.
The use of earth berms or barriers to
block traffic noise could also be
employed if needed.
RWTlA 12192
SUMMARY MATRIX
SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXATION
IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES
,
Built Environmmt
ENERGY
"-1
6 of 19
Alternative 1
NO ACTION
No Action would not
affect energy
requirements.
Alternative 2
PROPONENTS' SCENARIO
Development from the
proposal would result in
additional energy
demands within the
area. Puget Power would
have to build additional
12.5 kV and 115 kV power
lines and one to two new
substations to serve the
projected loads.
Centralia Light power
lines would still be buried
or relocated, however,
these lines would not be
used (or energy needs
under annexation.
Alternative 3
COMPACT SCENARIO
Impacts on energy
consumption would be
largely similar to the
Proponents Scenario.
Alternative 4
VILLAGE SCENARIO
Under this approach.
l'nergy could be greater
dl'pcnding on thl' type of
commercial development
that occurs.
MITIGA nON MEASURES
Costs would be imposed on new
development as required by
Washington State regulations, The
developer would be responsible for
relocation or burial o( existing power
lines.
Govemment and utility energy
conservation progt'ams would be
(ollowed. All structures would be
designed to meet Washington energy
codes.
RWT/A 12192
SUMMARY MATRIX
SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXATION
IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES
LAND USE &
POPULATION
CROWTHf
HOUSINC DEMAND
00
7 of 19
Alternative 1
NO ACTION
Population growth and
housing demand rates
would continue to ()C('Ur
under No Action, but are
expected to take place at
a lesser level than if
annexation were to occur
Housing quality would
remain at existing low to
moderate income levels.
Alternative 2
PROPONENTS' SCENARIO
The proposed annexation
would increase local
population considerably
if full buildout of the
area occurs within the
twenty year timeframe.
Total population
forecasted for the Ye/m
area in the year 2013
would be 21,632 persons.
An estimated 5,314
housing units could be
absorbed in the Yelm
area over twenty years.
Alternative 3
COMPACT SCENARIO
Alternative 3 would
result in the same number
of units and the same
level of growth as the
Proponents' Scenario.
Residential area would
be more concentrated and
potential housing types
could include more
multifamily units. A
greater amount of open
area around future
development could be
achieved under this
approach.
A Iternallve 4
VILLAGE SCENARIO
Alternalive 4 would
represent an approximate
10% reduction in proposed
residential units with a
corresponding decrease in
population. More
opportunities for
potential commercial uses
would be available under
this ahernative.
MITIGA nON MEASURES
Future development would occur in
phases over a twenty year period,
Market conditions would help
determine the actual number of units
provided. In addition, lhe Urban
Growth Area Boundaries should be
phased with population projections
to avoid potential negative impacts
associated with sprawling
development.
RWTfA 12192
SUMMARY MATRIX
SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXATION
IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES
NATURAL
RESOURCE LANDS
\0
8 of 19
AIt~rnatlv~ 1
NO ACTION
Existing fann uses would
not be affected, and the
proposed annexation area
would remain under rural
zoning of Thurston
County
^It~rnativ~ 2
PROPONHITS' SCENARIO
The potential
development projects
identified for the
Proponents' Scenario
would eliminate some
existing agricultural use
in the area.
Development would
eliminate use of a limited
area of potentially
productive agricultural
soils in the area and
would continue trends
toward fannland
reduction.
Alternative 3
COMPACT SCENARIO
The Compact scenario
would concentrate future
development which could
result in somewhat less
encroachment on
agricultural uses than
would occur under the
Proponents' Scenario.
Alternative 4
VILLAGE SCENARIO
Alternative 4 would
have much the same
results as the Proponents'
Scenario.
MmGA1l0N MEASURES
Buffer areas around the proposed
annexation would help fonn a
separation between the proposed
development and some oHsite
agricultural and military uses.
Significant resource lands should be
identified and measures to avoid
connicts or losses should be
coordinated with future development
proposals within the annexation
area
RWT/A 12/92
SUMMARY MATRIX
SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXATION
IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES
Allernative 1
NO AcnON
OPEN SPACE
CORRIDORS
The area would remain
zoned for rural use under
Thurston County
regulations. Potential
development within the
proposed annexation area
would be expected to occur
at much lower densities,
potentially leaving more
open, undeveloped space
in the area.
.....
c
9 of 19
Allernative 2
PROPONENTS' SCENARIO
The Proponents' Scenario
would result in
additional land within
the Yelm city limits.
Approximately 830 acres
may be preserved as open
space or landscape
buffers. As proposed,
development would
include recreational
space which would also
serve some open space
functions. Future
development in the area
would occurunderdty
regulation and could
result in opportunities for
new open space areas.
Allemative 3
COMPACT SCENARIO
Alternative 3 would
provide even more area
than the Proponents'
Scenario for open space.
Approximately 1200
acres of open space would
resull. Because it may
involve use of clustering
techniques it may
provide added
opportunities to create
open areas within the
overall annexation area.
Allernative 4
VILLAGE SCENARIO
Alternative 4 would
decrease residential
densities, but would also
increase potential
commercial development.
This approach is also
expected to result in
approximately 830 acres
for open space.
MmGA nON MEASURES
Open space and landscape areas
should be coordinated with oHsite
opportunities to form greenbelt
corridors. Future development should
be encouraged to provide for open
space in proposed plans.
RWT/A 12/92
SUMMARY MATRIX
SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXATION
IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES
URBAN GROWTH
AREA
....
....
10 of 19
Alternative 1
NOACIlON
Urban area boundaries
would not be affected.
Alternative 2
PROPONENTS' SCENARIO
The Proponents' Scenario
would result in adding
additional land to the
City of Yelm. It would
occur within the urban
growth area for the city
The proposed
development would
absorb much of the
projected population for
Yelm, but would not
exceed this amount. It
would represent
approximately 20% to
30% of the projected
urban growth area.
Alternative 3
COMPAcr SCENARIO
Alternative 3 would be
largely the same result as
the Proponents' Scenario.
Development would be
more concentrated,
allowing for somewhat
higher densities, but
more transition area
would be gained adjacent
to existing uses.
Alternative 4
VILLAGE SCENARIO
Although the potential
development densities
and uses could be
different from the
Proponents' Scenario
under this approach,
impacts to the overall
urban growth area would
not differ greally
MITIGA nON MEASURES
The urban area boundary could be
reviewed periodically to determine
if adjustments are required. The
boundary should be coordinated with
future population projections.
RWT/A 12192
SUMMARY MATRIX
SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXATION
IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1
NO ACTION
AFFORDABLE
HOUSING
No Action would leave
the area under Thurston
County guidelines and
would not provide the
level of additional
housing opportunities in
Yelm that annexation
would allow The
existing city core could be
considered low income
housing.
~
N
11 of 19
Alternative 2
PROPONENTS' SCENARIO
Annexation would result
in more area available
for housing in Yelm.
Current development
proposals for the area
may include some
affordable housing.
Development within the
annexation area could
result in making more of
the older homes in the
city core available for
lower income persons.
Alternative 3
COMPACT SCENARIO
Alternative 3 could
provide a different
housing mix, with
potentially more
multifamily units.
Alternative 4
VILLAGE SCENARIO
Alternative 4 would
provide less residential
housing units than the
Proponents' Scenario.
MmGA nON MEASURES
The city could encourage affordable
housing to be provided within the
proposed annexation area. It could
also require future developers to
provide contributions to programs
designed to assist low income
individuals in finding affordable
housing.
RWT/A 12/92
SUMMARY MATRIX
SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXATION
IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES
TRANSrORTATlON
I-l
W
PUBLIC SERVICES &
UTlLmES
12 of 19
Alternative 1
NO ACTION
Traffic increases and
roadways proposed under
the potential annexation
would not occur
Additional
improvements associated
with potential
annexation scenarios
would not be made. The
Yelm Comprehensive
Transportation Plan
reconuncncls new roads
through the proposed
annexation area.
Alternative 2
PROPONENTS' SCENARIO
The proposal would
result in traHic increases
within the annexation
area. Approximately
2,430 peak hour trips
would be generated for
the Proponents' Scenario
and Alternative 3 by the
year 2012.
Alternative 3
COMPACT SCENARIO
Approximately 2,430
peak hour trips would be
generated (or the
Proponents' Scenario and
Alternative 3 by the year
2012.
Alternative 4
VILLAGE SCENARIO
Under Alternative 4
approximately 2,560
peak hour trips would be
generated over the same
timeframe.
MITIGA nON MEASURES
The primary mitigation option
associated with the Proponents'
Scenario would be design of the South
Site Drive/SR-507 intersection for
initial development phases. This
would involve lane improvements
and signalization. Future
development closer to the city core
....ill have new connector roads.
RWT/A 12/92
SUMMARY MATRIX
SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXA nON
IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES
Allernative 1
NO ACTION
SCHOOLS
Impacts to Yelm schools
would be minimal.
~
~
13 of 19
Alternative 2
PROPONENTS' SCENARIO
The Proponents Scenario
would result in polential
increases in the number of
sludents to be served by
the Yelm Community
Schools. As development
occurs, increasing demand
would result in the need
for additional classroom
facilities and personnel.
The annexation would
also likely result in a loss
of a portion of the
Rainier School District's
jurisdiction as land is
absorbed by Yelm,
Allemativt 3
COMPAlT SCEi"lARIO
Alternative 3 would
involve the same
densities and thus would
result in the same
potential incrt'3ses.
Alternative 4
VILLAGE SCENARIO
Alternative 4 would
involve a ten percent
reduction in the number of
residential units and
would have a
cOlTesponding decrease in
potential students.
MITIGA nON MEASURES
Space for a future school facility is a
part of the annexation proposal.
Impact developmenl fees could be
assessed 10 provide for future school
district nreds. The proposed
developmcnt could include retirement
housing that would diminish impacts
on schools.
RWT/A 12/92
SUMMARY MATRIX
SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXATION
IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1
NO ACTION
POLICE
The annexation area
would not be added and
no increase to police
jurisdiction would occur
...
U1
FIRE
No Action would not
impact city services.
14 of 19
Alternative 2
PROPONENTS' SCENARIO
The Proponents' Scenario
would increase the
demand for police
protection and calls for
service within Yelm. It
would create an
Immediate nC<'d for
additional full-time
officers and one new
palrol vehicle
The Proponents' Scenario
would result in increasing
the needs for fire
protection within the
city Additional
personnel and equipment
could be nceded.
Alternative 3
COMPACT SCENARIO
Impacts would be lhe
same as the Proponenls'
Scenario.
Similar needs would
arise from this
alternative as those of
the Proponents' Scenario.
Alternative 4
VILLAGE SCENARIO
Calls for service could be
reduced somewhat, but
the general needs for new
staff and vehicle would
not change.
Although the potential
development mix might
change. the need to
service the site would
not.
MITIGA nON MEA SUR ES
Future development projects could be
designed to include features such as
lighting. alarms. a Blockwatch
program and state of the art traffic
controls to discourage crime and
reduce impacts on police services.
The annexation proposal includes
land for a satellite fire station.
Property tax revenues would
contribute toward purchase of fire
support vehicles or other equipment.
Water fadlities would be constructed
within the annexation area to
provide adequate fire now
conditions.
RWT/A 12/92
SUMMARY MATRIX
SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXATION
IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES
Alternative t
NO ACTION
PARKS AND
RECREATION
No Action would not
impact city recreation
service ne<<l s.
~
0\
]S of 19
Alternative 2
PROrONEWfS'SCENARIO
The Proponents' Scenario
would increase the
demand for recreation
facilities in and around
Yelm. Neighborhood and
community facilities
would be affected, The
Proponents' Scenario
would include some
additional recreational
opportunities. including
possible golf course
facilities.
Alternative 3
COMPACT SCENARIO
Alternative 3 would
result in the same type of
increased need as the
Proponents' Scenario.
Alternative 4
VILLAGE SCENARIO
Alternative 4 would
provide fewer residential
homes and thus could
have somewhat less
impact on the need for
recrea lional services.
MITIGA nON MEASURES
Developer contributions toward park
and recreation improvements could be
required. Open space areas should be
coordinated with offsite areas to
provide opportunities (or trails and
or corridors.
The City Parks Plan should be
updated.
RWT/A ]2192
SUMMARY MATRIX
SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXATION
IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES
WATER SUPPLY
SYSTEMS
..-
'I
16 of 19
Altunatlve 1
NOACTlON
No Action would not
affect water supply for
Yelm.
Alternative 2
PROPONENTS' SCENARIO
Complete buildout of the
annexation proposal
would result in excl't'ding
current water storage
capacities. The required
total would be
approximately 2.078.000
gallons of storage It
would be ncressary 10
build storage capacity for
both standby and
equalizing nreds 10 mret
city and state
requirements. Additional
wells and water rights
may also be n-quired to
meet needs within the
annexation area.
Alternative 3
COMPACT SCENARIO
Additional storage
capacity would be needed
as shown for Ihe
Proponents' Scenario.
Alternative 4
VILLAGE SCENARIO
Impacts would be the
same as the Proponents'
Scenario.
MITIGA nON MEASURES
Construct one or more waler
reservoirs wilh a total 1.5 million
gallon capacity within the
annexation area to serve full buildout
conditions.
Construct a loop water system
throughout the entire annexation
area to connect to the existing S-inch
main from the city
Provide onsile fire hydrants and
protection services as required by city
regulations.
The City Water Plan should be
amended or updated.
RWf/A 12/92
SUMMARY MATRIX
SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXATION
IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1
NOACfION
WASTEWATER
FACILITIES
No Action would not
aHect city sewage nows.
~
00
17 of 19
Alternative 2
PROPONENTS' SCENARIO
The proposed annexation
would result in increased
sewage flows within the
area. Approximalely
1,260.000 gallons per day
would result from full
buildout. This would
require expansion of the
existing sewage
treatment plant.
Alternative 3
COMPACT SCENARIO
Wastewater impacts
would be largely Ihe
same as the Proponents'
Scenario.
Alternative 4
VILLAGE SCENARIO
Impacts would be similar
10 the Proponents'
Scenario.
MIllGA nON MEASURES
Property owners within the
annexation area should fund
amendments to the comprehensive
sewage plans for the city
Developers and the city would enter
into agreements to fund the sewer
treatment plant and collection
sytems.
Additional sewage treatment plant
costs would be passed on to future
development on a direct cost basis.
RWTf^ 12/92
SUMMARY MATRIX
SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXATION
IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES
STORM WATER
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
AND COLLECTION
SYSTEMS
~
\D
18 of 19
Allernati ve 1
NO ACTION
No Action would not
require additional
services. The present
runoff would continue 10
flow into existing
wetland and pothole
depression areas.
Allernative 2
PROPONENTS' SCENARIO
The proposed annexation
would necessitate
complete storm drainage
collection and conveyance
facilities. Open water
channels, piping systems,
catch basins and
oil/water separator
pumps would be nccdcd,
Additional storm waler
runoff from new
impervious surfaces
would result from the
proposa I.
Approximately 3,150,000
cubic fret of detention
volume would be nceded.
Allemative 3
COMPACT SCENARIO
Due to decreases in
overall impervious
surfaces under this
approach, total detention
volume required would be
approximately 2,050,000
cubic feet. Other impacts
would be similar to Ihe
Proponents Scenario.
Allernative 4
VILLAGE SCENARIO
Approximately 3,250,000
cubic feet of detention
volume would be nceded.
The need for new
improvements would be
the same as the
Proponents'Scenario.
MI11GA nON MEASURES
Drainage and conveyance systems
would be required for each new
development. Surface and subsurface
systems would be designed.
Provide storm drainage detention in
areas where a viable downstream
channel or open body of water exists
to accept additional storm drainage
flow
Provide surface retention in areas
without any viable means of surface
discharge.
Provide retention facilities in areas
where retention does not occur
naturally but can be created due to
good soil conditions,
Provide de-siltation facilities to
ensure that both retention and
detention systems operate as
designed.
Adopt stonnwater standards and
regulations. RWT/A 12/92
SUMMARY MATRIX
SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXA nON
IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES
SOLID WASTE!
RECYCLING
SYSTEMS
N
o
FACILITY
PLANNING AND
CONCURRENCY
19 of 19
Alternative 1
NO ACTION
No Action would not
impact waste water
levels in the city
Additional services
would not be nceded and
costs associated with
delivery of services
would not occur
Potential new revenue
sources for Yelm would
not be provided
Alternative 2
PROPONENTS' SCENARIO
The annexation would
result in increased
amounts of waste water in
the area. The
Proponents' Scenario
would result in
approximately 32,328.000
pounds of new waste each
year Landfill capacity
would be diminished by
5% of the current 10 year
liCe expectancy
Development under .he
proposed annexation
would require additional
services from .he city
This would require that
facility extensions or
funding for such
extensions be provided
prior to development.
Costs for services would
increase
Alternative 3
COMPACT SCENARIO
Impacts would be largely
similar to the Proponents'
Scenario.
Potential costs for
providing new services
would be less than the
Proponents' Scenario
under this approach.
Revenue generated by
future development is
also estimated to be less
than the Proponents'
Scenario.
Alternative 4
VILLAGE SCENARIO
Solid waste levels from
residential use would
decline, however, waste
levels from additional
commercial use could
offset the overall
decrease.
Potential costs for
services and future
revenues generated by
new land uses, are
estimated to be greatest
under this approach.
MITIGATION MEASUREc;
Waste reduction efforts should be
encouraged and recycling programs
should be established within the
annexa tion area.
Developer impact f('6 could be
required to help fund extensions of
services and/ or pay for service
improvements within the area.
Revenue from future development
would be expected to help offset some
COStS for services. Identification of
funding sources, according to the
Growth Managment Act provisions,
would be sufficient for development.
RVlTIA 12192
.;
. -'.. - .. c
'fiU '" .,
LEGEND COMPACT ALT 3 - 0:: ~
,. '"
III c
III ~
:J
0 RESIDENTIAL :t600 AC '0 ;;;:
c
'"
-l
m COMMERCIAL :t40 AC (ij
::l
a.
:t20 AC 5 III
00000000 PUBLIC ! u
OOOQ~Otl C
0000001;10
0
n 0
):j~;~ 1-: OPEN SPACE :t1,200 AC U
Golf Course, Wetlanda, '"
~. 0.
Parka, Buflera, Sleep Slopea .I- E
E3 U 0
0
.
0
c::
---,
,-
SOURCE: Clly 01 V.lm
.----
..., ._~ --- - -~~:.
~I z
"- ni. 0
~.Oi ~
, o. X
(J)~ w
en Z
1-_ ......
-. '-... -, .A I ~
\\." - ~ <(
..~ . . )~fA . C:2
'~""'"'!~"'tP1'f '~L. ~-. ~ I ...J
-:~.;~~ .... '.\1 '- ~ W
- - -- CD >-
a. I-
... Cf)
~ W
.... ~
.1iI I-
~ ~
~oO
.... ; Cf)
LEGEND
VILLAGE ALl 4
" c:
I fiU '" ..
a:: ,~
Ql iij
c
l/l ~
::::>
'0 <(
C
'"
-J
iV
::l
5 a.
Ql
! u
c
0
j=: ()
J~ ci,
Ol
,- ~
.1- :>
i~
.1- Ql
s::
0 l-
e
o RESIDENTIAL :t:900 AC
':.:.:i COMMERCIAL :t:110 AC
:t: 20 AC
PUBLIC
I
II
II
II
I.
~ PRIMARY CIRCULATION CORRIDORS
TOTAL 1,860 ACRES //
Notes: Y 1, Y-2 Potential Arterial Corridor I I
All acreages are approximate, I I
r--------------~~~r.~.
--- . ;..~.#s:J.1 i,/f.
I~\~~:,~,~~. 1"ft',~~~.. ,->-.."....... .....t... r{ f ,..(i r,r
I [~~~~:'~;t\~:. ."'.,~~>.;;~~/~i{,
, ,it...:"." ""',,..
::I!~~~' ~\~,~
~ 1 t,...:- .' \,'
g 1 t ,~,; 't' ';..~'
a: I~'') '.
a: l~~,,' .,;
o I L)-','
U "' ,-
I!l I Li,,-!
l; Il'
~ 1 tJ" \
W f'"
~ 1 ,,-',
f2 I h~" ,--;.
~ 113,"'\, ,"
~ 1\.....1.
~ I ~"'.~ :i:~,'\
a: I"\" 'lI .~
UJ I::.; 'I\~'
!J 11:'\-,"
4( .3"'1'\
I ~"+'~
1 t:'~:
Ik~
Il.i;;' .,-.;._____
II
II
I I
OPEN SPACE :t:830 AC
Golf Course, Wetlands.
Parks. Buffell, Steep Slopes
:.
(/)~
~- Q)I Z
~ 0
,,=- ro ~ I-::
. ..; -(j! <(
olx
(/) ill
~ (/) Z
\~i:-'.<J ~
'if"" 'I ~}~..; ~ 11 ~
".,,1:... " -J
Sill
Q)~>-
a.~
... (/)
,g ill
... ~
~ ~
-.---- a:; g
III
<n
ti _.,
a:
'':;'~f~111Jt
......-,.,-,,:~,L:,~t~,
r- -,
-~"
i
---T--_-
SOURCE,
R.W Thorpe & Auo~I.I.I, Inc./O.&lgn T.am
-----
Comment Letters and Responses
RESPONSES TO LETTERS FROM PUBLIC AGENCIES
l~
.\" .'i!~ji:~~~" ~
e:
DEe '2 9 1992
I
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION
771 21st Avenue S.W · P.O Box ./3843 . OlympiiJ, WiJshington 98504-83./3 · (206) 753-4077
December 28, 1992
1/
~ ...
STATE OF WASHINGTON
J
· SCAN 234-4011
[r. Todd stamm, city Planner
'ity of Yelm
105 Yelm Avenue West
Post Office Box 479
elm, WA 98597
Log:
Re:
121892-18-TN
Southwest Yelm Annexation, DEIS
Dear Mr. Stamm.
'he Washington state Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP)
1S in receipt of the Draft Environmental Impact statement (DEIS) for the
Southwest Yelm Annexation action. From the project description, I
.nderstand that this proposal entails the annexation of 2,000 acres to the
;ity of Yelm, for eventual development for residential, recreational, and
commercial uses. Location of the annexation is southwest of the present
ity limits.
In response, OAHP recommends that the City of Yelm consider the impact of
~he annexation upon the area's cultural resources including historic and
rchaeological properties. This process should include the identification, 1
evaluation, and protection of such properties. Already, the City of Yelm
Rnd Thurston County have cond~cted surveys for historic properties in the
elm area. To supplement this data, we recommend a survey be conducted to
.dentify archaeological properties within the proposed annexation.
Following this identification process, identified cultural resources should 2
e evaluated for significance. Those found to be significant should be
rotected through various incentives and planning mechanisms. We recommend
these steps be coordinated vlith the Yelm Historic Preservation Commission,
~he Thurston County Historical Commission, and OAHP. Also, the final I
nvironmental impact statement should acknowledge the potential for
flistoric and archaeological resources within the annexation and identify 3
steps to address these issues.
.hank you for the opportunity to comment on this annexation. Should you
have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (206) 753-9116.
sifiere{j ..oU
G~Zt A. :Wiiiith
comp~ensive Planning Specialist
AG: lms
cc:
Shelly Badger
24
<,(~3
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS IN LETfER FROM
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,
OFFICE OF ARCHEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Response to Comment No.1:
Comments acknowledged. Historic and archeological resources were not included
in the original scoping of the Draft EIS with the City In the process of gathering
information for the Draft EIS, no information concermng cultural or historic
resources on the site was found.
Response to Comment No.2:
Comment acknowledged. A survey of cultural resources and approprIate protection
mechanisms will be addressed during the application process for a specific
development proposal on the property.
Response to Comment No.3:
If potentiallustoric/ cultural resources are encountered during anyone of the future
site-speclfic development processes, work would be stopped and the Washington
State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation would be notified (in
accordance with all State and Federal requirements and gmdelines)
The City of Yelm has a Historic Preservation Commission that catalogs and
identifies historic resources within the City of Yelm. If this site is annexed into the
City, it will be included in future studies and mappings conducted by the Yelm
Histone Preservation Commlssion.
25
\oJ ...' '" '" .. _ ..... ..l.. .. _ ..I. ___... \t. . -...
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
MJiJ Stop PV.11 . 0Iy~. Washirwton 98504-8771 . (206) 459-6000
January 13, 1993
---_....--=:-:~ _.,'~ \
__..--.-.~ ., 6."""'... '1'
~ ~=- ,-:-.. ....
'~;.: 'C.-
~ ~ , '"
i
j': I
5\993
Mr Todd St8Dllll
City of Yelll
PO Box 479
Yelm YA 98597
...
......- ..
-- --,-. .--...' .--"
-.'--
Dear Mr. Stamm.
Thank you for the opportunity to COllllllent on the draft environmental impact
statement (DEIS) for the Southwest Yelm Annexation proposed by Thurston
Highlands Associates. Ye reviewed the DEIS and have the following comments
Any ground water withdrawals in excess of 5,000 gallons per day or for the
irrigation of more than one-half acre of lawn or noncommercial garden will 1
require a water right permit from Ecology.
The Department of Ecology encourages the development of public water supply I 2
systems, whether publicly or privately owned, to provide water to regional
areas and developments.
If you have any questions, please call Ms. Jill Van Hulle with the Yater
Resources Program at (206) 586-5560
Sincerely,
/lut'lA1~~4;:L
M. Vernice Santee
Environmental Review Section
KVS
92-7742
cc Jill Van Hulle, SYRO
Sarah Barrie, SYRO
~3
2(? ..
o
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS IN LETrER FROM
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Response to Comment No.1:
Comment acknowledged A water right permit will be applied for when the
situation arises. In the proposed golf course, technology of using treated wastewater
for irrigation may be ubhzed.
Response to Comment No.2:
The City of Yelm's public water supply system currently does serve some areas
outside of the City limits, however there will be a future extension of the existing
pubhc water supply system to serve the proposed annexation area, where not served
by existing wells Mitigation measures addressing water system improvements
necessary to serve the proposed development and to comply with city and state
requirements are found on page 113 of the Draft EIS.
27
U j - l:J - ~ J ~,~". ;" -:.. -" 1.1 j II V t I ~ ..1'1
~
yg
Washington State
Department of Transportation
Du.ne Berentson
Sec~e:ary o! Tra~s~:::~a:'o"
Dlat,ict 3
OffIce of DistriCt Admi",slrator
572~ Capitol Boulevaro
POBox 47440
Olympia, WA 98504-7440
January 14, 1993
Todd Stamm
City of Yelm
Planning and Building Dept.
POBox 479
Yelm, WA 98597
5 1993
i
'- -..-..
I. ~/ J !
IV'
J
Southwest Yelm Annexation
SR 510, MP 15.5 Vicinity
E. C File No 93000- T
DES
;.....-.---
Dear Mr Stamm
We have received and reviewed the above proposal and have the following comments.
It is noted that the proposed Southwest Yelm Annexation as submitted is 'non-project'
in nature. Although the annexatlon 1I1 Itself will not create any additiona11Dlpacts to the
transportatlon system, the intent IS to increase population deOSlties to a level greater than
the existing transportation infrastructure can accommodate.
The DES as submitted does not address the impacts, as far as capacity or level of
service on SR 510 and SR 507 outside Yelm's UGA. The annexation and subsequent
development of this proposal will have a significant adverse impact on the entire length
of SR 510 and SR 507 from Old 99 in Tenino (MP 13 64) to the Fort Lewis Access
Rd.(MP 39 04) The traffic portion of the EIS should be expanded to incoxporate those
sections, identifying impacts and the appropriate nntigations. The Department requests
an opponunity to review and comment upon the revisions.
The proposed development of this annexation rehes heavily on the improvements
outlined in Yelm's Comprehensive Transportation Plan that are yet to be funded.
Should this EIS be used or referenced, for the actual development of this annexation,
the Depanment requests that the construction of those unprovements be in place
concurrent With the demand generated by the proposal. No development shall be
allowed without first secunng full funding for the necessary roadway mItigations.
Thank you for the opponunity to review the above proposal. If there are any questions
regarding our comments, please contact Fred Tharp at (206)357.2667
Sincerely,
PAULA J. HAMMOND P.E.
Transpomtion Planning Engineer
~&~.P.E.
Asst. Trans. Planning Engineer
District 3
PJCH I PB:fot
CC. N Williams
Bob Hazlett I S Chamberlain & Associates I P a.Box 3485 I Lacey, WA 98503-0485
File 93000-T
28
----~--,,:,
1
2
3
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS IN LETTER FROM
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Response to Comment No.1
Comments acknowledged. The Southwest Yelm Annexation proposal is submitted
as a 'non-project' proposal. However, the alternatives include three scenarios with
specified levels of development. The transportation section estimates the traffic
generation and impacts for each of the specific development alternatives, and
recommends spec1fic 1mprovements and m1tigating measures.
Response to Comment No.2
The nature of the proposal is non-project specific. Thus, the potential impacts and
proposed mitigation outlined in the transportation section, refer to conceptual
development scenarios The exact nature of future development within the
proposed annexation area is not fully known at this time. Future site-specific,
project level envlronmental review will occur as development within each
property takes place. It is anticipated that these project-specific environmental
reV1ews w1l1 address the transportation-related 1mpacts, 1f any to the state facilIties
outs1de the Yelm UGA and Identify approprIate mitigation to accommodate these
1m pacts
In March of 1992, the Thurston Regional Planning Council approved resolution No
92-4 to amend the1r unified Planning Work Program for the 1992 Fiscal Year to
assure that their Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) would reflect the planning
standards developed by the Washington Department of Transportation for
compliance under the Growth Management Act.
Critical to the development of the RTP is interagency involvement. This occurs at
several levels An eX1sting Transportation Technical Advisory Committee was
d1rected in 1991 to provIde technical input and assure that the assumptions, crIterIa
and methodology used in the RTP are consistent with accepted professional
practices. The committee includes representatives of local jUrIsdIctions, InterCIty
Trans1t, the Port of Olympia, and the Washington State Department of
Transportation.
The City of Yelm has recently completed a ComprehenSIve Transportation Plan that
is consistent with the RTP and the requirements mandated by the State Growth
Management Act. The Plan addresses potential impacts and capacity levels of
serVIces for both State HIghway 510 and 507 from future growth within the City of
Yelm The Plan dIscusses the future potential expansion and upgrading of the
eXIstmg hIghway system as 1t passes through, or even by-passes the City center and
uses a corridor located to the south of the existing highway corrIdor This proposed
section of highway improvement is referred to in the ComprehenSIve
Transporta bon Plan as "Y -1". This extension would have a direct relation to the
future level of serVIce and road capac1tIes and the proposed annexation area. ThIS
29
potential future highway corridor is shown in relation to the proposed annexation
area and the existing highway system
Response to Comment No.3
Comment acknowledged The Growth Management Act requires that the
construction of public facility improvements will be in place or funded, concurrent
with the demand generated by a proposal. The mitigating measures for Part C.
Transportation (page 101, SW Yelm Draft EIS), provides options for determining the
responsibility for improvements related to the direct impacts of the proposal. In a
more general reference, the mitigating measures for Section 9 Facility Planning and
Concurrency (page 131, SW Yelm Draft EIS) suggest that developer impact fees could
be assessed for providing some facility extensions and/ or improvements to the
proposed annexation area.
30
:v~T SMITCH
Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE
905 E, Heron .\ berdeen. W,\ 9R 5 20
Tel (206) "33-9335
J.:-,nuary 8~ 199:::
t-1I"". Tc.dd Stamm
Ci ty F 12>.nnel-
City elf fE~lm
P. O. Ba~: 479
y e 1 (1\ ~ ~'J(:; (7'8597
.....,"1", I I
,"!,\ :, ;.
U~3
~e: Draft Environmental Impact Statement--Southwest
Ve 1 m Anne::i:l. tion
Section 19~ Township 17N~ ~ange 02E and
Sections =:~ 24~ 26 and =7~ Township 17N~ Range OlE
Thut-ston County
Dear t11-. Stamm:
The Washington State Department of Wildlife (WDW) appreciates the
opportunity to re~iew and comment on the above-referenced Draft
Environmental Impact statement (DEIS) on the anne::ation of
appro;:im2tely :2~()()(l acres into the eit,. of 'telm with.a proposed
development dwelling density o'f 5.1 units per acre with a rna::imurn
of 5.0uO developed units. After re~iewing the DEIS and the
Technical Appendices~ our .agency has the following comments and
concel-ns.
As you ~.now~ the llJDW is mandated to "protect~ preserve and
perpetuate" Washington s wildlife~ both game and non-game
species. With the -growing concern of Washington re5idents~
counties and cities to protect their wildlife and to prevent
e tirpation and/or possible listing of wildlife species~ it is
essential that wildlife issues be adequately addressed. This
DEIS does not sufficiently address wildlife concerns~ e.g.
protection for priority habitats and species~ wildlife corridors~ 1
proper protection for wetl.ands and wetland-dependent species~
protection of nest trees (.as required by RCW 77.16.120)~ and
mi.tiga,tion. The statement on wildlife on page 42 that: "t-10st of
the wildlife and ~egetation currently occupying undeveloped land
would be displaced or destroyed when development occLlrs", shows a
1 ach of concel-n for "'-'ashing ton's I-Ji 1 d 1 i fe. Since this anne::.a tion
would provide for the increase in housing density from the
current one house per five acre designation by Thurston County,
to 5.1 units per acre and the large area (:2,uOO acres) which will
be affected, our agency has the following concerns.
31
~3
t-1r. Todd Steo.mm
Fage ~
Decembe~ 8~ 199~
In the preceding pal~agl-aph~ I have I-eferenced priority habitats
and species. vJDLJ hc':lS de'veloped a Friority Habitats and Species
(FHS! program to identify the most important wildlife habitats
and wildlife species in order to assist counties~ cities~
developers and others to ta~e a proactive approach to protection
of fish and wildlife. By ta~ing a proacti've approach as opposed
ta a reactive approach~ this will help prevent future wildlife
los~es and it will be much less costly to plan now rather than
n~'co.el'ing laSSES once 'lI1e'y OCCLlr. Thur-ston COLlnty is one of
the leading cOLlnties in protecting OLW natul-al reSOLlrces through
their Critical Areas ordinance.
2
The DEIS does not address protection far the priority species
whic h Cl.re found in the p,-oposed Cl,nne::a tion a.rea. The fallowing
is a list of priori tv species which were listed in the DEIS but
were not ac~nowledged as priority species.
3
1. File"".ted YlOodpec~er (V,...vocopus p.lleatus) (Also "", StCl.te
Candidate species)
Western Bluebird (5ialia menicana) (State Candidate and
Federal Sensitive species)
~ed-tailed Hawh (Buteo jamaicensis)
4. Wood Duc~s (Ain sponsa)
5. Columbian Blac~-tailed deer (Odocoileus hem.lonus
col umbianl..ls)
6. Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias). There is a heron
roo~ery located in Section ~O~ Township 17N, Range U~E,
and this area~ with its multiple wetlands and Thompson
Creeh, provide the herons with food~ water, altet-nate
nesting sites~ roasting and nursery areas.
7. Western Gra~ Squirrel (Sciurus griseus). This is also
a State Candidate species. Although there were no
sightings in the proposed area~ there are ~nown squirrel
sightings in nearby areas. Therefore~ the oak-conifer
32
/'lr. Todd St.:HJlIll
Fage ::
December 8~ 199::
habitat should be protected as a potential dispersal area
for the Western Gray Squirrel.
8. EH (een'us elaphus) (Fossible LIse as a migration route).
This proposed area has diverse habitat types including forested~
open 'f ie 1 ds (whic h C.r-e importan t feed lng al-eas for t-aptor"s) ~
stream corridor and ~arying types of wetlands. Numerous
wintering waterfowl species utilize the open water wetlands for
feeding and resting habitat. In addition~ the wetlands and their
upland buffers are used to meet the life needs of numerous
wildlife species who reside in the local area.
4
With the anne:ation and heavy density development planned for the
area~ these diverse habitats will be fragmented~ destroyed and/or
rendered unusable by area wildlife resulting in severely reduced
populations and/or local population die-offs~ an increase in
animal damage by displaced wildlife~ decreased recreational value
(e.g. wildlife viewing~ hunting~ etc.).
5
Wildlife is the property of the State and its citizens and
therefore it is important to properl~ address protection and
mitigation for fish~ wildlife and their habitats.
Thank ~ou for the opportunity to
proposed anne:ation.
re~iew and comment on this
Since,-el y ~
c:d-e#~ SJ d~/fJP
DEBBIE D. CAhNEVALI
Habitat Biologist
cc: Dave Gufler~ WDW
Connie Iten~ WDW
Faula Ehlers~ Thurston Co. Flanning
33
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS IN LElTER FROM
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE
Response to Comment No.1
Comments acknowledged The Alternative scenarios in the Draft EIS propose
developing the land as a master-planned community or PUD, with large areas set
aside in open space The open space areas include wetlands, forested slopes, and
stream buffers that provide valuable wildlife habitat areas on the site. The Draft EIS
d1scusses opportunities for open space corridors (pages 71-72), the acreage retamed in
open space could serve as areas for recreation, critical area protection and wildlife
hab1tat. Wetland buffers will be provided accordmg to the reqUlrements of the
Interim Yelm Critical Area Ordinance, which will serve to protect wetland
-dependent species. The presence of pnority hab1tats and species is more speCIfically
addressed in Appendix B of this report.
Response to Comment No.2
Comments acknowledged The Alternative scenarios propose to set aside
approx1mately 42%-60% of the entire site (830 to 1,200 acres) in open space use
These open space areas are planned to include valuable wildlife habitat areas on the
site, such as wetlands, wetland buffers, vegetated steep slopes, and stream corridors
Response to Comment No.3
Comments acknowledged. A Priority Habitat Study was not completed by IES
Associates during the initial phase of the Draft EIS investigation. At the time of the
Wetlands Evaluation and BlOlog1cal Report, a PriOrity Hab1tat and Spec1es Study was
not required by Thurston County The presence of wildhfe on the site was addressed
in a general format as part of the Draft EIS Because of the limited time and
seasonality of the biological investigations, species were identified as either present
or having the potential of being present on the site. The priority species listed in the
Draft EIS and noted m the comment letter are addressed m Appendix B of this
report The project proponents have agreed to complete a Priority Habitat and
Spec1es Report 1f the mformahon provided in Appendix B does not adequately meet
the areas of concern and reqUlrements of Thurston County and the Washmgton
Department of W1ldhfe
Response to Comment No.4
Comments acknowledged The areas that are set aside as open space in the
alternative scenarios mclude elements of all the diverse habitat types (wetlands,
forested slopes, stream buffers) that support w1ldlife specIes in the local area
However, the proposed development WIll reduce the overall area of wildlife habitat
and there will be some loss in habitat values compared to the existing conditions on
the sIte
Response to Comment No.5
Comments acknowledged. The annexation proposal would result in higher density
development on the slte and wlldlife habitat areas will be lost. However, the open
34
space areas proposed In the alternatives connect wildlife habitat areas, and may
actually result in less overall habitat fragmentation than if the area was developed
with a land use pattern of 5 acre lots, as permitted under existing zoning.
35
- .. - ----...-
.....uu.:
OJUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Georte L Buner,lr.
District One
Dlal'\e Oberquell
District T we
Linda Medel!(
D~1.Tict Three
THURSTON COliNTY
"'~.-L"ElI!'I1 _ --.:'....~ .....~....
51:-.:c1:: 1~51
PLANNlNG DEPAR11vffiNT
/
January 15, 1993
Harold Robemon, Alcr
Pl:mnln~ Director
Mr. Todd Stamm. City Planner
City of Yelm
PO Box 479
Yelm, WA 98597
SUBJECT: Southwest Yelm Annexation Draft Environment Impact Statement
Dear .Mr Stamm:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed
Southwest Yelm Annexation and offer the following comments for your consideration.
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Groundwater. This section does not specific:illy address the impacts of golf course
development on water quality. Table 18 indicates that Alternatives 2 through 4 would
devote 276 acre..~ LO golf courses. The environmental impacts of this use, particularly
the potential effects of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides on the groundwater
proposed to be used as a public water source, should be addressed. If the development
project proceeds, we suggest that you require a groundwater monitoring and integrated
pest management for the golf course area.
1
Wetlands (SectIon B 1. Water)
Additional work is needed in the wetlands section. The repon is confusing and the
analysis is not objective Confusion could be reduced by overlaying the delineated
wetlands on the 3 different scenarios. EIS' are supposed to be wntten for the
jurisdiction as an objective analysis of the probable adverse environmental impacts of
a proposal. Statements made in the wetlAnd analysis indicate that the City is assuming
that the filling of wetlands is not avoidable. Filling wetlands is avoidable and should
be the firSt mitigatIon tactic. Adequate protective buffers should also be proposed. On
2
2CCO Llkc:ridc~ Drive SW Olympia. Wa.shi~n 985C2-6045 (206) 786-55541 FAX (206) 754-+;1J
@
B.qdH n.,.
36
Mr. Stamm
January 15, 1993
Page 2
page 32, a large forested wetland is mentioned (identified erroneously as #16), and
described as needing a 100 foot buffer. If Yelm's Crincal Areas Ordinance is similar
to the Ecology Model Ordinance, then 100 feet is not an appropriate buffer width for 3
this type of wetland. There is also no other mention of appropriate buffering for any
of the other 19 wetlands delineated. We have several other conunents regarding the
wetland section and they include the following:
Figure 10 The "off-sHe wetland" noted near SR 507 appears to be I 4
partially on-sIte.
Pg. 32, first paragraph. Appears that you intend to use the wetlands as
pollutant filters Untreated stormwater should not be directed to narural
wetlands
Pg. 32, 6th paragraph. How will wetlands be impacted?
Pg. 34, last paragraph. It is also difficult to understand how the wetland
losses were calculated at less than one acre since the analysis did not seem
that specific.
Enen!'v All three development alternatives (2-4) call for the relocation of the Centralia
high-voltage transmission line bisecting Section 27. Since Alternative 2 and 4 show
residential development adjacent to the tranSmission lines, the issue of electromagnetic
radLation should be addressed.
BUILT ENVIRONMENT
Population Grov,rth/IIousing Demand. The Draft EIS estimates for population growth
and housing demand in the Yelm area are considerably higher than Thurston Regional
PlanIung Council's (TRPC) estimates.
Considering this large difference, the methodology and assumptions for the population,
housing and sewer service demands should be reevaluated to ensure that they provide
a reasonable basis for assurnpuons supporting the development alterna.t:ives described
in the Draft EIS and for related plannmg in the area..
N amra! Resource Lands. All of the development proposals would result in the
urbanization of currently rural lands that support agriculture and forestry If urban
development proceeds, the compact scenario, Alternative 3 appears to be most
compatible wlth the resource uses on adjoming properties.
J I - I ':. - '3 1 rH:1 ; P!! I") j
37
5
\6
\ 7
8
I 9
10
11
Mr. Stamm
January 15, 1993
Page 3
Transportation. This section should address the impact of traffic generated by the
proposed alternatives on county TOadS and state highways beyond the immediate area.
These include the Yelm Highway, Reservation Road, Ramier Road, Old Highway 99.
SR 507 and SR 510. Impacts on roadway capacity and any associated improvements
<:hnnlri h,. irlpntifipn ~nrl rllC'rllu'Arf Tn ",-!,-!;hnn nln "'..."".......C... ~...... for.> ........d:........ .........
Fort Lewis regarding any anocipated openings of roads within the project VlCmiry.
Schools. It IS likely that any of the development alternatives will generate more
smdents than contemp~ted in the EIS We suggest that the applicant work with the
Yelm School District to prep3!e an updated school demand forecast. considering the
likely housing mix, demographics and existing school capacIty, and alter the amount of
land devoted to school uses in the alternatives accordingly.
In addition. if the project proceeds, we suggest that consideration be given to sitting
schools in close proximIty to residential areas to enable access by foot and bicycles. to
reduce traffic and busmg, and to foster a greater sense of community.
Wastewater Facilities. The Draft EIS indic:ltes that in order to serve the entire proposed
development a new N'"PDES permit (and approval from Centralia Power) would be
needed to enable an increased sewage outfall to the Nisqually River. A determination
should be made as to whether or not this is possible or likely and generally what the
envirorunental unpacts would be. If a permit for more outfall could be obtained, a
detennination should be made as to whether or not the system can be cost~ffectively
redesIgned to accommodate the projected sewage flow from the proposed annexation
(and the remainder of the interim growth area) within the limits established by the
existing pennits. Also, what would be the alternative density of the annexation area if
sewer was not available?
GENERAL COMMENTS
12
13
14
115
There is no chscussion regarding historic resources. 116
Alternative 3 seems to have the least enY1ronmental impacts and appears to be the most
cost-effective to serve of the development alternatives being considered. Therefore, if 17
the city eventually 4Mexes this area, we urge the Cicy to require this type of
development pattern.
38,
I 1 - i. ~ - "J ~ IJ .l Z ~ r !.1 p IJ J
Mr Stamm
January 15. 1993
Page 4
Thank you for considering our comments.
Since~ely.
~:-~
Paula Ehlers, Senior Planner
37:1l:d
cc: Thurston County Board of Commissioners
Tom Fitzsimmons. CAO
City of Yelm Planning Commission
City of Yelm City Council
Ol-l~-~: uJ l~r~ fv~
39
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS IN LETrER fROM
THURSTON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Response to Comment No.1
Comments acknowledged. Golf course development is included in the alternative
scenarios as a development concept. Proponents of any future golf course
development would follow Best Management Practices to reduce the potential
effects of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides on groundwater, that could result from
golf course development. A more detailed analysis of project-related impacts will be
prepared during the application process for a future, specific development proposal
on the property
Response to Comment No. 2
Comments acknowledged. Figures 1-3, in Appendix A of the Final EIS prov1de
maps with the delineated wetlands overlaying the three proposed alternative
scenarios The overlays ind1cate wetland areas that could be impacted by
development of the proposed alternatives However, the alternative scenarios
represent conceptual development plans. When more detailed development plans
are proposed for the site, avoidance of wetland impacts will be a primary
determinant in site planning, and the first mitigation tactic.
The conceptual alternatives have been changed to avoid a large area of wetlands in
the northeast portion of the site In this part of the site, the south loop road access
has been eliminated and adjacent residential lands changed to an open space
des1gnation, in order to avoid impacts to wetlands #18, #19, and #20
Protective buffers for wetlands will also be part of more detailed development plans
for the proposed SIte, and will fully comply with the standards in the interim C1ty of
Yelm Critical Area Ordinance
Response to Comment No. 3
Comments acknowledged. The large, forested wetland on the southwest portion of
the property was erroneously idenbfied in the text as wetland #16, and 1S correctly
identified as wetland #15 The wetland is classified as a Category II wetland,
utlhzing the wetlands rating system created by the Washington Department of
Ecology The interim City of Yelm Critical Areas Ordinance requires a 150 foot
buffer for Category IT wetlands. The Draft EIS incorrectly states that a 100 foot buffer
is required When specific development plans are proposed for the slte, they will
include the protective buffers as specified in the C1ty'S Cribcal Areas Ordinance or
WIll address appropriate mitigation measures
Response to Comment No.4
Comment acknowledged The "off-site" wetland noted near SR.-507 is partially on
the site and has been added to the wetland maps, md1cated as wetland #21 The
wetland was not addressed in the Draft EIS because 1t is not located on the
proponent's property and was not considered as part of the annexation proposal m
40
earlier discussions Under the U.S Fish and WIldlife Service classification system,
the wetland would be classified as Palustrine Broad-leaf Deciduous Forested
Intermittently Flooded wetland (PF2J) The wetland would be classified as a
Category IT wetland, under the Thurston County Critical Areas Ordinance, because
of the diversity, size and interaction with larger wetlands to the northeast and
south. A full description and characterization of the wetland 1S mcluded in
Appendix A of this report.
According to the proposed alternative development plans, Wetland #21 would be
crossed by an access road from Highway 507 (Yelm-Rainier Highway) The road
would cross a narrow finger of the linear wetland. The proposed road is necessary to
prov1de access to the proponent's (Thurston Highlands) portion of the annexation
site, and to provide for reasonable use and safety access to the property The road
al1gnment is considered the best alternative to access the site, given the topographic
hmitations of the site. There is an established method for obtaming approval to
construct roads over wetland areas, such as using the U.s. Army Corps of Engmeers,
Section 404 (B) nationwide permit, for filling up to one acre of established wetland
In this case, the proposed road will disturb much less than the allowable area. Any
necessary mitigation of impacts to this wetland will fully comply with all local, state
and federal regulations. An on-site wetland replacement ratio of 3 acres for every 1
acre of impacted wetland, and a wetland enhancement plan is proposed as
mitigation, 1f impacts are otherWlse unavoidable.
Response to Comment No. 5
Comment acknowledged PortlOns of some wetlands are proposed to be discharge
points for surface water The pre-treatment of these waters will be required by
surface water quality regulations. No untreated storm water is proposed to be
directed to the natural wetlands.
Response to Comment No. 6
Comment acknowledged The comment questions the impacts to wetlands #18 and
#19 in the northeast portion of the proposed annexation site. The conceptual plans
of the alternative scenarios, as proposed in the Draft EIS, have been changed to
avoid impacts to these wetlands. In the northeast section of the site, the south loop
road access has been eliminated and adjacent residential lands changed into the
open space designation, in order to avoid impacts to wetlands #18, #19 and #20
This change can be seen in Figures 1-3 in Appendix A of this report, which shows
the delineated wetlands overlaying the three proposed alternative scenarios
Response to Comment No.7
Comments acknowledged. The analysis of wetland 1mpacts in the Draft EIS was not
specific to the point of calculating the potenhal loss of wetland acreage It was
assumed that most wetland impacts would be aVOided when speCific development
plans are proposed for the slte. It is the intent of the development proposals to lImit
the total level of impacts to the absolute minimum necessary to meet road crossings
that cannot be aVOided. If unavoidable, the final site deSign will fill less than two
41
acres of wetlands, so that all impacts of the project fall within the less than two acre
nationwide permit regulations (with Water Quality Certification as approved by the
DOE) of Section 404, of the Clean Water Act, as administered by the U.s. Army Corps
of Engineers.
Response to Comment No.8
Comments acknowledged. When a site plan 1S developed for the proposed SIte, the
distances between residential development and the transmission lines will be
determined and analys1s of impacts associated to electromagnetic radiation will be
undertaken. It should be noted that the existing Centraha City Light transmission
lines are a 69,000 volt grounded wye system, which is significantly lower voltage
than the Puget Power lines located to the east of the City of Yelm, and is not
generally considered "high-voltage."
Response to Comment No.9
The Draft EIS estimates for population and housing demand in the Yelm area are
higher than Thurston Regional Planning Council (TRPC) projections The
differences are based on several major factors which are detailed on Page 62 of the
Southwest Yelm Annexation Draft EIS. The assumptions are summarized below.
. A major, well planned residential community will be developed on the subject
property, with a broad market spectrum of housing that will attract prospective
home buyers to the area and capture a larger share of the county population growth.
. The Thurston County projections are Employment-Base dnven and were denved
m a different manner than the projections generated by the models prepared by
Mundy Associates The County's models do not take into account retirement-based
population attraction factors The Profde, published by the Thurston RegIOnal
Planning CounCIl notes that. . the growing retirement age populatIOn is and Will
continue to be a strong economic influence as it creates a greater demand for some
serVIces ( especIally medIcal care) It is also Important to note that retIrees do not
Increase the demand for schools, one of the most costly needs for a growmg
populatIOn
Response to Comment No. 10
The City of Yelm is the only urban area in south Thurston County with fundmg in
place for upgradmg and expanding the1r sewer system. The provision of expanded
sewer facilities will allow the area to accommodate higher density development.
Projections in the Draft EIS show absorption beginning when the sewer is scheduled
to be in place.
Response to Comment No. 11
Comments acknowledged. While Alternative 3 does concentrate the proposed uses
and provide the greatest amount of open space, all the conceptual development
alternatives provide adequate buffers to protect both the natural env1ronment and
to make sure that existmg surrounding land uses are not negatively impacted
42
Future development proposals would result in project-specific review and analysis
where these issues would be addressed and a mitigation plan would be proposed.
Response to Comment No. 12
Please refer to comment #2 to the Washington State Department of Transportation.
Again, it is anticipated that the project-specific environmental reviews will address
the transportation-related impacts, if any, to both state and county facilities outside
the Yelm UGA and identify appropriate mitigation to accommodate these impacts.
Response to Comment No. 13
Comments acknowledged. The alternative scenarios described in the Draft EIS are
conceptual and therefore detailed information on a likely housing mix and
demographics is unavailable for a school demand forecast. The authors of the EIS
have established ranges of school age children while considering that a portion of
the slte w1l1 be targeted for retirement age residents.
The Yelm School Distnct was unable to provide a method that they use to
determine the number of students generated by development. School officlals wlth
the North Thurston School District were contacted and use a development
multiplier of .83201 students per single family dwelling unit and 41167 students per
multi-family dwelling unit, (inclusive of all school grades) Alternatives 2 and 3
anticipate a maximum of 5,000 housing units at full buildout. This would result in
between 2,058 and 4,160 additional students, depending on the mix of housing units
that are eventually bUllt. Portions deducted to retirement age population could
reduce the estlmates
The Draft EIS includes mitigation measures for schools (page 104), recommendmg
that the annexation proponents could assist the School Districts in the plannmg and
sltlng of school facllitles, at the time of applying for a more speclfic development
proposal All of the alternative scenarios include 20 acres of public land, WhICh
could be allocated for future school facilities
Response to Comment No. 14
Comments acknowledged The new City of Yelm sewage facllity and the discharge
permIt mto the Centraha Canal and the Nisqually River is intended to serve the
-exlsting Clty and ItS Immediate environs, and is not intended to serve the proposed
annexation. The expansIOn of the existing system for the area to be annexed is not
part of the preferred alternative. Therefore, there will be no impacts resultmg from
the annexation proposal
At the time that a more specific 4~velopment is proposed for the annexation area,
potential alternatives for wastewater treatment will be analyzed Alternative
methods of sewer discharge, reuse of treated wastewater, wetland treatment, etc. will
be considered. These alternatives, alone or in conjunction with a modification or
expansion of the existing system, will be considered and evaluated in an amended
Sewerage ComprehensIve Plan before sewer service w1l1 be provided to the
43
proposed annexation area. A supplemental environmental review will be required
before a final determination is made on the method of wastewater treatment.
Appendix B of this report provides a revised wastewater facilities section
Response to Comment No. 15
Comment acknowledged. If sewer facilities were not available to the annexation
area, the use of septic systems (as permitted under the City Land Use Code) would
allow for a residential denslty of one dwelling unit per acre.
Response to Comment No. 16
Comments acknowledged. Historic and archeological resources were not included
in the original scoping of the DEIS with the City In the process of gathering
information for the DEIS, no information concerning cultural or historic resources
on the site was found If potential historic / cultural resources are encountered
during anyone of the future site-specific development processes, work would be
stopped and the Washmgton State Office of Archaeology and Histone Preservation
would be notified (in accordance with all State and Federal requirements and
gUldelines) The City of Yelm has a Histone Preservation Commlssion that catalogs
and identifies historic resources within the City of Yelm. If this site is annexed into
the City, It will be mcluded in future studies and mappings conducted by the Yelm
Historic Preservation Commission.
Response to Comment No. 17
Comment acknowledged. Alternative 3 calls for both clustered housing for higher
density and the provlsion of employment centers wlthm the annexed area for more
cost effective infrastructure
44
UJ-j~-:J .J Uu.~ :~V~ ~AJl vI
fIIJ i 1t> 'odd ~M""
F~" 4S1-Li\.~~~
1 t..llj
FAX ,:
m::lM: ~"\r-/\ \ e... ~ >re r I DATE: I 11~-fU ,-
- ~ . FWD N:uJl:ING
(.\..r'j" "C 12) '1"r~ I T" THs PAGE:
~ ,. '~Lc-t:>CS '5" ~ &
Intercity T ran
sit
January 15, 1993
. '(. S ;';':"',.", !I.....~I, P~I O'fle'f ~. 6!;~
, .. :'.;, ......_."1...,;::1': i1!50i'~;i
.~,t:l ;!1f"c~~
Todd Stam:n
Di:e,;~or of Community Development
City of Yelm
P.Q Sex 479
Yelm, W A 98597
Dear Todd:
Thank you for the opportumty to comment on the Southwest Yelm Annexation Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).
We appreciate that public t:ansport'ation has been mentioned throughout the DE15 and
that the transportation section ident:::es pcdestrian-oriented features and transit as
mitigation options. We hope that these mHigolicns will be implemented regardless of
which alternative is ultunately settled upon. 1
We judged the alternatives on the following criteria:
· pedestrian-friendly orientation;
· connectivity of roads/operational fellsibility;
. residential density; and
· mixed-use development.
Alter:\ative 3, the compact scenario, is the most attractive alternative to Intercity
Transit. This alternative, as conceptually designed appears to be the most pedes tri an-
friendly. The bulk of the residences will be within 1/4 mile of the major corridor and
the commercial areas, increasing the likelihood that people will walk or bike to the
commercial areas and will access transit lor travel either within or out of the
qevelopments. Alternative 3 also provides the most efficient through access for transit
vehicles. Service to this area would likely involve vehicles running northeast on 507 2
and up through the annexahon area's main corridor, then out of the northeast section
into the City.
The residential density within this scenario also makes it more likely to support
effective transit service than the other alternatives. While! it docs include limited
mixed-use development, OUf hope is that this can be increased, to provide more on-site
employment opportunities.
m
45
0( - 1 ; - ~ 1 .) ~ :;? ~~
P l) I
v ~ ~... ...:
!.... .....~l. vol.l \.I; ....w~t.
...QI_""fItU .&.r41I~t<"""'.1.TY
TR""NS:lT
P.02
"
January 15, 1993
Page 2
Our observations and corr-mcnts reg~rding the o~hcr alternatives are listed below:
Alternative 1 (No Action) . Ii development is to occur in this area, 1.1. prefers a higher \3
level of density than the one dwelling unit per five acres which development under this
scenario would allow.
Alternative 2 (l'roponen~s Scenario) . This alternative is less attractive for several
reasons. Much of the housing will be located over 1/4 mne from the corridor.
Generall y speaking, people will not walk further than 1/4 mile to access bus Serv1ce.
Operahonally, this scenario poses problems for transit because of the looping roads, 4
potential dead-end streets, and other barriers to road connectivity. It should be noted
that this type of development is inconsistent with the Connectivity Policy called out in
the 1992 Yelm Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
Alternative 4 (Village Scenario) . While Intercity Trans:t does promote mixed-use
development, we have the same concerns with this alternative as listed in Alternative 2.
VVhile this alternative offers more mixed.us~ developmer.t, it also lowers the residential 5
densities. It should be possible to maintain higher densities in some areas or the
development. It would also be helpful to know what levels of employment density are
anticipated with this alternative.
.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide input. Please keep us apprised of the
progress of this proposal. If the annexa~on takes place, we would be very interested in
partIcipating in future pa.rce:l- or project-specific planning efforts.
Smcerely,
;"'{~'Y\LL.~l 0, +J.a<Je/i. '-
Ja~je D. Haveri
Plan."'1e! !Policy Analyst
46
- --- --.. -
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS IN LETTER FROM
INTERCITY TRANSIT
Response to Comment No.1
Comments acknowledged.
Response to Comment No.2
Comments acknowledged. Each one of the development alternatives are conceptual
and were included m the analysis of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement to
analyze different possible development scenarios Future project-speclfic
development proposals would mclude a more detailed design and analysls of traffic-
related issues. These concerns would be addressed in more detail and a specific
mitigation plan relating to potential traffic impacts would be proposed at that time.
Response to Comment No. 3
Comment acknowledged.
Response to Comment No.4
Comments acknowledged Yelm's Connectlvity Policy will be revlewed by the City
when the project specific proposals are presented.
Response to Comment No. 5
Comments acknowledged The development alternatives included in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement are conceptual and future development scenanos
would be analyzed in greater detail at the time of a project-specific development
proposal. Future proposals would include the densities of each of the proposed land
uses within the development
47
Ul-l~-~j ~ uJ:~ '~uM Lll~ vr ~t~OO
~[E ~-~: ~
It) J!
Ih\l 5 &e
. ,,~
Nisqually Indian Tribe
'~20 She-Nah..Num Drive S.E.
lympia, Washington 98503
Phone: (206) 456-5221
January 15, 1993
Yelm Planning Commission
city of Yelm
105 Yelm Avenue West
Yelm, Washington 98597
RE: Southwest Ye~ Annexation
Draft Environmental Impact statement
Dear commission Members,
The Nisqually Indian Tribe offers the following comments on
the Draft Environmental Impact statement (DEIS) for the proposed
Southwest Yelm Annexation:
Alternatives - The alternatives discussed are 80 limited that
the DEIS is practically useless as a planning document for the City
of Yelm. Other than the No Action alternative, all the
alternatives considered serve the interest of the annexation
proponents. For the Final EIS, Yelm should require analysis of a
much wider range of alternatives.
First, the EIS and the Yelm Planning Commission should
consider as an alternate annexation of only a portion of the
Southwest area. The EIS should evaluate the impacts of annexing
only the lands in sections 24 and 25, leaving sections 23, 26, and
27 under Thurston County jurisdiction. A second alternative that
should be evaluated would add section 23 to the annexed area. Yelm
is not limited to only the annexation area proposed by the
annexation proponents and, in fact, should evaluate alternatives
independently.
Second, the Final EIS should consider alternatives with a
substantially reduced number of residential units. The EIS, and
the Planning Commission, should consider an alternative of one
residential unit per two acres. This would be a 250% increase in
the number of residential units presently authorized, but would
reduce the inevitable impacts of the high number of residential
units proposed in all the alternatives presently under
consideration.
As the Draft EIS states, this is a nonproject planning EIS and
does not have to examine every conceivable alternative.
48
1
2
3
O!-15-~3 _~ OO?M ??OM CITY OF YELM
Southwest Yelm Annexation EIS
January IS, 1993
Page 2
Nevertheless, to be legally sufficient, not to mention to be of use
to the citizens and elected officials of Yelm, the EIS must
evaluate nAl. alternatives. The alternatives in the OEIS appear to
be contrived to avoid evaluation of alternatives of substance.
Finally, the No Action alternative is characterized in a
misleading manner. No Action does not require that the land remain
under Thurston County zoning and regulation. Yelm could annex some
or all of the Southwest area but is not obliged to change the
existing zoning of one unit per five acres; you could decide to
annex and retain the current zoning. The EIS should acknowledge
this alternative and the Planning commission should evaluate more
fully its merits.
Wastewater - For the Nisqually Tribe, the primary impact of
the annexation and development proposed in the DEIS is generation
and disposal of wastewater. The OEIS states that the annexed area
will produce 1.26 million gallons/day and that discharge of this
wastewater will be into the Nisqually River. This is over a 400'
increase in the discharge proposed by the current Yelm wastewater
plan.
The Yelm Planning Commission should know that any increase
above the proposed 300,000 gallons/day proposed by the wastewater
plan is not acceptable to the Nisqually Tribe. The Tribe, as a
matter of federal law, has the right to fish unobstructed in the
Nisqually River and to have its homeland and reservation, including
its waters, free of pollution. We cannot allow Yelm to use the
Nisqually River, our reservation and homeland, for its wastewater
disposal. Because Yelm faced a serious threat to its drinking
water, the Tribe in 1990 agreed not to oppose Yelm's proposal to
develop a wastewater treatment facility for the town with discharge
to the river limited to a maximum of 300,000 gallons/day. Yelm
should proceed with an annexation plan only if it will not increase
discharge to the river above this 300,000 gallons/day cap.
The Final EIS should include housing density alternatives
and/or wastewater disposal alternatives that will not require any
increased discharge to the Nisqually River.
General Comments A dramatic impact of the proposed
annexation and vital element of the annexation decision is not
discussed in the OEIS, but should be an important part of the Yelm
Planning commission's decision. This element is the quality of
life and image of the Town of Yelm. The annexation proposed to
increase the number will residences in Yelm from about 500 to 5,500
in ten years. All these new houses will be expensive houses (low-
cost housing is not generally built next to golf courses).
49
PG3
4
5
6
7
18
9
lv' - ~..; - ;.J ..... I., \J.w. ~~ .,.;.;.1.. \.t." \I'~' .. ......'.
Southwest Yelm Annexation EIS
January 15, 1993
Page 3
If the annexation goes through as proposed, in ten years it is
likely that the majority of Yelm's population will reside in the
Southwest area. The current citizens of Yelm will become a
minority in their own community, to be dominated by the relatively
wealthy new citizens of the Southwest area. Yelm has been the
Nisqually Tribe's neighbor for generations; we have gone to the
Yelm schools and have life-long friends in Yelm. We are concerned
that Yelm will no longer be the friendly small town where one can
recognize just about everyone; long-term residents may not even
feel welcome in their own town.
Further, the substantial increase in demand for services will
bring an increase in tax rates and service fees. Some of the
oldest of Yelm's citizens likely will be forced to sell their homes
and property. As a matter of policy, the Yelm Planning Commission
should require that the Final EIS evaluate and document the likely
and possible social and economic impacts of the annexation proposal
on the current citizens of Yelm. These impacts should be a major
element of the Commission's deliberations.
The Yelm Planning commission, and the City of Yelm, have a
choice. It is not inevitable that Yelm must grow rapidly. The
Growth Management Act allows a community to choose and plan for a
modest pace of growth. You do not have to be a "captive" of the
developer's proposal or the limited alternatives for Southwest area
annexation. You can and must evaluate additional alternatives and
include as a viable option saying, "No!" to rapid urbanization.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIS. Your
decision on this annexation proposal will in large part determine
the future quality of life of the Yelm area. We urge you to demand
a full and complete discussion in the Final EIS of a wide range of
al ternati ves; only in this way will you be able to make an
adequately informed decision on the proposed Southwest annexation.
SJ~/f..-1
Dorian S. Sanchez
Tribal Chairman
50
10
11
12
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS IN LEITER FROM
NISQUALL Y INDIAN TRIBE
Response to Comment No.1
Comments acknowledged The alternatives included for discussion in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement were set forth by the City of Yelm and were
intended to provide viable, conceptual development scenarios for analysis purposes.
Response to Comment No.2
Comments acknowledged. The alternatives discussed in the Draft EIS were scoped
and set by the City of Yelm, pursuant to WAC 197-11-05 A scoping notice was
issued on October 22, 1991 that listed the content of the Draft EIS and what
alternatives would be analyzed Public input to the scoping of this project was
requested by the City of Yelm.
An alternative that considers less land area for annexation would not meet the
needs of the proponent, and therefore was not scoped as an economically vlable
alternative under the present proposal. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A)
reqUlres that alternatives mclude actIons that could feasibly attain or approximate a
proposal's objectives (WAC 197-11-440) (5) (b)
Response to Comment No.3
Comments acknowledged. An alternative that considers a residential density of one
dwelling unit per two acres would not meet the proponent's objectIves and would
be inconsistent with Thurston County land use policies and was therefore not
considered in the range of alternatives explored. In addition, the State Growth
Management Act encourages urban density growth for lands withm oty hmits or an
urban growth boundary A density of one residential dwelling unit per two acres
would not provide for an efficlent urban growth pattern, would promote urban
sprawl and would not provide sufficient density to support an urban level of
faolities and serVIces
Response to Comment No.4
Comment acknowledged. The scope of the Draft EIS alternative scenarios was
prepared by the City of Yelm, pursuant to WAC 197-11-08 There were pubhc
meetings held to consider scoping of the Draft EIS alternatives and to receIve publIc
input
Response to Comment No.5
Comment acknowledged. The proposed action is for an annexatlOn to the CIty of
Yelm, and a No ActIon alternative to the proposal Implies that the land remains
under the jurisdiction of Thurston County ThlS comment IS suggesting a new
alternative other than the "No Action Alternative" The City of Yelm IS not
necessarily obliged to change the zoning on the proposed property with approval of
the annexatIon The annexahon may be vIewed as a strategy to manage the
transition of the land from rural to urban uses However, the City's policy towards
51
annexation implies urbanization and the upgrading of facilities and utilities to the
City's standards. This outlook is supported by the State GMA, which encourages
urban densities and services within city limits and urban growth areas.
Response to Comment No.6
Comments acknowledged. The new City of Yelm sewage facility and the discharge
permit into the Centralia Canal and the Nisqually River is intended to serve the
existing City and its immediate environs, and is not intended to serve the proposed
annexation. The expansion of the existing system for the area to be annexed IS not
part of the preferred alternative. Therefore, there will be no impacts resulting from
the annexation proposal
At the time that a more specific development is proposed for the annexation area,
potential alternatives for wastewater treatment will be analyzed. Alternative
methods of sewer discharge, reuse of treated wastewater, wetland treatment, etc. will
be considered. These alternatives, alone or in conjunction with a modification or
expansion of the existing system, will be considered and evaluated m an amended
Sewerage Comprehensive Plan before sewer service will be provided to the
proposed annexation area. A supplemental environmental review will be required
before a final determination is made on the method of wastewater treatment.
Appendix B of tills report provIdes a revised wastewater facilitIes section
Response to Comment No.7
Comments acknowledged. The new City of Yelm sewage facility and the discharge
permit into the Central1a Canal and the Nisqually River is mtended to serve the
existing City and its immediate environs, and is not intended to serve the proposed
annexation. The expansion of the existing system for the area to be annexed is not
part of the preferred alternative. Therefore, there will be no impacts resulting from
the annexation proposal
Response to Comment No.8
Comment acknowledged. If sewer facilities were not available to the annexation
area, the use of septic systems (as permitted under the City Land Use Code) would
allow a residentlal denSIty of one dwelling unit per acre.
Response to Comment No.9
Comments acknowledged. The alternative scenarlOS and preliminary development
concepts antIcipate that a ffilX of housing types will be included. More information
on housing prices wlll be available at the time a more specIfic development IS
proposed for the property The proposal does envision a mix of housing types and
land uses that includes affordable housmg SEPA guidelmes and reqUlrements do
not mclude the analysIs and review of SOCial or economic impacts.
Response to Comment No. 10
Comments acknowledged.
52
Response to Comment No. 11
Comments acknowledged. Section 9 Facility Planning and Concurrency estimates
the costs for infrastructure and serVlces and the potentIal revenue under the
proposed development alternatives. The mitigating measures recommend that
developer impact fees could be assessed for providing service or facility extensions
and/ or improvements to the proposed annexation area. In addition, revenue from
permit fees and utility taxes would help offset service costs.
Response to Comment No. 12
Comments acknowledged. It is anticipated that the yet to be announced project-
specific development proposals would include a phasing plan that would take
twenty to thirty years for full bUild-out to occur
53
[Jirc..:'IOrl;
1\0(\ D COLPI\ENEE
~uperinl endenl
Kt:N rn:'f11 1\ A QT
Kf.NNt:1'1\ MARTIN
DON MARQ1II,1)
Dfrll WRIGIJA\)WOQTlI
NATE TUQNt:R
fRainier ~(l1nnl ilistrirt
QAMONA GARNER
Admini&l1'8live Secrdary
POBox 98
Rainier WA 98576
Telephone '206-446,'2'207
January 4, 1992
Planning Commission
City of Yelm
POBox 479
Yelm, WA 98597
RE. Southwest Yelm Annexation
Dear Members of the Planning Commission
As you are aware, a portion of the Southwest Yelm Annexation Site is located within the boundaries of
the Rainier School District No 307 Due to that fact and the fact that any development near the Rainier
School District will impact the District, on behalf of the Rainier School District, I wish to communicate to
you concerns about the proposed annexation.
First, I believe the Planning Commission must give serious consideration to RCW 28A.315.250, the statute
which addresses municipal and school district boundaries Although that statute would not win an award
for clarity, it does establish the basic legislative mandate that each incorporated city or town is to be
comprised in a single school district. The exceptions to that mandate that are stated in the statute are 1
not applicable to the annexation under your consideration Hence, the annexation under consideration
may well not be legally possible without invoking the jurisdiction of the State Board of Education as
described in RCW Chapter 28A.315
Secondly, the Rainier School District requests the City of Yelm to immediately and specifically declare if
their intent is to change the property in question to the Yelm School District. The Environmental Impact 2
Statement may suggest this to be the intent.
If the jurisdiction of the State Board of Education is properly sought. I anticipate that the Rainier School
District would find it in its best interest to advocate that the property subject to the proposed annexation
remain in the Rainier School District. The potential concurrent jurisdiction of the State Board of 3
Education and other municipalities will make the issues surrounding the proposed annexation even more
complicated That brings me to another concern of the Rainier School District.
We believe that a number of the issues related to the proposed annexation could have been more refined
or eliminated had planning authorities been more cognizant of the fact that the Rainier School District
would be significantly impacted by the proposed annexation The mitigating measures cited in the Draft 4
Environment Impact Statement are illusory if they are not impacted The stated mitigating measures
were generated with little, if any. direct discussion with representatives of the Rainier School District.
54
The Rainier School District had made request of the City Manager of Yelm to be fully informed of all
progress related to the annexation.
Further, the district requests that consultants to the city and/or agents of the developers of the
property, keep the district fully informed of all their actions and recommendations related to the
annexation.
5
Please be on notice that the Rainier School District No 307 is very concerned about the impact on it of
the proposed Southwest Yelm Annexation. The District seeks your assurance that its interests will be
conscientiously considered and protected as the proposed annexation is further considered State law
provides a very deliberate process when changes in school district boundaries are being considered. The
legislature has recognized the need for such deliberative processes. City Planners must be equally
deliberative and conscientious when their actions involve the potential need for changes in school district
boundaries.
6
I trust that the City of Yelm's Planning Commission recognizes that the interests of the Rainier School
District must be taken into serious consideration if any phase of the proposed annexation is to go
forward At this point, the exact interests of the District are difficult to determine because changes in
school district boundaries have yet to be formally advocated Once the intentions of the advocates are
known regarding changes in school boundaries, the interests of the Rainier School District will be better
subject to identification.
Very truly yours,
~ 4.~ /
./ ~ W~~
D Golphent
Superintendent
BDG:lm
cc Attorney Craig Hanson
55
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS IN LEITER FROM
RAINIER SCHOOL DISTRICT - DATED V4/93
Response to Comment No. 1
Comments acknowledged. A portion of the proposed annexation site (Section 27) is
in the Rainier School Distrlct. It is recognized that the legislative intent is for each
incorporated city to be comprised in a single school district. However, there are
precedents that a city boundary can include more than one school district.
Response to Comment No.2
Comment acknowledged According to the proponents, Thurston Highlands
Associates, it is their goal to keep Section 27 in the Rainier School District, as to not
have the Rainier School District invoke jurisdiction in the annexation process
Response to Comment No.3
Comment acknowledged.
Response to Comment No.4
Comments acknowledged. The Draft EIS acknowledges that the Rainier School
District is on record as opposing the loss of any portion of their eXlsting jurisdlction.
A reduction in the size of the Rainier District would reduce the assessed valuation
of the district. The Draft EIS suggests financial mitigation as compensation, if a loss
to the School Distnct's area would result from the annexation proposal. The
proponent's have stated they intend to request that the annexation be accomplished
with no change in school district boundaries A representative of the proponent
and the School District Superintendent have met since the publIcation of the Draft
EIS to negotiate vanous ways to handle this issue.
Response to Comment No.5
Comments acknowledged It is the intent of all those involved with the proposed
annexahon to inform all mterested parties in matters related to the proposal.
Response to Comment No.6
Comments acknowledged. The concerns of the Rainier School District have been
noted A representative of the proponent has met with the School District
Superintendent and the School Board to reach an agreement on this issue.
56
U.-.~-:J ,: ,,:.-.J,,' \.il': 1.,111 vr U.l.j'l
o,reCI.:lrli
-"-
t'lQ1) D GOLDU[NU
.!Ilupc:rinlendcal
KENNf.Tll MOT
Krl'I'r.r11 '1.'QTI~
DO," !'tAQQ\l'
~ITII WQIGLfNJ.'l"'RTI1
MTr TUQ\t:O
iRatnitr'~;t;x:ttn-o 11l116tttct
POBox 98
Rainier W A 98576
QAMONA GAQNW
Admini&lrlllive &:cretery
January 13, 1993
~
i/If)\., ill @ ~ G rYj@ ~. ~ 1
II 'r---" --.-=:1 I
I -- .... .- -'. I
Ii '-'/i .' j'
II :, i; JAN I .4 mo il1;:
d'.. ~ I'~
jUt! _ I~
TdcphC'ne '206-~~6;~Oi
Planning Commission
City of Yelm
POBox 479
Yelm, WA 98597
RE. Southwest Yelm Annexation
Dear Members of the Planning Commission.
On behalf of the Rainier School District I attended the January 4, 1993 public hearing regarding the
preliminary Environmental Impact Statement for the potential annexation. Attached is a copy of the
prepared statement read at the hearing. Our attendance and comments were brought forth because
Section 27 of the potential annexation lies within the boundaries of the Rainier School District
For the record we present these further remarks:
1 Rainier School District, to date, has not been contacted by the property developers regarding
district interests. The property developers have contacted the Yelm School District officials
regarding the property within the Rainier School District property. The Yelm School District
offiCIals have been very forthright in communications with Rainier School District officials and IT
is appreciated.
2. The EIS devel~pers requested a written ccrrespondence prior to the EIS Rough Draft. Tha EIS 12
does not reflect Rainier School District interests as expressed in the correspondence.
1
3 During the January 4, 1993 meeting a representative of the property developers commented
that it appeared to be "an accidenr that Section 27 was not originally in the Yelm School
District. We suggest this is speculation and likely a history of development of district lines may 3
suggest otherwise Further, the comment may suggest the developers desire for a school district
changeof the property
4 A minimum of fifteen (15) acres must be set aside in Section 27 as a future elementary school 14
site Future potential growth would require an elementary school and this would be an ideal
neighOOrhood school.
57
01-15-93 (~05AM FkuM CITY OF YELM
It Is not the Rainier School Districts interest to support or oppose the annexation of the pr~rty by the
City of Yelm. However. it is our paramount interest to support the interests of the Rainier School
District This interest includes involvement and protection for all properties within its legal boundaries.
On behalf of the Board of Directors these comments are given by
BDG:lm
attach
cc: Craig Hanson, Attorney
58
.. v..J
5
RESPONSE TO COMMENfS IN LETTER FROM
RAINIER SCHOOL DISTRICf - DATED 1/13/93
Response to Comment No.1
Comment acknowledged. The proponents of the annexabon proposal may have
not been timely in meeting directly with the School District. However, the
notification process as required by SEP A was followed. A letter was sent to the
Rainier School District on March 2, 1992, that described the annexation proposal and
requested information and comments from the School District for inclusion in the
Draft EIS.
Response to Comment No.2
Comment acknowledged. The Draft EIS was written with consideration of the
correspondence received from the Raimer School District, and includes the impacts
on school facilities that were stated by the School District The Dlstrict
correspondence requested that a school site be provided by the annexa bon proposal.
While the mitigating measures in the Draft EIS address in general the deed of land
for school facilities, there was no specific commitment to set aside land to the
Rainier School District. A site for an elementary school (Le. 15+ acres) can be part of
the master plan for this area of the annexation at the time it is proposed for a specific
development. If future development proposals generate enrollment whlch reqUlre
additional school facilities in the Rainier District, land will be provided for the
expansion of facilities
Response to Comment No.3
Comment acknowledged.
Response to Comment No.4
Comment acknowledged. The School District correspondence requested that the
Draft EIS maps of the alternative scenanos show a future school facihty site in the
Rainier School Distnct, as was presumably provided for the Yelm School Distnct.
The Draft EIS alternabve scenario maps indicate a pubhc land deSignation (located
in the Yelm School District), which could be allocated to future school Sites If
development in Section 27 necessitates an additional school facility in the Rainier
School, land will be provided for this purpose
Response to Comment No.5
Comment acknowledged. It is recognized that the Rainier School Dlstnct is opposed
to any loss to their existing jurisdiction, which could reduce the assessed valuatIOn
of the district.
59
CUIlI1.:!1 MC'lllb~nhjp:
I re~' <'\'\U11y
'1 Ir~l(ll\ CUUlIly
Lcw;p County
, Ie cf \"'/I~hi,,/;toll:
1',"Io;~ and Reereollun ("m-
1lI1'.Rlo1l
1<'l't of Nalural RC'~'C'\lre\.~1
I>cl'l. of ^~..lclllt\l1(,
I )('1'1. of Ecol"17)'
1,,1'1. \If n!'h(,'rl('~
D"PI. c,f Wildlife
;l"'~H~lllIY (If ~lall!
.V T'/lclc Expel l/lll'l1 lu}
r-un",t
;, Arm)', rc.rt L<-wb
squall)' ludlon 1 nbc
N1s'l\1lJll)' N:lUonal Wildljf{'
Hcfllgl!
rr..rtll'ln.:l.ol Nnll(lJlal
r-1~1 c!'l
,lUll I R:\lnll'r NalinnDI I'mk
cpn'D City llghl
TIm'll uf Ydm
''''11 of Eattllwillc
ellr of I\uy
('Itlzens Advisor)' COIllII\1I1l"C:
Three' Clt;:r.<:n M","loc,..
Nisqually River Council
P.O. Box 1076
Yeln1, Washington 98597
January 11. 1993
Todd Stamm
City Planner
City ofYelm
PO Box479
Yelm, \VA 98597
Dear Mr. Stanun:
The NisquaHy Rtver Councll respectfully requests that the
City ofYelm grant the CouncJl a two-week extension for
COnlnlent on the SouUlwest Yelm Annexation DEIS from
January 15th until January 29Ul.
The Councll has not determ1ned whether or not it wishes
to comment. and will do so at its next meeUng on January
15th. Given the current deadline, we would not be able to
offer meaningful comment unless we receive an extension.
1
Please convey your response to uur StaIr Coordinator, Steve
Craig. at 459-6780, Thank you for your attenUun
Sincerely,
{)~_ 0
Diane Oberquell
Chairman
DO:pcm
60
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS IN LETTER FROM
NISQUALL Y RIVER COUNCIL - DATED 1/11/93
Response to Comment No.1
Comment acknowledged. A two week extension for comments on the DEIS was
granted by City of Yelm, extending the comment penod from January 15 to January
29 It should be noted that a comment letter was not recelved from the Nlsqually
River Council before the closing of the extended comment period.
The Nisqually River Council has indicated that it will submit a comment letter,
even though the comment letter will be received after the closing of the comment
period. While SEP A regulations do not require a response to comments received
after the closing of a comment period, the items identified within their letter could
be addressed at the time of future project-specific development analysls.
61
RESPONSES TO LETIERS FROM INDIVIDUALS
Ol-15-~j .. .~.~ "uM Cli~ v~ ~'lM
January 15, 1993
SHAPIRO &
ASSaLIATES~
Mr. Todd Stamm, Director of Community Development
at)' ofYelm
P O. Box 479
Yelm. WashingtOn 98597
Re: Southwest Yelm Annexarion Draft EIS
Washington Mutual Tower
Suit&: 1700
1201 Third Avenue
Sacrle
Waahington 98101
Tel: 206/624. 9190
roL" 206/624. 1901
Dear ~. Stamm:
Shapiro and AssociateS. Inc. represents V coWIe Parmers. one of the two largest ownerships
WIthin the annexation area. The Draft EIS is a compreheD.Slve and well-written d~JD)e"t covering
a nOD-project proposal. We support the proposed annexation and appreciate the opportunity to
comment on the City's Draft ElS. The following are clanficanons and questions we have
concerning the DIaft.
1) It should be noted that nomer the No Action Altt::rnative, the Compact Scenario nor the Village
Scenario meets Venture Pa::rtne:rS' objectives. The ownersh1p's objectives are predicared. on
market demand and are to develop a mix of single-family and IImltiple-family residences with a
ncigbborhood cormnc:rcial center designed to serve the project's residents.
2) We senously doubt there is a market for the 110 acres of commercial and office uses
represented in the Village Scenario. This scenario raises the following qnestions: 'What is the
furore land demand for professional service and government office uses, given the projected
population increases? Will there be a demand for approximately 40 acres retail and 70 acres of
professional service and govcmmcnt uses in Yelm? If there is a demand, would it not be most
appropri.are to conso1idale those uses near the highway to help suppon existing downtown
commerc.al uses and reduce automobile dependent trips.
3) We question the conclusion on page 36 that: the Village Scenario would introduce lower
quannoes of pollutants into the groundwater compared to the proposal The Village Scenario
woold have higher traffic levels as~ with 70 additional acres of professional service and
government office uses and in turn wocld cause higher groundwater pollution levels man
would be expected by the proposal
4) In response to Namral Resource Lands mihgaring measures, Henry Dragt has received
complaints from nearby property owners abont the smell from his dairy. Further, rotential
pollutlon from the farm and its impacts on gronndwater quality decreases the farm s
dc::sinbility This is a common phenomenon and underscores the tranSitional nature of a dairy
in close proximity to urban uses.
5) We do not understand how the Village Scenario concept would generate only 130 more peak-
hour aips than the proposal when it woald incorporate three times as much commc:rcial and
office-designated land and only ten percent fewer residcnces.
6) The Draft EIS generally de.sc:ribes the Village Scenario as potentially having the same or less
impacts on public services than would occtII' under the proposal. Although the Village
Scenario would have approximately ten percent fewer residences, resulnng in slightly fewer
impacts on schools, we would expect that if the commercial and office land were built out, this
scenMio would place a greater demand on police and fire seIVlCes. We would. also expect thaI
the employees on 70 more acres of professiocal5a'VlCe and office developed land under the
62
.l-IC-~_ 0' =S~~
F'I)~
rv:'
1
2
')
v
4
5
6
~ 01-15-93 j5 OOPM FROM CITY OF YELM
ruo
Village Scenario wouldreqaire as much rccrea1ional opportunity as the occupants of the 500
Il1OI'e residcn~ that might be dcvQopcQ wuicr Ihc proposal.
7) The fiscal impact analysis inclades the impacts of infrastructure improvements in termS of
costS. These improvcncI1ts would be paid far by the developer and do not represent costs to 7
the public. In addition, revenue from permit fees and utility taxes would help offset service
costs.
Again. we appreciate the oppommity to comment on the Draft EIS and welcome any questions or
clarifications you may have.
Sincerely,
~rRO-zn -ioaA=. me:
~
~OO&
~
63
y -~~-~ ~~ :~~~
P'J)
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS IN LETTER FROM
JON palTER, SHAPIRO & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Response to Comment No.1
Comment acknowledged.
Response to Comment No. 2
Comments acknowledged Alternative 4, Village Scenano, was an alternative
scoped by staff at the City of Yelm, with the intention of including an employment-
based alternative for analysis in the DEIS. It was not based on existing or projected
market or land demand for commeroal and office uses, but to provide for a range of
reasonable alternatives for analysis. Development of commercial and office uses
would be driven by market demand and phasmg of development. These concerns
will be addressed in more detail during the application process for a specific
development proposal on the property In the conceptual plan for the Village
Scenario, commercial and office uses are not consolidated near the highway because
of physical constraints (i.e wetlands, steep slopes) on the property Also, it was
consIdered that the employment center would function better at the center of the
entire development with easy access to residences, recreatlOn, schools, etc.
Venture partners has not provided a copy of their "Market Demand Study" to assist
in the analysis of the proposed annexation.
Response to Comment No.3
Comments acknowledged.
Response to Comment No.4
Comments acknowledged. The Dragt dairy farm is located on the proposed site and
would be displaced WIth development of the site HIS participatlOn in the
annexation and development alternatives analysis shows that the land use for this
site as bemg townhouses The mitigation measures in section 2. Natural Resource
Lands, recommend pursuing measures to reduce conflicts between urban
development on the slte and surrounding rural, farm uses
Response to Comment No.5
The figures m Table 16 of the DEIS are misquoted Although the table was
misquoted in the DEIS, all analyses were developed with the correct figures. There
is a 200 peak hour tnp dlfference between the village and preferred/compact
scenarios Although the mcrease may seem small, given the amount of office
development planned In the vlllage concept, a 305 dlscount factor was applied to the
office and retail developments to allow for internal traffic within the annexation
parcels The tnp generation values and dlscount factors used in the study are
consistent with the current edition of the Trip GeneratIOn Report, published by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
64
Response to Comment No.6
Comments acknowledged. The additional commercial and office uses proposed
under Alternative 4, Village Scenario, would be serviced with sprinkler systems for
fire prevention and would likely include security alarm systems Therefore, the
increase in commercial and office uses proposed in the alternative are not expected
to place a significantly greater demand on police and fire serVlces than would
residential uses.
Response to Comment No.7
Comments acknowledged.
65
National Food Corporat,ion
;992
206 546.6533 and 523 4900
Fox 206 542 0202
PO Box 33745
16740 Aurora Avenue North
Seattle. Washington 98 J 33
December 17, 1992
Yelm Planning Commission
P.O. Box 479
Yelm, WA 98597
Re: Southwest Yelm Annexation
Ladies & Gentlemen
We have received your Notice of Public Hearing regarding the
proposed annexation of 2,000 acres Southwest of the city and wish
to offer our written comment and opposition to the proposal.
This company operates a 300,000 bird egg layer farm which has
existed for nearly 30 years on approxiately 250 acres in Section
35, immediately south of the proposed annexat ion area. The proposed
annexation would convert substantial agricultural and timber land
to urban uses. Even though our property is not proposed to be
included, we would be severely impacted. It would not be realistic
to assume that we could continue our agricultural activity while
bordering an area of dense residential and commercial activity.
Agricultural activity such as ours is not compatible with such uses
being nearby. Furthermore, our operat ions require that significant
acreage of cropland or pasture land be available in close proximity I
for utilization of chicken manure as fertilizer. This is becoming
increasingly important as government regulations are beginning to 2
impose specific requirements of available acreage for manure
utilization. Other agricultural operations in the immediate area
have similar requirements for available land.
1
Many people believe they can expand a city and engulf or border
farms, so long as they do not require them to discontinue
operations. Often times, the belief carries with it a good feeling 3
about preserving a rural environment. However, in this regard, a
distinction must be made between "open spaces" and productive
farms. The farms which feed this count ry must be allowed to
operate in a true agricultural environment. The proposed
annexation cannot insure such continued operation
Sincerely yours,
NATIONAL FOOD CORPORATION
~~p
Br an V. Bookey I ~/-
President
66
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS IN LETTER FROM
BRIAN BOOKEY, NA nONAL FOOD CORPORA nON
Response to Comment No.1
Comments acknowledged The Draft EIS acknowledges that as the City of Yelm
expands its jurisdlction, changing land uses may present confllcts to adjacent
agricultural activities However, the site is presently identified in the Thurston
County 1988 Comprehenslve Plan as Rural, and the 1990 Draft Yelm/Thurston
County Joint Plan shows much of the proposed annexation area as RR 1/5 (Rural
Residential, one unit per five acres) A residential density of one unit per five acres
does not ensure retention of viable commercial agriculture or forestry activlties, and
residential development at this density does not necessarily reduce the potential
conflicts with adjacent agriculture.
Response to Comment No.2
Comments acknowledged The National Food Corporation egg layer farm 15 not
presently utihzing the proposed annexation site to spread chicken manure.
Response to Comment No.3
Comments acknowledged.
67
01-15-93 .~ OOFU ?RO~ CITY OF YELM
Mal)' Lou Clt::a~~
1 S030 LQ~lIliIe St. BE
1e1m, WA 96597
Jamlsl)' 13, 1993
Irm 1"2 ~ r;:~r
r\ LS ~ tr-.. ~ '. ~
I ! 1'--- _0, _":: .:-
VII ;'
H~I -Wl1591l
t
Ytlm. p~ Com.n.ili~ion
RE Southwest Yelm Annexation Propooal
near PlaJ:u'ili~ CornJlli.s3ion.
I t~ve COflCenl' re~ard1n& tt~ I[~t Sta~ment', ,~tioA on Pol1ce PI0tecUoA fo! the
Pr:"~'OS~ ~r~xed ~re!.. It it IlOV l"f'quire:r fi,,~ '.~hic}e, m1 !1?e+ o!fit:!~ b providtl proteC1iDn for
7~O acres and 1365 people, I fail to ulLdeIS1Md hov we could llIptct Otle DXl~ vehicle tlJId tvO more
affirm 10 adeq1Ja1ely provide pro1ection!oI 2740 erIt' a!ld 13,865 people (5000 units X 2 5 pe~
p.::r tmit + e:d3ting jlOpults.tion) I rew ~ poyulation incIWt: wuld. not occur im.mtd.ia1ely, but
cerwnly t,)'J.e g~~l'hX !.~e. w'~'d inrrM..~ ~d1Atel" 1J.pon~x8.tion, the~by C8,1J.31Dg' b
app&rent need for fUl increase of more than orlf police car to ~U'Cl eJUleud ~
T/!,l;,le 1 Q - E~~d P1.l't>lic Senri..ce Co~, r~t 126, does not ed~q ua1ely ~dre!' ~ either
n~ Cozt by Population Ill.t1e use, a 10 4;0 iAcre83e fig1m', 'Which may tiCclntflj' re!lect the YelIn
Area, Captu."'e m~ o! tl:tt CoUnfj projecUorL. HoVt'.p!!, riDe! it ~curatt:ly re~t the e.ctl::lal inrn~t
vithin tt~ Yebn City Limits? In 1994 llJolle, 247 nev boU3~ un1t5 VJll supposedly be built and
vi1h m a.~~t ':'t;~y of 2 S ptI'SO~/i!Ilit, 1his ~u!d p.sul!!n en inc~~~ of approDma~1y 617
people This ~ure :epre3entJ eo S49t increa3e in population. If the ~ figure" axe computed on t
CO~1 per pe~n ~ 1.hen W projeCf!d dQllar mD'1m%5 m1ed m !-ub!t!Il.tiaIly in8deq uate
I tI::lk JOu 10 plea3t giw further con:meratk)n to the impect 1hi3 8lUlexation wuld have on 1he
!~'!T)' of Yelm re,idents and t) be ~un th!.t accurate ~~ in tllis aI"A is addres~. I believe ibe
~~ con..1deration needs 'D be P~I\ tJ the p~ for Fire Protction also
Th.enk ~tt. tor 51l'11JI' e.~n1jcltL.
~.~~
Maxy Lou CltWIl:9
68
Pl5
1
2
i
,1 L
I~'
I
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS IN LEITER FROM
MARY LOU CLEMENS
Response to Comment No.1
Comments acknowledged. The Yelm Police Department provided the eshmate that
the proposed annexation would result in the need for two additional officers and
one patrol vehicle, based on a formula used to determine impacts on personnel and
equipment.
Response to Comment No.2
Comments acknowledged. The Draft EIS section on Facility Planning and
Concurrency has been revised in Appendix A of this report. Table 19 - Estimated
Public Service Costs from the Draft EIS has been changed to Table 3 in Appendix A.
In Table 3, the per capita costs are calculated using the average annual growth rate of
582 people (projected in the Draft EIS Population/Housing Demand, page 64), rather
than the 10.4% capture rate that was used in Table 19 of the Draft EIS The average
annual population increase is multiphed by the per capita spendmg m the 1991-92
budget, and then the cumulative growth over the 20 year buildout period is
considered.
69
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF YELM
PLANNING COMMISSION
SW YELM ANNEXATION DRAFT EIS PUBLIC HEARING
JANUARY 4, 1992, 7.00 P M.l CITY HALL COUNCIL C~~ERS
Tim Schlosser, Planning Commission Chair, opened the meeting at
7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Tim Schlosser, Jim Brown, Jim Keyes, George
Knight, John Kinnee, Roberta Longmire, Joe Huddles~on, Torn Cundy
and Torn Gorman.
Guests. Paul Steadman, Jon & Mary Lou Clemens, :<en Eofferber,
Elene Ne'Hbv, Bob Golphenee of the Rainier School Dis'C.ric'C., ::d
Kenney, Ronald Laughlin, Michael Ci trak, Mark Carpenter, John
Graver, John Tokarezyk, Kat Ravter, Charles Brown, Fred Enslon,
Michael Jimenez, Brad Barrett and Genevieve Glassy ?a~sy Purvis,
David Purvis, Jess & Gayle Hoffman, ~onda Eilers, ?epper Iverson,
Peter Paulson, LeRoy Bendien, Torn Cline ~~y ~ealy ar-d Bev KolillS
Dennis Su of :<rarner Chin and Mayo, Bob Hazlett of S. Chamberlai~
and AS,socia-ces, Rober"':. Thorpe of R. 'tl Thorpe ar-a .~ssociat.es
Staff present. Gene Borges, Shelly Badger, Todd S~amm and Agr-es
Colombo.
By lot, the following staggered ne'..; terms 'Ne:-e
Commission memners (all terillS will be three yea:-s
current ter:n.
selected
- . 1 .
::o1._ow:.ng
for
-::::'2..5
1 'Year Term
Jim Keyes
Tom Cundy
Joe Huddles't.on
2 'Year Term
Jim Brown
Tim Schlosser
Robe:-ta Longmire
3 :rear Telill
Torn Gorman
George Knigh~
John Kenney
SW "{elm .~nnexat ; on EIS publi c Hearina .w'as opened a'C. 7: 05 p :n
Chair T:LTTl Schlosser explained the Duroose of' the ?6lic Heari:.c
All speakers 'Here requested to -identify themselves prior to
speaking and to add their names to the sign-in sheet. if they wished
to speak or be included on the mailing list for future mailings of
Public Hearings concerning the annexation. Commissioner Joe
Huddleston identified h:LTTlself as a neiahbor of the DroDosed
annexation and asked ~I anyone present objected .to - his
participation. No objection was voiced. No audience object~ons ~o
any Planning Commission members participation was voiced. No
members had received information, other than staff reports, prior
to the public hearing.
Todd Stamm, Yelm Planning Department, gave a brief overview of the
Public Hearinc. He explained that the annexation ',JOuld incluce
approximately-2,OOO acr~s belonging to 38 property owners. St~~
indicated that the property could be developed outside the City,
possibly at 1 dwelling per 5 acres. Options available to the
Commission are recommending annexation of all, part or none of the
property. The Commission may also recommend condit~ons to be
attached to the annexation.
The closing date for written comments is January 15, 1993. Comment
will also be accepted when the matteE goes before the City Council
YELM PLANNING COMMISSION 1/4/93
SWYA DRAFT EIS PUBLIC HEARING
70
PAGE i
Additional copies of the Draft EIS were avallable at the meetlng
Stamm distributed L Ainance No 414 to Commissi~ members defining
Clty objectives and policies for annexations.
Stamm pointed out corrections to the Draft EIS. On page 16 the
SEPA Process Chart should go from prelimlnarv Decision to Boundarv
Review Board. On page 114, paragraph 3, discharge to the Centralia
Power canal is authorized by a contract with the City of Centralia.
The NPDES permit has not been issued. Stamm also pointed out that
the permits requested for Yelm's Sewer . System do not accommodate
the annexation or development of the property.
Stamm advised the Commission that they would be deall-ng with
annexation questlons only, any development issues would be resolved
at a later date Based on available information the Commission
must determine and make a recommendation to the city Council to
elther approve or deny the annexation request. If the Commission
feels it doesn't have adequate information to make a recommendation
tne Commission has the option of requesting additional information
from the proponents
Dennis Su, reDresentina the proponents, explained that he was at
the meeting to clarify any questions the Commission or audience
might have. 5e introduced 30b Hazlett of S Chamberlain &
Associates and Rober~ T~orp and a staff member of R.W. Thorpe and
Assoclates Mr. Thorpe lndicated that he was there to respond to
any queStlOns the audlence or Commission might have and that any
written comme~ts recel-ved would be qiven the same consideratlon as
comments made at the meetlnq.
The floor was ooened to punlic corr~ent
Mark Carpenter - stated that he owned property adjacent to the I
annexation and reauested the incluslon of his orooertv in ':ohe
annexation. Tim Schlosser indicated that It was locicallv-Dossible 1
to include the property and questloned the legall{Y of adding Mr
Carpenter's property. Stamm replled that he would like a day or
two to examine the issue and stated that If lncluded as part of the
annexation it would also have to be included in the final EIS.
Dennis Su - proponent representative indicated that he would take
the matter under consideratlon
Peter Paulson - asked if Manke Road was included in the annexation
Tim Schlosser replled that Manke Rd was not included
Bob Golphnee Rainier School Distrlct Superlntendent, read a
letter to the Commission expressing concerns about the impact of
the proposed SW Yelm ~~nexation on the Rainier School District. He
stated that a oortion of the annexation is located within Rainier
School Dlstrlct boundaries and indicated that statute mandates each 1
incorporated city or town to be comprised in a single school
distrlct. Exceptions may requlre lnvoking the jurisdiction of the
State Board of Education as per RCW 28A.31S.
YELM PLANNING COMMISSION 1/4/93
SWYA DRAFT EIS PUBLIC HEARING
PAGE 2
71
Golphnee requested that Yelm declare if their intent is to
~~~nge the property n question to the Yelm S( 01 District. He
requested that the .1terests ,?f the Rainier S~.!ool District be
considered and that the d~str~ct be kept fully informed of all
progress related to the annexation
Jim Keyes requested that Mr. Golphnee indicate on the map which
property was within the Rainier School District. Mr. Golphnee
Indicated "Section 27".
2
Tom Gorman asked the percentage of total assessed value for the
district from the parcels falling withirr the proposed annexation.
Mr Golphnee replied that he did not have that infor~ation.
Dennis Su indicated that the Rainier School District portion was an
isolated sector within the SW Yelm Annexation boundaries and that
no residences exist on the property He added that when the sta~e
drew school district boundaries for some reason Section 27 as well
as part of Ft Lewis was placed in the Rainier School District
Gene Borges added that the ~ssue of school district boundaries had
been discussed one to two years ago The annexation proponents
'Here aware of the issue and had been in contact with the Yelm
School District.
Ed Kenney - Commented on the Wastewater Facility Section, In both
the Draft EIS and ADDendices Mr ~ennev indicated that It was his
belief that sewer was not feasible as presented on page 114 (21S)
much less with the projected five-fold increase. He stated that
the NPDES ?ermit '",as still being sought and that regulat:Jry
agencies considered Yelm's plan to be marginally ac=eptable for
Yelm's current population. He stated that the proposed lagoon would 1
treat just 65% of the sewage and that most individuals, fishlng
groups, citizen's groups, agencles have a problem with tha~ level
of treatment. He stated that Yelm would have a lot of problems
trvina to increase the amount of discharce aoina into the canal. He
suggested that the entire sec~ion be reworked and stated that a lot
of the figures didn't add up.
Robert Thorpe, R.
L<enney s low his
comments.
W. Thorpe and Assoc:.ates, requested that Mr.
presentation so notes could be taken of his
Mr. Kenney then addressed the concurrency portion of the
document, Table 18 (pg. 125) in the back of the EIS, he stated that
it was very brief, and that he (Mr. L<enney) didn't think It was
very well figured out. He questioned the figure of 5,500 units e
SlaOO/unit = S9,900,000 and stated that he didn't believe it was 2
fair to laymen to not identify what a unit actually is. He asked
if a unit was an onsite step system that goes to the main plant?
He thought there would be a lot more detailed information in the
documents.
Tim Schlosser asked if there were any addltional comments from the
audience or Commissioners.
YEk~ PLANNING COMMISSION 1/4/93
SWYA DRAFT EIS PUBLIC HEARING
72
P.liGE 3
~d Kenney - asked if anyone wanted to respond to his questions
Robert Thorpe stat~ that Dana Mower was not a. ~ to attend this
evening. Thorpe thought that he understood Mr Kenney's questions
and that a graphic showing systems may be necessary. He will
provide a draft to Mr. Kenney to see if he is headed in the righ~
d~rection.
Tom Gorman inquired about storrnwater drainage (page 119). He had
been on the property and asked which of the alternatives appealed
to the proponent as a lot of surface water doesn't run-off into 1
Thompson Creek; it accumulates in depress~ons where it eventually
evaporates or runs-off.
Dennis Su s~ated that he did not have an immediate answer as the
flnal layout for the site had not been determlned. It would depend
on wetlands use of open space etc. and probably would be
combination of all.
Tim Schlos ser questioned the percentage of respons ibili ty for \1
increased ~raffic and road improvements
30b Hazlett st.ated that. the amount of ~ra=fic reflected in the
document. was that. eXDected to be on ~he road if the develoDmen~
scenario t.ook Dlace. - :\eSDons ibili ty was addressed in the - Yelm
Comprehensive Transporta~ion Plan.
The Public Hearing was closed a~ 7.50 ?M.
The audience was reminded of the :1 day perlod for written comment
The Plannina Commission will follow UD on thlS issue at their
February 1,1993 work session at 4.00 D.m , in the Yelm City Ha~~
Council Chambers.
Meeting adjourned at 7:55 ?M.
Submitted,
/} ~// "
(Jij'7JU ;!J Clj,rmlu
YELM PLANNING COMMISSION 1/4/93
SWYA DRAFT EIS PUBLIC HEAR~NG
PAGE 4
73
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC HEARING
Mr. Mark Carpenter
Response to Comment No.1
Mr Carpenter made a request to the planning commission to mclude his property as
part of the annexation. It should be noted that Mr Carpenter's property is part of a
request for annexation being sought after by a different group of land owners. He
can pursue annexation of his property with this other group or independently at any
time. It has been pomted out by the City staff that the property in question here is
also part of a short plat application recently submitted to the City of Yelm.
74
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC HEARING
Mr. Bob Golphnee - Rainier School District
These comments are addressed in the responses to the Rainier School District
letters, dated January 4, 1993 and January 13, 1993 included in the previous section of
thlS document.
7S
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM PUBUC HEARING
Ed Kenney
Response to Comment No. 1
Comments acknowledged. Appendix B of this report, provides a revised section on
wastewater, and reevaluates potential impacts of the annexation proposal.
Response to Comment No.2
Comments acknowledged. The table referenced in the comment letter, estimates
potential infrastructure costs of the proposed annexation. The costs were based on
the infrastructure needed to serve development as envisioned in the conceptual site
plans of the alternative scenarios. The term "umt" in the table refers to houses, or
the number of housmg units.
The public facility planmng and concurrency section of the Draft EIS has been
revised in AppendIx A of this report. The revisions prOVIde more detalled
information on the prOjected costs and revenues associated with the annexation
proposal.
76
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC HEARlNG
Tom Gorman
Response to Comment No.1
Comments acknowledged. Details of the stormwater collection system will be
determined at the time that a more specific development IS proposed for the site.
The Draft EIS states that storm water detenbon will be provided either in the form
of surface ponds and/or subsurface vaults and/or pipes. If portions of existing
wetlands are used to collect stormwater, the pre-treatment of the stormwater w1l1 be
required by surface water quality regulations. No untreated storm water is proposed
to be dlrected to the natural wetlands.
77
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM PUBUC HEARING
Tim Schlossser
Response to Comment No.1
Comments acknowledged The Yelm Comprehensive Transportahon Plan
addresses the responsibllity for increased traffic and projected road improvements
The mitigating measures for Part C. Transportation (page 101, SW Yelm Draft EIS),
provides options for determining the responsibility for improvements related to the
direct impacts of the proposal. In a more general reference, the mitigating measures
for Section 9. Facility Planning and Concurrency (page 131, SW Yelm Draft EIS)
suggest that developer impact fees could be assessed for providing some facility
extensions and/or improvements to the proposed annexation area.
78
RESPONSES TO LETTERS RECEIVED AFTER THE CLOSING OF THE
COMMENT PERIOD
03-08-93 09 48AM FiOM CITY OF YELM
F05
FEB 2 A 1993
STATE OF WASHINGTON
--..-- ........- -_.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
-,.----- ._--~
SOUTHWEST DRINKING WATER OPERATIONS
2411 Pacific Ave. · P.O. 80" 47823 · Olympia, Washington 98504-7823 · (206) 664-0768
February 23, 1993
Yelm Planning Commission
P.O. Box 479
Yelm, Washington 98597
RECEIVED
MAR 0 8 1993
R.W THORPE & ASSC.
Subject:
Southwest Yelm Annexation
Draft Environmental Impact
Report
Dear Planning Commission:
The proposed annexation represents a significant increase in future service area for
the City of Yelm water system. The City's water system plan must be updated to 1
address water service in the annexation area and the impact on the rest of the
water system prior to any extension of water service into the annexation area
If you have any questions please call me at (206) 753-2452
KWJ clu
cC' Thurston County Environmental Health
Peter Beaton, Southwest Drinking Water Operations
79
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS IN LEITER FROM
Washington State Department of Health (2/23/93)
It should be noted that the above comment letter was not received before the closing
of the extended comment period. Although the SEP A guidelines do not require a
response to comments received after the closing of a comment penod, the authors
have responded as a matter of courtesy
Response to Comment No.1
Comments acknowledged. The Draft EIS (page 111) states that extendmg City water
service to the proposed annexation area would require an amendment to the City of
Yelm Comprehensive Water Plan and the city serVlce maps Guidelines for a
service area extenslOn mclude the requirement to agree to annex to Clty limits,
provlde capacIty to serve the property, and not unduly burden the citizens of the
Clty
80
~~-06-93 09 42~M FRCM CITY OF YELM
pn2
Council M~mbenhip:
'ierce County
hUl'9ton County
Le....'is County
tale of Washington:
Parks and Recreation Com-
mission
[)cpt. of Natural Resources
Depl. of Agriculture
Dept. of Ecology
Dept. of Fisheries
Dept. of Wildlife
Secret3IY of State
J W Pad:. Experimental
Forest
'S. Army, Fort Lewis
..lisqually Indian Tribe
Nisqually National Wildlife
Refuge
~,ifford Finchot National
Forest
fount Rainier National Park
l acoma at)' Light
Town of Yelm
oy,,-n of Eatonville
City of Roy
ilizen5 Advisory Committee:
Three Citizen Members
Nisqually River Council
P.O. Box 1076
Yelm, Washington 98597
February 13, 1992
c. \~
\-\:.~ 7... v
"....,.,--'" )
,..-- ~,.
.... ........-...",
Yelm City Council
p.e Box479
Yelm. WA 98597
RECEIVED
MAR 0 8 1993
R.W THORPE & ASSC.
Dear Council Members:
The Nisqually River Council and its Citizen Advisory
Committee would like to take this opportunity to comment
on the Southwest Yelm Annexation Draft Environmental
Impact Statement. We have met with City Planner Todd
Stamm and understand that the Yelm Planning Commission
shares some of our concerns. We wish to encourage the City
Council and Planning Commission to continue your
examination of these shared issues of concern and others
which have been brought to our attention
· The four annexation alternatives discussed do not cover a
wide enough range of possibilities. Lower housing densities.
for example. should be considered in this analysis. Similarly.
it might be in the best interests of the City of Yelm to annex 1
only a part of this large area. Section 27. for example. is
within the bounds of the Rainier School District. which is
contesting its annexation. The Final EIS should consider a
more useful range of such alternatives
· The Wastewater Facilities section of the DEIS has a number
of inaccuracies. of which Mr. Stamm is now aware. Of greater
concern is the lack of discussion concerning alternatives. The
proponents appear to assume that Yelm will accommodate a
"5-fold increase of the maximum currently anticipated
sewage flows" and "a significant expansion of the (sewage
treatment) plant." Such large flows cannot be fully
accommodated by the Centralia power canal under the
conditions of Yelm's hard-won agreement with the City of 2
CentraIia. We understand that the Yelm Planning Commission
is asking the proponents for a broader interpretation of the
meaning of "expansion. n and we agree that this is important.
Advanced levels of sewage treatment at a central plant could
be considered. as could on-site alternatives not discussed in
this DEIS 81
03-08-93 09 42 ~y FIC'M CITY OF YELM
P03
Southwest Yelm Annexation Comments
Nisqually River Council - February 13. 1993
Page 2 of 3
RECEIVED
MAR 0 8 1993
R.W THORPE & ASSC.
. The Vegetation and Wildlife section of the DEIS offers almost no discussion
of ways to minimize the impact of any of the annexation alternatives on
existing wildlife. It is assumed that "most of the wildlife and vegetation
currently occupying undeveloped land would be displaced or destroyed
when development occurs." Priority habitats within the annexation need to
be determined. and more thought given to ways those habitats could be
protected. Wildlife corridors and mitigation need to be discussed.
. The Wetlands study and Thompson Creek discussion in appendix B appear
to be quite good. The Yelm Planning Commission is aware of the problem
with the "off-site wetland" next to SR 507 and within the annexation
boundaries. The proposed easement from Thurston Highlands to the Yelm
Highway goes through this large Category II wetland (Yelm classification
system). The wetland has interconnections to even larger wetland areas "to
the north. east. and south."
. The Transportation section of the DEIS has received some discussion by
our Citizens Advisory Committee. We agree with the Yelm Planning
Commission that a better analysis of how the DEIS transportation plan
meshes with the new Yelm Transportation Plan would be helpful. Also. a
more thorough discussion of likely bottlenecks and arterial exits and
entrances would help to assess probable impacts. Mitigation beyond traffic
signals at intersections should be considered. The impacts appear to be
understated in the DEIS.
. The Concurrency section needs to be carefully reconsidered. It's difficult
to see how "the infrastructure necessary to support new development will
be in place by the time the development is completed" without additional
assistance from the proponents. No unavoidable adverse impacts were
identified. and no specific mitigating measures were suggested. A single
page of estimates summarizes all the infrastructure costs. The origin of many
of these estimates. such as those in the Sewer subcategory. cannot be traced
back to the specifics provided in the "conceptual site plans." Given the
critical point that traffic and school congestion have reached in the Yelm
community. we hope that Yelm council members will lead the proponents to
an understanding of their responsibility to share in shouldering the costs of
a high quality of life in the Yelm area.
. Perhaps a new "Quality of Life" or "Social and Economic Impacts on
Current Yelm Residents" section should be added to the Final EIS. as the
Nisqually Tribe has suggested. What will the impacts of higher assessments
and taxes be on the many retired senior citizens now living in Yelm? Will
Yelm Community Schools continue to fall behind in providing the advantages
of new technology to its schoolchildren? Will rapid growth displace many of
82
3
4
5
6
7
03-08-93 09 48AM FROM CITY OF YELM
P04
Southwest Yelm Annexation Comments
Nisqually River Council- February 13, 1993
Page 3 of 3
RECEIVED
MAR 0 8 1993
R.W THORPE & ASSC.
the existing locally-owned businesses in Yelm? Will the annexation offer orily I
upper middle-class housing centered around golf courses? This appears to 7
be a critical time in determining the future of the entire Yelm area, and all
points of view need to be considered.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the DEIS. You may
contact us at any time for more specific suggestions from our agency or
citizen members.
Sincerely,
--?~
Gordon Zll1ges
Vice-Chairman
GZ:pcm
83
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS IN LElTER FROM
Nisqually River Council (2/13/93)
It should be noted that the above comment letter was not received before the closmg
of the extended comment period. Although the SEP A guidelines do not require a
response to comments received after the closing of a comment period, the authors
have responded as a matter of courtesy
Response to Comment No.1
Comments acknowledged. The four annexatIon alternatives dIscussed in the Draft
EIS were set forth by the CIty of Yelm and were Intended to provide viable,
conceptual development scenarios for analysis purposes The alternatives were
scoped and set by the CIty of Yelm, pursuant to WAC 197-11-05 A scoping notIce
was issued on October 22, 1991 that listed the content of the Draft EIS and what
alternatives would be analyzed Public input to the scoping of this project was
requested by the City of Yelm.
An alternative that considers less land area for annexation (I.e. excluding SectIOn
27) would not meet the needs of the proponent, and therefore was not scoped as an
economically viable alternative under the present proposal. The State
Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) requires that alternatives include actions that
could feasibly attain or approximate a proposal's objectives (WAC 197-11-440) (5) (b)
Response to Comment No.2
Comments acknowledged The wastewater facility section of the Draft EIS has been
revised in Appendix B of this report.
Response to Comment No.3
Comments acknowledged The Alternative scenarios propose to set aSIde
approximately 42%-60% of the entire site (830 to 1,200 acres) in open space use
These open space areas are planned to include valuable wildlIfe habitat areas on the
SIte, such as wetlands, wetland buffers, vegetated steep slopes, and stream corridors
The Draft EIS discusses opportunities for open space corndors (pages 71-72), the
acreage retained In open space could serve as areas for en tical area protection,
recreation, and wildlife corridors. The presence and protection of pnority habitats
and speaes are addressed In AppendIX D of tros report.
Response to Comment No.4
Comments acknowledged The "off-site wetland" in the Draft EIS has been
Identified in this report as Wetland #21 Appendix C of this report provides a
descriptIon of the vegetation communities, wetland classification, and the
functional values of this wetland
According to the proposed alternative development plans, Wetland #21 would be
crossed by an access road from Highway 507 (Yelm-Ralmer Highway) The road
would cross a narrow finger of the linear wetland. The proposed road IS necessary to
84
provide access to the proponent's (Thurston Highlands) portion of the annexation
site, and to provide for reasonable use and safety access to the property The road
alignment is considered the best alternative to access the site, given the topographic
limitations of the site. There is an established method for obtaining approval to
construct roads over wetland areas, such as using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Section 404 (B) nationwide permit, for filling up to one acre of established wetland.
In this case, the proposed road will disturb much less than the allowable area. Any
necessary mitIgation of impacts to this wetland will fully comply with all local, state
and federal regulations. An on-site wetland replacement ratio of 3 acres for every 1
acre of impacted wetland, and a wetland enhancement plan is proposed as
mitigation, if impacts are otherwise unavoidable.
Response to Comment No.5
Comments acknowledged. The nature of the proposal and alternatives are non-
project specific. Thus, the potentIal impacts and proposed mItigation outlined in
the transportation sectIOn of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, refer to
conceptual development scenanos. The exact nature of future development wIthm
the proposed annexation area is not fully known at this time Future site-specific,
project level environmental review will occur as development within each
property takes place It is anticipated that these project-specific environmental
reviews will address the transportation-related impacts and identify appropriate
mitigation measures to accommodate these probable Impacts.
Response to Comment No. 6
Comments acknowledged. The publIc facility and concurrency sectIon of the Draft
EIS has been revised in this report, Appendix A, Public Facilities and Services Fiscal
AnalYSIS Table 2 estlmates the on-SIte infrastructure necessary to support
development as envisioned under the proposed alternative scenarios
Infrastructure costs that are directly attributed to development are clearly indIcated,
and it IS antlcipated that these costs wIll be contributed as the phasing of speCIfic
development is approved. The Draft EIS states a mitigating measure that
"developer impact fees could be assessed for providing some serVIce or facility
extensions, and/or improvements to the proposed annexation area."
Table 2, Estlmated Infrastructure Costs, was prepared with consideration of the
conceptual alternatIve scenano site plans. The sewer cost estimate uses the number
of residential units proposed in each alternative to estimate the sewage treatment
plant costs
The purpose of the fiscal analysis section on public facilitIes and services (Appendix
A) IS to provide an estimate of the potential costs and revenues of development as
proposed by the annexation The sectIon acknowledges that the phasing of
development In the annexation area will depend on the ability of the CIty and
prospective developers to provide adequate facilitles and services concurrent with
development
85
Response to Comment No.7
Comments acknowledged The annexation proposal enviSIOns a mix of hOUSIng
types and land uses that includes affordable housing. It is beyond the scope of the
annexation proposal, as a non-project EIS, to evaluate specific economic impacts on
residents. SEP A guidelines and requirements do not include the analysis and
review of social or economic impacts.
86
Distribution List
DISTRIBUTION LIST
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Federal Communications Commission
Region 10, Environmental Protection Agency
Soil Conservation Service
U.s. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Region 10
U.s. Department of Interior
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
ST ATE AGENCIES
Department of Agriculture
Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
Department of Commerce & Economic Development
Department of Community Development
Department of Ecology (2)
Department of Emergency Services
Department of Fisheries
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Social and Health Services
Department of Transportation
Department of Wildlife
Office of Governor
Washington Environmental Council
Washington State Energy Office
Washington State Patrol
THURSTON COUNTY DEPARTMENTS
Thurston County Department of Health
Thurston County Department of Public Works
Thurston County Department of Water Quality and Resource Management
Thurston County Fire District No.2
Thurston County Parks and Recreation Department
Thurston County Planning Department
Thurston County Sheriffs Department
LOCAL AGENCIES AND MUNICIPALITIES
Army Corps of Engineers
Centralia Power and Light
Economic Development Council of Puget Sound
Intercity Transit
Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority
Puget Power
Puget Sound Regional Council
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
Rainier School District
Thurston County Economic Development Council
Thurston Regional Planning Council
Town of Rainier
Yelm School District
87
MISCELLANEOUS ORG ANIZ A nONS
Audubon Society
City of YeIm Public Library
Fort Lewis Military Reservation
Nisqually Indian Tribe
Nisqually River Council
Nisqually Valley News
South Thurston County Chamber of Commerce
The Olympian
Thurston County Public Library - Olympia
CITIZENS
Ed Kenney
J.Z. Knight - Ramtha Dialogues
Jon Potter, Shapiro & Associates, Inc.
Mark Carpenter
Mary Lou Oemens
National Food Corporation
Tim Schlosser
Tom Gorman
88
AE.Pendices
Appendix A
Public Facility and Services Fiscal Analysis
Prepared by
R. W. Thorpe and Associates, Inc.
705 Second Avenue Suite 910
Seattle, Washington 98104
&
Mundy and Associates
Watermark Tower, Suite 200
1109 First A venue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Appendix A - Public Facility and Services Fiscal Analysis
This section expands on information provided in Section 9 of the Draft EIS on Facility Planning and
Concurrency The overall intent of this section is to provide a simplified, general review of the costs
and revenues associated with the proposed alternative scenarios. The analysis will assist in
determining expenses for infrastructure and service provisions to the proposed annexation area, and to
estimate potential income to the City from increased property and sales taxes that could result with
development. This analysis is intended only to provide a rough breakdown of potential costs and
revenues, with defined assumptions and methodologies. It is beyond the scope of this report to conduct
elaborate fiscal forecasts.
Growth Manl\gement Act and ConcurrenQ"
One of the key elements of the 1990 Growth Management Act involves the issue of concurrency, or
concurrent delivery of public services. The main idea expressed by concurrency is that the infrastructure
necessary to support new development should be in place by the time development is completed, or it
must be funded or scheduled for installation. In addition, jurisdictions must plan to maintain levels of
public services and facilities to serve projected population growth.
The language of the GMA requires counties and cities to prepare regulations which would prohibit
development if it results in traffic level of service standards that would fall below the standards
adopted in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan. If transportation improvements or
strategies were, however, made concurrent with development then an exception to this rule would be
granted. Concurrency is defined two ways: a) in place at the time of the development or, b) a financial
commitment is put into place to complete the needed improvements within 6 years time.
This concept has been further extended to include other facilities and services associated with
development. Section 2 of the GMA states that public facilities and services must be "adequate to serve
the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing
current service levels below locally established minimum standards." Section 3 of the GMA defines
public facilities as including transportation-related facilities, water, storm and sanitary sewer
systems, parks and recreation facilities, and schools. Section 3 defines public services as including fire
protection and suppression, law enforcement, public health, education, recreation, environmental
protection, and other governmental services. Typically, densities of two to four units per acre or higher
would require urban levels of facilities and services according to the State Department of Community
Development.
The designation of Urban Growth Areas is designed, in part, to help jurisdictions achieve concurrency
By concentrating the location of development, resources such as utilities and services can be provided in
a more tightly defined area Thurston County has a goal of achieving orderly, efficient, and cost
effective extension of services. This goal recognizes that the greatest efficiency can be achieved where
growth can be guided to existing developed areas or land where an excess of service capacity already
exists. Under this concept it is believed that the costs of creating new infrastructure can be lowered, the
extent of service areas can be reduced, and service costs for residences and businesses can also be lowered
by greater utilization of facilities that may currently be under-utilized.
Presently, the annexation area is not well served by public services or utilities. Annexation would
require expansion of wastewater, storm drainage, and water supply systems. It would also require
roadway improvements and additions to police and fire services in order to serve the new development
within this area. Impacts to individual facilities and services, along with potential mitigating
measures, are discussed under specific elements of this document.
A-l
Impacts of the Proposal and Altematives
Annexation would require additional infrastructure, facilities and public services, and provisions for
establishing these would be needed prior to development. This would require future development to
secure facility extensions, or assure payment for such extensions, prior to completion of project
construction. The actual rate of growth in the proposed annexation area will be contingent on the
ability of the Oty and prospective developers to meet concurrency requirements.
Phasing of Development
The costs of infrastructure, the demand for public services, and the generation of revenues, all depend
upon the phasing of development and the rate of growth. The annexation proposal anticipates a 20
year period for full development, although the phasing of development is not specified as part of the
annexation proposal. The alternative scenarios provide conceptual master plans of potential
development. In order to analyze the costs and revenues that may result from the annexation proposal,
the following assumptions on the phasing of development have been derived from the alternative
scenarios described in the Draft EIS. The alternative scenarios are considered only to be conceptual and
therefore the numbers associated with the assumptions below should be considered as general estimates
for analysis purposes.
The 3 alternative scenarios propose similar levels of residential development over the 20 year buildout
period, the proponent's alternative 2 and alternative 3 each propose 5,000 housing units, and
alternative 4 proposes 4,500 housing units. This analysis will assume the development of 5,000 housing
units, phased evenly over a 20 year buildout period. It assumes an average annual population increase
of 582 people, which is the population projection for the Yelm area stated in the Population
Growth/Housing Demand section of the Draft EIS. This translates into an added population of 11,640
people over the 20 year buildout period. The following table summarizes the assumptions of proposed
development, that are used in the analysis of facility planning.
Table 1
Summary of Assumptions for Fiscal Ananlysis
Residential Acreagel
Housing Units
Po ulaHon Growth
FULL DEVELOPMENT
975 acres
5,000 units
11 ,640 eo Ie
AVG. ANNUAL RATE
48.75 acres
250 units
582 Ie
- Alternative 2 residential aaeage
Source: R. W Thorpe and Associates, Inc. 1992
Total Estimated Costs for Infrastructure and Public Services
Estimated Costs for Infrastructure
Table 2 below provides an estimate of infrastructure costs by the 3 alternative scenarios. The costs are
limited to on-site improvements, and the estimate is based on the infrastructure necessary to serve the
full development of the alternative scenarios. It does not consider the phasing of development. The
costs are broken down into 2 categories, 1 ) Infrastructure costs that are customarily funded or paid by
development, and 2.) Infrastructure costs that may not be directly attributed to a development, and are
usually variable and negotiated in the development process. The infrastructure costs that are
associated with development (category 1) are usually contributed as the phasing of specific
development is approved. Therefore, the costs in the table below should not be misconstrued as intrinsic
costs of the annexation proposal.
A-2
Table 2
Estimated Infrastructure Costs By Alternative In 1992 Dollars ..
ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4
Compact Village
Residential - 600 Ac. Residential -
Commercial - 40 Ac. Commercial-
Public - 20 Ac. Public -
Golf Course - 276 Ac. Golf Course -
ALTERNATIVE 2
Proposed Development
Residential -
Commercial -
Public -
Golf Course -
975 Ac.
35Ac.
20Ac.
276 Ac.
1 Roads
a. 20,000 LF Main Blvd.
@$4oo/LF=$8,000,0002
b. 120,000 LFCollector/access roads
@$200/LF=$24,000,0001
1 Roads
a. 20,000 LF Main Blvd
@$400/LF = $8,000,0002
b. 90,000 LF Collector/access roads
@$200/LF = $18,000,000 1
900 Ac.
110 Ac.
2OAc.
276 Ac.
1 Roads (including storm drainage)
a. 18,000 LF Main Blvd.
@ $4OO/LF = $7,200,0002
b. 110,000 LF Collector / access roads
@ $200/LF = $22,000,000 1
2 Sewer 2 Sewer 2 Sewer
a. 140,000 LF Sewer Mains a. 110,000 LF Sewer Mains a. 128,000 LF Sewer Mains
(8",10",12",15" &: 18") @ (8" -18") @ $60/LF (average) (8" to 18") @ $6O/LF
$6O/LF (average) = $8,400,000 1 = $6,600,0001 = $7,6aJ,000 1
b. Lift Stations - 5 @ $150,000 = b. Lift Stations - 4-@ $150,000 = b. Lift Stations - 6 @ $150,000 =
$750,000 1 $600,000 1 $900,0001
c. Treatment Plant Expansion c. Treatment Plant Expansion c. Treatment Plant Expansion
5500 units@$l800/unit = 4500 units@ $l800/unit = 5000 units @ $H~OO/unit =
$9,900,0002 $8,100,0002 $9,000,Q002
3. Water
a. 140,000 LF Water Mains -
(8",10",12")@$50/LF=
$7,000,0001
b. Storage Tanks - 2 million gallons
@$2/gallon = $4,000,0002
3. Water
a. 110,000 LF Water Mains -
(8" -12") @ $5O/LF = $5,500,0001
b. Storage Tanks - 2 million gallons
@ $21 ga lion = $4,000,000 2
Subtotal 1 = 40,150,000
Subtotal 2 = 21,900,000
Subtotal 1 = 30,700,000
Subtotal 2 = 20,100,000
TOTAL = $50,800,000
TOTAL = $62,050,000
3. Water
a. 128,000 LF Water Mains -
(8" to 12") @ $5O/LF =
$6,400,0001
b. Storage Tanks - 2 million gallons
@$2Igal1on = $4,000,0002
Subtotal 1 = 36,9aJ,000
Subtotal 2 = 20,200,000
TOTAL =
$57,180,000
· Cost basecl on conceptual site plans shown In the DElS
1 _ Customarily funded or built by development
2 _ Variable, negotiated funding
Source: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. - October 1992
Estimated Costs For Public Services
Public service costs comprise the operating and maintenance costs for local services, including fire
protection, law enforcement, recreation, planning and engineering permits, and education. Public
services are largely funded through local taxes, fees, and miscellaneous state and federal revenue
sources.
This analysis estimates the projected costs of providing City services to the proposed annexation area.
The public services included represent the major local government functions that are funded by the local
tax base and would require expansion to serve the annexation area. The City's planning review and
engineering services are not included because it is assumed that permit fees would offset the additional
service demand. The costs of providing education is evaluated separately from City services, using
information from the local school district.
The projections of public service costs are examined by two methods, which are described below
1 The first approach estimates public service costs on a per capita basis. The 1991-1992 budgets
for various services are divided by the present population to determine an annual, per capita
cost of providing existing services. The per capita cost is then multiplied by the projected
average annual population increase for the Yelm area, 582 people (from Population/Housing
element of the Draft EIS), to arrive at an annual cost increase. The population figure (582
people) represents a projection for the entire Yelm area and may therefore be higher than the
population share that can be attributed solely to the annexation proposal. The costs of serving
the incremental population growth that is projected over the 20 year buildout period, is
calculated to estimate the total service cost increase anticipated over the entire 20 year
development period. See Table 3 below
Table 3
ESTIMATED PUBLIC SERVICE COSTS IN 1992 DOLLARS
~ f..iu
$339,175.00 $47,300.00
$226.12 $3153
1991 Appropriated Budget
A vg. $ I person
Cummulative
Pop incrJyr.
582
1164
1746
2328
2910
3492
4074
4656
5238
5820
6402
6984
7S66
8148
8730
9312
9894
10476
11058
11640
Years
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Totals
(Per Capita Costs)
~
$60,346.16
$40.23
5131,601.84
5263,203.68
$394.805.52
$526,407.36
$658,009.20
$789,611.04
5921,212.88
51,Q52,814.72
51,184,41656
51,316,018.40
51,447,62024
51.579.222.08
51.710,823.92
$1,842,425.76
$1.974,ll27.60
52,105,629 44
52.23'7,23128
SZ.368.833.12
$Z,SOO,434.96
S2.63i036.80
$27,636,386.40
518.350.46
$36,700.92
SSS.051.38
573,401.84
591,752.30
5110,10276
5128,453.22
5146,803.68
5165,154.14
5183,504.60
5201,&55.06
5220,205.52
5238.555.98
5256,906.44
5275,256.90
5293,607.36
$311,957.82
$330.308.28
$348,658.74
5367,009.20
$3,853,596.60
523,413.86
$46,827.72
570,24158
593,655.44
5117,069.30
5140,4113.16
5163.897.02
5187,310.88
5210,724.74
5234,138.60
S2S7 ,552.46
5280,96632
$304,380.18
$327,794.04
5351,207.90
$374,621.76
$398,015.62
$421,449.48
$444,863.34
$468,27710
$4,916,910.60
TOTAL COST OF PUBLIC SERVICES BY POPULA nON = $36,406,893.60
(OVER 20 YEAR BUlLDOUT PERIOD)
Source: R. W Thorpe and ASSOCiates, Inc. 1992
A-4
2. The second approach divides the current budget for various services by the current land area
for the city This yields a cost per acre for these services. The cost per acre is then multiplied
by 2000 acres to determine a projected annual cost of adding the proposed area of annexation.
The annual cost is multipied over the entire 20 year buildout period to estimate the total
service cost.
See Table 4 below for a comparison of estimated public service costs by land area and population
methods as described in the text above.
Both of these approaches represent simplified techniques for arriving at cost approximations for
services. The cost projections were arrived at by reviewing the Oty's 1991-92 budget. They are limited
by the assumption that budget costs will remain relatively constant (on a per capita or land area basis)
over the life of the annexation period. Another important assumption is that the current budget levels
adequately fund the local services.
After analysis of both methods, the authors believe that the land area approach may best apply to
possible fire and police service costs, while the population approach may be more reliable for costs
associated with schools and parks. The increase in demand for parks and school services will occur
proportional to population growth, and will therefore be incremental with the rate of development.
Police and fire service will have to expand and be available to serve upon annexation, which supports
the land area approach. However, it is recognized that the demand for police and fire service is also
linked to the number of response calls which is based on population.
An estimate of school district costs is provided separately from the analysis of City services because
the Yelm School District serves an area and population base larger than the City of Yelm. Also, school
budget revenues and finances are more dependent on state and federal funding sources, than are the
operating costs of local government services. See Table 5 below for a projection of school costs.
A-S
Table 4
Estimated City Of Yelm Public Service Costs In 1992 Dollars
Comparison Of Costs By Land Area And By Population (Per Capita) Methods
SERVICES COST BY LAND AREA'" COST BY POPULATION"''''
POLICE SERVICE
$339,175 = 1991 Appropriated Budget $339,175/740 acres = $458.34 per acre $339,175/ 1,500persons = $226.12 per person
2,000 acres x $458.34 per acre = $916,680 per year $226.12 per person x 582 average increase people per
year = $131,601.84 per year incremental increase
Total Cost Over 20 Year Buildout = $18,333,600 Total Cost Over 20 Year Buildout = $27,636,386.40
FIRE
$47,300 = 1991 Appropriated Budget $47,300 / 740 acres = $63.92 per a<;re $47,300/1,500= $31.53 per person
2000 acres x $63.91 per acre = $127,840 per year $31.53 per person x 582. average increase people per
year = $18,350.46 per year incremental increase
Total Cost Over 20 Year Buildout = $2,556,800 Total Cost Over 20 Year Buildout = $3,853,596.60
P ARKS AND RECREATION
$60,346.16 =1991 Appropriated Budget $60,346/740 acres = $81.55 per acre $60,346/1,500 = $40.23 per person
2000 acres x $81.55 per acre = $163,100 per year $40.23 per person x 582. average increase people per
year = $23,413.86 per year incremental increase
Total Cost Over 20 Year Buildout = $3,262,000 Total Cost Over 20 Year Buildout = $4,916,910.60
TOTAL FOR LAND AREA = $24,152,400 TOTAL FOR POPULATION = $36,406,893.60
.Velm - Land Ana s 740 acres
"1992 Population - 1,500 persons
Source: R. W Thorpe & Associates, Inc. - October 1992
City of Yelm Municipal Budget 1992
Table 5
Estimated School Costs
1992-1993 General Fund Budget Revenues and Financing Sources
Average Avg. Students 1992
Number per HH Cost! Student
Years HouseholdslYr. (0.622) ($5,349.54)
1 250 155.5 $831,853.47
2 500 311.0 $1,663,706.94
3 750 466.5 $2,495,560.41
4 1000 622.0 $3,327,413.88
5 1250 777.5 $4,159,267.35
6 1500 933.0 $4,991,120.82
7 1750 1088.5 $5,822,974.29
8 2000 1244.0 $6,654,827.76
9 2250 1399.5 $7,486,681.23
10 2500 1555.0 $8,318,534 70
11 2750 1710.5 $9,150,388.17
12 3000 1866.0 $9,982,241.64
13 3250 2021.5 $10,814,095 11
14 3500 2177.0 $11,645,948.58
15 3750 2332.5 $12,477,802.05
16 4000 2488.0 $13,309,655.52
17 4250 2643.5 $14,141,508.99
18 4500 2799.0 $14,973,362.46
19 4750 2954.5 $15,805,21593
20 5000 3110.0 $16,637,06940
TOTAL SCHOOL DISlRICf COSTS $174,689,228.70
(Over 20 Year Buildout Period)
Local Taxes
12%
$99,822.42
$199,644.83
$299,467.25
$399,289.67
$499,112.08
$598,934.50
$698,756.91
$798,579.33
$898,401 75
$998,224 16
$1,098,046.58
$1,197,869.00
$1,297,691.41
$1,397,513.83
$1,497,336.25
$1,597,158.66
$1,696,981.08
$1,796,803.50
$1,896,62591
$1,996,448.33
$20,962,707.44
State Funds
83%
$690,438.38
$1,380,876.76
$2,071,315.14
$2,761,753.52
$3,452,191.90
$4,142,630.28
$4,833,068.66
$5,523,507.04
$6,213,945.42
$6,904,383.80
$7,594,822.18
$8,285,260.56
$8,975,698.94
$9,666,137.32
$10,356,575.70
$11,047,014.08
$11,737,452.46
$12,427,890.84
$13,118,329.22
$13,808,767.60
$144,992,059.82
Federal Funds
5%
$41,592.67
$83,185.35
$124,778.02
$166,370.69
$207,963.37
$249,556.04
$291,148.71
$332,741.39
$374,334.06
$415,926.74
$457,51941
$499,112.08
$540,704.76
$582,297 43
$623,890.10
$665,482.78
$707,07545
$748,668.12
$790,260.80
$831,85347
$8,734,461.44
Notes.
0.622 Average 1/ Students I Household is the development multiplier from North Thurston County School District,
and averages the number of students expected from single-family and multi-family household
Yebn School District 1992-1993 General Fund Budget u 519,670,263
$19,670,263 I 3,677 Students - 55,349.54 I Student
Source: R. W Thorpe and Associates, Inc. - February 1993
Yelm School District
The total estimated costs of infrastructure and public services is provided by the alternative scenarios,
in Table 6 below In general, only the costs of infrastructure differ between the alternative scenarios.
The broad-brush approach of this analysis considers the same basic public service costs associated with
all the alternative scenarios because of the similar amount of residential development. This cost
summary represents the total estimated costs over the entire 20 year buildout period.
Table 6
Summary Of Total Estimated Costs For Infrastructure and
Services Under Proposed Alternatives
ALTERNATIVE2 Proposal
ALTERNATIVE4 Village
$62,050.000 Totallnfrastructure
S40,150.o001
$21,900,0002
$20)190,400 Public Services (Police,
Fire, by land area)
54.916,910 Public Services (Parks,
by population)
$16,637,069 School District
$13,808,767 State funds
$ 1,996,448 Loca1 funds
$ 831.853 Federal funds
5104,494,379 Tot~ Costs
527 ,8ll3,758 Local Costs
540,150,000 Developer Costs
5:wi,540,621 Other Costs
ALTERNATIVE3 Compact
SSO,800.ooo T otallnfnstructure
$30,700,000 1
$20,100,0002
$20,890,400 Public Services (Police,
Fire, by land area)
$4.916,910 Public Services <Parks,
by population)
$16,637,069 School District
$13.808,767 State funds
5 1,996,448 Local funds
5 831.853 Federal funds
593,244,379 Total Costs
527,lIlI3,7S8 Local Costs
130,700,000 Developer Costs
$34,740,620 Other Costs
557,180.000 Total Inhastructure
$36,980,000 1
$20,200,000 2
$20,890,400 Public Services (Police.
Fire, by land area)
$4,916,910 Public Services <Parks,
by popu1ation)
$16,637,069 School District
513.808,767 State funds
$ 1.996,448 Local funds
$ 831.853 Federal funds
$99,624,379 Tot~ Costs
S27,lIlI3,758 Local Costs
S36,9l1l1,ooo Developer Costs
$34,840,621 Other Costs
T otallnfrastructure Costs
1 Costs customarily funded or built by development
2 Costs variable, negotiated funding
Loca1 Costs - Public Services (Police. Flre, Parks) and local funds to School District
Developer Costs = Infrastructure costs customarily funded or built by the developer
Source: R. W Thorpe and Associates, Inc. 1992
Total Estimated Revenues From PropeI1y and Sales Tax
Development within the proposed annexation area would also supply revenue to the City The only
potential revenues sources evaluated in this analysis are the estimated value from property taxes and
potential sales tax revenues. It should be noted that the revenue analysis does not include other sources
of potential revenue such as revenue generated from local increases in employment during construction,
additional goods and services demanded by future residents, and various taxes that may be associated
with the purchase of goods and services.
Estimated Property Tax Revenue
The following analysis evaluates potential property tax revenues from development on the proposed
annexation site. The analysis assumes levels of both residential and commercial development
according to the land uses proposed in alternative scenario master plans. The analysis considers the
phasing of residential development on the proposed annexation site, but does not estimate the phasing
of commercial development.
A-8
The analysis reviews three different estimates of potential property tax revenue from residential
development and then projects some trends according to the anticipated phasing of the alternative
scenarios.
1 Estimate of revenue from undeveloped land values.
This estimate evaluates potential property tax revenues according to the value of undeveloped
land, without infrastructure improvements such as roads, sewer or water service.
2. Estimate of revenue from land with development improvements and associated amenity
values.
This estimate evaluates potential property tax revenues according to the value of land with
infrastructure improvements, and with a higher assessed value influenced by amenities such as
the proposed golf course.
3. Estimate of revenue from land with development improvements and assuming no amenity
values.
First, the background assumptions and methods used in the different estimates is outlined. Then the
estimates are projected according to the phasing of development.
Assumptions to Estima te Revenue From Undeveloped Land
The background information and numbers were derived from local property values and the tax rate on
residential and commercial land as described below Century 21 Realtors provided background
information on recent residential sales for both single and multi-family properties. These sales prices
were then averaged to obtain a representative cost per acre for all residential property This number
was then multiplied by the estimated residential land area for each alternative. The Thurston County
Assessor's Office was contacted for the 1992 tax rate on land, and this figure was applied to the total
residential value in order to estimate potential tax revenue from this land.
A similar approach was followed for commercial property A recent article in the Olympian (dated
October 11, 1992) indicated that commerdalland in Thurston County is valued at between $130,000 and
$500,000 per acre After speaking with Century 21 Realtors about recent commerdal sales, the lower
number was used as a conservative estimate for commerdalland in the Yelm area. The current tax rate
was then applied to this figure to obtain an estimate for commerdalland revenues.
This approach represents minimum revenue projections. It is limited in part, by the assumptions of a
constant tax rate and constant property values. The projection also does not attempt to include
additional potential sources of revenue that are recognized as being associated with land within the
annexation area. These additional sources could include such items as sales taxes, permit fees, and
development impact fees. The total estimated undeveloped land values are shown in the table 7 below
A-9
Table 7
Land Revenue Estimate, With Annexation Scenarios And No Development, In 1992 Dollars
ALTERNATIVE 2 - PROPOSAL
RESIDENTIAL 3 Single Family properties Iotalling 35 acres sold for a Iotal of
$308,000
3 Multifamily properties totalling 21 acres sold for a total of $595,000
$308,000 SF total 21 acres
5595.000 MF total ~
5903,000 total sales price 56 Iotal acres
5903,000 /56 acres.. $16,125.. average cost per acre for residential
land
Proposal.. 975 residential acres: 975 acres x 516,125 per acre ..
$15,721,875 total potential value
515,721,875/1000.. $15,721.87 x 14.6731 (1992 tax rate per 51000 of
assessed value) .. $230,688.64 .. potential estimated revenue
· $230,688.64 x 20 year development time.. $4,613,772.80 .. Iota I
estimated revenue for residential land
ffiMMEROAL Cost per acre for commerdal property In Thurston County.. 5130,000 10
$500,000 per acre (Olympian, 10/11/92)
Assume $100.000 per acre for Yelm area
35 acres commerdal use x 5100,000 per acre.. 53,500,000
53,500,000 /1000.. $3,500 x 14.6731 (1992 tax rate per $1000 assessed
value) .. $51,355.85
$51,355.85 x 20 years.. $1,017,117.90.. total estimated revenue for
commercial
Alternative 2 Proposal Alternative 3 Compact Alternative 4 Village
Residential land
Commercial Land
TOTAL
$4,613,772
11,027,117
$5,640,889
$2,839,244
$1.173.848
$4,013,092
$4,300,000
$3.228.082
$1,528,082
ALTERNATIVE 3 -COMPACT
600 acres x $16,125 per acre.. $9,675,000
$9.675,000 /1000 .. 9,675.00 x 14.6731 .. $141,962.24
$141,962.24 x 20 years.. $2,839,244.80
$100,000 x 40 acres. $4,000,000
$4,000,000 /1000 .. $4,000.00 x 14.6731 .. $58,692.40
$58,692.40 x 20 years.. $1,173,848
AL TERNA TIVE 4 - VILLAGE
900 acres x $16,125 per acre.. $14,512,500
$14,512.soo /1000.. $14,512.50 x 14.6731 ..
$212,943.36
$212,943.36 x 20 years .. $4.258,867.20
$100,000 x 110 acres.. $11,000,000
$11,000,000 /1000.. 511,000
511,000 x 14.6731.. $161,404.10
$161,404.10 x 20 years.. 53.228,082
. ASSJ/m6 cDnslanl l4% ral, Df 20 ~ar ",riod
Source: R. W Thorpe if AssociJltl!S, 111c. - Octob,r J 992
Assumptions to Estimate Revenues From Land With Development Improvements and Associated
Amenity Values
To further identify potential revenues from land within the annexation area the value of improved,
development land was estimated. In determining this figure, the potential value of land with
development improvements associated with engineering, design, permits, management costs, and other
development costs is considered in the assessed value.
Table 8
Estimated Revenues From Developed Land
(assumes amenity value)
Estimated value with service costs added = $40,000 - $60,000 per residential lot
Assume average of $50,000 per residential lot
$50,000 x 5,000 lots = $250,000,000
$250,000,000 + 10,000,000 (estimated value of 18 hole golf course) = $260,000,000
$260,000,000 /1000 x 14.6731 (tax rate per $1000 of assessed value) = $3,815,006/ year
$3,815,006 x 20 year buildout development period = $76,300,UO
Source: R. W Thorpe and Associates, Inc. 1992
This estimate assumes a constant tax rate and no change in value over the 20 year period (no inflation or
discount rate was applied) Thus it should be applied with caution and it is utilized here as an
indication of potential revenue amounts rather than a definitive projection of the exact revenues to be
genera ted
A-ll
Assumptions to Estimate Revenue From Land With Development Improvements and Assumin& No
Amenities
The estimate above assumes that the residential lots would be developed in association with proposed
recreation and other facilities, and the value of each lot is related to the value of living adjacent to
those associated amenities. This mayor may not be the case, depending on future development
proposals and the effect of this uncertainty on projected revenue should be noted.
Table 9
Estimated Revenues From Developed Land
(assumes no amenity value)
Estimated developed value with service costs added = $10,000 to $15,000 per lot
(median = $12,500 per lot)
$12,500 x 5,000 lots = $62,500,000
$62,500,000 /1000 x 14.6731 (tax rate per $1000 of assessed value) = $917,068.75
$917,068.75 x 20 year buildout development period = $18,341,375
Source: R. W Thorpe and Associates, Inc. 1992
Summary of Total Potential Property Tax Revenues With Phased Development
The summary table below combines the dif.ferent estimates for potential property tax revenues and
projects the phased buildout of development, according to the proposed alternatives. The table assumes
development of the projected build out will be equally phased over a 20 year period. As development of
the site is phased over the build out period and infrastructure improvements are provided, the acreage
of undeveloped land is replaced with land improved for development with amenity value. The
potential property tax revenues increase over the buildout period as land is improved, and assessed
values increase.
A-12
Table 10
Potential Property Tax Revenue
Land Revenue
Land Revenue Undeveloped Value
Phasing Developed Value 1992 TaxRate 975 Residential Acres 1992 Tax Rate Phased Development
Year 250 Res LotslYr $50,000/Lot $14.6731/$100 X $16,125/Ac $14.6731/$100 Potential Tax Revenue
1 250 12,500,000 $183,413.75 926.25 $14,935,781.25 $219,154.21 $402,567.96
2 500 25,000,000 $366,827.50 877.50 $14,149,687.50 $207,619.78 $574,447.28
3 750 37,500,000 $550,241.25 828.75 $13,363,593.75 $196,085.35 $746,326.60
4 1000 50,000,000 $733,655.00 780.00 $12,577,500.00 $184,550.92 $918,205.92
5 1250 62,500,000 $917,068.75 731.25 $11,791,406.25 $173,016.48 $1,090,085.23
6 1500 75,000,000 $1,100,482.50 682.50 $11,005,312.50 $161,482.05 $1,261,964.55
7 1750 87,500,000 $1,283,896.25 633.75 $10,219,218.75 $149,947.62 $1,433,843.87
8 2000 100,000,000 $1,467,310.00 585.00 $9,433,125.00 $138,413.19 $1,605,72319
9 2250 112,500,000 $1,650,723.75 536.25 $8,647,031.25 $126,878.75 $1,777,602.50
10 2500 125,000,000 $1,834,137.50 487,50 $7,860,937.50 $115,344.32 $1,949,481.82
11 2750 137,500,000 $2,017,551.25 438.75 $7,074,843 75 $103,809.89 $2,121,361 14
12 3000 150,000,000 $2,200,965.00 390.00 $6,288,750.00 $92,275 46 $2,293,240.46
13 3250 162,500,000 $2,384,378.75 341.25 $5,502,656.25 $80,741.03 $2,465,119.78
14 3500 175,000,000 $2,567,792.50 292.50 $4,716,562.50 $69,206.59 $2,636,999.09
15 3750 187,500,000 $2,751,206.25 243.75 $3,930,468.75 $57,672.16 $2,808,878.41
16 4000 200,000,000 $2,934,620.00 195.00 $3,144,375.00 $46,137.73 $2,980,757.73
17 4250 212,500,000 $3,118,033.75 146.25 $2,358,281.25 $34,603.30 $3,152,637.05
18 4500 225,000,000 $3,301,447.50 97.50 $1,572,187.50 $23,068.86 $3,324,516.36
19 4750 237,500,000 $3,484,861.25 48.75 $786,093.75 $11,534.43 $3,496,395.68
20 5000 250,000,000 $3,668,275.00 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,668,275.00
$38,516,887.50 $2,191,542.12 $40,708,429.62
"'PHASED DEVELOPMENT Commercial Land
20 YEAR BUILOOUT 35 acres x $100,OOO/acre = $35,000,000 $1,027,117.90 $1,027,117.90
975 acres R I 20 yrs = 48.75 acre I yr $35,000,000 I 1000 x 14.6731 (tax rate)
5,000 R units I 975 acres = 5.13 Resid. DU = $51,355.85
48.75 acres/yr x 5.13 DUlac = 250 DU/yr Tor AL $41,735,546.62
Source: R. W Thorpe & Associates, Inc. February 1993
City of Yelm
Table 11 below, shows the millage rate breakdown for Yelm, or the percentage of property tax revenue
that is presently spent on different local public services. Table 10 estimates the potential property tax
revenue over the 20 year buildout period of the proposed annexation and indicates the amount that the
different public services could anticipate. This is only an estimate, it should be noted that not all of
the millage rate goes to fund services in the City
Table 11
Yelm Millage Rate Breakdown
Service
Ci ty or roads
State schools
Medic One
Library
School
Cemetery
Port
TOTAL
Portion of Millaie Rate Percental:e Estimated Revenue
3.1106 21.2 $8,847,936
3.3029 22.6 $9,432,234
2.1586 14.7 $6,135,125
4894 3.3 $1,377,273
5.2180 35.6 $14,857,855
1057 0.7 $292,148
.2879 1.9 $792.975
14.6731 100.0 $41,735,546
Source: R. W Thorpe & Associates, InC.-Thurston County Assessors Office/October 1992
Estimated Sales Tax Revenue
Another component of potential revenue to be considered is that of sales tax revenue. An estimate of the
potential sales tax was prepared to provide an indication of its contribution as a future revenue source.
The city received approximately $205,452.66 in sales tax revenue in 1991 This amount was divided by
10,000, the estimated commercial market population for Yelm, to yield a per capita sales tax amount of
$20.54. This amount was then multiplied by the incremental population growth projected in the
annexation area (582 people / year) and then calculated over the 20 year builout. The estimated
potential revenue from sales tax over the 20 year period is approximately $2,510,399 This approach is
outlined in the table below'
A-14
Table 12
Potential Sales Tax Revenue
Based on a 1991 Sales Tax Revenue of $20.54 Per Capita
Years
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Avg Pop incr/yr
582
1164
1746
2328
2910
3492
40'74
4l&
S138
5820
6402
6984
7566
8148
8730
9312
9894
10476
11058
11640
$20.54
511.954.28
$23,908.56
535.862.84
$47.817.12
$59,711.40
$71,725.68
$83.679.96
595,63424
$1 07,588.52
$119,542.80
$131,497.08
51.G.451.36
5155A05.64
5167,359.92
$179.314.20
$191.268.48
5203,222.76
5215,177.04
$227,13132
S239.ll85.60
PO~LSALESTAXREVENUE
(OVER 20 YEAR BUILDOlTT PERIOD)
$2,510,398.80
Source: R. W Thorpe and Associates, Inc. 1992
Table 13
Estimated Sales Tax Revenue From The Proposed Annexation
1991 Sales Tax Revenue = $205,452.66
10,000 = Estimated Commercial Market Population
$205,452.66/10,000 = $20.54 = estimated per capita sales tax
Average Annual Population Increase = 582 people
582 People x $20.54 = 11,954.28 per year
Incremental growth over 20 year buildout period = $2,510,399
Source: R. W Thorpe and AssocUltes, Inc. 1992
This potential amount of sales tax is a very conservative estimate. The development of commercial
services in the annexation area will result in increased retail spending opportunities for residents, and
will provide the City with greater per capita sales tax revenue than the existing rate of per capita
spending.
If the projected revenues from property tax and sales tax are combined over the 20 year buildout period
of the proposed development, a total of $44,245,945 may be anticipated.
A-15
Table 14
Potential Revenue From Property And Sales Taxes
Potential Revenue hom Property Tax = $41,735,546.62
Potential Revenue from Sales Tax = $2,510,398.80
Estimated Revenue from Property and Sales Tax = $44,245,945.42
Source: R. W Thorpe and Associiates, Inc. 1992
Comparison of P1'Qjected Costs and Revenues
Table 15 compares the estimated costs and revenues to local jurisdictions, for each of the alternative
scenarios. The estimates account for full development of the alternatives over the 20 year buildout
period. The alternatives generally propose similar levels of development and projected population
levels. Therefore, the estimates that depend on per-capita calculations (ie. revenue from property and
sales taxes) result in the same numbers for all the alternatives.
Table 15
Summary of Projected Cos~ and Revenues to Local Jurisdictions
Alternative 2 - Proponent's Scenario
Estimated Costs Total $64,344,379
Local Services Costs $27,803,758
Other Costs $36,540,621
Estimated Revenues Total
Property Tax
Sales Tax
$44,245,945
$41,735,547
$ 2,510,398
Alternative 3 - Compact Scenario
Estimated Costs Total $62,544,379
Local Services Costs $27,803,758
Other Costs $34,740,620
Estimated Revenues Total
Property Tax
Sales Tax
$44,245,945
$41,735,547
$ 2,510,398
Alternative 4 - ViIlage Scenario
Estimated Costs Total $62,644,379
Local Services Costs $27,803,758
Other Costs .$34,840,621
Estimated Revenues Total
Property Tax
Sales Tax
$44,245,945
$41,735,547
$ 2,510,398
Source: R. W Thorpe and Associiates, Inc. 1992
A-16
Comparison of the Alternative Scenarios
Alternative 3 Compact Scenario - Impacts would be similar to the Proposal, in that a similar density
of development is expected. Reductions in infrastructure requirements would lower the overall
potential costs associated with this scenario.
Alternative 4. Village Scenario - The infrastructure and service costs associated with this alternative
are expected to be less than the Proposed scenario, but are estimated to be greater than those of the
Compact alternative.
Conclusions
The total estimated costs exceed projected revenues by $18 to $20 million dollars, for the 20 year
buildout period of the alternatives. However, if only the costs to local services are considered, then the
estimated revenues more than offset costs to local jurisdictions.
The total shortfall between costs and revenues ($18-$20 million) amounts to approximately $3,650-
$4,000 for each of the 5,000 proposed housing units. The mitigating measures in the Draft EIS (p. 131)
states that developer impact fees could be assessed for providing service or facility extensions, and/or
improvements to the proposed annexation area. The Growth Management Act (GMA) authorizes the
use of impact fees and local options for additional excise taxes to meet fiscal needs that comply with
local plans.
The goal of the Growth Management Act (GMA) is to assist jurisdictions in coordinating the location of
development with the provision of utilities and services. The GMA requires that public facilities and
services must be adequate to serve development, and must be provided concurrent with development.
The phasing of development in the annexation area will depend on the ability of the City and
prospective developers to meet concurrency requirements.
Readers should be cautioned that this section is premised on a number of assumptions and estimates.
The authors have attempted to be dear about the assumptions throughout the section and have used
analytic methods accepted and employed in the best professional judgment.
A-17
Appendix B
Revised Wastewater Facilities
Prepared by
R. W. Thorpe and Associates, Inc.
705 Second Avenue Suite 910
Seattle, Washington 98104
&
Barghausen Consulting Engineers
18215 72nd Avenue South
Kent, Washington 98032
&
City of Yelm
Appendix B. - Revised Wastewater Facilities
Existing Conditions
The City of Yelm is not currently served by sewage treatment facilities. Areas within the city limits as
well as the outlying areas are served by individual or community septic tanks and septic percolation
systems. However, in 1991 the City of Yelm was awarded funds from the state and federal government
on a matching basis to construct a treatment plant. This plant is in the process of being designed by
Parametrix, Inc. of Sumner The waste water facilities plan has been approved by all local and state
agencies.
This new proposed facility will be sized to serve approximately 2,600 people within the City of Yelm
city limits by 1995, if\. the farm of with 435 connections. The design of the sewage treatment plant will
allow expansion to connect approximately 357 additional units to this system by the year 2010, for a
total of 792 connections. The eoftsl:lltaftt is l:lsin~ a number 6f 2,600 pe6ple 'who ..-vill be xr'l.ea in the form
of appr6xiffifltely 792 e6f\f\ecti61\S by the year 2010. The city consultant, Parametrix, has assumed 33
persons per connection which is conservative.
This new system will be a sewage treatment effluent pump system (S.T.E.P.) with a small diameter
force main system which incorporates individual private treatment septic tanks at each point
discharge (residence or business) The septic tank provides primary sewage treatment and removes
solids from primary effluent. Effluent is pumped from each septic tank under pressure into the small
diameter pressure line. This pressure line will convey sewage into the secondary sewage treatment
facility which is scheduled to be constructed at 1101 NP Road. Proposed primary outfall from the
sewage treatment facility will be into the Centralia Power canal (as authorized by a BeE Department
of Ecology NPDES permit, 2.0 CFS average daily flow or 1.3 MGD) with a secondary discharge directly
into the Nisqually River located east of the primary discharge point. It is anticipated that this new
sewage treatment system will be fully operational in 1993. ana therefore Hill theoretically be
available for expansion.
The city is anticipating using all of the available connections to serve its current city customers. -=Ffte
aesi~n of the x....a~e treatment plant "dill aIle.. expansioft to e6nneet approximately 357 additional
units to this system by the year 2010. The fees associated with connecting to the system would be
directly proportional to the cost of providing sanitary sewer service to each individual user per
connection basis.
The current government funds which have been allocated for the construction of the sewage treatment
plant allow for an average daily flow of 0.30 million gallons per day (MGD) when the plant becomes
operational in 1994 This is approximately equivalent to m 792 connections serving 2,600 people.
Based on the projected population of the city in Ydm and indudin~ the annexation area of 2,000 acres
(approximately 5,000 additieft61 units) substantial expansion of the proposed new sewa~e treatment
'I.<,ith facility 'I.,oula be required.
Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives
Alternative 1. No Action
No annexation would occur thus demands associated with potential development under the Proponents'
Scenario would not take place. The site would remain in Thurston County and development would be
expected to occur at a lesser level, resulting in less need for services.
B-1
Alternative 2: Proponents' Scenario
Bces1:1x the: 1:11timatc b1:1ild 01:1t of the aftnex8ti6ft area '\"61:118 req1:1irc appr6ximatdy a S fold iftcJ't:asc vf
the maximum e1:1J'Tently anticipated x..al;e fl6ws, a si~fieant eXpafl5i6n 6f the plant '..ill be req1:1irt:d.
Ho,;e',er, al\ expaftSiol\ of this type is feasible a3 long a3 a IOI\l; rangt: expansion plal\ is de-.eloped to
il\creax xwage trcaftftel\t capaeity 6n an il\crcmcntal basis.
For purpoxs ef x"..age treatment design, the followiRg criteria has becfl1:1sed:
- Eighty gallens per capita per day is a:mlmed for demestie x....ag<: Ao.v.
- ScVCl\ty H'/e gell6llS per capita per day is a331:1med for cOmtt\ereial x....age Ae,...
- A total of 105 gallons per capita per day is a3sHft'\cd for a gt'a'.ity x..'age fle\." for the proposed
8ftncxa tiOI\ area.
The new City of Yelm sewage facility and the discharge permit into the Centralia Canal and the
Nisqually River is intended to serve the existing City and its immediate environs, and is not intended
to serve the proposed annexation, The expansion of the existing system for the area to be annexed is not
part of the preferred alternative, Therefore, there will be no impacts resulting from the annexation
proposal.
At the time that a more specific development is proposed for the annexation area, potential
alternatives for wastewater treatment will be analyzed. Alternative methods of sewer discharge,
reuse of treated wastewater, wetland treatment, etc. will be considered. These alternatives, alone or in
conjunction with a modification or expansion of the existing syste~ will be considered and evaluated in
an amended Sewerage Comprehensive Plan before sewer service will be provided to. the proposed
annexation area. A supplemental environmental review will be required before a final determination is
made on the method of wastewater treatment.
Alternative 3: Compact Scenario
Wastewater impacts would remain largely similar to the Proponents' Scenario under this potential
development approach.
Alternative 4: Village Scenario
This approach would result in impacts similar to those described for the Proponents' Scenario
However, due to the potential for a greater amount of commercial space, the demand for sewage
treatment capacity would likely be higher .
Mitigating Measures
No mitigation measures are proposed for the annexation.
All appropriate mitigating measures from the Draft EIS should be considered when a Sewerage
Comprehensive Plan is developed for the annexation area, as well as the alternatives
discussed above.
-The prep63Cd total se';.'age that "Yt'otlld be generated by 1:11tift'\ate build out of the annexatioft
area i5 summarized as follo...5:
5,000 units X 2.4 capita per d....elling ul\it X 105 gallol\s per capita pcr day X 1 day 1,260,000
totsl gallol\s PCI' day is equal to 1.260 MGD.
Because the NPDES permit a11o'ds fer an average daily discharge il\to the Ccntralia PO'dcr
eaftal of 1.3 MGD (2.0 CFS). /.t ultimatc build 01:lt, a Ao.... of 1.260 MGD from the annexed area
B-2
~ ::lG~G~=~':: ~~~ 0"w~~~:~':;~:~~:~~ ~
complete lnnla 6ut of the pf6p63ea ~xati6l\ area.
=~::~.:::~;;~:.::::;:: ~:::: ::;.5 :":
~:~-=::: ;:i:e:: ~~~J:~:~;=~' ~~ ~
~:; :.:.:::; =:.:; A~;~. :: :;.;::;;.~ ~l~. :: :.1 ::
I\6ted abe.e 3flt)uld be wed.
~~. :=~ =:;-~ :::::~ \~:r.;:a:""e;Jl:~~~~: ~
=~EEE.~lf:~~@~:~:::i1:~iS
=le;':: ,::1<1 :: ;:;:~I;; _, dl<c~~e1y ""::-..<1 ;; ;;;:::: ::..;:..~.
;;:H;~':E;F~r;ff;gB-=:~~E~
=:E:r~s?:.E~~=.=}==~
expand the se....a~e treatment plant.
~~I~ ;~on; :.:.= ~':le~=:Y~I:'~:';' =~=~
a~E~?~~E;;;=~~~~:E~;~.;7=~~
=1~= ~f;~ ::';:-::81".:::;~=~' .. .:::':"~::'e~ ~~ :::;.~=;;=
=~.~_t::ff:~~~;;:;;~;:';le~=E~~~
~i~:~: ~'r;;;:/~~?i!.;;:~~~~;;=
~~=~f2::~i7ji~~~,~~~=a
8.finable at that tin ,c.
. ~ ~ :::rn pl.:, ":=;;;:=; E=~<I:: := ~ ~=:"I =t
==:'~:~~.::f.:.a""! :::..::: ~~~;~~~~~:'1.:i:2
8nnexation.
. Z:~'::~::;;;:;;~lt=~:~~~:~::::,.~:~.::':I~~~,:::;,~~~ : ~
the se'de! treatment and collt:etion 3Jstem.
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
None identified.
B-3
Appendix C
Wetlands
Prepared by
Independent Ecological Services
1514 Muirhead Avenue
Olympia, Washington 98502
Rex Van Wormer
Appendix C - Wetlands
A wetlands study of the proposed annexation area was prepared by Independent Ecological Services
(lES), and was included in Technical Appendix B of the Draft EIS. Wetlands on the site were
delineated using the triple parameter procedures as outlined in the Federal Manual for the
Identification and Delineation of Jurisdictional Wetlands (1989). Wetlands were classified on the site
using two procedures: (1) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Classification System, Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States, Cowardin and (2) the Yelm Resource Lands and Critical
Areas Ordinance.
The complete wetlands study in Technical Appendix B of the Draft EIS discusses impacts to each
delineated wetland area. The wetland section in the Draft EIS (pages 29-34) is abbreviated, and
discusses those areas where the most significant potential impacts could occur
This appendix of the Final EIS provides additional information on wetlands and wetland impacts, in
response to the comment letters received on the Draft EIS. It also addresses changes that were made to
the alternative scenarios, in order to reduce the potential of wetland impacts.
Wetland Impacts
Figures 1-3 in this section show maps of the delineated wetlands overlaying the three proposed
alternative scenarios. Impacts to the numbered wetlands are discussed in detail in the IES wetlands
report and the Draft EIS focuses on the most significant potential impacts.
The conceptual plans of the alternative scenarios as proposed in the Draft EIS have been changed to
avoid impacts to large wetland areas. In the northeast section of the proposed annexation site; the
south loop road access has been eliminated and adjacent residential lands changed into an open space
designation, in order to avoid impacts to wetlands #18, #19 and #20.
The overlaid maps indicate other areas where proposed development appears to impact wetland
areas. However, the alternative scenarios represent conceptual development plans. When more
detailed development plans are proposed for the site, avoidance of wetland impacts will be a primary
determinent in site planning. At that time, wetland impacts will be precisely identified, an impact
analysis will be conducted, and if necessary a mitigation plan will be proposed.
It is the intent of the development proposal to limit the total level of impacts to one acre or less to
satisfy the requirements for a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers nationwide permit. No plan will be
proposed which will require more than two acres of wetland fill. This is intended so that all impacts
of the project fall within the less than two acre nationwide permit regulation of Section 404, of the
Clean Water Act, as administered by the Army Corps of Engineers.
There is a potential wetland impact that is integral to the annexation proposal, and warrants analysis
as a part of the annexation proposal. The wetland was identified as "off-site" in the Draft EIS,
because it is not located on the proponent's property and was not initially considered as part of the
annexation proposal in earlier dIscussions. This wetland has been corrected on the wetland maps, and is
indicated as wetland #21 A full description and characterization of wetland #21 is provided in a
section below
Wetland #21 (labeled "off-site" wetland in the Draft EIS), is in the southwest comer of the proposed
annexation site An access road from Highway 507 (Yelm-Rainier Highway) is proposed to cross a
narrow finger of the linear wetland The road is necessary to provide access to the proponent's
(Thurston Highlands) portion of the proposed annexation site, and to provide for reasonable use and
safety access to the property The road alignment is considered the best alternative to access the site,
given the topographic limitations of the site. There is an established method for obtaining approval
C-l
to construct roads over wetland areas, such as using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Section 404 (B)
nationwide permit, for filling up to one acre of established wetland. In this case, the proposed road
will disturb much less than the allowable area. Any necessary mitigation of impacts to this wetland
will fully comply with all local, state and federal regulations. An on-site wetland replacement ratio
of 3 acres for every 1 acre of impacted wetland, and a wetland enhancement plan is proposed for
mitigation, if impacts are otherwise unavoidable.
Description of Wetland #21
Wetland #21 was originally labelled "off-site" in the Draft EIS, and was not described in the technical
appendix. The section above addresses the potential impact to this wetland, that could result from the
crossing access road. The following description will discuss the existing conditions of vegetation, the
classification of the wetland, and functional values.
Vegetation
The road crossing occurs at the narrowest point of the linear wetland in an area dominated by emergent
marsh vegetation, with a narrow wetland border (along the east side) consisting of red alder (Alnus
rubra), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) and black hawthorn (Crataegus douglasii) The west
side of the drainage lifts abruptly to a steep slope that has been recently logged. The dominant
vegetation remaining on this slope is vine maple (Acer circinatum), young starts of big-leaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and red alder
The emergent marsh plants dominating the central portion of the drainage include reed canarygrass
(Phalaris arundinacea), willow-weed (Polygonum lapathifolium), soft rush (Juncus effusus), slough
sedge (Carex obnupta), and water-parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa) The water parsley and slough sedge
are in the deeper portions of the slough, with the other plants along the shallower edges.
To the northeast, the wetland opens into a recently logged forested wetland component, dominated by
red alder, with scattered western red cedar (Thuja plicata) and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla)
Understory in the area is predominantly salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) To the south the wetland is
narrow, with uplands dominated by Douglas fir and red alder along both sides of the slough. The
central emergent marsh mix as found in the road right-of-way. Other areas have a mix of salmonberry
and hardback (Spiraea douglasii)
Wetland Classification
Under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service classification service, the wetland would be classified
Palustrine Broad-leaf Deciduous Forested Intermittently Flooded wetland (PF2J> Under the Thurston
County proposed Critical Areas Ordinance, the wetland would be classified as a Category II, because of
the diversity, size and interaction with larger wetlands to the northeast and south.
Functional Values
The functional value of the wetland are as a surface-water run-off drainage system that collects water
from the properties to the northeast and the east facing slopes of the Thurston Highlands Project. The
water is clean through biofiltration, as it flows southerly through a dense vegetative mass. The
flatness of the drainage and the vegetation slow the water, allowing sediment drop, flood
desynchronization and groundwater recharge.
Biologically, the area functions as a typical western Washington forested area, providing habitat for
the same species as the un-logged area of Wetland No. 15.
C-2
..~
l.EGEND
F~, ;"\\~'
II
II
;/
II
II
/.1'
If;
II :
Nolo: TJQ....," "'orio~""_ od1
ANl......In.._...~$' ......
pIonnlng purpoIU, ,. Ie ...., .. fie
__...,......t ..,..quMiod
IInd ,_..... ".d __~.
/-(
II
~ '
~,~:-"~:r
L,LLI ... fa- t+t-_
... -......-... 4f
"";,';',.,,,!
.~ t
':':~..l~"'7-:~f
, "?' ' ~.....
. ~.... ',.k"
PhC.iPO!'iEt'iT'; '}\-!: NA.R\U
r----- ~
L__J
-----...--- ~._,--------'""....- ..........--...--........-
a
~.:.:.,
..J. '...f.!
r:;C-'-'-l
L"",-.--...j
L~
~7':::-~
1--- _ '.....4
t~('Ht..
'.
"
'>
.g
~;l
,~
~
::
'..
:::
o
ll..
U.
:.-.
~
~.
..
..
of:
Pt liJH'j/ ~i\\
L P!M.U: H'I ~.1.
\'.5 AC
F\;(:&.l~C
2i)
,\(:
('>Pf N SP"':JI:
~fH- I~C
I
I,
II
1/
/I
CI:'RWDOR<3
\~o:, -.(..:; f; ......~(~ ~h'~"
\J~~it.( ~\.\IJ...~':. .i1.'-I:;:J ,Il~..\"'''j,
PHiMl>.h '{ ClliCUl. ;.mON
\ ,
) \ ;':\L ~ HdO h{....F1E.J { /
1/
\~o;.,~'Jl' \\,i~ i ,P'(1": i .\I'de II
U.'":!j;~'" ~\'J J, r..i.'\..l'r.~lu. /
':'... <1
. ";''';!'t. i
..... ....
> " ""--'~
~'1 ".......~,. ~:{/'
........-....r r~.;.IIi',....
r lJt ..'~Jt
Ii \ .~:
t~.'::
.
,
,
i
,
1 . .
, ,.
1- '-
: '\,\'" .~
- ~ ....~~~,
". '.....-,.....
~.J~''';f.~. .~-:~';;.
a.... .riI;:.e.-7fI . (I- \i".~- _..
'1. ...'." ~" .. "\
- ... ! <
,
i t..-.
\ '1
. :
t -'--r---
I i
I !
t :
... -- .,.........., t
, t .
li' , '~I
N )\
.14,':-::-'_ _.1.._
.,:: ...
. ~.~ .... /~
,.~'... ~....,........,....................fI14~. '. -. .,.-1.\'" /:
I' I' /-:"!'--.,~~/ j'
~ /J F\" y -./ " i\ l'
ty j ~>'\ / ;'<:.\
,> !7"1) ..." / ...
~ -;1".... ".. ,
, /; . \ '.i
\/ -....
D
fl
,. ---'
,
\' ';',ff..;;'t ;.
" ':'{
...' '/I --
.. .....'
~..~:-~;,~ ..
! ,4. \.~:~.
I _~....
."
.,
- - i.
"-
!
,
)
,
,
,
,
, ,
~ ~ I
\ \1'
'V
I.''''. i. r"'",''>-''.T'T'~l'
."""___~ :' " _. ~,,"oI.' _~.... 1._ \"
I I .-.. - \ \\
'~4''''1.1A '''1 1:~'"''''
, .
t
...()lJI~;;'"
t: fit 1h,..'(l'" ,tlf\.:t AS.hn.';o'H'-S \i\\: fV.',j,'g,'\ f.",n
!III
C:N
1\1 .,
- >
(1.-;:'
'"
Gl E
'" !!
:><
'C
c: >
ca~
...J iii
>
iijO
:3 <I>
-'"
c.~
11>0:
U .,
c:i:
o
()
!
n
....'"
.1-
'i~
J!-
o
c
..
~.Q
c~
0'"
c.c:
oQ)
~U
Q.(/)
cn~ Z
$10
<<Sl -
.-! t;:
0.. X
OJ! W
~ z
c:(1~
~!:5
gW
Q)" >-
0. t-
~ (/)
o W
.J:. ~
to- :I:
s: ~
0:'0 0
;; (/)
-...,
j' ~
, ,Iii c: M
{ CIl ..
0:: ?
>4 ~. Q) n:
c
J4~ <II ~
;:)
'0 '"
"t c:
CIl >
oJ -~
iO G;
, >
, ::l 0
"0.",
! Q) ~
u c
c: ~
o ~.
U 0;:
u
CIl
," 0.
.I- E
=8
l~ 0
0
"
L.EGEND
r /
II
f/
II
II
Ii'!
.'-- .--.--........ II .
II i
Hole: Thla ......11 lor ..lo~ _ odr
...,......In-lorJuo;li................
pIAnnlng "'_1. A............ ...... '" III
...1Iand, .... ro.... ~'l'.r..!. ......, IIr I flUIIiIed
IIncl ,_" III rrd...- Idge.
IJ
1/
I,
I.
II
II
II
""\\
....,)Mi:'A.C
~ \ \
"'l~'
t
i . .
'.' c. <
fi .f.
f ~J _ ,
~< ,}"~:, .1~. " i
",~f-""'-:- ,ct
i..\
~
.
,
"
......----.-..--....,
, ~ HE~:~DEI.~I:ML
\ ...1
~) ~'\ <.
. .. ..
Ii " .. \
.~ t.. _,;;1
~l~.~EH\ !.~~
-iP ,1,(
?UUL\C
: r 'I i._
r--" ",.
j Ui::JE!i Sf'M_ t:
l '''___ ,.
! I .'uO .A.C
JI_:' \..,.,..;>.< ..'\."':'tl.lld
\1- ft. 0:.' ~; t l'" Jt 't.~ ,:'~i..r
r-' -'.
~
Ph!~~l\ f.~ y \. :r.iC.LH
t." .....- ~,
I.
J
I.
,.
I
r ,
i\ fICiN i,..IJRFilDi,.'iF.J
. "c'r;:' f I
: :1e.O ~"\.' .,rh.. ._.iI I
II
"'ot. '..'-.''''1 II
. ~ .:1-
}.. .
~.' '.". . . .
.. ~I.....
i 'Ire,. .. . .. -. '\"~ .
'tI', '
. ...... ", "
.,.......-........,.,.
i
I
\.... I~\ l
,.~!i'1.f.l
I
\
.,.
\ II:' L
.r
'.\. I '. t~
'\ \ \,,,
',\\;... 'I{:,j .\: \
, ......,..
~"':""'~.--.-..,.,......,..
Legend
\
I
I'
I t
t'. ",'
I I
1'-... _
r
I
I
t
,-
I
I
"
&
nm
~
WIUlndl
'.r
Prop.rly Boundary
: ~"'~",'\
. , .
. .'
\\ l""..
'... ",,'!.~... \
....~ ' "".... "'" t..'"';,
1'."~'
LOtilni ROllil .
,-,
.'1
'-
#a
T
W.Ulnd N'!mb.r . .' ..;
,/
Th'!mplon Crll' t"~'/
~~
~....,-"'.~::~r~.' .
~
,
.'
........
. 1 --.~+
... .........'......
.~.~.. ... '" "~.."'..'"
.,.,...1'\ y~ ..,.......~ 1I"'-~- ..1"...
. .
. .
~,
::
:-
~
.
'Or
",
(.
,\~,J\J't\\ ,j' .1' ~ \.,_ t "I,,:
.' . ~ . ,.,....,. "7'- -"-;1 .r21
n-L~~r.l7.f...~. ';'-"'j
'1'- ..,~. -
.
, \ .
r \
.
\:
.'
,\ N "
I ,
~ .
..
\J .......ll {..I ~ "
<.5
',", .5
..
CI)~ Z
~JO
n:sl -
.-! ti:
(,). X
OJ! W
CI) Z
CI)
<(I ~
~i ~
WU .. -l
g W
CD .. >-
Co I-
'- (J)
o W
..c: 3:
.... :r:
;: ~
a:'o 0
;; (J)
i-
lEGEND
1/
il
I,
II
IV
'I
/,
Note: ThiI....p II ... orion=_......,
and II nolln"_ ... Jurl .. ....
pIannlng .....po.... AF'" /nIjI 0/ ...
...Iand. .... '.1'" ..,.'. ....., IIJ . 0..-'
land 1_ 0/ III . d...1and aclgL
II
I
"........,~ ~
r '"
..
.')~\.A\;)( ;~~~
4
,
;
i
it \ f
'\ ". ~
.:, 1~":j"'-'1l', _ \'1 '
1$';(, _,- "'t r~" /' \J
'a' '~.>' ", '. t" J.'
\"f'" '" .,
t- ~. -':f..:,. . . ..
r-..~~ .l~~.~.l'tt '.1--:-:"-'
. ..... . . :'1 ..
,u.!~..":,,,...i "\
~~~ '..,
\
[----.--'
-----j
RE~A\FNTIAL
, ~.-jC \) AC
i"'..~.v;."~
1- .. .. \
............... ,~
i OMM[r~( ti~L -
1d A,C
( ---- \
L.___ J
C_~~]
I) [Itill(
-T 2 (\ .A.r~
I
'I
I,
/1
\~. .- - .
~ HllMAR'1 CIACULMION GORRIDOm,
In.. --... r()TAL : 8t\) l"'Cf1ES III
. . ,.. " h . . 1,1
'",'.\il".. 1" '1"'. ,"';)Ittl, ,ftt 1'Ilt~f,~\ \..\...,\p,tj.")f I
A~i ~:.: I:r,w,ije.!o .~(t' ay}~I,",.r,ni.'J\~
C;t.'E~J
f"~i.. [
~ 83/1 .'\C
, i
rrt
.\ \ '\~ 't"':
\, .\' T A:v\\:--.n.J':.'
\..i;\.;. 1\ Cl .~ '.af'l 1.1
."""'-~.......
!
?
\~\
h.HI f
. ,
-~~ >~" ~,
\
.
- l
, I ......... _._....__._._... ,.........
", ir t I
.....1 \- ~ I
~."...,""-'}..1..; ~.~
..\..\ \ '........ ~\..""......~...~
",,:. ': -,' .".. ,', "",', ~,..~:""
_ ' " ~ \": 'f
- :
).
I ~
, '
I
....'1'
'j.
.,,:
1";.
.,
~\
:1
(--...
~
...
~,
':j
.(
r
I
!
t, ---1
; <-~'-: ~'" :
t:r....?:a..-. r,..1'f:...../ -.. 7-"~~" : t :'1 ~,\~
r~ --- r..uT..z:f~--:-.-._......L.4 '\ N' \:
II ....... I . \ .~ \. . _/.
""-----
f. !'~l~.k,~ k
,
,
,
,
I
,
- ,
-----~
H., I\":~I' A. A.".~c.,.\.t In"~ 'U"';)" r..",
...
..
rili
Itt!
~~~~
c: "
III .
0: .?
<t
Q) c
:3 ~'
'0"
c:
III >
....Ji!'
cu 4'
2c
a..
Q) 't'.
U <
c: !!
o ..
()~
Ii
~
~
r~
l:;l Q,
P 01
.~ ~
=8 >
j~ Q)
.c
t-
cJ
~.s
~
en~
<1>s z
~ 0
ro~
'(:H ~
Ol X
en W
en Z
<tl~
~i~
"'U .. -l
W
>-
l-
(/)
W
~
I
I-
:J
o
(/)
Appendix D
Wildlife - Priority Species Habitat
Prepared by
Independent Ecological Services
1514 Muirhead Avenue
Olympia, Washington 98502
Rex VanWormer
Appendix D - Wildlife - Priority Habitat Species
A Priority Hab- _:5 and Species Study was not completed by IES Associates during the initial phase of
investigation for the Draft EIS. At the time of the Wetlands Evaluation and Biological Report, a
Priority Habitat Species Study was not required by Thurston County The presence of wildlife on the
site was addresssed in a general format as a part of the Draft EIS. All known species or species
expected to use the site were addressed per the EIS format for animals. The Wildlife Report and the
Draft EIS did address the presence or potential presence of eight (8) species. Because of the limited
time and the seasonality of the biological investigations, those species were identified only as either
being present or having the potential of being present.
The project proponents have committed to completing a Priority Habitat Study, if the information
provided in this section does not adequately meet the areas of concern or requirements of Thurston
County or the Washington Department of Wildlife.
The following priority species were listed in the Draft EIS as present or potentially present on the
proposed annexation site. Details on specie observations and indicators of habitat features are
provided for each specie.
1 Piliated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) - Activity was identified in the large forested
wetland (#15) on the east edge of the Thurston Highlands property, and in the forested
wetland (#21) starting at the south edge of the Thurston Highlands property and extending
off the property to the south and east. All of the habitats identified as suitable for piliated
woodpeckers occur within the wetlands or wetland boundaries. The upland wetland buffers
composed of densely revegetated Douglas Fir monoculture and Alder do not provide habitat
for this species.
2 The Western Bluebird (Sialia mexica7Ul) - Identified as a potential species because of its
presence in the general area as identified by Washington Department of Wildlife maps and
Bluebird box studies completed by private individuals.
3 Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) - Utilize the entire area as a hunting area and larger
trees as perch areas. There is no evidence of nests in any of the larger areas, particularly
those areas supporting large Black Cottonwood or Big Leaf Maple trees. Because of past
logging activities, there were no true candidate Douglas Fir trees that were felt at that time
capable of supporting Red-tailed Hawk nests.
4 Wood Duck (Aix sponsa) - Observed use is restricted to the forested areas on the site, which
will be protected by wetlands ordinance. The protected wetlands and the required setback
from wetland buffers will provide adequate habitat for the Wood Ducks in the area. There
were candidate snags in the large forested wetlands on the west edge of the Thurston
Highlands property which could support Wood Duck nesting, however, there were no
identified cavities in the areas which we believe would have supported a nesting activity
Feeding habitats are limited because of the seasonality of water, however, there are areas
along the Thompson creek corridor in the Venture partners' portion of the annexation site and
on adjacent properties east of the site where wood ducks could nest. Wood Duck nest boxes
have been established on the properties to the east of the Thurston Highlands site and south
of the golf course on private properties which are not included within the annexation.
5 Columbian Black-tailed Deer (Odocoiileus hemionus columbian us) - Observed to utilize the
entire site. The majority of the area, having been recently logged, does not provide high
quality habitat, however, Red-Osier Dogwood and some of the Willow species that are
D-1
recovering in areas surrounding the wetland buffers are providing some browse for the deer
The forested wetland areas provide cover In the Fort Lewis Reservation, adjacent to the site,
there are large blocks of undisturbed habitat for the deer off-site. The fencing around the
periphery of Fort Lewis in this area effectively eliminates movement of deer directly from
Fort Lewis onto the property
6. Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) - Observed to utilize all of the wetlands on the site for
hunting. The forested wetland component in the north along the west side of the Thurston
Highlands portion of the annexation has the potential, when combined with private
properties to the east which are not incorporated into the annexation, to provide a secondary
roosting and potential nesting area for heron. Because of the size of this protected wetland
and its buffer areas and the size of a number of the other wetlands, Great Blue Heron feeding
activity should continue over portions of the property With the inclusion of a golf course as a
part of the development, open spaces in the golf course and the interactions between the golf
course and in the wetlands will provide continuing feeding area for the heron. Mouse
activity, which is expected to increase in the fringe areas and the rough areas of the golf
course, will provide an additional hunting area for the heron.
7 Western Gray Squirrel (Sciurus griseus) - Identified because of the presence of small clusters
of Oak trees in the general area. Recent studies completed by Jim Bonard and Resources NW
show that this area does not have a viable gray squirrel community The Oak areas east of
the site on properties not included in the annexation proposal do provide future potential for
this species.
8 Elk (Cervus elphus) - Restricted from much of this area by the fencing surrounding Fort Lewis,
cattle and farming activity to the south and east, roadside fencing and the development
along the Yelm Highway on the east edge of the annexation area. Because of logging and
disturbance, there was no evidence of elk movement corridors or elk activity in the area
Discussions with property owners to the east in response to the Wildlife Department letter
shows that elk have not been seen or are not normally present within this area. The
probability of the area providing an identified or recurring elk migration corridor is
negligible to impossible because of the surrounding restrictions.
D-2
ERRATA SHEET - SW YELM ANNEXATION FINAL EIS
During the process of preparing the Final EIs, it was brought to the attention of the
consultants that there were discrepancies between two wetland determination
reports that were prepared for the annexation area. Venture Partners had initially
contracted with the Coot Company to prepare an "estimate of wetland occurrence"
on their property in the northeast portion of the proposed annexation site
Thurston Highlands Association later contracted with Independent Ecological
Services (rES) to prepare a wetland determination report for the annexation
proposal. The discrepancies between the wetland determinations concern the size
and location of wetlands on the Venture Partner's property See Figures 1 and 2
below to compare the wetland determination maps.
It should be noted that both of the wetland maps are preliminary determinations,
wetland boundaries were not verified by field surveys and the maps are not
intended for jurisdictional or site planning purposes. The ErS consultants were
requested by the project proponents (THA) and by the City of Yelm staff to use the
wetland report information provided by rES in preparation of the Draft and Final
EIS. The rES wetland report covers the entIre site of the proposed annexation, and
took into account the preliminary wetlands report prepared by the Coot Company as
background information in the initial site evaluation.
The EIS consultants recommend that public agencies reviewing the EIS refer to the
wetland map designations as "guidelines" that are subject to future field
investigation, survey, and final delineation at the time that specific development is
proposed for the site.
ERRATA
1
-= 'I1I;s _.........__.,
.......... -.........-....
~-"...-.._.....
-.......... _. -"""-'
....., .....,., .. ... logged __ OlIgo.
-1"-- - - - -- - - - - --......___
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,~ ,
V
I
\
r-....\ I
....-./ , i
"
I
\ I
~ I
.>1-,
*,,,,,/ \
....-""
)
I
I
('p#14 I
r- _- ___J
J!~o
llmLCJ clul
."3
R.W. TI:lQrpe
SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXATION
& Associates, Inc. S.ettl"/Ancho'lIge
2nd Avenue Seattle WA 98104 (206) 624-6239
. PI.tuMng
. Land.cap.
. Environmental
. Economic.
ERR AlA 2
Area of Concern
,--
Rd SE
Figure
1
t'
III
.,$
~
q,
~
..s;
Legend
\
iii
W.t1.nd.
P,op.,ly 80""d."
L....ln. Ro.d.
#a
W.tla"d N"",b.r
Thompaon Cr..k
IES WETLANDS MAP
'-1~r: :,:'! .' ~. . i . . ,'.' ;~, ',.. ':'i. " t'"i:~~f'::~e" f'! . .
Ilh ' 'r.' "~~'~"!~,J=" L~,!!{XH.'~"'" .~~'
J.\!.m\ . '. '~';.. ;'1' .. . fr' "_: . :~";{! ~';.'..,.'. ~ ~ ,~.; ..i.i.~
I - ,'..' "..IO\.'~ .. .......,. ~....,!::~. r h' :.,.
;ii!l.:. I ...,... \ ~ \ ":l. r' '~':-,.,H ';~ t ; :.. ~. ;'
~it~" '!: ~ .' ,:' ~ I. ,. ;::"~ I:" .~;'TI.:'> ~~.; ; ,; ,
,1'1 . I l J~:~ . ~, ,) ,...f~..t""" I. "," ~
,~.K."':'.rl~\.i'l\I' ., I ,.' . .m:. .~. ,;,',~ :~.!. i,..'~... ., '".'''''
r. '1illl' l""p~i.~.; 5',:' :"':f~-: 1'UJ'l~~'E"i ~:~~"~;:!~!~~~~5~;~t.,
rt:Uiil . 1...... ,. ,I', . ,.
!",,'tl!i f." r.' '- *.' "~r ',C';;r<' :'~
r-rT: ,~" * ,II' ~:'II""";': r :; ":ii
I : ~ .'-' . <~~ ~ 1 .- ." .il.!
f ; Op"S T VF.~ n::'~.E P"R rN :n~ . 1, .... oj
.-L-: 1 ;/- " ....~. ;..l~<'::~\ .~..L.l' ""~. .':'CTt-1-:-'~rr:~~.-
t f [ , J~~l"XX'r'" ~,~. . ~:./"':' r:~' . i .
, - ", . -:~ r.c,: ""~:~ L!: · ,:;,+ . '-I' "'r' ---
'I I. .... X:::$.'i~ . : .' y.', . .
i' 1 I .... .. '''<<K'~, . ("I ' ,
I i. 1~';"""" -', .:l~\:';..(~:~~:~{~~~.~.:._.. jf~AIl""(nJ NCIHlY.
I I. 1 . . ~. 'hJ@~X"~~~: .,~~.~~ nt:. f ~,.:~ " I - ." ..
fl ii, .1..--...' ""'-~~'" :'(~~\,J:~~ "..:\~ .
<<fl)' '. . I '/\\', ,$$>> ,', ! .'~ ~ ; ,
I ' I' .~.iHt::'~?":'~.:~~i\'.i
- ...1.... . .j.. 'r . h.;.:~.'\~~to:~~ 'r""\:
~d~r:':J~,,:-;.( '! I ' ~t.~~~~,~~f.:~ ' '~~\. .~
I I I f
LEGE NO 1
I
<-;I:':':I~~:I:I:\t) .
~:.;t;': .f:\t~" p r ~ d 1 C t ~ d
\,Jetl."d, Occurrence
.' .
.,-
Plateau Area, Lo.. Poten~I~" fc,.. Or:c..,r,"p.nce
of \,Jetla,..1, Not Indicated on M.ap (1I)x"
.,.
vOllleV Bottom Mcorterat.. Potenti..1 (r.r n,..c"rrP-Ilr.~
o( ~'etl.nds Not Indic.ated on Moof' 1~\)T."
. ~~ti,lt.ilt,. nf X r:"..'nr.~ th:.t ",I1'lit\,."...l
'.Ii!' t I C'nr.t. ,,,,--y c..ccur
-.all luc..t iu"", ~(I'Hn.,.....t
(~
~/
Stul~ 1"='130
'J
--
Y/J
.ocov
I
rilE COll' f, 11M' ,,,,.
'. I b Sun'-" I , II; 11111
Ul. YMf" n. "" 'III', I
( 2 () 6' :3 :-;,' - 'j n'17
i1i """",,"".f""'t :''''1.
EST :I r-1,.., T e. C\
WETL-A......OS
OCCU~RENc::E.
YE:Lt-1 P~OPE.~T Y
dm
cl<d
R. W. Thorpe & Associates, Inc.
,. 705 2nd Avenue Seattle WA 9810
SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXATION
Seattlel Anchorage
(206) 624 6239
.Pla,,",ng
_lend.cape
. Envlronmen,.1
. Economie:a
Figure
2
d81~/93
COOT CO WETLANDS MAP
ERR ATA 3
, ADDENDUM
I
ITO THE FINAL ENVIRONl\ffiNTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR
, THE SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXATION
~roposal :
,
Rroposal:
I
I
I
:
.'
City of Yelnt
July 11, 1994
Amendment to 1985 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Yelrn to include
the Southwest Yelm Subarea.
Conceptual Master Plan Approval for Southwest Yelm Subarea.
,
I
I
Ih February of 1993, the City of Yelm published an Environmental Impact Statement
eElS) for the annexation of approximately 2,000 acres southwest of the then lllnits of the
crity of Yelm. That EIS considered the "impacts associated with the annexation Proposal
I
~nd various conceptual development scenarios within the proposed annexation area. II The
EIS also dIscussed the relationship of the Proposal to the requirements of the Growth
Management Act then in effect.
I
i
I
1fhe current Proposal is twofold: The adoption of a Subarea Comprehensive Plan for the
Southwest Yelm Annexation area and the approval of a Conceptual Master Plan for the
s~me area. This Proposal is a continuation of the Proposal initiated with the annexation.
~cause this Proposal is a continuation of the Proposal revJewed by the earlier EIS, it is
appropriate and efficient to use the existing environmental documentation.
I
i
1!he following changes have been made since the issuance of the 1993 ElS:
I
I
A.
!
I
i
,
Changes to the Proposal (See Current Conceptual Master Plan Submittal,
Exhibit B).
1. Additional detail as to potential sIte uses and impacts.
2. Proposal to accommodate corridor for proposed Y-I highway.
3. Properties abutting the Proposal are rezoned to accommodate more
appropriate uses along the proposed access road.
The overall density, composition, land use, and impacts are substantially the same
as the original annexation Proposal and the speCt fic impacts of that Proposal and
the development alternatives were identified in the original EIS. The Proposal and
I
C:~~I\n\JHISVJ)OI!NDUM.elS
its associated changes pose no significant potential for environmental impact. The
land uses are substantIally the same as considered at the t101e of annexation. The
proposed Y-I corridor does not presuppose the construction of the Y-l highway,
but merely provides a potential location should State agencies decide to construct
Detatted environmental review of the Y.l corndor would be done in connection
with the State's corridor location and project studies process.
B. Current -Planning Projects Affecting the Proposal.
] . Comprehensive Water Plan.
The City of Yelm is currently circulatIng and considering for adoption an
update to its Comprehensive Water Plan The Southwest Yelm Subarea is
within the service area of the existIng Comprehensive Water Plan. The
proposed Master Plan and Comprehensive Plan Amendment aTC both
consistent with the proposed Water Plan. In order to finalize the Water
Plan, including the Southwest Yelm Subarea, thc land use planning being
performed under the Conceptual Master Plan and Comprehensive Plan for
the Southwest Yelm area is necessary. Eventually, the final, adopted
Comprehensive Plan must be consistent with the land use element applicable
to the Southwest Yelm area. It is important to note that the Comprehensive
Water Plan affects the entire City of Yelm and that all envjronmental
review of such plan will be performed in conjunction with the adoption of
the Comprehensive Water Plan.
2. Wastewater.
The City of Yelm's existing Wastewater Facilities Plan, adopted in 1990,
does not include in its service area the Southwest Yelm Subarea. In order
to plan for the accommodation of wastewater in the Southwest Yelm
Subarea, the City initiated a wastewater reuse program. On
December 6, 1993, the City applied for pilot project status for its
Wastewater Reuse Program from the Department of Health. On
January 11, 1994, the City was granted pilot project status by the
Department of Health. The City has prepared a scope of work for the
planning necessary under its Wastewater Reuse Program and applied for a
centennial clean water grant from the Department of Ecology The Cay
was awarded the grant and will begin its planning pursuant to the scope of
work in August of 1994. The outcome of the Wastewater Reuse Program
will be the eventual adoption of a Sewer Comprehensive Plan and
Wastewatcr Reuse Studies document. Ultimately, the CIty will implement
a program of wastewater reuse that will, among other things, allow the City
to include the Southwest Yelm Subarea in its sewer servjce area
c:\Wp,I \51\JHIMODENDUhI.1ltS
-2-
The original EIS for the Southwest Yelm Annexation Area required the
approval of a suitable wastewater disposal program before any development
would be approved. The Wastewater Reuse Program and the associated
scope of work for wastewater reuse specifically include in the planning area
the Southwest Yelm Subarea, thereby addressing the issues raised in the
original ElS.
,
The Conceptual Master Plan Submittal and Comprehensive Plan
Amendment are important to identify and faclJitate utIlity planning,
including wastewater planning. The City intends to proceed with utility
planning on a City-wide basis and all final environmental reVIew of such
planning will be done in conjunction with the adoption of a City-wide
Sewer Comprehensive Plan. Any specific land use approvals or project
development in the Southwest Yelm Subarea must be consistent with any
adopted wastewater plan.
The Conceptual Master Plan is still in the preliminary approval phase. The final review
phase will include greater detail in the identification of land uses, phasing, and utility
extension. Such a plan cannol be developed until the City completes its Comprehensive
Sewer and Water Plans, which cover the affected service area.
Specific development issues may require further environmental review at the Master Plan
stage, once utility plans for the City have been fully established.
The SEP A rules provide that existing environmental documents may be used by issuing
an addendum where such an addendum "adds analysls or information about a proposal
but docs not substantially change the analysis of significant impacts and alternatives in the
existing environmental document. " WAC 197-11-600(4)(c). An addendum shall "clearly
identify the Proposal for which it is written and the environmental document it adds to
or modifies II and "shall be circulated to the recipients of the final EIS."
WAC 197-11-625(1) & (4). This document is intended to comply with those sections of
the SEPA Rules.
This Addendum adds additional information and analysis to the existing ETS. Because
that additional information and analysis are contained in several documents, those
documents must be incorporated by reference into this Addendum. The following is a
list of the documents incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this Addendum.
These documents are adopted by reference to the extent they are applIcable to the
Southwest Yelm Subarea. All such documents are available at the City of YeJm and are
available for public review during normal business hours, 8:00 a m. to 5'00 p.m.
J
1. Pilot Project Application (or Wastewater Reuse.
2. Scope of Work for Wastewater Reuse.
C:\wr.sI\.f2\IMB\AODJ!NDUhUVS
-3-
3. Future (not yet adopted) Sewer Comprehensive Plan (expected
to be available the week of July 18, 1994).
4. Proposed Comprehensive Water Plan (amendment to exiSltng
1990 Comprehensive Water Plan).
The SEPA Responsible Official for the City of Yelm, the Mayor, has determined that the
changes identified in the pending Proposal are substantially within the scope of the project
contemplated in the original EIS and that no new or additional information 1S required at
this time except as identified above. AdditIonally, the Responsible Official has
determined that, accordmg to the SEPA Rules, no further envIronmental determination
is necessary.
Finally, the Responsible Official has determined that the information contained herein and
the documents incorporated by reference arc appropriate to distribute as an Addendum
to the February 1993 EIS.
This Addendum will be distributed to the distribution list for the Final EIS on the
Southwest Yelm Annexation. The distributIon bst is attached as Exhibit A.
There is no comment period on th1s Addendum. The Planmng Commission 1S scheduled
to hold a public hearing to consider the Proposals on July 18) 1994. The City Council
will schedule heaTlngs to consJder adoption later In July or in August 1994. Comments
on environmental issues are appropriate at all public hearings.
Contact Person: Shelly A. Badgp-r (206) 4"iFl-8405
Responsible Official:
Kathryn M. Wolf
Position!Ti tIe:
Mayor
Phone: (206) 458-8401/3244
Address' P.O. Box 479
Yelm, WA 98597
Date,
7/11 /'11
I
Signature:
4~c 7n .Jf c1t
C:\WP$l\S2\lHlIIAODI1NOOM.B111
-4-
DISTRIBUTION LIST
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Federal Communications Commission
Region 10, Environmental Protection Agency
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Region 10
U.S. Department of Interior
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
STATE AGENCIES
Department of Agriculture
Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
Department of Community, Trade & Economic Development
Department of Ecology (2)
Department of Emergency Services
Department of Fisheries & Wildlife
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Social and Health Services
Department of Transportation
Office of Governor
Washington Environmental Council
Washington State Energy Office
Washington State Patrol
THURSTON COUNTY DEPARTMENTS
Thurston County Department of Health
Thurston County Department of Public Works
Thurston County Department of Water Quality and Resource Management
Thurston County Fire District No. 2
Thurston County Parks and Recreation Department
Thurston County Planning Department
Thurston County Sheriff s Department
LOCAL AGENCIES AND MUNICIP ALmES
Army Corps of Engineers
Centralia Power and Light
Economic Development Council of Puget Sound
Intercity Transit
Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority
Puget Power
Puget Sound Regional Council
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
Rainier School District
Thurston County Economic Development Council
Thurston Regional Planning Council
Town of Rainier
Yelm School District
J
EXlllBIT A
MISCELLANEOUS ORGANIZA nONS
Audubon Society
City of Yelm Public Library
Fort Lewis Military Reservation
Nisqually Indian Tribe
Nisqually River Council
Nisqually Valley News
South Thurston County Chamber of Commerce
The Olympian
Thurston County Public Library - Olympia
cmZENS
Ed Kenney
I.Z. Knight - Ramtha Dialogues
Ion Potter, Shapiro & Associates, Inc.
Mark Carpenter
Mary Lou Clemens
National Food Corporation
.'
,.~ SW YELM CONCEPTUAL
MASTER PLAN SUBMITTAL
prepared by
Thurston Highland & AssoClates
wIth Venture Partners
May 19.94
EXHIBIT B
.' j.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Textural Inforrnahon
E]ShibIt A - LISt of Property Owners wIthm Annexed Area
ExhIbIt B - LISt of Property Owners wIthm 1000' of Annexed Area
ExhibIt C - Legal DescnptlOn and Tax Parcel Number
EnvIronmental ChecklIst (SEP A)
Supportmg iYlaps
Viclnlty Map
E..'<lShng Zorung Map
Topograpluc Map
Forest Cover MaD
l.
School DlStnct Map
Conceptual Plan
Full SlZe pnnt attached
SOUTHWEST YELl\tI CONCEPTUAL ZONING PLAN
(A) APPLICANT
Thurston Highlands ASSOCIateS
1917 First Avenue
Seme, \Va. 98101
Contact: DennIs T Su, A.LA. - (206) 443-3537
(B) NA.t\1ES, AODRESSES, ZIP CODES & TELEPHONE N1..J[vfBERS OF .J..LL L-\;.'-lDO\'V""NERS
WITPJN WoE SOUTH\VESTYELM ANNE..'"{.~TION AREA.
See E'iliion A
(C) NAt'vfES AJ."\ID ADDRESSES OF ALL PROPERT{ OWNERS VIIT.r-ITN ONE
THOUSAND FEET OF THE SOuTh'VlEST YEL:v1..\NNE....'(A nON ARE..;..
See Exhii:m B
(D) TII..E LEGAL DESCRlPTION -\.J.\fD TA-X PARCEL NUivlBERS OF TriE SOLThI,VEST 't"El..:vt
A.t\fNEX..U10N ARE.\.
See E;'Ch.iOlt C
(E) TI-IE E.."XISTING ZONING .~'fD PL\J."\l' DESIGNATION ON TI-IE SOtJTnl,v"EST 't"El.)"[
At'l'NEXA nON AREA.
E:asnng Zonmg .. RuI<li Resldenoal Zone
E:osnng P!an Deslgnatlon - Rural (Pe: Thurston County Compre:.e:-..slve P!:!..'11
One Umt per Five Acres
(F) TI-IE TOTAL ACREA.GE CONTAiNED VtTIHIN THE PROPOSED MASTER PL-\.J."\I ~~.
TIrE -:H.Ji:vffiE?-. OF DWELLING UNITS PER."vlITIED AND PROPOSED ~ND Tr-::E
NtJ1vlBER OF DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE OF L~'fD PER..'V1ITITD .~"\lD PROPOSED
Southwest Yelm Anne:".anon Are:l
ACre:tge: 1. 860
Number of DweHmg Umrs Pemmred: 372
Number of DweiIing Umrs Proposed: 5,,000
Number of DweHmg Umrs per Acre Pe:mmed. 0.2 (One lJm! per Five -\c:::s)
Number of DweHmg Umrs per Acre Proposed. 2.7
(G) THE TOT..1J. ACREA"GE OF NON RESIDENTIAL USES PER.'YIITTED ..1.;"\ID PROPOSED
BY TYPE OF USE.
P::rmmed Nonresldentl:ll Use ACre:lge: All (1.860 acres)
Proposed Commercmi. 40 acres (Ne:ghborhoodlArtenal)
Proposed Open Space: 830 acres (Sc:nsmve Are=:.s, GoifCoursels), Buffe~)
J
(H) APPUC.-\BlE SCHOOL DrSTRlCTS, FIRE DISTRlCT, .A.NO On-fER S?ECv..L PCRPOSC:S
DISTRlCTS
School Olsrnct: R.J.mler School Dlsmc: #307, YeJm School DI5tr:C:
Fire DI5tnC:: Cm' ofYe!m. Thurston Count'. Fire Dlsmc! #2
Spec~J.I P'Jrposes DlsmctS: None Known
(I) ruE \{EA~S BY WHICH THE PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL :.-fASTER PLAN \IE~S THE
OBJECTIVES OF SECTION I OF THE YEL.:vf 'v(ASTER PL~N REV1E'.,y ORDr.-.IA~C~"
SEC t - A. Tnc conceprnal m:lSter pl:JJ1 h:lS been prcp:u"Cd In ac::orc~;c: WI(h u~e g'Jals or
the C1C\ ofY dm s pl:uulIng pohcles :md regulations Tne C:C\' of y ~!m mil :r.:c~d
theIr comprenensl\'e pl::m to mcorpor:ltC the Southwest Y ~!:n -\nnc="~tlcn =.re: ~ci
escbhsh :I. zomng map based on the Conceptual \-[:J.Stcr P!~'l ~ uiClm:tc!\
appro\"cd b\ the Cl[\ orYdms Planmng Commission ~d GC\ Cvunc:i.
.
i
TEXTUAL INFO RlVIA TION
SEC,I-B
SEe l-C
SEC i - D
SEe 1 - E.
SEC I-F
SEC 1.G
SEC 1 - H.
~
The Conceptuai Master Plan lIlcorpor.l.tes a full r:mge of land uses: corrunercl:U
(neIghborhood and artenal), smgle fumily, multi-familv (medium to tugh densl(,\ ),
and open space (golf courses. se05mve :lI'e:J.S, and buffers) The ~omprehensl"e
plan for the Ci('\' ofYeLm will be amended to lIlcorpor.u:e the Southwest Yelm
Anne:'Glnon area as a result of the Conceptual Master Plan approval process and
'Will be the {e:ld document m the subsequent (and more de~':llled) master plan
approval process.
The Concepru:li Master Plml as submmed allows for preserv:J.non of cnnc::ll OJ"e:lS
and large blocks of open space combmed ....1th planned commuruty conce~C5 mat
will enhance the qualIty of hfe for the Southwest Yelm A..nnex:l.Uon are:],'s fumre
resIdents..
The concepru:li master plan mcorpor.ltes by reference the tdenOIled lrnp:lC:S .md
rruogaoon opnons for necessary mfr:J.suucrure and publIc servIces Idenniied In the
draft and final Southwest Yelm .J..nne:t:l.Oon E.'mronrnenul Imoac: St:.:l.te:ne~!s
(D d D . 100? d M '100-) 'Re~ -._~-_.. .
ate e:::e:ncer; _ _ an , arcn _ _: ~ nnemenr or UJ..u~uucture :me
serVlce ne::ds \\111 occur as the Master Plan approya! :md subsequent spec~iic ,
proJecr proposals wIthm the :mIle....ed ~ go through the Ciev oiYelm re..'ze'\':md
. ,
public he:mng process.
The land use panem mdic:l!ed on the Concepcua.l Master Plan rrulp allows for o.n
orderly tr..n.slOon to and from the vanous smgle familv, multl-f;:mulv, commerc:a1.
and open space are:l.S. NeIghborhood commerc::u SIted are SIted 'Wlth.m the
reslde:lOal ccmmumoes and artenal commerc~al propertV IS proposed along t.~e y-
1 carndor se?aranng the Thurston Highlands Assocates and Venture P:ume:s
o'Wnershrp's. PrOVISIOns for pedestn::l.I1 and blcyde access to the comrne::c:li
ce.."1ters will be made at the ame project specIfic applic:mons are processed :md
approved. Tne road network as proposed (se:: the canc:~rual master plan ffia!J)
will allow resIdent, VISlIor, and serVIce traffic to utilize sever:tl route opooo5 .0
emer and le:lve the anne:unon are:l. InclUSIon of the Y-l a.lIgnment, basIci!\
through the ce.."1ter of the SIte., allows for the mcorpor.ltlon of tr.1nSIr facil10es U1
conjunction \\1th the menal commercIal and mu1tl-furniiv pomons of the sIte.
The deSIgn. quahrv, o.nd cbarac:er of the proposed plan wlil rna..'CII!1.lZe the se::sc of
commumry .....,thm the :mne:unon are:l. Cnod and senslOve :ue::.s, WIth
appropnare buffers, will be rruuncuned as perm:menr open sp<lce. ActIve:u:d
pasSIve rec~oonal OppOrtuIUoes \\;11 be avaiiable VIa a proposed park. pro~osed
golf course, and recre:J.oonaI tnlil system. The Javoue IS deSIgned to aHo\\
resIdents to fulfill melr basIC recre::.oonal., snoppmg :md servIce needs from \\1rnm
the commume\" \\,mout competmg \VIth the City ofYelm s commerc::l1 core.
The Conc:::tJcua.I \1aster Plan does not Ulcorpor.lte:m\ proposed mdusIn:l! uses.
The sIte lavout does, where pracnc1 and :J.ppropnare, provzde Jrnple o-..nsltlon
between smgle fumily, multl-famil\' and commercIal zones through the use or
open spac:, natural f~res. buffers :md roads.
CommercIal building designs .....iU be 1I1 ch:1r:1cter \'1th the neIghborhoods the\'
serve. All proposed commercIal strUc:ures ",II me::t the rules. regul:J.nons. :.r.d
codes appltc::.ble bv the CIty at the urne of subnuruL
;
(J) PROPOSED A.MDfDA TORy LANGUAGE FOR THE"";PPLlC.1.BLE ScrBAREA PLA:-
To be supplied b\ (irv ofY~lm sUI!.
(K) .1u'fTTCIP\TED PHASING OF DEVELOPlV1E'fT
Ph:J.smg WIll gc=te~ll\ be In :lcconunc: wzth the mdlc::.td numbt::-$ on the
Concei'ru:J.l 'vlaster Pl:m map
2
(L) GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF OPTIONS FOR SOURCE(S) OF WATER SUPPLY
METI-IOD(S) OF SE\VAGE DISPOSAL, METHODS OF STO~y{ WATER CONTROL A..L'iD
MEAJ."fS TO HAi'mLE HAZARDOUS iY1A TERlALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTE IF
APPLICABLE.
,.
The Sourbwest Ye!m Annex.:mon are:l \viII reiy on the Crv orYe!m for ware:- :1...'ld
S<lnlt:lrV sewer S~;"'\!lce. Thurston High1:mds A.ssoc:ares. o\....ner or 1':":'0 .:lc:-es or
the overnll anne:onon. has applied to the Washmgron Srare Deplr.:ne::r of
Ecology for pemusslOn to ani! two test wells ror (muruc:pal) pCL:lbie c:::nsumpnon
and one test weil for Imganon !,urposes. Water ng!ltS for 4,000 gaiIcI".5 per
mmute (domesnc:mUIllc~pal) will be applIed rer suoseque:lt to sans'-~c::::rv resur.g
of tile two test weils. The weils would be turned over to the Cir\' oiY ~l:n Jr.ci..
\"1m addmonal Storage. pIpe :md ~purt:e:l.:l.l'1c::S, ccnne:::ed to che eXIS2lg c::-.
system.
t
'-
~"J r:
~
i
Tne Cirv oiYe!m IS curre::1UV pursumg gr:mt :none", from vancus gove:7'..me::t
age:1c:es to SL"lld. pian. deSIgn.. :md uirrrnarely build:z. warer re:.:se f:lC:l.r\ TillS
would requIre :m upgrade of the eXlSWlg sewage tre=.nne::r pi:mt :0 sausf\ :l
standard for 'f class A ~!:ll.I11ed water" TIus rec!auned water would ilie:: be
uriltzed for lmganon of golf courses, parks, and ope:: space WItb.m the c:rv's
t_ lde::nfied Urban Growth Boundarv Toursron Highl:mds ASSOC:.:l!e5 and Ve:1IUre
.' Parmers. who own 1,240 acres and 264 acres resp~:lve~v '\1tbm the :mne.u.ncn.
have an a.gree:ne::t wlm the CIty to parnc:pate tIl and fund me:r f:llr share or the
costs and unprovements assocIated wlm melr unpac:s Tne e:asnng se"'-:lge
tre:mnenr plant will be requIred to add to It's C'.lITe:.'t tre=.tment c=.pac:ry m orCer !O
serve the mme.'C.aD.on ~ Toe facihty ",-in the:e~cr be lIlc:e:..smg Irs c::.pac:tv :no
level of tre:l1:me:n: at the same tlrne.
Infrasrruc:ure for the total "\\-a5te.water reuse" proJ~ ,,,illmciude a S T.E.P
Svste:n. graVIty and pressure llIles, lift St:l!lons to pump e:nue:1t Jnd C'e:.ted water.
storage facIillles, tre:u:me::t plant upgrade. along \\-lth Imganon :acillr:.e5.
Storm water \"ill be coilected and tre:l!ed on a prole::: or phase basIS \\lUun the
Master PhlIl Jre:l. Facilmes v..-ill be consuuc:ed per Crv ofYe!m ~-:dard.s co
prOVIde adequate tre:z.rment and storage. wlm cllsc~::trge elmer VIa mr.lrr:mcn. pom!
or spre::uier to mamtam a balanced JqulIer, :z.s weil :I.S srre::.ll1 ::nd we~d flows
Sp~iic desIgns \vill UlcorpOr::tIe eroSIon control me:lSures, bIo-nltr"...t:on sw:lies
and metered flows to approXlImue pre-deve!opme::1t condiaons :I.S ~ppropn:lte.
While the Conceptual Master Plan dces not Ulcorporate lIght or he:l\'Y mdusm::li
use zones. h:lZ:lrdous m:lten::lis and/or waste conr.:unrne:1t plans :me ~c:iltles
would be deSIgned as nec:ssary on a project basIS. If the need IS lcie::nned
contammem ponds. berms and Jn enec:lve response pl::lIl wouid be reqUIred.
(M) IDE'-iTIFY POT2'lTL~L :vL-VOR ..\NTICIP~TED .-\DVERSE DV1RON(yI~l.\L I~[P~CTS
.-\ND G2'IER..-\L \llT1GAn~G MEASURES. fNCLUDlNG OFF-Sill IMPROVE~[DrTS
\N1-ilC-! 'vIA Y BE INCORPORATED [N .-\ SlTSSEQUENT \!lASTER PL.-\;-'" BY
Sl:B:\lITTTNG ~'l ~V1RON0.[E)lTAL CHECKLIST.-\S REQL1RED BY \\0 A.C 19i-d.:; \5
An E.:lVlrOnrne:1ul Che::khst \\111 be subrrucred WIth thIS Jpphc:.uon. The C::::::~ilS~
wIiI .lddress lte:ns th:u have b~~ changed J.S .1 result of condmcns. ;::r::::mst.:.r.c:~
or through L~e lntrcdUC:lon or' new mrormatlon sine:: the sou[b\~s. Y ~:r:1
Anne~:J.uon E:1VIrOnmenci [mpact SC:J.te:nc.:lt (F:n:lI,.~tJrch 1993) W:AS iSSUed.
..
.J
EXHlsrr- 'A'
Final Annexation Petihon
rvlailmg L1st
1 J effrev Price 11 Burb.ngton Or-J1em, Inc.
113 S\V L6ngnure St. Property ServIce Dept.
Yelm, W A 98597 Honeywell Cente:-, #290
304 Inverness Wav S.
2 Ronald Laughlin E.."1g1ewood, CO 80U:
I 15132 Longmire St. SE Attn. Ray Durbala
Yelm, W A 98597
12 Rov Gibson
3 Ele.."1.e M. Newby 14940 Berry Valley Rd. SE
15105 Longnure St. SE Yelm, W A 98597
Yelm, W A 98597
I 13 Robert Overton
4 Washmgton Public Lands 14036 Berry Valle" Rd. SE
Pubhc Lands Buililing Yelm, W A 98597
U OlympIa, W A 98504
14 jy1ilton Butler
;:) Charles Brown (14 pc) 14630 Berry Valley Rd. SE
PO. BoxQ Yelm, W A 98597
t Yelm, W A 98597
15 He.."1IV'Dragt
6 John PurvIS 14848 Longnure St. SE
14504 Berry Valley Rd. SE Yelm, W A 98597
Yelm, W A 98597
16 Wilham Parker
7 Jerry Bosequett 14947 Longmire St. SE
14409 Hwy 507 Yelm, W A 98597
Yelm, W A 98597
17 Marvm Wagner
8 David Doyle 15234, Longmire St. SE
14045 George Rd. Ye!m, W A 98597
Yelm, W A 98597 J
18 Estate Realty
9 J Paul Steadman c/o Jon Stephense.."1.
1801 W Day Island Blvd. POBox 718
Tacoma, W A 98466 Yelm, W A 98597
10 Thurston Highland Assoc. (5 pc) 19 Roger yk..'<.ibben
1917 First Avenue 15219 Berry Vallev Rd. SE
Seattle, W A 98101 Yelm, W A 985;;:7
1
20 Everett and Mollie He..T'ldrickson
10535 Berry Valley Rd. SE
Yelm, W A 98597
21 Donohue Construction
730 Slea te!'- Kinney Rd. SE
Lacey, WA .~503
21 Jesse Hottman
9910 Durant St. SE
Yelm, W A 98597
.,... Marv LouIse Clemens
-~
15030 Longmrre St. SE
Yelm, W A 98597
24 Ronald Rothwell
15050 Longrmre St. SE
Yelm, W A 98597
25 DaV1d Bake!'
14549 Be~ Valley Rd. SE
Yelm, W A 98597
26 Dan Schaefer
14538 Be~ Valley Rd. SE
Yelm, W A 98597
.,- John Harmon
_/
14610 Berry Valley Rd. SE
Yelm, W A 98597
28 John Sherfey
Box 774
Yelm, W A 98597
29 Barbara Soeteber
14505 Berry Valley Rd. SE
Yelm, W A 98597
30 Lila Willuwelt
14812 Berry Valle'! Rd. SE
Yelm, W A 98597
31 Tneodore Fontd
H502 BerTY Vallev Rd. SE
Yelm. W A 98597
....,
.::J_
......
.::J.::J
.....1
.:l_
35
36
37
2
EXHIBIT' A:
Emest Burnell
14507 Be:ry Valley Rd. SE
Yelm, W A 98597
Neal Soetebe!'
H503 Berry Valley Rd. SE
Yelm, W A 98597
Mark Soeteber
14503 Berry Vallev Rd. SE
Yelm, WA 98S7
Elame Eorsak
HS4S Be!':Y Valle., Rd. SE
Yelm, W.';' 98597
Oarle.!1e and Virg'l Bake:-
14501 Berry Valley Rd. SE
Yelm, WA 98597
DaV1d PurvIS
1'~::~ Berry Valley Rd. SE
Yelm. W A 98597
I
I r-'
,
~
~:l'
';1
.1
_ -- -=-~ -- -.. .::..:'......-
:(~ -- - - - - -,. -..
l~.~ ,-
r~ . . 32
:.
I
"
J!:
--'--,,--,--'" ~ ,,'.--
I:
'I
~;=iI;
1-
-4
.,
4
3
I
j
.
I
I
I
\
\
~-----\----
I
32
--~p-----:"'..
~ I
'" I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
'1,\\0
l~q
.".,
~__',
,
e'
QJi' CD ,. ...u J
",.).., ~_a_l
11
1
I
I
,
. I
: ''''0 ";1/ r'~f1i'
, "~I_,I
--'hii:--:;.. -.. "~I"---:-';-"':::"--
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
I
I
.
...., 3'1 43
.~ ...-
""1\: fl
'" f'
..., ,j" %:
,....
~?!G:l
_~"':',.. -..
. ........
..
/~
'l'ne
~~L __
3
: 31
/'5
u....
II
~'II
II ."1'
",'
'j
....
32
31..
3,
,..
t/.I"I
~e
'116~
'll' t)
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
-----,---------
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
.
I
,
I
~,\J
...u.
, ,
I ,t
tF.p
l',
'''' (j)'~ .".
1"llq 'I~-"::I
40
\
I
I ,
I l'~'
I ~
...~~
,
I~
33
I
I
I
I
---I _:
,1(" I 4', r 4~ :
....\~ r [\'~ ~-:
_.____.L.;:,.-- h_ __w~ : t
: 4:1 I ----.~ ----,
: fiG ,-
Vl.-,-~
.~( .. /~
~2
~2
i
I
I
I
I
'\1\ 'I
w,'~
~'I\\
I
I
,
,---=--.
I
sz:.
I
.
.
.
,
I
I
,
~~:
-"
'so .1
.
I
r~-
.1'/
$a
nH1-1~-84 THU 09:01
21.72 31. 10000
Elizabeth ~u~t=~
FO Box 1406
Yelm, WA 98597
2
2172 31 30000
Thur~ton Highlar.d A~su~
19:'7 1st Ave
Seattle, WA 98101
42172 3..; 20000
Th~~ston Eighlancs AS30C
1.917 1st ~_ve
Seaccle, WA 98101
S
2172 41 30300
Steve Rothwell
lal~ W Yelm Ave
Yelm, WA 98597
~
~
7 2172 41 30400
:21:":':.es::i!!.: Gz::ay
lC07 Ttl Yel:n Ave
Ye2.::1, I'iA 98'177
8 2172 41 30500
M D ::d.,o/ards
920 ::: Eay Dr
Ol:r:npi:l, WA
NE #3d30 1.
:JOSOG
10
21. 72 41 ::0800
/ I
2172 41 31000
Jo....-ne::; Rarniraz
PO Box 936
Yelm. WA 98597
F=.:l~i.=r ~~m:..l~, I.Lfl Ptnrsh9
PO 50x: 1809 --
Yel.rn \"i'A 98597
13
2172 42 10500
S~hcol Distric~ ~2
PQ 5cx 47r:i
Y.;:l::\, ..NA ;8597
14-
2172 42 1.0600
?aymond Ross
ilO 'lelril Av'<:
Yel~ WA 98597
fro
17
21.72 42 30100
Dc.".:..d ?urds
14444 2e~f Valley Read
2li2 42 20200
Rc.ter~ Yodc~
?O 30x 38
Yelm, WA 98597
S"E
;q
21.72 42 30J.02
Dav:.d B2-ker.
1<i5'H Ee!:'rJ Valley Rod
Ye~~, \'lA' 98597
Yelm, WA 98=97
~ 2172 42 30103
John ~ar:non
SE 14610 Eerrj Valley Rd SE
Yelm. WA 98597
"..,
,-
2172 42 30200
Earbara 5ceteber
14505 Eer_y Valley ~d SE
'{elm, WA 98597
1.5
2172 .;2 30700
Er::.~~t. :u::nell
14507 S~~~l Valley
{elm, ;'lA 98597
2.3
~l n ~2 .'1oc:;on
Theodore Foreid
1~502 Berry Valley ~d
Yelm WA 98597
Z~
21i2 42 30800
Neal Soeteber
14=07 Berry Vall<=y
Yel~, il~ 98597
Rd SE
Rd 52
'2.'2
2:'72 4: 40:.00
r7 '-1.... I"':, I \ 'j'. (l
L4~4J De=~' Vall~v
. .
[C 1::--, \",". ') C S ~ i
'2.9
21 n 42 40201
I::Jb~~": OV~l.'~u.j.
Rd S~ 1402~ ~er~1 Va~ley Rd SZ
-:~.lLnr -...:~ ~~~:t I
r. A ( 1'2 . '3 <1 9 0:::
EXHIBIT'S'
P. 02106
3
2172 31 40101
uU~ln ~r'J:"~
14S04 Ber=y Valley Rd SE
Yel::1., ~O{A 985~7
~
2172 4J. 30302
Jarc:es Oavis J=
lS 02 W '!el:n ~ve
Ye 1m , '11;\ 9 8 5.9 7
:.l 1 -::
rr__
'1
2172 4:' 307Ce
- '-
.~.eea :,z:""ons
55Q9 47t~ Ave E
'I'';'\..VIIld. wA 984~~
12
2172 42 1040:.
U'ohn E.1.ch!.e:::
PO Sex :'45
Yel:a, 'f1A 98597
/S'
2:'72 42 20000
C:-' ::crsak
~~e~8 ~~~.=Y Val:ey ~C ~~
Y~l::1, ~l;'_ 96597
/02172 ~2 30:01
Ja~~ & Tammy Ccck Jr.
14538 =er~f V2-11ey Rc S~
Ye2.m, WA 985?7
Zl
21.i2 .;2 301a~
3a=bara Sher:-sy
FO Eox 774
~El::1, WA 98597
'2tf
.7.17'2 '1 3060:'
Vi=;:.l 8ak2r
14501. 3e~-f Valley Rc SZ
Y~l:n. tiA 98597
J
!Z7
2172
(o-L.:"1r'<;:
:-\503
v .
.e':'::1,
42 30900
Sces==::-==
3~:::~":" Va i :"-='J'
Od .:::...
~'JA 9 a = ? -;
;0
2' -..,
-'-
42 -iO::02
!-1~.!.i:~!": Suc:!.=::,
146;0 E~==: Va:l~!
Ye~~, ~~i4. 99~)i
Rc .....
P~Ii~ ;::JZ
MAY-l8-9Q THU 09.02
31
2172 42 40400
Lila Ttlillu'Ioleit.
~4812 Berry Valley Rd 52
Yal::\, ':lA 98597
~4-
2:1.72 4.4 J.0900
1v1'..2.r"vin Waaner
1523~ Lonemira St 5E
ve::;1.... r-A -9850?~
- -_.~'" I~ J
'3j
2172 44 40200
Sanc.~a Niccoli
c/o Mollie Hendrickson
:?O 90x 434
Yel,-n, 'NA 98597
40
2172 44 20502
~~~/ Louise Clemens
15030 Longmire St SE
Yel:n, WA. 98597
43
2172 44 20800
Renal::' !.aughli:l
15132 Lon~=e St SE
Yelm, filA 98597
4~
21.7J 44 40200
C:ha.r:les Ero,m
PO 3cx Q
'{elm, WA 98':97
4t:t
2172 51 20200
Sherill Mac~aughton
15009 Stace Route 507 SE
'{elm, WA 98597
sz.
2172 61 00000
Marian M<:-l{enzie
14110 George Rd
Yelm, WA 98S97
r'~A'1 13 '94
S 03
32-
2172 43 20000
Henry Dragt
14848 Longmire Sc 53
Yelm, WA 913597
3~
2172 44 20~0:t
Estate Realty I~c
PO Box i18
Yelm, WA 98597
....,.....
.;>0
2:1.72 44 20300
Denohue Cocs~ructicn Co
730 Sleater Kin~ey Rd SE
Lacey, WA 98503
41
2172 4.4 20503
Ronald. Rcthwell
~50S0 Longrni=e SC SE
Yelm, WA 98597
44
41'72 44 30100
Elene NE:!wby
15105 Longmire St SE
Yelm, WA 98597
47
2172 51 11.300
M~=k & Linda Car;enter
PO Box 171
Mcke!".na, WA 98558
5'0
2172 52 20101
Rcbe=t: Eggert
14646 George Rd
Yelm, WA 98597
53
2172 31 10300
william Hagara
14447 93rd Ave SE
Yelm WA 98597
EXHISIT 's'
P 03106 .
33
2172 43 40000
Will :i.~-n Parker
14947 Lo~~i=e St SZ
Yell!'. , \-1;" 9 8 5 ~ 7
~
21.72 4"; 20103
Rcge::- .-!c:Kibbi:l
PO =cx 1.31 i
Yel:rt, "..lA 9 iE97
;,q
2172 44 2050:'
Je~se Sc~:~a~ ur
9910 Du-:anc Sc S~
~21::1,
,.'"
Ij"",
93597
4'1-
2:72 .;.; 20700
Jeff-:ey Pr:.ce
15128 1u~~=a St
Y~l:n, tiA 9ASg7
s::
4S
22.72 .;.; ::0400
Was~-?~l~= L~:l~S
PO =.:::x .:, 7014
Ol:rnpia, ~A 96=04
4g
21 72 S 1 11.3 0:'
seea~~an Li~~ec ~==:~e~
1501 W Say Island =_:~
Tac=~2, ~A ge~6o
51
2172 52 20200
Sara. }:!olyne:S.u:<:
14330 G.eorge Rc
Yel::1, 'ilA geS~7
....
?':'(i;
-"'...
"_ J ...
MAY-19-94 THU 16:43
"
2~72 31 10000
Eliza.b~th Hunter
PO Box 1406
Y::l:n, WA 98597
2172 31 20100 4
Ge!:'ald Dallas
14119 93rc Ave. 52
Yelm, WA 985"97
2172 3:1 20500
T:!:"acey C.:::cpe::::'
PO Bex 792
R .. .'TA
a :.n:.. e=.- , "11,
I
98576
\0
2172 3:1 20701
David Prosser
1~207 93r~ Ave 5E
Yelm, 1r'TA 9 S 59 7
2172 32 10301 \1
~.3l:'c....::; McNew
PO Box 135
Grah~u, WA 98338
IcP
2172 32 :'0'100
~4rgarec PaIki~son
1394= 93rc Ave 52
Yelm, WA 98597
14
2172 32 10403
Milvan Amidon
13937 93rc Ave sa
Yeln, WA 98597
).:2.
2172 32 10700
Jall~t Wilson
:.6507 74th Ave 3
Puyallup, WA 98373
1.-S
2172 32 40100
RO).Jino Fortuno
52Q2 Filber~ Ln 5W
T.scoma, WA 98499
" .,
-0
2172 61 COOOO
M.~rian Mc.Ken::ie
1~410 Gec:::=e :l..d
v - 1 :n ...... 0 8 S ~ 7
. -= _., ('f I"'\. .. ;:
r~':'( 13 '94 16.43
2
2172 31. 10200
Lisa Endert
14305 93rd Ave S8
Yel:n, WA 98597
2172 31 20300
Barbara Allen
14127 93rd Ave
"[elm, WA 98597
"5
EXHIBIT'S'
P. 02104
52
2172 31 20600
Teresa Faulkne!:'
:'4:.31 93rd Ave S8
Yelm, WA 98597
5
:3
2172 31 20000
Fa~tella Rachbcr-e
1412~ 93~d Ave SZ
Yelm, 1'lA 98597
2172 31 20400 (,.,:.
Jce Huc.c.lest.on
~~129 93=~ Ave S~
Yelm, 'ilA 98597
'7
2172 31 20601
James & Vivian ~adac~
:;:0 Eox 381
Tainier, WA 98576
12-
2172 32 ~0200
Charles Pc.,.;ell
?O BOA 551
:el:n, ':;lA 98597
2:'72 32 :'0303
1S'"
\I
2:172 31 30000
Thurst.on Highland ABsoc
1917 1st. Ave
Se;ttle, WA 98101
l4
2172 32 10302
Ja..-:es E:unter
13913 93rd Ave SE
Yelm, WA 98597
ti
2172 32 :10401
Harvin. Lucas
13949 93rd Ave 58
"!elm, WA 98537
"]..I)
2172 32 10500
Kevi:l Wilson
13811 93rd Ave SE
YeL-n, WA 98597
2172 32 10800
Sylvia Shaw
t'O Box 296
'{elm, ~ 98597
"t3
ita=d Sagen
13919 93rd Ave SE
Yelm, WA 98597
2172 32 :'0402
It,
2172 32 4:0200
Ker::-i Lidster
PO 30x 1821
Yelm, WA. 98597
2G:.
Melanie C=ace
13941 93rd Ave SE
~elm, WA 98=97
'2(
2172 32 10600
Rober~ Slyter
13815 93rd Ave SE
Yel;n, WA 92597
2172 32 ~OOOC
'!'~c::l.?s Srccahl
Ese ~i:e
-z.y.
21
21.72 62 00000
~~~=5ton Higbla~~s Assoc
1917 1st Ave
Seat~le, Wrl 98101
1609 Di~~c~d tccp ~~
Lacey, WA 93=03
'2-1
2:72 32 40JO~
S:oan Eol:r:..c~<
c:c.=:..:':"=. :::r: ;;:s
2601 ~ .~lce= Si:
Tac=m3, ~~ ?S4J7
='.:..;~ 2IJZ
,
o
o
~
,
').
, I
, I I
.' 1/
, ,
I ' I-
I
~ '
,I / I
. -.( I
I~ /
,'~,
-;~r--' 1,"3-
, , I 1-0 I
I;' I "_110 ......._ I
" I ,"-Cd " 01 I
4 ~~
: I "1 [; (, I
I I I
~w,~--ll ;: ---~--~~ -~ - ~------------+--1
~.. ,I :. l.~ I
'i .. P< 1\ I '
I :1 I .. ~
I 1'1' (0 I j
I " .~ '1-~ I I '
I :1 I' J
I ;\ I I"""
: II I II:
/I 1_ '! U lll'I
I :; lO'''' 'J.AP I I ~
____~-+---------L- I :
,. Ii I ----------t----~-- ;\
I · ----
I 'i \ \ I 1\: - T--
I ,I I I !l
: II
J '! I I !I
I i I I :1
I I I I
r ! (0 I
: .\ I' l
, 1 I
.
. H>o<d
.,-.......
~
Q) If
t
(9 I
I
.-
10
"11
III
U-GI
u
.
10
~
:3
o ffi
.-
m
..
J>
"
<ED
ll-"
'U
(,
,74
III
..
I J
()
I.)
:11
I;
--
~tc..nnN
'ZS'. -17 -It:
\'\AA-? ~ ~
:::J:;
::D
-<
I
. -
CD
I
(0
.t>-
--l
::r:
c:::
m
,"""'
w
m
><
J:
-
ro
-
-f
.
O!
-u
=
(>I
......
C)
.~.
~
~
, ---------------'
1 _ _--------- ,,",?r_l..,\-:<. '
. _------~- I "..--Pl ...--::>' -
_ I \. \ '?
\ \ I f: ~g
~ \ I ,--'
. I' ,g
\ \ I '
'\ 1- '\ \ "tfb ... ~ f> - \
\ I I
\ ~ \
\ ; \
\ \ \
\ .. \
\ \ L - - - - - - - - -\
\- - - - - - - - - - - ,--
- - - - -\- - - - - - - - .,.. .-
------~----------\----- \ \
\ I '
\ ..' \
\ ..
\ >.\ \
\ .. -
\ .. '
\ " \
<\_(1\
\'
\ \
I \
\ .. ----\
I _ - - -- -'- _..=\=-:.c::; -- --
---- \
_---,-------K- ~ & - II_IE.
~ ",,,,,,1'\or-1 v
..-
en
,~
,I'>
~
Ll
-
,0
Po
...
Ol
~
:t:
-
u:
...
,
-u
f.o
,;I
'"
,'.)
o
I'
.......
...
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
so; y::::..~ A,.'fNE:C.:,:::: ON
EXHIBIT 'C'
FeR r.~~?~~ON HICnL~~D ASSCC~\~Z5
Dec~=be= 10, 1990
S~c ::::'0-::' 27, ':ovnshi;l L 7 No:,-:..~, :\.ar.g~ 1 ::.3.s::
All of S~c::::.an 27
Sec::::~or. 25 '!ovnsh!.;l 17 ~or':~ ?ange 1 E:.3.s:::
I:CS::: hal..: of Sec:::.on 25
.
..-
Sec::..o~ 23 :o..\:sh_~ 17 ~ror--=..-=. ~.~;~ 1 E.a.s:
So~=~ ~al= at S~c=_=n 2~. a~c :~e Scc=~ ~a_=
S cc ::::.on 23.
of
-'-3
'-....-
~o=:::~eas: q~::::~=
S~c:::::.,;r Zl.. :o'.rr.sh_? 17 ~or-:..~. ?ar.ge 1 ::.3.s:
..,e Sou.:::'..:es;: qua!:::::!!: 0: S.:!c::::.on 2(..
~~= SO~:~ ~Gl: of ~~e ~o=:~~es~ q~=~a~ at Scc=~o~ Z~
7:,a Scu:::::~es::: quar:::ar at :~e Souc~eas: quar:::=r of Sec::::on 24,
.~a Sou~~eas;: oua=:::ar ot ~~e Sou~~eas: oua=:::== of Sec::::on 24, ~C-~~
l:~at:: par::: beL::; ~or-:..~ea.s: of :..~e Nor-:..":e.a..s:: l.:.::e of ~OSi:A."" S::::uc $ .::.,
Tee Nor'":..:':' hal.: of I:..~e Soc.:"'~east: au.a.:-:a: at Sec..:~on 2,1. 1r:.=:.; ~es= a.::d
Sou:::::~es;: of :..~e :cLlowi~; ~esc=::'=ed li::e
3C:~::11n::~rc at: t:..~e i::.t:arsee::::.on of. t:..~e Souc::. 1-::.e of sai~ ~tor-:::' ::..1.: a:-~
l:::.e Nor-:"~eas: l!-::e of ~cs;::an Sc:::aet: Sou::~eas::;
7:~E:rCZ ~tor::::..tes:::-.;ar:l7 alan; said ~or::::.eas: l.._::.e of said ~os;::a.r.. s::=~~c:
Sou=~eas:: and ~~e ~or:'..C!s:::-.:a::,:il'", prol.ong3.:::.on of said :-1or~eas:: 1.:....o:e ::;:,
l.:3 i::.c:~::;ac::.on 'olic~ ::..'-:e :Tor-:..";o;.:es: l.:.::.e at: ~n;oi=~ S ::::ae t: Souc..":eas::,
T:~~TCZ Sou~~o;.:es~ar~17 a.l.ong said ~or:::t~es: l~::.e Co a ?oi::.t: ~n~c~ :::.e
foilo~i::.; desc=~~ed ?~i::.c ~G- bears Nor-:..~ 53. 30' 30- ~es:,
BEG:~!~C at: a poi::.c ~hic::. Ls c~e inc:arsec::.on of Sou~~er17 1i::.e 0= ~el=
Ave~ue a.t:d t:..":e ~or:::~....es: oour.d.a=-l of 501.=er;" s 1s:: ac.c.:.:::.:m C::l ':ei=
7:~~rc::: ~or::~~es= along :.~e Sou:...":er!.y E::e of Yel=t Avenue e::t:.a::cie-i ,S75
fee':
!:~~cz Sou~": 37. 56' l,l'es: 620 00 feet: 1:0 ~":e ?'JI..'IT OF 3E:C::~TG.
!:~~CZ e:ne:~:ui::; Sou~ 37. 56' ~ese: i6 5 feet:;
!:-i~rc::: :-1or::..": 53. 30' 30. ';u:: 50 feee,
'I:~~TCC: SOUQ 37- 50' llue tL1S feet: :0 ?oL'tt: .C-,
!:-:::::rcz ~lor::~ 53. 30' 30. f;t!s:: t:o caine: .C-,
'I:-:=:1rc::: :lor-:~ J7. 56' ::a$:: c::: t:..":e E.1s: E::.e of ~":e :tor-:~.....es:: qua::::::!: or:
e::.e Sou~~eas: quar:::a: at: af::lrement::_oned Sec:::~on 24 ~d :'~e te~~ of
hereL~ ~esc=:.bed 1i::.e.
!:~ac: ?or:::~on of 3e~1 qal:ev Road L~ I:~e Sou~":~esc quar::er of :'~e
Mor-::::.e~: qu.ar::er of Sec::.on 24 r
Sec:::.on 19. !o'.-nshi? 17 Nor-:..~. ?o1.ng~ 2 E.:1Sc.
i:.e Sou=~""'esc quar-:~r or: :'~e So~~":~es~ quar:::a: of Sec::.on 19, ~C==~
c:::.a.l: ?a:;': :,eing Sou:..~ea.s~ of t:~e Hor~~""'es:: Ene ot :::e :\..J..~ier.':~i..::
H~~n..Iav and ALSO :::-:C:?-:' ::-:ac .,ar-: bei:1; ~lor:::::.eas: 0: ~~e ~or::.":eu:: l_~:
of "!osr.:an SC=~ec S:: ar:c!. !..:.= di:ec: ?t':2lor:;ac:.cn Sou:::eCl3:-..r.a::.!.:r ::J :'::e
Nor':~~es;: line of ~inie: YeL: Ri;h.....ay
~a.c ;Jo::-::.on of ~i!.~ ?oac. L:1 S~c:~on 19, 70~snb :; :lo::"':.~. R..i.r.;~ 4
Ea.s:, ~ ~ , lying Sauc~ a: ~.J.inie:.1eL~ ~i;~~ay
A ?ot'~:'::ln of :'~e Sou~"eas: qua::,'::!:' of Sec::::on 25. 7>Jwr.sh_::: 1; ~roC'~", :..or.;e 1
E:as:, ,;~.. desc:=~~ed as :oL2.o'..s
3E:::~r:n::rc at: c....e Sou::~..;as: c:):":1er of said suodi'~:'3 4'r..
1~~~ ,,-
EXHIBIT' C'
r:::::~K::: Nor-:::: 39" 10' &.i~ C:~s:: a.-'.c~.; e::e Sou::::' .:..._::e ::::e:';o:, 720 57 :aec,
T:::::~C::: No:'::::' 23" 42' 32~ ~~s::, 2. 033 39 fee::.
T:.-::::::rc::: No c::~ 73" 55' 14 ~ \:es::, 9 s: 9 il feet:,
T:-:2TC::: Noc-::::,'.:es::a:'ly 953 feet: :::oc; or less. t= ::::e Noc-::::,'.:es:: c::r::e!:' of
e::.e No=::::.~es:: one-qua::-::;= of ::::.e Souc~easc one-q~ar::a= of saie Sec=~=n
2 = . "
T:-:::::rc::: s~uc::. 00" 53' 01~ E:.a.s::. :,536 :2e:: :::: ::::.e =IJI~ C? 3EG::RE~iG
Eas ::
r,; \.(
of c...=-:'e Sou~::ea.s~ qt:.a.=-=a:,
desc=~bed as f~l:o~s
0: Sec=~on 25,
- . .
J.. c.....-r:.s h':'?
17
~o=-== t ?~::.~~ l...
T:-:a. ::
~---
:-' Q.- -
3E~::rn:~G a:: a poi::: on :::e Sou:::' li::e of said Sec:~=n 25, Nc=-::::. 3;" :0'
(.7" E:.as::, 7:0 67 :=e: :=:::: e::.e Sou=::.~es:: c::J=-::e::- of sai::. Sc~=::e.as:
q__a.=::a:- ,
r:-::::::;rc::: No=-::::. 28" u.2' 32~ E:as::, 2.,038 89 feee,
T=2iC::: Soue::. u.9" 04' 03'" Eas::, 1.,143.33 feee C:l e::e '';es::a=l:r- ::.a::-;_:: of
::::e ou=li::g::on Nor-::::er:: Inc , Rail~ay;
T~~1CE Sou~~ 3S~ ~' 02~ ~es~ along said rail=~a~ =~~h=-o:.~ay, 1,2~o ;2
faec ::0 ~~e Soue::. line of said Sec:ion 26,
T:-::::NC::: Soue::. 89" 10' 47~ \:es:: along said Sou~': E::e l,E3 23 :a!!t: co c::.e
?OI~r: OF 3cG~~I~G
T::ar: par-=. of t....e ~or-:..~ hal.: of ~~e ~or~eas:: q'Uar-:ar of Sec:::.cr. 25, !cw-r.s;:i:;l
17 ~or-:::., Range 1 E.asc, r;:! . descr::::ed. as follo~s
BEGI~I~G ae a poine on ~~e Nor-:"~ line of said
c:.isc.a.ncl! of 21.3 faec :qor-=..": 89" 45' 40'" Eas:: of
T:~~iC::: Sou~': 00" 25' 05'" Eas~ 582 10 feet:;
T:~=~~C::: Sou~ 81" u.o' Eas~, 773 07 faec, ~or~
Nor-:::.~es~ar17 righr:-of-~ay of ::~e 5urlingc::n
!?}JZ ?QI~ OF BEGL~~iG of ~~is descri;eion.
T:.-:=:{CZ NO~-:"~eas~a:,17 alon5 saie railroad ri~~-:-of-~ay :: a ?oinr: en saie
righ::-of-r.;ay ...hieh is 150 fae:: Sou~~...escarl7 of c..~e i.:ltar:;ac:ion of said
righe-oE-way ..rit:..'1 c..~e Nor-=...~ line of said. Nor-===.eas~ qu.ar-::ar:
I:~Z~CZ ~~~ing Nor-:::~es~ar17 ac righr: angles t~ said railroad ri;hc-of-
way, 122 31 feee, mora or less, co t:..1.e Nor-=""l line of said. Nor~easr:
q't.:.ar-:.ar;
T:~2TCZ Soue::. 89- 45' u.O- \:es~ along said
or less, to a. poL"1e on t.~e Nor-=..': li.ne of
nor-:~ 89 - 45' 05- Ease, Zi7 feec;
T:~~IC::: ~esr:ar17 para.llel wi~~ ~~e Nor-=..1. 11::e of said Nor~ease qua::-::;!:',
213 37 feet:;
r:.~rcz Soue~ 00. 25' OS'" Eas":. C:l a. pobe '..hie::. is Nor-:..~ 01" 46' t;es~
from e::.e tRUE ?OUrr OF BEG~mI~iG.
::':.E.:'TCZ Soue::. 81" 40' Ease, 630 feee, mon or less. C:J c.:.e 'L.'.UZ ?rJ!:T7 OF
BEGI~TNI21G
Nor~~eas= quA=~~r a
i~s Nor~~es~ ~o~e~,
or less, t= t...~e
Nor-:..':e~ ?~:=oa.c,
--,..:
G...._
=-~e
Nor~:: 1i::e 1,1:: i7 f~e~, =or2
saic Nar-:..':eas:: quar-::ar ~hic= is
-
All si=~::~ in ~~ur~~on CvU::~/. ~ashi~gcon.
??OJ:::C7 '!:::!...:~ p!..umC:J C::~~llI:-: DE:"i2..GP~::rr
Dece=ber la, 1990
3637 07
_; .::: "l~: ~::
1.:11 ~ 11.'''::21' ."11":1:'"
JU. :1. ...,....
.,' ..'11
'V 84.40.045/RCW 84.40.040
EXHIBIT 'C'
Essessed value IS 1000"., of true and faIr vc.iue.
OA TEMAILE:J-u7/31..1 /-13
~ TAX YEAR. 1 S 7~
LAND VALUE
BUILDINGS ETC VALUE
RE;'L P~QP~::" T'f
/I0US True .& Fair Value
,'..~l,c~~
;.cJ~L'..:;'T!C"1
f True & t=afr Value
1;;,::':1..
P,.:,F;CE!- 217Z3~2__.J_
'/I0US Current Use Value
APC,=:AISE.=, _ 7
C'fCLE. .: ,; _ =
./ C"rrent Use Vaiue
:: :"OORESS OR
:3C;::;IPTION. .:: .1- l. i -1.:: ... (: ;;:
~.i':3~2
21.72j.,.2~C;;'J
- ... ---
. ~ : :... -: I ...
,III: I ~..;'hj"=ZI,' .1111. r::....
. . ~ :::~'1~'::1.1.
"''''1:; :1.
... 'h'!_"'Jll;or ;1:-..- -4.,. II:
-IV 84.40.045/RCW 84.40.040
? assessed value IS 1 OOO~ of true and faIr value.
OA TE\1AILE:J: ; i 13 _ It';
R TAX YEAR. 1 ;,..,.
'1I0US True & Fair Value
True & Fair Value'
L~NO VALUE
eUILDINGS. ETC VALUE
~'=JooL ?~C;:=RT'(
....... .. ~,.
Q~,....\,. '..;
CuR ~ ':!'oj i li :) c:
I'\C:" ...L..;.... rIG,',
';o,l'J(,
',IOUS Current Use Value
3,17;;
PARCE:.... 21 7.2 J!..3":: oJ _
Current Use Value
;,~2':
A pCC:;AISE.=.. Z. 7
C're:....=. _ :: ~ .::
: ADDRESS OR ~.,.5;.:l .:=k~Y V:'LLl:Y ~.... Si:
~CRIPT1GN' 2.3-1.7-1.: S".,. Ni::.,. f:X N 2JF CC RG
y ::~I"i
-;~;';7
~1i'23d
217:3LJJ:::C
T"'URSTu:~ rdGrilA:..':' ':'~~~C
1'117 FIi<.Sr ;4'J;:
Sc~r7L: ,,~. ~a~_l
PLEASE SEE REVE.=iSE SiDE FaR IMPORTANT FlUNG DATE AND SPECIAL TAX RE!.JE.= PfiCG;;AMS
.. 11'1 JII. :1. _"""t...
-"'rv 84.40.045/RCW 84.40.040
EXHIBIT 'C'
':e assessed value is 1 OOO~ of true and fair value.
DA TE MAILE)"~ 7 /3.~ / '13
: Fi T AX YEAR 1. -1 S:.,.
LAND VALUE
BUILDINGS. :TC VALUE
REA... ?~C;::=~TY
~e'l10US True & FaIr Value
c5~,7i..:
Ro::V~LL.;.T!G;-"
ew True & Fair Value
""Sc,JGO
i
I ~ . 7 -.. ~ .- ..
J P4RCE~ L_ "O~_,-..._...j
!
'evlous Ci.Jrrent Use Value
I .
I~ .
I
!
APC;C::AISE.~. 2 7
I
I
CYe:..=. ~ 5 ut:I
lew Current Use Value
i7~ ADDRESS CR
ES'::=;IPTION 20-1 j-L: ...2
, , - ,--
_..I.:.C~_
~ Ji\I_"'Jll~T ~~"'''''...'I:
,-. .. "." "!"'--'."
,,'.1.: .=:.Jl, l::::tl' ."11: .-
'N 84.40.045/RC'N 84.40.040
"he assessed value IS 1 OOo~ of true and faIr value.
OA TE MAIL.E:J:'- 7/ 3 _ 1'-1 ..J
:~ TAX YEAR 1 ~;:; ~
LAND VALUE
BUILDINGS ETC. VALUE
o ... ., "'J - -- T .,
. :::,....l,.. ~~~r':::wI 1
'='1I0US True & Fair Value
c :'!,6JJ
~ ::: 'J ;:. i- '" '" i ~ c: :,.
;ow True 6. Fair Value.
- .." .. -
'7--:..,...l.u
') 1 - - 7 ..-. -
PARCE':......_/~ ....I.~'-..:~-
'e'lIous Current Use Value
Jew Current Use Value.
APP~AISE.~. .. 7
c'rcL..=:.... 5l,; C
iT: ADDRESS OR
E::;C::iIPTICJN ") 7- 1 7- 1 r .11 I ...;:, ,r=r T; ~-~
, . ." ,(1: ,
. =-:l1ln::lll.
..... ,.1"" I. . ::"--:1...
JfI:"', :1. ,,'
- - 'N 84.40.045/RCW 84.40.040
J.1e assessed value IS 1 OOo~ of true and faIr value.
OA TE MAlLEJ.-- 7 / j.... / '., .;
JA TAX YE.J.A. 1 9 1~
LAND VALUE
BUILDINGS. ETC. VALUE
';:~L P~C?=~TY
':'e'/IOUs True &. Fair Value
."..G,~CG
i\~Y",..Lu;.ir:.\
'Jew True &. Fair Value.
"f~._,..Jua
: Z' 7 - 1 ,. -..-
'Pa,FiCE~ ... ~~-"''-...'''..;
J
='!?'/lCUS Current Use Value
eW Current Use Value
! ~PPC::~/SE.=. : 7
C'rG.=. _ 5 Go:
_.7"= ACORESS CR
:E5C;:;IPT1QN ~J-:. 7- L= $t/
Z':'72J3C
!
~172)~!.::'::~
I HUICifarl M I :;,..LA:. as:. 55 t..C
1917 i.sr A\lE
c: = A T' -r, :. - ,\
-"
.'
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
CITY OF"YEL'\1
ENYm.ONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed proJect~ If applic:Ible: Southwest Yelm Conceptual Zornng Plan.
2. Name of applic:Int: Thurston Highland }...ssoclates
3. Address ana phone number of applic:Int and cont:Ict person:
1917 First Avenue (206) 443-3537
Se:mle, Wa. 98101 Contact: Denrns T Su. A.I.A.
4. Date checklist prepared: Mav 24, 1994
5. Agency reqUIring checklist: Cm' ofYelm
6. Proposed timmg or schedule (including phasing, if applicable).
The Conceptual Master Plan IS scheduled for reVIew and approvai m June and Julv of 1994 The
approval will COnsIst of a CIty oiYelm comprehensIve plan amendment and zomng map
amendment, but only effectlve upon the subsequent Master Plan approval. Smce major
development aC"JVInes WIthIn the Southwest Y elm Annexanon arc are !led to upgrades of the
CIty'S water. SanItary sewer and road systems, the proponents will be tmung subrmruJ of IDe
Master Plan WlID SIgmficant mfrasuucrure desIgn milestones. It IS anoclpated that the Master
Plan will be subrmtted to the CIty someome between September 1994 and March 1995 While ~:lcb.
major property owner will be mdicanng a probable phase scenano on the Conceptual Master Plan.
Thurston Highlands AsSOCIates will be the likely lead developer m order to prOVIde golf course
land for the City's waste water reuse program and addioonal wells and storage to supplement the
eXISTIng crty water system. Proposed phasmg 1S graprucally depIcted on the Conceptual Master
Plan map
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, e:xpansion~ or funher activIty related to
or connected with this proposal? If yes, explam.
It IS likely that total build-out of me Southwest Yelm Annexatlon are:l. will be over the next 10~
ye::u-s. The acnvmes of mdiVIduai property owners will comClde WIth mfrasuucrure upgrades.
servtce c::tpacItv and market demand. The actlv1tles assocIated \..lID future development of the
annexatIon depend on future expansIon of water, SaIlltary sewer and roads to serve Uld1VIdual or
phased acnVItIes.
8. List any environmental infonnation you know about that has been prepared~ or will
be prepared, directly related to thiS proposal.
A Dmft EnVIronmental Impact Statement (Dated December 1992) and a Final EnYlronmenul
Impact Statement (Dated March 1993) that addresses a broad r.mge of Issues and unpacts
assocIated WIth the Southwest Yelm AnnexatIon and subsequent development has been adopted
by the City ofYelm. Addmonal project specIfic environmental mform:lUon \\111 be developed In
conjunction \Ylrh the CIty ofYelm's waste water reuse proJect. Y -I and Y -2 b\ -pass route. and
water system upgr.lde. TIlls checkhst WIll only address new Information or Impacts that have
become known SInce the final E.I.S was prepared. Reference to the final E.I S \\111 be made on
all cb.eckhst Items for wluch no new mformanon IS known or avaIiable.
9. Do you know whetber appliaoons are pending for governmental appl"'OvaU of other
proposals directly affe1:ting the property covered by your proposal? IfYe3~ e:xplain.
Apphcmons are pending for pemusslon to dnlI test wells (2 domestIc and 1 irrigaoon) on the
Tnursron Highlands .-\ssoc.ates Property Water nght apphc::wons have b~n apphed for from che
Washmgron Scare De?amnent of Ecology, Depe~dent on test \....ell results, \\.hIch would be turr:.ed
over to the C:tV ofY~!m at some furure pomt In the development process. The Cirv ofYelm has
apphed for grant momes to help defra... costs assoclated WIth srudvmg and deslgnmg a WClS1:e '.vater
reuse pro]ec:.
.
10. Llst :lny governmenoI appro\ :lis or permm th.ut wIll be needed for your proposal. If
known.
Tne foilo\\"mg lS a [iSt of go'.'e::".J!1ent approvals necessaz:,. for uinrnZl.te OUlld-out of the SouchwcS!
Yelm 4..nnex:mon area.
I ConcepruaJ. 'v{asi:er PI::m approv<1l - Y<:!m
2. Y{asi:er Plan Approval - Y dm
) Pre!unmarv PlatlS) - Yelm
J. Bulldmg Pemuts - Yelm
5 Test: WeH(s) . \Va. State D O.E.
6 Water Rlghts - Wa.. Scare D O.E.
7 Waste warer Lmd Apphcmon - Wa.. Scare D O.E.
8 Water S'\"Ste:n approval- Yeim. D O.E.. D a.H.
9 Wetiand (Nanomvlde Pe:nut) - Yelm. V.S Annv Corps or E:lgme:::s
10 SWIm water dlsc:mrge . Ydm, Wa. State D O.E.
11 Grading PermItS . Ye!m,
11. Road.. Storm., Samur;. Se'.ver. & Water Plans . Ye!.rn
· Addinonal !Jenmrs ma\ be n~:ssary as the proposal becomes more re5ned.
11. Give brief~ complete descnpnon of your proposal~ mcluding the proposed uses and
SIZe of the projet:t and sIte. There are several questions later In thIS checklist th.ur
ask you to detlde certam aspet!S of your proposal. You do not need to repe:u those
answers on this page.
The propone:1ts are subnumng a Conc::prual. Master Plan for reVlew and approval by the Cit\ or
Yei.m. The Conceptual Master Plan.. whIch encompasses the ennre Southwest Yelm A.IlIlex.:mon
area.,. IS a broad de;m:::xon of proposed. land uses. major road nerworks. and Idemuied
enVU'Onmemallv sensmve are:lS. The entIre SIte IS l.860 acres In SIZe. Proposeo1and uses and
approXll1late acre:lgc'S are as follows:
Conunerclal. 40 acres Single Family' ..13.6.. ac:es
Medium DensItv Multl-Familv' 116 acres Park Site: 5 acres
High Denslty Muln-F:uni1y' --28acres School SlIe: 15 acres
Golf Courses (one e:usnng) 410 acres Open Spac::: 420 acres
The Conce?ru.a.l Master Plan. one:: approved.. wIll be used :lS the basIS for a City orYe!m
comprene:1SlVe plan :l1'I1endment and zornng map amendment. These :une::cimenrs Wlil become
effet7..Ive after the renned Master Plan IS approved.
J
12. Locatlon of the proposal. Give suffiCIent mfonnatlon for :l person to undersund the
pretIse locatIons of your proposerl project. mduding a street address~ if :lny, :lnd
sectlon~ township and r.mge. If known. If:I proposal would occur over :l r:mge of
area. prOVIde the r:mge or boundanes of the sIte(s). PrOVIde a leg:d descnpnon. sIte
plan. VICInity map. :md topographIC map. If reasonably avail:1ble. While you :lre not
requIred to duphcate m.ups or detailed pl:1ns submitted WIth any permIt JppiiCatlODS
rebted to thIS cbeddist. (Attlch complete leg:1.i descnpuon If aV:lilable.)
Refer to the ~cned legal descnpaon ~d map for the Southwest Yelm ..1.nne:unon JIe:l.
2
TO BE COIVIPLETED BY APPLICANT.
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEl\tIENTS
1. Earth
a. Gener:ll des9=i~n of the site (cirde one):
Flat, rolIing,.l!i!!Y: steep slopes. mountamous~
otHer .
b. What IS the steepest slope on the SIte (appro:mnare percent slope)?
There are seve~l smDlI are~ ilia! compnse slopes of 2.5 to 3.5 perCe:1L
c. \-Vhat general types of soils are found on the sire (for example: day. sand.
gravel, pe:lt, muck)? If you know the dassIfication of agrIcultural soils.
specIfy them and note any prIme farmland.
The ge:1erai soil tvpes found on the SIte COOS 1st of sanci gravel, and s~d, gTa,..ellv sods
A complete soils map and dassrncanon c:m be found In the Draft EnV1rOnrne:1r.al Impac:
Statement for the Southwest Yeirn Annexanon .-\rea (December 1992)
d. .Are there surface mdications or hIstOry of unstable soils In the ImmedIate
VicInIty? If so, describe.
There :lfe no knO\\l1 unstable sods on the sue or unmemOJ.re VlC1Illt\
e. Describe the purpose, type. and approximate quantities of any fining or
grading proposed. Indicate source of till.
There are no proposed fiIlmg or grading acnvmes as a pan: of the Concepmal ylaster
Plan subrruttal and approval process
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearmg, construction. or use? If so.
generally describe.
No acnvmes that could C:lUse erOSion are proposed as OJ. part of the Conce?rual Master
Plan subrruttal and approval process
g. .About what percent of the site will be covered WIth impervIOus surfaces after
project construction (for example. asphalt or buildings)?
ApproXlIllately 25 to 30 percent of the SIte will be covered by Impemous surraces whe~
the sIte IS completely built out. No unper\lous surraces will be constructed J.S a pan vi
tlus apphc:mon.
h. Proposed me~sures to reduce or control erosion. or other Impacts to the
earth. If any'
No me:tSures to reduce or comrol erosion WIll be reqUIred for Conce?tuJ.l \lastcr P!:.n
:lpprovDl. Subsequent project speclIic :lpphc:mons WIll meet all reqUlrCme:its for e:-OSlon
control.
..
)
2. AIr
a. \Vhat types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e._ dust,
automobile, odors, industrIal wood smoke) during construction and when the
project IS completed? If any, generally deSCrIbe and give approximate
quantities if known.
The proposed Conceorual Master Plan does not Include aetIvmes that mIl DrOQUe:: am
. . .
errusslOOS. Subsequent project speCIfic proposals may reqUIre mltlganng me:J..Sures CO
reduce dust, exhaust., odors, etc.
~
~
b. Are there any off-SIte sources of emiSSIOns or odor that may affect: our
proposal? If so, generally describe.
The SHe abuts the Fort: LeWIS Reservanon, S.R. 507 and the CIty ofYe!rn. wruc::. :lre
sources of off-SHe ermsslOns These sources are not belteved to adve:-se:\ 3ife::: :he SHe.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emIssions or other Impacts to :lIr. if
any'
No measures are necessary at tfus ume.
3. Water
:1. S urf:1ce:
1.
Is there any surface water body on or in the Immediate VIcinIty of the
SIte (induding year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes.
ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type :lnd prOVIde names. If
approprIate, state what stream or river It flows mto.
A SHe wetland analYSIS, report: :md map IS mcluded 1I1 the Dr.:ui: md Fincl
EnVlronmem.ai Impact Statement for me Southwest Yelm .-\nnex:mon.
2.
Will the project reqUIre any work over, In or adjacent to (wIthm 100
feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available
plans.
No work 1I1 or near wetlands or bodies of water IS proposed Ul dus J.pphc:!.t1on.
3.
Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed
in or removed from surface water or wetlands and mdicate the are::! of
the site that would be affected. Indic:l.te the source of flU materIal.
Not ApplIcable.
.t.
Will the proposal reqUire surface water WIthdrawals or diversIOns:
Give general deSCrIption. purpose. and appro:umate quanunes If
known.
Not ApphcJ.ble.
...
"
Does the proposal lie Within :1 100 year flood plam? If so. note
location on the Site plan.
No. thIS propem IS loc:J.ted enure!\ outSide of JJ1\ 100 \"e:u- dead pl:l.m :c:;:orcmg
to the FE~tA maps.
4
6. Does the proposal mvolve any discharges of waste materials to surface
waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticIpated volume of
discharge.
No.
b. Ground:
1. Will ground water be wIthdrawn, or will water be discharged to
ground water? Give general descnption, purpose. and apprOXImate
.. quantIties If known.
No ground water will be "mhdram1 or d1scharges to ground w:lter made ::LS a part
of tins apphc:mon. Thurston Highlands Assoc~:J.tes has :lppl1ed for wee test we!!
pemuts from the Washmgron S CJ.te Dep:lrnnenr of Ecolog} ("';lm subsequem
water nghts subject to test results and smdv) on chelr properr:- The em orYelm
\\1il be conductmg (w1m proponent p:lIt1C~pat1on) Addmonal studIes on the SIre
III conjunc!lon \\"lm the Wastewater Re:.lse Project proposed co ::likvlare surr"ice
water d1scharge mto the ~isquailv Rrver Basm.
2. Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from
septic tanks or other sources. If :lny (for example: Domestic sewage,
industnal, contammg the followmg chemIcal...: agncultural; etc.)
DescrIbe the general SIZe of the system. the number of such systems.
the number of houses to be served (if applic:lble), or the number of
ammals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
See B-1 above.
Co Water Runoff (including stonn water):
L Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and the method
of collection and disposal, if any (mcluding quantities. If known).
Where will thiS water flow? Will thIS water flow mto other waters? If
so, describe.
The proposed Conceptual 'v:Iaster Plan \vill not gener.lte addmonal Si:Orm flows
Subsequent subnuttJ..is will address speCIfic subbasm flows (eXlstmg and proposed
nuogaoons) as the proposal becomes more refined (Master Plan and prelumnan
plat stages) Addmonal analYSIS IS mciuded In the Draft and Final Env1ronme:1t:1l
Impact Statement for the Southwest Yelm Anne:utlon.
2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so,
generaJIy describe.
No waste matem.ls will enter ground or surface waters In conjunction W1th thIs
apphc:lIlOn.
d. Proposed measures CO reduce or contTol surface. ground. :lnd runolT water
Impacts. If any:
Not :lpphco.ble at thiS pn:lSe
5
4. Plants
a. Check or cIrcle types of vegetation found on the site:
l deciduous tree: alder. maDle. aspen, other cottonwood
.l evergreen tree: lli:: cedar. pme. other
l shrubs
l grass
l pasture
l crop or grain
X.' we!soil plants: cattail~ buttercuD. bulrush~ skunkcabb:1!!e~ other '" E.I.S.
_ water plants: water lily, eel grass, mil foil, other
_ other types of vegeratIon - descnbe
b. \Vhat kmd and amount of vegetatIon will be removed or altered?
:io vegeonon \VllI be removed or altered :lS J. parr of thIS applrc:mon.
c. LIst threatened or endangered speCIes known to be on or near the sIte.
No thre:u:ened or endangered speCIes are known to eXIst on or ne:lr me SHe.
d. Proposed landscapmg, use of native plants, or other me:lsures to preserve or
enhance vegetation on the site, If any:
Nor appiIc:lble for Conceprual MasLer Plan :lpprovaL
:; Ammals
a. Circie any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site:
Birds: hawk. heron. eagle, songbirds. other crow and marrow
Mammals: ~ bear, eU~ other skunk. covote. raccoon. rodents. erc.
Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herrmg. sheUfish. other
b. LIst any thre:ltened or endangered speCIes known to be on or ne:lr the SIte.
No thre:ltened or endangered speCIes are known to be on or ne:lr me SIte - see !:he Draft
and Final E. 1. S for the Southwest Yelm Anne:Gltlon for a compie!e sIte spe~:es Irst.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so.. ple:1se e~plam.
\Vhile there IS se:lSonal vanatlon m bIrd speCIes, the sue IS not kno\\n to be J. part or J.
major rrugranon route.
d. Proposed me~sures to preserve or enhance wildlife If any:
Nor applIcable for Conceprual Master Pla.n approval.
6. Ener~ :lnd :'f:ltur:11 Resources
a. What kmds of energy (electric. natural gas. oil. wood stove. solar ener~)') Wljl
be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Descnbe whether It
will be used for he:l[ing. manufacturmg. etc.
The Conceptual Masrer Pbn wdl nO[ gener.ne :tddmonal c:1erg: ne~ds Prole::! s~e::::1c
deSigns. subseque:1c to \1:lSter PIJIl Jpprov;J.L \\lllllkei'\' unitze :J.C!l\"e :J.nc ~:lSSlVe soi:1r
e:1erg:- e1ectnclt'., OIL wood stoves. md gas.
6
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent
properties? If so, generally describe.
No
c. Wha.t kinds of energy conservation fea.tures a.re included In the plans of thIS
proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy
Impacts, If any:
Not apphc:lble.
i. Environment.al He:lIth
'"
:l. .Are there :lny environmenta.l health hazards. including exposure to tOXIC
chemIca.ls. rIsk of fire and explosIon. spill. or haza.rdous waste. that could
occur as a result of thIS proposal? If so. descrIbe.
)[0
1. Describe speCIal emergency servIces that mIght be requIred.
None are reqUIred.
2. Proposed mea.sures to reduce or control envIronmental health
hazards, if any:
None are reqUlred.
b. NOise
1. What types of nOIse exist in the are:l which may affect your project
(for e:tample: traffic, equIpment. opera.tion. other)?
The pnmary source of nOIse on the site wIll be from the Fort Lems Mihrar-
Resen-anon. The milItary reservation borders the ThurSi:on Hjgnl~cis Assoc::J.res
o\....nersiup on the west SIde of the Conceprual ~laster Plan area. See the DraiL
E. 1. S for the South\yest Yelm A.nnex:J.tlon for speCIfic field me::..surernems .:.nd
mscllsslon_
2.
Wha.t types :md levels of nOise would be created by or associated wlIh
the project on a short-term or a long-term baSIS (for e:tample: tr:lffic.
construction. operation, other)? Indicate what hours nOise would
come from the site.
No nOIse \\;11 be generated as :l part of Conceptual M:lSter Plan approval.
J
3. Proposed measures to reduce or control nOIse Impacts. If :lny:
None are proposed at thIS tIme_
8. Land :lnd Shoreline Use
:1. What IS the current use of the site :lnd :ldjacent propertIes?
The m:lJonr: of the site (west) h:lS been cleared wlthm the last ten years b\ :l tlmbep
compan\' Otl:er parc::!s wlthm the sue arc used :lS farms. golf courses. ma smgle
famtlv dwe!lmgs_ Approxlm:ltely one h:llf af the SIte lS surrounded b\ the F 'Jrt L~'\ IS
\lillt:J.f\ Reser--:J.uon to the northwest. The rc:n:llmng portions :lout the c.C\ ot" y ~:~.
lJ.rge undeveloped parcels and SR-507
7
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
The SHe has been used for tImber productlon, da1ry and carrIe productIOn. as well as
luruted crop productIon.
c. Describe any construction on site.
Tne maJomv of the SIte IS vacant. There are smgle farmi: resIdences, b:uns :md
out bUlld.1ngs scattered on parcels In the central and e:lStern portIons of the site.
d. wm any structures be demolished? If so, what?
No structures will be demohsherl as a result of Conceprual Master Plan approval.
e. \Vhat IS the current zonmg classification of the sIte?
The SIte IS zoned "rur:1l resIdennal" and allows a densIt;. no gre::!.ter <ban one umt per
five acres
f. \Vhat IS the current comprehensive plan designatIon of the site?
The current Thurston Couney comprehensIve plan mmc::l!es the site as :m unmarred ::ue:.
v.nth a rur:1l desIgnanon. The sIte was annexed IOta the CIty of't. elm In iate 1993 Tne
current Concepmal Master Plan subrrunal. when approved.., will result m a c~tv
comprehensIve pian and zomng map amendment, but only effecn.ve upon a subseque::lt
Master Plan approval.
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program deSIgnatIOn of the
site?
}lot apphC:J.ble.
h. Has any part of the site been dass1fied as an "envIronmentally sensmve"
area? If so, specify.
Tner: are areas \\1r.hm the annexatIon area. prunanlv on the western and c~:lITal poruons.
that meet \vetland cntena. Refer to the Draft and Final E. 1. S for the Southwest YeLm
AnnexatIon area for a comprehenSIve wetland analvsIs \\1th accompan\.1I1g map
I. ApprOXImately how many people would reside or work in the completed
project?
The Concepmal Master Plan antlCIpates approX1II1atel! 5,000 housmg umts 1t ultunate
build-out, WIth a projected populatlon of up to 11,640 people. Tne emp[o\me::lt base or
the SIte w1l1 be determmed by the extent of commerCIal and golf course de';elopment.
J. ApprOXimately how many people would the completed project dIsplace?
Noe apphc:lble.
k. Proposed measures to aVOid or reduce displacement Impacts. If :my:
~ot 1pphc:lble.
l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compauble wtth e~mtmg and
projected land uses and plans. If any:
De\'e!opment of the SHe mil be to conformance WIth appltcable C 1[\ ofY dm ordm::l..'1ces.
;:omng, and comprehenSIve plan.
8
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many Units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether
high! middle, or low-mcome housmg.
ApproXlrn<ltely j 000 dwellmg umts WIll ultimately be provIded on the site. It IS
antlclpated that a mix ofhousmg types c:ltenng to a broad r:mge of buyers (firsr tune.
renrement, !ugh end) w111 be aVaIlable on the SIte. Speclfic c:ltegones and pnce ~ges \vill
be analyzed at the tIme of Master Plan approval and :lS dnven by markeI demand.
~
b. Approximately how many umts!, If any, would be elimmated? Indicate
whether hIgh, middle, or low-mcome housmg.
Nor applIcable.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housmg Impacts. If any'
~ot applIcable.
10. Aesthetics
a. \"hat is the tallest heIght of any proposed structure(s), not Induding
antennas; what is the prmclpal e~tenor building matenal(s) proposed?
T:1ere are no proposed strucrures as part or rlus apphc:mon. Furore de':elopmenr \\iil
adhere to the Cl-ry orYelm zorung reqUIrements U1 place at the tune.
b. \Vhat views m the Immediate viCInity would be altered or obstructed?
Not apphcable.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts. If any:
Furore development: WIll utillze extensIve buffers, lanciscapmg and open space to reduce
aesmenc unpac!S as much as possible.
11. Light :In d Glare
a. \Vhat type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What tIme would It
mamly occur?
No! apphcable at th1s tune.
b. Could light or glare from the fimshed project be a safety hazard or mterfere
WIth views?
Not applIcable at tfus tune.
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your propos:ll"
\lmor off-:me glare sources \vlil not meet the SHe.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare Impacts. If any'
\Jot :J.ppllc:lble at thiS time.
9
12. Recreanon
:l. \Vhat desIgnated and informal recreational opportumties are m the
Immediate vicinity?
Currently, there IS an 18 hole golf course and publIc park U1 the unmediare VlClnIty
b. \Vould the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,
deSCrIbe.
No exlStmg.recre:lt1onal uses \\ill be d.1spbc~d as a result of thrs apphc:mon.
~
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recre~tIon, mdudmg
recre~tlon opportunitIes to be prOVIded by the project or applicant, If any.
>io unpacts will result from th1s apphc.:mon.
13. Hisrone and Cultural PreservatIOn
:l. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, nanonal. state. or
local preservation regIsters known to be on or next to the site? If so,
generally describe.
There are no knO\vn places or objects lIsted on, or proposed for nanonal, state or loc:ti
preservanon regIsters adjacent to or \\1thm the sne.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or eVIdence of histone, archaeologIcaL
SCIentIfic, or culturallmponance known to be on or next to the sIte.
The McKe:lZl.e house, orr of S.R. 507, IS regIstered m the Washmgron Scate O.A.H.P
'\ltbm the C".lrrent Clty of Yelm count. there are J. number of srrucrures ldennfied In the
"1989/90 Town oiYe!m Histonc Buildmg Invemory" as havmg loc::u hIstone Slgrunc:mce.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control Impacts, If :my'
~ ot reqUIred.
1~. Transoonation
a. Identify public streets and highways servmg the site, and descnbe proposed
access to the existmg street system. Show on site plans, If any.
The Southwest Yelm Annexanon ar~ "..ill be served b: two roads from the east, Long!mrc
Screet and Berry Valley Road S.E.. Both streets wIll be upgraded and re~hgned subject to
ell:Y ofYelm approval, and \\ill prOVIde pnmarv U1gress/egress em to \vest to the
proposed Y -1 ahgnment m the central portlon of the sIte. The Y -I b\ -pass route frem
S R. 5 10 IS aligned north to south and IS annclpated to be ne:JI the common propem
tme of Venture Partners and Thurston Highlands .-\.ssoclates. Thurston Highlands IS
proposmg a loop boulevard from Y-1 through their o\\;nersrup to S R. 507 Refer:o :''1e
Conceptu:l.! Master Plan for a gr.lpruc represenctlon.
b. Is site currently served by publIc tranSit? If not. what IS the :lppro:'umace
distance to the nearest tr:1nslt stop :lnd where IS It?
Interc:!y tr.mslt IS currenth servmg downto\\" Ye!m VIa S R. 510 The Southwest Ydm
-\nne:<::Ulon J.re.:l \\illl be served bv a route extensIOn :l.S the road c.."1enSlOnS and popul:mon
base Warr.lnt.
10
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many
would the project elimmate?
The Conceptual Master Plan does not require parkmg spaces. Subsequent proje~t speculc
submmals will meet or exceed City ofYelm zorung and parkmg requirements.
d. Will the proposal reqUIre any new roads or streets~ or Improvements to
e:ustmg roads or streets, not including driveways? If SO, generally deSCrIbe
(indicate whether public or private).
No new roads \..ill be constructed m conjunctlon wIm the Concenrual Master Plan
ar'proval. See sectlon A. above for a descnptlon or the major m~enor road ner\vork
proposed to serve the sIte Refer to the Conceptual Master Plan for a graphiC
represemanon of the road alIgnments
e. WiJI the project use (or occur in the ImmedIate VICInIty of) water, rail, or aIr
transportation? If so. generally deSCrIbe.
.-\n eXIstmg pnvate air park IS !oc:lted se':enl miles east of the :mnex:mon :rrea orr
S.R. 507 Tne railroad track along S.R. 507 was removed In 1992/93
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed
proJects? If known~ indicate when peak volume would occur.
Refer to the traffic analvsIs se~nons of the Draft and Final E.I.S for the Southwest Ye!...n
Annexanon. dated December 1992 and March 1993 Pe:lk hour mps would OCC:.lr ber\\"ee:1
6.30 a.m. and 8.30 p.m. and 4.30 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. Tne tr::unc analYSIS and stud" \\1il
be updated Wlth the Master Plan subrrutul.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation Impacts, If any'
TransportaIlon ImpactS \'till be readdressed m conJuncuon \....,th the Master Plan submmal.
when project specific phasmg IS refined. Refer to the Draft and Final E.I.S for the
Southwest Yelm Annexanon area for Idennfied unpacts and mmganon.
15. Public Services
a.
Would the project result in an increased need for public servIces (for
e:I.ample: fire prote{:tlon, police protectIOn, health care, schools, other)? If
so, genernIly describe.
The Conceptual :.-1:lSter Plan will not result In an mcreased need for pubhc servIces.
PublIc semces \\ill need to be Increased canc:.lrrent WIth proje~t speCific deSign and
development. The Draft and Final E. 1. S for the Southwest Yelm Anne:otlon (se: pubhc
serVIces section) Identlfies pubhc semce needs, unpacts and mmganons for the developed
conditlon.
J
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public servIces. If
any:
A large pornon of the dIrect Impacts will be offsc!o\ the ne\\ ta.'X bJSe cre:.ted bv prOlec:
budd~ut.
11
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: ElectricIty, natural gas, water.
refuse servlce. teleDhone~ sanitary sewer, septIc svstem~ other
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility provldmg
the service, and the general construction actlvltIes on the site or In the
unmediate vlcimty which mIght be needed.
The CIty ofYelm win be proVldmg water and sarutarv se...ver servtce to the South\'"est
Yelm .-\nnexa!Ion area. The current capacltv of the CIty'S water and samtJ.ry sewer
syste:n IS not suffiCIent to accommodate deve!opmenr wnhm the :mnexed areJ..
The CIty ofYelm IS curre:1rlv undertakmg a wastewater reuse srudv pe:1dmg an award
of state gr:J.nt money, to upgrnde the e:asnng se'.vage tre:lUnem plant to dIscharge
effiue:1t to a -class "A" standard.
The class 'f -\" tre:J.ted water "'\fill be reused through vanous land use, lmgaaon and
mdusmal applIcatIons. Tms will elmunare the current outfall to the Nisqually RIver.
reduce water pulled from the aquIfer and ald m aqUIfer recharge. ThurSTon Highlands
AsSOCIates \1;ill proVlde a golf course for wastewater reuse Imganon as well as and area
for reuse storage, along \\lth other appurrenances.
ThurSTon Highlands ASSOcIates has app lIed to the Washmgmn State Depamnent of
E:ology for pemussIon to drill two test wells for domesnc!mumcl'pal consumpoon, \V1m
water nghts for 4,000 gallons per mInute. The proponent tntends to turn over the
producmg "''v'ells and water nghts to the Clrv oiYel.m for mciuslen m theIr sySTem. It IS
likel\' that land for at least one storage tank \\ill be prOVIded on me Tnurston Highlands
properT}', togeilier "VIm pipe, fire hydrants, valves and pressure reducnon svste:n(s) as
requIred by SIte speClnc desIgn.
Upon approval ofrhe annexanon. the proposed UtIlICleS JIld purveyors are l1sted as follows
1
1
Se\ver'
Water-
Power
Natura! Gas:
Te!ephone:
Cable TV
City ofYelm.
Cirv ofYelm.
Power will be provIded bv Puget Sound Power and LIght.
Net Available.
Telephone will be provIded bv Yelm Telephone.
2 altemanve companIes Will pro\l.de servIce vIa fiber OptIC [mes
~
:J
4
5
6
SIG~ A TURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I
underst.and that the lead agency IS reJymg on them to make It's deCISIOn.
_.
-
Signature:
Dennis T. Su
-.-.. /
./ . -
lJ:J ( r l'-.....
___~. 1 I, ,. , ~
.'" . .I'
, \ '
'I (
)'j,.
Date Submitted:
'..' :
-, ,
...
\ - ,
111
Q' :\1. Word\E>l~"''X.DOC'.5-94
12
.
_. l'J
SUPPORTING MAPS
-'
.
I
(
j
I
U
I
..
L _
~~-
l-
r::::I\<;:::~-:'....':' \..
-/ I;t~ ). ( , '~::'~::!'~~:-/>;'ft':!;':"1"~""J~'''~''. "'-'.
I J 11,_____'.1'-__.,._ __.J.__~iliit"''''';~-...'.''''-.'... Sf. l.................... \ j
. I vel ..r<~~ /,j<'j\ \ \ ~__\ ~-...r~i.("", 0 ,o-!..; "';:- I ...
I ,r./'-/\ l~'-I_"-W ,/1 V?/'L \\ I ~ vi ----..--..::::~ ! , .'~ 01' ""'''.,1'' ,
) ( (,.0 L ,J"" \' ^ f"~-I--..;-,,\;; ~"" . .. "'.
\: (/) I r't' ,/ ./ ,I ~ t J t.."I "V .....J-:. ...: . ...,..
t \../ / c:..:1 _.,,/')..,4 0'" ~ t(~; / ,\ \ .. J r........ I . .: - ~ ' 'l.
_______-'__ / ); (//'0(/' I( (\ ' I -'f--~"""'---. .--...-- Yelm L
. . ) --__ '--.. \ / ,;Jfll ) L.-., ( \\ ( \ .......- "',
A c-I"~ c( "\ )-C-J/Ui J.JV ( (,-/ '-:'\\ 1 \ ! \...-":J""V-I".:...... '. . .;.' :"
I --. -'J I ) \ 'Y.:-:::{""--- tJ ' (-/,\ I , I ~ . >~, . ',"-.\ . Q
1/( ~~~'" ('''-7 h~(---=----\ ~ \ (I,l, ~i "~ f24\ ~")',~'...:. :>. ~".k ..~.
/ \. J.... ;1( I"l '/ r I ( \J I ( v::.y I ,.... 'io;. I' ..
/ lr-r,\r-J..'''.J/ /C,.,04J) , ))1 ,---.'_ ~'-> ,~":-' .~.o
I:~ ~ / J " '-...... (~...~ / / '- 1'-' , "" ~" '" . . ~ .. "4
, I f ./ // .......-........ I /'/-' (' \, / r' \........ :"'-- -'" ~,,- ,.:." 1:"
,--' ./ /( I '-/ /""'~\'-, \ \ ~ \.........-,\ / I ........_ \ I..r. ...:,' U
/ ' ~ 'J _ ___~, ,~ I --- r ---- , '- '.~'.. ,.
\ ~~ I I ,_~, \ / ,........, \, /1\ ' \ ,'-,,), ",'} ..... C
'\ '\, __ ~., / \.................. ..... '- / ( \ <: -. . ~ r- ,\. ..... ; ci..
, I r"" '- "==.::::-~~ r\ - '- C I " ",....--....J ,,:;;r...,~/ II \. t ,<-"))..r---, i ..
f r..J ("'" ......... '. Ir-, " \
('...._ \.._ '(--::.:~\ \ c) "',--,..-, ./ \ i ----_./<,a-...I I /-' ,U 'I
~\ ,~ '..... J/) f ) \ ,\"-....../J:..~ \ / (J I r-~./ II ",I ~ \__1
)); 1 (\\\ \ (((( {t --=~ \.../;-~ ~;::-:?--'I'r-? \ . I, \ (..,,-../ !
->p' ~ '.J\, ~)I~v!-) .---s:~/) \~\II"J ,-).
?\ \\ I ./) / t(/IVJ (. ':::::::::~8'__ \r\(-::: /, \~~~:'\ (../ I
~y 1 CI\--~':::"Y (I ), c/ fA' ""~ \\)( )) \ (\\, ,~~~\.::;;::::-= I
I df::'.... \ ...__--'~ I--'",c~ ~ - J" '-, ~ ')~, )".
! v.Jt~C)' 0) ('~@/ \ j"" (, (1.....1;:.~- ~i'/ I(_-~~~~,.j"/I
'-1- _./ (' ,\ .....~ \ ) ~'I') (r.-" \.,..-..;::::--,;:::::--===----@I
:::::::--=-ro"'l'\l../<...o/ / 7 '-.. \ 1...// )),;;....... \ \\ ~--;::;:.- 26
-(7 I L~ ,-~r 0---- i /~ /f:'-}'~Y..J((((r-=t-"::::. ) \\ f- ~
-...1/11 1 H'-/ r '-- I(t\. ~" II J ,----- ,
:-c2)( (II/:.."V 1/ (---,.... \\\\1) -.:::..// '\ '/-\\ '.....
I'(-~/\' I ~ "---~'\\ .........
\~'),1 ''''---.... ( / 11/1 1-- \ ........
1} u/I /) /' \...---) ''-''/1\1\ / l_ '--------) ""
-.......--.;,1 \,,,,-1' ((-) ~G/ "J\x\' ---~ '
:::?3~/1 ((-~0) ~.::::'/~ /,\~~, C---:=-, '"
,,\ _1---" I ' \~,' r-" "- .............. ~
\ ) \ r.:-I/~I /--.... ~ \. ~~" \ -......( //;/ -~ \\../ } "
1&1' }. / ;/ f"- r;..----" OJ "- ~\,~ '-I..-]'-../'I 1/ /(-,~",/ ~
(I'I)tV ( .//( ~"'t;-..-- ---':- \ '\\'~" / ...'".$ \ I r)))) II ~I
('/1......~' -~r~/ ~.::\)c~ ""\ ~\ \...1 ': ;::">>)ll/tj I I 'J." //1/;;/11 ,,"
)!(i ../' r~ 1..., 1 I / r"'-- ~ I 'J r /, I,r
! ( 1 ('\~CJ~;::;;"\':2'J)/ "" I/r I ~y/ I
" v-.) ,-~~lS'-- \_/ ~ ,
Source: Barghausen Consulllng Engineers, Inc,
USGS Maps I
Legend:
SECTIONS
-@
PROPOSED - - - - -
ANNEXATION AREA
~, 'L.
j
;,
,
- I
I
@
~
~///////1
O~. "I '..1 111
Iv
.---..-- _._~'~--'-'-'-' --.
[Ii
l ..
..
...
I~
;-
=..
~o
J:=
-
(J)~
<1l:ll
+-'~
(OJ
--i
u=
O~
CJ)
CJ)
<t,
~
.
~~
..
<1l!?
0-
~
o
.c
.-
~i
0:;
.,.----
I. I
'- J
I J
I I
I I
I J
I I
I
D I
n 1
~
D
n J
r 1
t
I;
L' 1
u' -I
III
..
YEGf. lMrtLtDMMUl.IlllE.S
"'""........~-
,...."....."'-
f;. \~~ \.,~ ,,~ I
......
V....II....."..,..,..."
_VI _.. ill....
VO'\,.ll....II"""
1-
/
! 1\
"" '\ / /'''j -"
.,' /
.,
",
'.""j
f"{
/~<~~.:,,~, / :::~,'.
'\-/'-"'-~
/1'/1'/1' / ,'.
_\.:...4\ .....\ " to
/\~/,_/,_/ ~ t
..'....JJ:"'..!,.....(v /'~' __._
.1,-1....._",_/" 1 "
\/..!~/~~3?~' / c,,' " ff~
'.!~:'/)~~')~':;!\r~~t:'. ~ r.~l _..\~j}]
-.("~..[\-.('-..!\-.('- ~ .~'..-!f ).~ ~
.. ,/..!\/..!.,/..!,"..!,/...!,.l1 \ : t\J
. ,_/,_/~,_.I,_r,_/, ,..
.!~' '~/.Zv.{\......!~\,'~~ ~ .j~' "- ..
,';, '; '. ' ');,<,',-':);~)" ........--:.......---...
~~ J: "j /~~,'\~.I~~;:Y .1''''
~.;..\ r .I ':1!'/..!~/!~.l (
I r;- /'-1'-"-"1 l
" --,' '....*"1'''''-'1'''' \
~ t: ~/'.)"~/::-~" \
"If f'}f',/f'/f'S::!L"f
~ \........\~....,~....\..... _n
I .-.-.-- I -~
;'
................
.
......
"
I
,
,- --
,
/
1
I.
, -~.
e _..
"
I
~::~
I~ I
~I , _...-itl~~.
. -f:fii =::\
- ==:3
- E:E::i=
r,....~':"'\ ... , ,'" . J,"""t '(""""'"""'..,..€7'::..,.~-
-'-', , '/..! ,/.!.,/_', /.!. \ ~..!\/-!\/ I\,... I\"/t.~f\'" \~/\'::~: ~
'I' ',-, '-':'-:'~.(\-'\""/'"/V-''~/~_'~r-::-''\-;-~-'''
...~:-;:~: ~_':.!.~:<.,;,<3: .!.~" ..!~/..!~/!.~<!~"!. \'!' <!., /!~,,~ ~
, I' ,,',',,"'... ,-",_I,_;",-~,.-/,-/,-I,-"-/'-/
~~:~~~/~:~'~\~\~\~'~\~~~~~~~~~~1
t ... .~"~1 <.J..:.!..._, t~"""-!!-,,,,,~~<,,,-""""'''''~''''' -(,-, '_/.)_./~
\' \/..!.,<!\/..!\/,\"~""\/,~"",,,,\,,,/~k?;iI'~)~;
-/, -"...-,"'~-"'~-"~-'~"" ~ ,..:---/~_/~, ~-....~...
. . /"'/!\"..!\"'.!~/~~/.!~;'..!\~..!\/-!~"'.!,
, ..-',-1,_/'-1,-....,-1'-...'-'
~ '"..!.~......!~"..!~/..!~"..!~/.../~<.!(,..
~ ~~,~,~,~,~,~'~
~ ,"!,.....,!, "..!' '..!\ .....!\" ..!,.,o
~ ;{'-..:,-.:,-.:,-,:,-..:'- 1
: \<!\....!.\~..!\...!\<!\...!.~~~
~ ,~,~,~,~,~,~,~
, ,'..!\''''..!\'''~,''.!\''..!\-'..!\'''J\''''
, ~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~I
: \......!\/..!,"..!,"~\'.!.\'..!,/..!\/S/
; ,...../,..I,_",_/,_I,_',_/)_...."{,_"
. ...!. \/'.!.,<.!,,,!..~/...!, "!. ,""~.L...!\".!.~"'!~"
I , .. :"-, ,-.(,,;{...,_"V..I,-....~'\."':/~/\"d,_I\..-'
r ~ ....o&I~r,"'...J~~\.,.....:\,.!P.::p..i~-:!'r
-/'-"-',-1,_/,_/,-",-',-
, '~"'...!\"..!.~<!~"'..../~/...!~"'..!,,,,..!~<!\
~/,-I,-",-/,-",-~,-,,-~,-
. 1 ~~~~~~(~~~~~/\~\~\
. ., '-(v;:.(".';:~",';:..f);.{.....-(,-,
., ,.'"
.1 ,;II' ) ,
., i
.~ :
.. 1 t~'i :
I ~
I ,S ."'. .."''''_L............... .r........_1J:
t ."VI...-.I:'
f
I
I
I
'. I
{.[:} '..~~.
Th :""
: "llli~
j.Ij.h, . i
17" - ,-
!
;
rll.........
J
c@)
~
tl'll'
'\."
,
.
'"
-...of
A..
@.1
,
,
W::EHD
---
.~.......
......v-.
~--..-'
~-
--
--~
. .,.
P
I'
..
.
2
z
g
;!
'"
..,
'!t
z
o
..
"
!
\f~
0"
P
"".-
:...
"Z
;: "
i8
2z
..0
0:0-
"..
=~
z:
...
~
..
..
. I
i'l
HI
; ,
FIl;UnE 5
(
Pierce
County
_ ___ ,CENSUS THACT BOUNDARY
I
1
L__-,.
"'-
CITY OF yaM
~Q1
t#'
..
.
.
.
.
...........
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
)
-.j
f--
,
l
~'~
J
..
-.
..
CITY OF
RAINIER
.
..,
L..-, :--..,
:.._____.-.. I
PROPOS@ ANNEXATION AREA
I
I
\..... l
'> I
-~
. :
\ 2
L~ ;
..~ ~/~ ~
'\;._.qUiJ1Iy
~ Ri"er
YElM SCHOOL DISiRICi BOUNOAR:J"J~
J
Thurston
County
:x
RAINIER SCHOOL
DISTRICT BOUNDARY
:~~~.'1"1
.-
.'
.'
..
.,
:J
oi
:J
..
:I
oj
..
:I
. oJ
:....1
R. W. Thorpe & Associates, Inc. s...m.,...... ~
Q, ~ Q 7 nd .v~nue Seat11e WI. 8' ~ lzoel .2. .:~
::,cnoOl Istrlct
Census Tract
):
.....~
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
..........
LCJ:::a
- l~"l
SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXATION
NT S.
:==- I ~
ooun~esl(N)
--
I
---...
--
. --
...- ~~ ~
, 1- ~~
-'- --.- -'
0,:" ~ L......- ..
--"" -- - ,
- _.~__.....,..,;;;;;.. . I' ~
f 1O...__1I.~.......
.-~
-
I
-
:..
.
......
... .......
_. .
.-
:-::
~~;:
'-oo>"r
Noies
I
I
II
II
II
PPIMARY CIRCULATION CORRIDORS
TOTAL 1.860 ACRES I I
II
II
All acreages dIe apprOXimate I I
r---------------
PROPO~~ENTS SCENARIO
r
t
I
I
,
--.---+-.-
i 3 3r d
---t- -
- i
LEGEND
PUBLIC
:i:20 AC
I
I~
. II
~ III
~ I;'
~I,r
I
~ c ~
: ~ ~ ctl ~
- ~
i c.. 7C
Q) c::
~
(/) Q;
::J <l:
":J
C
ctl
-...J
D RESIDEr..JTIAL
~ 975 AC
COMMf:Rrl J\l
2= 35 AC
OPEN SPACE
:i: 830 AC
ctl
::l
~
Q)
. ..;
.. "0\
0>.., C
~N 0
011;)
-- L. U
U .,
- eN
-_...... ~IO
II- I/)
::10 -
-0 C
:N Q) 0
"'- ,- ....
. - ctl
o C
0 Q.Q)
c: 2(
Q...(j)
G f Course Wetiands
Parks Buffers Steep Slopes
~
Y 1 Y 2
Potential Arterial Currloor
'"'
I
I
a: I
0 I
'-'
~ I
~
cr:
0 I
u I
~
z I
..... I
~
'..l.J
~ I
.-- I
'-'
,1-
~ I
~ I
~
z
~..:. I
llJ
r- I
4: I
en I
~ I
Q;
-J I
~ I
u.. .._ _ __
"
..
en~
Q)~ z
ro~O
.. '0 ~ ~
III
OJ: X
en W
en Z
<(~Z
i<I:
>
~i2
WU"\.-.J
:; W
(1)' >-
a. ~
~ (f)
o W
'=1~
iI
.1 ~
3:;::)
.f 0
a:;(f)
'J; ~.
^~i<'fl:: :~::i i
. i \:rJ~;:~;;-
~
;.
- -
I
::E . _
;~~Itlik;;~f~
I L
t--f.--
'-1
--- --~l
..
.i..
r',~'
- ---I
- 4~_)~:
./ ---: J""'!"-_ "
~- ,
, "
~~-
I
-~ L> i I
", ~\ N )
1, '.......~~
~--- ----t-.-------
....... ..
-~~l
\,
~
,..
~. e,.;: z: ::: :
tI.1 ;:~~
-, :'\.;;:\: ~
U ::-
..J -
- ::: >>>
E-..J ~- L..
,,~ .i.- := =~
iUAC~
IJ 1,1 e sIt
A '1/'. i 11\ I ~'e drld /1 ~(,JC o..JiL'~ r. f)t. ~rl It arll
, .- -~._.---...._.. -..