The URL can be used to link to this page

Draft EIS 11-12-1992 I .-.J -, PRELl ",ARY ~ SUBJECT TO/R7v;~'~~2. SOUTHWEST YELM :~ - j. f ANNEXATION fl LJ c c c o c DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ST A TEMEN1~ ~I x ~ j! \ \' t ;.~ \ \ f 'vV I ~ ~v ~'(, ~v \ ~0~~ 'v) ~ '~ c Ie 'C CITY OF YELlvl NOVEMBER 1992 jl IU /l U R.\V. THORPE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. n L n \ /' . .." . - --~~~-~~--~"--- f' LJ n LJ PREll INARY SU8JECl TO REV,SIOM n u r: u DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT r u for the ~ I U SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXATION I' U n U f1 LJ Prepared for the ReVIew and Comment of Citizens, Citizen Groups, and Governmental Agencies c In ComplIance With n U o The State Environmental PolIcy Act (SEP A) of 1971 Revised Code of Washington 43 21 C Chapter 197-11 Washmgton AdmmIstratlve Code and the Thurston County SEP A Ordinance NO 7889. , 11 J n U o n u o 6 .n I ' <J --.c ~~~.c. :r r LJ n LJ n \ LJ n u n I LJ n lJ n LJ Jl LJ c c I' ~ I' I U n I LJ n LJ II U n \ U r' I U Jl I U n I LJ 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: Proponent's 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. Figures 1 and 2 show the location and vicinity maps of the proposed annexation area. Alternative 3: Compact Scenario ~ The proposed mix of uses under this alternative would remain largely similar~those of the proposal. Potential land uses would be clustered to allow the same level of development on less land area thus r providing more open space and landscape buffering in the area. "_, (, , c.. o-;;..-/~ -"'. Alternative 4. The Village Scenario The proposed residential uses would decrease under this approach and additional commercial space would be provided. The overall density of uses on the site would be decrea~ 7 Proponent: Thurston Highlands Associates 1917 First Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Contact: Dennis Su (206) 443-3537 Lead Agency: City of Yelm 105 Yelm Avenue West POBox 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 Contact: Todd Stamm, Director of Community Development Phone (206) 458-3244 Authors and Principal Contributors: EIS Preparation, Land Use R.W Thorpe and Associates, Inc. 705 Second Avenue, Suite 910 Seattle, Washington 98104 Contacts: Robert W Thorpe, AlCP Jeff Buckland, Environmental Planner Phone: (206) 624-6239 c r', LJ r' LJ n U n I I U n I U n u n I , U n LJ Ii U r u n G r u c I.l) ......!.. l' U n u . Longview I' I U - FtW:-fhorpe--- & Associates, Inc. Seattle/Anchorage/Denver 0, eBUlldlr.'.. 7052ndA_ Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 624 6239 Planning .Landscape . Envlronmenlal . Economics NTS @ SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXATION Location Ma ii n i U n I LJ n U 0 0 n U fl U n U n I LJ r' I ' LJ " {, LJ [' U f\ LJ fl U n I LJ n TO TENINO U n U TO SEATTLE Pierce County ) W ~( o .-'-.-- ._________u__.. drr'KE ~kd ---'-"-FLw. Thorpe & Associates, Inc. Seatlle/Anchorage/Denver Job date 910H B' 7052ndAv.>ue Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 624 6239 . Plennlng . Landscape . Environmental . Economic. NTS ~ @ SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXATION ill Vicinity Map n U {' LJ n u n U 11 U fl LJ n U \l I U r LJ il I ' LJ il I LJ (l LJ n LJ ~ LJ n LJ n U n u 11 ~ [I I LJ Civil Engineering, Public Services Barghausen Consulting Engineers 18215 72nd Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 Contact: Dana Mower, P.E. Phone: (206) 251-6222 Transportation Skillings and Chamberlain, Inc. 5024 Lacey Blvd. S.E. Lacey, W A 98503 J_ Contact: Tom Skillings, P.E.~ Phone: (206) 491-3399 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 Water Supply, Aquifer Robinson and Noble, Inc. 5915 Orchard Street West Tacoma, W A 98467 Contact: John Noble, P.E. (206) 475-7711 iv n u n LJ n U ~ u n U r' I LJ n I LJ I u Jl ~ r' ~ n l.J n I u n u n LJ n I U 11 LJ n u n U 11 u TABLE OF CONTENTS FACT SHEET SUMMARY UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMP ACTS INTRODUCTION DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES. I. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT A AIR B WATER. 1 Surface Water 2 Groundwater / Aquifer Recharge Areas ! 3 Frequently Flooded Areas and Water AbsJrption C VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE l I I 1 12 13 16 24 27 27 33 35 37 41 41 D ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH. Noise II. BUILT ENVIRONMENT A. ENERGY B. LAND USE 1 Population Growth/Housing Demand 2 Natural Resource Lands. 3 Open Space Corridors 4 Urban Growth Area. 5 Affordable Housing C TRANSPORTATION D PUBLIC SERVICES 1 Schools 2 Police Protection 3 Fire Protection 4 Parks and Recreation. S Water Supply Systems. 6 Wastewater Facilities 7 Storm Water Drainage and Storm Collection Systems. 8 Solid Waste Collection/Recycling Systems. 9 Facility Planning and Concurrency DISTRIBUTION LIST REFERENCES APPENDICES Appendix A Water and Public Services Appendix B Wetland Report Appendix C Housing Unit Demand Study Appendix D Traffic Study 51 53 53 64 68 70 75 78 99 99 101 102 104 106 109 112 116 118 126 128 v 11 I LJ f' U r' U n U ~ u r LJ n LJ f' LJ c c c c n I I U o n i : U D n u n I I U n I U LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Acreages of Proposal and Alternatives.... 22 Table 2 Maximum Permitted Noise Levels 41 Table 3 Weighted Sound Levels and Human Response 42 Table 4 Results of Sound Measurements 44 Table 5 Observed Military Training Noise Levels 45 Table 6 Population Growth. 53 Table 7 Historic Demographic Trends 55 Table 8 Projected Demographic Trends 1990-2000 56 Table 9 Projected Demographic Trends 1990-2010 57 Table 10 Housing Unit Distribution 58 Table 11 Housing Demand Summary, Yelm Area 60 Table 12 Population Projections, Yelm Area 1990-2010 61 Table 13 Local Housing Units and Types 75 Table 14 Base Year Capacity Analysis Results 79 Table 15 Assumed Development Densities 82 Table 16 Estimated Traffic Generation 85 Table 17 Level of Service Analysis 96 Table 18 Estimated Infrastructure Costs 120 Table 19 Estimated Public Service Costs 121 Table 20 Total Estimated Costs for Infrastructure and Services 119 Table 21 Estimated Land Revenues 123 Table 22 Total Estimated Land Revenue 122 Table 23 Total Potential Revenue 124 Table 24 Millage Rate Breakdown 124 vi n u Jl U n I U Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20 Figure 21 Figure 22 Figure 23 Figure 24 Figure 25 Figure 26 Figure 27 Figure 28 Figure 29 Figure 30 fI U n I U n u n U \l I I LJ f! LJ fl U n I LJ n u fl LJ n I I U r; U n U n U n LJ (' U LIST OF FIGURES Location Map Vicinity Map SEP A Process Chart... Annexation Area Property Ownerships Soils Map Site Plan of Proposal Site Plan of Alternative 3 Site Plan of Alternative 4 Wetlands Map Noise Reading Location Map Noise Readings at Location 1 Noise Readings at Location 2 Noise Readings at Location 3 Noise Readings at Location 4 Thurston County Census Tract Map Agricultural Soils Map Existing Land Uses Annexation Area and Urban Growth Boundary 1992 Peak Hour Volumes. i i iii Recommended Transportation Program. CMS Recording Intersections Traffic Analysis Zone Site Traffic Assignment (Preferred/Compact Alternative) Site Traffic Assignment (Village Alternative) 1997 Peak Hour Volumes (Preferred/Compact Alternative) 1997 Peak Hour Volumes (Village Alternative) 2002 Peak Hour Volumes (Preferred/Compact Alternative) 2002 Peak Hour Volumes (Village Alternative) 2012 Peak Hour Volumes (Preferred/Compact Alternative) 2012 Peak Hour Volumes (Village Alternative) 15 18 19 20 21 23 29 46 47 47 48 48 62 65 71 72 80 83 84 86 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 vii C"J CJ c...J C J [.J C J c.J LJ C ] L_.J C_J L- ] c ] CJ L J L .-l L.--' 9 SUMMARY MATRIX \ IMl'ACfS OF THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES \ "OrONE~'~ENARIQ COMfArr SCENARIO YIUAGE SCEt'A"O MITIGA:n9t' ><F,A,URE' ~ fu)vironment AIR ~ WATER ~o ACTIOl:{ 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. The estimated rate of development within the proosed annexation area would not take place. Master planned drainage improvements associated with potential large scale development under the Proposal would not occur 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. 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. This alternative would have largely the same impacts as the Proposal. Impacts would be similar to the Proposal. A reduction in impervious surface and resulting runoff may occur by increasing opcn space. Some wetland areas may be avoided and a greater buffer capacity may also diminish potential water impacts. Development under this approach would generate more traffic and could result in greater vehicle emissions than the Proposal, although provisions for alternative transportation methods are intended to help reduce dependence on automobile use within the proposed annexation area. Water impacts under this scenario would not differ greatly from the Proposal. Although the development mix may change, runoff and potential discharges would be the same, as would potential impacts to wetland areas. Typical dust suppression practices such as watering exposed soils, reseeding disturbed areas and covering vehicles during construction would be followed. Vehicle emission standards are expected to help control emissions from increased traffic. Residences with woodstoves would be expected to follow State of Washington regulations applying to wood burning devices. Subsurface and surface conveyance systems would be used to handle additional water from potential ~development. Storm drainage ~f.. detention will be required to limit I ~fno pre-development i'tions. Biofiltration swales may be ~se ; preserve surface water qu ty. (Storm water retention will a so be ~' ~ to percolate water directly into the ground where ? conditions will allow treatment , ( before percolation will likely be required. Appropriate wetland setbacks would be followed. C--J LJ L_ ] C-J C J LJ C-_J [--~ C--J L-.J LJ C-J CJ c_~ c -J C-=:J [_J C-_~J C'] IMPACTS OFTIiE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES GROUNDWATER &: AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS N FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS f; NO.-AcrLON No Action would not impact the local aquifer Development would not occur at the the rate identified by the Proposal and thus would not impact these areas. PROPONENT'S SCENARIO The Proposal would result in additional demands for groundwater in the annexation area. A well system with an estimated pumping capacity 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 Proposal could also introduce new sources of pollutants that could affect the local aquifer The Proposal 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. COMPACT SCENARIO The potential impacts would be the same as those of the Proposal. ~ "., Alternative 3 would \ provide more potential \ absorption area. It wouldJ decrease overall / impervious surface and / concentrate development within the area. VILLAGE SCENARIO Alternative 4 would reduce potential development densities and thus may result in less impact on groundwater Alternative 4 would provide similar developable area as the Proposal and is expected to result in similar runoff ra tes. MmGATION MEASURES ,1 Offsite sewage treatment is n_"'" '( recommended and storage of {JP" hazardous wastes and chemicals onsile should be prohibited. ~ ~/ Fertilization 0 recreation eas should be carew goo to avoid groundwater contamination. Proposed biofiltration techniques would also be expected to help prevent potential pollutant impacts to groundwater Siltation control measures for storm drainage should be provided. Design and construction of biofiltration facilities prior to discharge of drainage water should be followed. ~~~ijft ~:t>t '1r (f\J1f'" [ J c ] C J L J CJ [ ] [ ] [ J [ ] L J L J [ ] [ J L J [ J [ .~ [ ] [ ] IMPAcrS OF THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES [_J VEGETATION &; WILDLIFE ~ NOISE NO ACTION Habitat areas would not be disturbed by the future development under the Proposal. 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 Proposal would not be introduced adjacent to existing military facilities at this time. PROPONENT'S SCENARIO 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 Proposal since it would consume more area than the alternatives. Short term impacts would result from construction and long term impacts would result from additional traffic to-and from the annexation a?ea and reside~' 1 ac tivitie';. Potential cOIl}plaints regar- ' military noi~ in'crease as a re~f new lesidents adjacent to lo/al tiJities ,/'/ -----v' -r' COMPACT SCENARIO Alternative 3 is intended to include greater buffer areas and utilize less space than the Proposal. 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 Proposal. 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 Ft. Lewis activity VILLAGE SCENARIO Alternative 4 would reduce proposed residential densities which could provide more area for open space for plant and animal use, than the Proposal. However, potential future uses within the area would still likely result in similar displacement as described by the Proposal. Less residences would reduce some noises, but commercial area would potentially have new, mostly transport related noises. MITIGA nON MEASURES Development under the Proposal !f 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. Typical noise reduction measures such as limiting hours, and requiring equipment ~~uring construCtio~ followed. Landscaping and buffer areas would help to reduce offsite noise impacts. The use of earth berms or barriers to block noise could also be employed if needed. [- -J L ] c~ ] [ -J [ -J [ -J c ] LJ [ J c. ] c ] C J [] [-J [ J C~J [ ] c ] IMP ACTS OF TIlE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES [~J Built Environment ENERGY ~ LAND USE & POPULATION GROWTHI HOUSING DEMAND NO ACTION No Action would not affect energy requiremen ts. Population growth and housing demand rates would continue to occur under No Action, but are expected to take place at a lesser level than if annexation were to occur PROPONENT'S SCENARIO Development from the proposal would result in additional energy demands within the area. Puget Power would have to build additional 12.5kV and 115 kV power lines and one to two new substations to serve the projected loads. Relocation or burial of existing Centralia Light power lines would also be needed,onsite. 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 Yelm 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. COMPACT SCENARIO Impacts on energy consumption would be largely similar to the Proposal. Alternative 3 would result in the same number of units and the same level of growth as the Proposal. Residential area would be more concentrated and potential housing types could include more multifamily units. A greater a1funt of open area aroul~:ifuture developmen could be achieved und r this approach. ~ B1 VILLAGE SCENARIO Under this approach, energy could be greater depending on the type of commercial development tha t occurs. Alternative 4 would ~. (represent an ap.!'j>xlmate 10% reduction ~roposed resi'cienfiaJ.,ynits with a corresponding decrease in population, More opportunities for potential commercial uses would be available under this alterna ti ve, MITIGA TION MEASURES Costs would be imposed on new development as required by Washington State regulations. The developer would be responsible for relocation or burial of existing power Ii nes. ~ Future deveIOpmenl'~~1 Occur in h / .... 'ad P ases over a twenty ye ~n . Market condition~2!!l(!J\(flP' determine the actual number of units provided. In addition, the Urban Area Bou 'es should be coordinate ith population pro~tions to avoid potential negat ve impacts associated with spra ing development. L~~ L_.J L_ J CJ [ ] [ ] [J CJ [ ] CJ c ] [ J [ J c ] [ ] L'J c--l CJ C-J IMPACfS OF THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES NATURAL RESOURCE LANDS VI OPEN SPACE CORRIDORS NO ACTION Existing farm uses would not be affected, and the proposed annexation area would remain under rural zoning in Thurston County 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. PJWPONENT'S SCENARIO The potential development projects identified for the Proposal would eliminate some existing agricultural use in the area. Development would eliminate use of some potentially productive agricultural soils in the area and would continue trends toward farmland reduction. The Proposal would result in additional land within the Yelm city limits. Some of this land would be developed, but approximately 830 acres may be preserved as open space or landscape buffers. As proposed, development would include golf course recreational space which would also serve some open space functions. Future development in the area would occur under city regulation and could result in opportunities to plan new open space areas. COMPACT SCENARIO The Compact scenario would concentrate future development which could result in somewhat less encoraclunent on agricultural uses than would occur under the Proposal. Alternative 3 would provide even more area than the Proposal for open space. Approximately 1200 acres of open space would result. Because it may involve use of clustering techniques it may provide added opportunities to create open areas within the overall annexa tion area. '- VILLAGE SCENARIO Alternative 4 would have much the same results as the Proposal. Alternative 4 would decrease residential densities, but would also increase potential commerdal development. This approach is also expected to result in approximately 830 acres for open space. MITIGATION MEASURES Buffer areas around the proposed annexation would help form a separation between the proposed development and current offsite agricultural uses. Significant resource lands should be identified and measures to avoid conflicts or losses should be coordinated with future development proposals within the annexation area. Open space and landscape areas. should be coordinated with offsite opportunities to form greenbelt corridors. Future development should be encouraged to provide for open space in proposed plans. cl cJ c_J \lR"U,b..N GRO~-n\ ,b..Rt:.,b.. ,b..rrORD,b..'\)l.t:. [iO\lSlNG 0' cJ c~J C~J (I '\ ~ 11 Urban area bOun1anes would rerrai I~ agreed to by '{ eltn an 1'hUl'ston County [J c] C l C-'] C J L ~~crs e'n<" f~efeS^,' ~ J\.\;r~J\.~S ~ ~~ ~ The l'roposal would result in adding additional land to the aty of'{e\t1\- \t would occur within the proPOsed urba1\ growth area for the city The k'roposed developtnent would absorb a large portion ,of the proieeted populat\on lor '{elm. bUt would t'\Ot eJ(.ceed this atnOunt. p.nne)(.3.bOn would result in tnOre area available tor housing in '{ e\tn- current deve\ok'tncnt proposalS lor tM a.r~a are not desi~ed speohca\\Y to provide aHordab\e 'housing, however, development within t'he anneJ(.ation area could result in rnil'ing more of t'he older MmeS in t'he ci'ej core available tor lower inCOme persons. ~o MbOn would leave t'he area under Thurston County guidelines and would not prov\de t'he level of additiOnal Musing O?portUni~es in '{ e\m that anne)(at\on would alloW hlternabve'3 would be largely t'he same result as the l'roposal. DevelOpment would be tnOre concentrated, allowing tor somew'hat hig'her densities, but more transition area would be gained adiacent to eJ(.isting uses. hltcrnative'3 could provide a ~i.tter,ent 'housing rl\1J(., W\t'h potentially mor~ mu\titami\Y unitS- P.ltMugh tM potential develok'ment densitieS and useS could be diHerent from the rroposal under this ak'proach. impactS to tM overall urban growth area would not differ greatlY hlternatiVe'\ would provide les~ residential Musing units than t'he l'roposa\. ~ 1'he city could encourage ~f~rdable MUSing to be provided Wlt\'l\1\ the ptol"',.d .,.,.,.liOn or'" It t<>"'d alSO require future developers to provide contributions to programs desi~ed to assist loW inCOme individualS in nnding affordable Musing. C J c~~J C J 'tRj\.:~S?OR't;. 'tlO1'l l'~UC St.R\T1.Cf.S ~ ~S sC1;\OO\.S '1 C. J C J cJ C J L J C J C J ~ 'fraU,C increases and roadways ?ro-pose<l un~er the -potential anne)(.aUon would nOt occur. A.dditiOna\ \r{\?rovement5 asSOsicates with ?otentia\ . a1\f\e)(.ation scenanos would nOt be fl'\3de. -me area would refl'\3in in -murston Count)' aJ'd \r{\?actS to '{ elm schOols would nOt occur C. J \..- - J><P"crS O,-ntl\ ...oyOSi>J. ~ "L~"~S 'J~ ~ ~~ -me ?ro-POsal would result in traffiC incr~ases wit tun the af\f\e)(.atl0n ar.ea;xy?ro)(.i fl'\3 tel)' /2,1\~?t?S;W0\1}Q be Cgenef3fed for the . p~roposal and ;..1ternaUve :. '0)' the )'ear 201'2. 4~O A.f?r~~~~ ~::~ted tr\?~he l'roPO~)' the )'ear tOr ative ;J ;..1 tern < _ 20\. 2. . .' J Fl. I :1 II \' > >I f ,Ii I"'~;'''' ~ "~~,..tJ ~~(~ ~ ?V-~ -me proposal w~u\d result in potential increases in the nurri'ocr ot \students to be served by \ . ^t\"Ie Ot)' ot '{elm. A.s (f, \Y deve\op;ncnt occurs, ) v \J'\cre3sing demand would \ result in tne need tOr , ,MlliO"'" :~ faci\itieS and . -me personnel . anne)(.ation would alSO li\r.e\)' result in a l?s: ot a portion ot tne R,\.\!'\ler SeMO\ Distric\'s . jurisdictiOn as land \s absorbed '0)' '{ c\m. p...\tCrnative:. would in\10lve tne same densi.ties and thus would result in the same potential increases. Under ;..1ternative 1\ a??ro)(.imatel)' 2:>60 tri?S would be generated over the same timetrame. ;..1tcrnative 1\ would inVo\ve a ten percent reduction in tne nuff\'oeT ot residential units and would nave a . corresponding decrease \1' potential students. ~. .' ation O?"on -me ?~rna1)' :nu";e l'to-posal would asSOC1a,ted ;:e Sou\n Site Dr\'le/SR~ be de5\gt\ . 'this would \n'loh'e 507 intefsecnon. 0. s\gna\\1..3tion. lane \m?ro'lemef\t5 an S ace tOr a {uture scnoO\ fadl\t)' \s a ?art of \he a1\f\eJUltion ?ro-POsa\' lmt><'ct de'le\o?ment fees could be ~ \0 pro';'!' ,<>' lulU'" ,a.oo' di.strict needs. C. J L J 1'OLlCr. C J rute v -'0) l' ^Rl<.S />..N'D ReCRe/>.. -r\O~ L J C. J c.J CJ CJ C J C. J C J 1.-. ~ 'the anney.ation area would not be added and nO increase to police )Urisdiction would occur NO 1\cbon would not impact dt:y services. NO 1\ction would not impact dt:y recreation service needs. n&' "OS Of Tt<E ?RO?OS"\. AI"'! ,,\.1l'1'1:!"rt'lfS v~ ~~ ~ Impacts would be tt\e same as the proposal. The proposal would increase tM demand {or police protection a~d . cans {or servlce yl\thln '{elm. It would alsO require additional ~ {ull-time oHicers and one neW patrol vehide. - --~ Similar needs would arise {rOm this alternative as thOse 01 the rroposa\. The rroposal would result in increasing the needs lor ute protection within tM dty 1\oditiOnal persOnnel and equipment could be needed. The rroposal would increase the demand lor recreation ladlities in and around '(elm. NeighbOrhOOd ~~~ cornrnunit:y laclht\es would be aHected. The rroposal would includc sOl1\C additiOnal recreatiOnal opportunitiCS. !\.\ternative:) would result in the same type o{ increased need as the rroposa\. CallS for servlce could be redUced sOn'\Cwhat, bUt tM general needs for new staff and ",ehicle would not chat\ge. AlthOugh the potential development rni1C. might change, the need to service the site would not. ~ future de....elopn'\Cnt pro~ could be designed. to include features such as lighting, and alaf1l'S to discourage crime. '\'he anney.ation proposal in~udes land for a satellite fire stabon. propertY t~ revenues would . ~""ute toWard ourcnaSC of fire con..'v J" . ......, t support ....ehicles or other eqU\?..~n . W,." ,,,;0"'" would be <0"''''''''''' within the anne1C.ation area to pro'lide adequate fire {low conditiOns. oe....elo-per contributions toward par'- and recreation irnpro....ements could be . ed ~n snace areaS shOuld be reqUlr . ....t'_r- . coordinated with offs\te area~ to ~~;?;p~ p..\ternative 1\ would pro'lide fewer residential homes and thUS could have sOmewhat lesS il1\1'act on the nee? for recreational ser....\Ces. [ 1 c ] c ] L -J c ] c ] L ] CJ [ ] [ J [ ] L,J [ J L J L .J L WATER SUPPLY SySTEMS \D WASTEWATER FACILITIES NO ACTIOJi No Action would not affect water supply for Yelm. No Action would not affect city sewage floWS. IMPACfS OFTI-IE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES pjl,OPONENT'S. SCENARIQ ~MPACT SCENARIQ Additional storage capacity would be needed as shown for the Proposal. Complete buildout of the annexation proposal would result in exceeding current water storage capacities. The required total would be approximately 2,078,000 gallons of storage. It would be necessary to build storage capacity for both standby and equalizing needs to meet . city and state .tlJ requirements. Additional ~ f{ wells may also be ?...v required to meet needs 'X within the annexation area The proposed annexation would result in increased sewage flowS within the area. Approximately 1,260,000 gallons per day would result from full buildout. This would r~uire,expansion of the ~xiSQpg;ewage _tJYtIrient plant. Wastewater impacts would be largely the same as the Proposal Y.}LLAGE SCENARlQ Impacts would be the same as the Proposal. MITIGATION MEASURES. Construct a water reservoir with a 15 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 a-inch main. Provide onsite fire hydrants and protection servires as required by city regulations. a,..J I Uf~ ",JY>~ Impacts would be similar to the Proposal. Property owners within the annexation area should fund tr comprehensive sewage pla~ for the city (j.~ Additional sewage treatment plant costs would be passed on to future development on a direct cost basis. Onsite sanitary sewer systems would be required for new development. Trunk lines would be necessary to serve each individual development. C J cJ C.-~ STORM. WAlER DRAINAG'E. S"iSlEM.S AND COl.l.'E.CnON S"is'fEM.S p..1 o cJ cJ C J ~ No Action would not require additional serV'ices. L~ L.-J C J c~J C.J L_--1 JMl' "crs Of nUl PRoroSAL,\NO ,,~TflU""~ - ~~ ~ Due to decreases in o'Vera\\ iU'lpernous surfaces under this approach, total det;.t'~o2' 'Volume requir~woUld OC) appro1dtnat~lY 2,050,000 cubic feet. Otll!;liropacts would be sitnilar to the Proposal. The proposed annexation would necessitate complete storm drainage co\\ection and con'Veyance facHities. Open water channelS, piping systetnS, catch basins and oi\lwater separator puU'lPS would be needed. AdditiOnal stonn water runoff from neW irnpenlOUs surfaces would result froU'l tl'~. /' ---- proPOsal. / MproJ(imatcl,y 3,150,000 cubic feet of detention volume would be needed. Storm drainage detention! retention systems would be needed. These could be provided in the form of surface ponds, subSurface vaults or pipeS. Existing depression! pothole! reten tion areas would be used to percolate surface water into the subsurface aquifer Bio{i\tfatiOn facilities rnay also be needed. ~ APpro1dtnately 3,750,000 cubic feet of detention volume would be needed. The need for neW improvements would be the same as the ProPOsal. ~ Drainage and con'Veyaf\ce systems would be ~ {or each neW development. surface and subsurface systems would be designed. Provide storm drainage detention in areas where a \liable downstreaU'l chaJU'el or open bOdy of water e,usts to accept additional storm drainage floW pro\lide surface retention in areas without any \liable means of surface discharge. Pro'Vide retention facUities in areas where retention does not OCCUr natura\\Y but can be created due to good soil conditions. pro'Vide de_siltation facilities to ensure that bOth retention and detention systems operate as d;:1 >~~ ~ CJ C J c~~ 501.10 Vi h5'(El Rf.C'iC"L1NG 5)'5'(f.1V\.5 fA.Cn..1'('l l'LA.!"n.HNG A.NO CONC1.l1U~f.NC)' ~ c~ C J C-] cJ c.J L~ cJ c-~ L..-l """ "crS 0' .",. ,RO,OSAL ,.,ro ,,\;r~"1:1"'5 ~~ ~ ~ lhe anne)(a lion would result in increased amounts of waste wa~r in the area. The proposal would result in approximatelY 31;31'O,1J$J poU1'\dS of new was~ ~ch year 'Landfnl capaoty \'Iould be dunirUshed by 5"10 of the current~e ~ expccta nCY..-/b- --- No ;...&on \'Iould not impact waste water levels in \he city ;...dditiOnal services would not be needed and costs associated with de\iver)' of servlces would not oeeur potential ne\'l revenue sources for 'l e\tt\ \'Iou\d not be provided DevelOpment under the proposed af\I\e)t3IiO~. \'Iould require add\t\onal sertices from the city This \'Iou\d require that lacility extcnsions or \Uflding lor such . extensions be proVldcd prior to develOpmcnt. Costs for services \'Iou\d increase, 'out revcnue {rom future dcvelOpmcnt \'Iould be expected to help oHset SOme of thcse costs. lmpac\s would be largely similar to the Proposal. potential costS {or providing new servlces \'Iou\d be \csS than thc proposal undcr this approach. Revenue generated '0)' future development is alSO eslimated to be lesS than the proposa\. ~ So\id waste levels trOm residential use would decline, however, waste le"els from additiOnal cof1'\rt\Crcia\ use could offset the o\'era\\ decrease. potential costs {or serticeS and {u\U1'e re"cnues generated by ne\'l land uses, are estimated to be greatest under this approach. ~ Waste reduction efforts shOuld be encouraged and ~ng?~ shOuld be established WlthU' the anne~tion area. Developer impact fees could. be required to help {und extens\~ns of servlces andl or paY for setV\ce impro\'ements with\n \he area. c I LJ Unavoidable Adverse Impacts n Development of the ~nnexed area would potentially increase air pollutants associated with U short term construction activity and longer term vehicle emissions from traffic using the site, as well as emissions from residences using woodstoves or fireplaces. n J ,I] U 11 U n U 1 u n I u n LJ n LJ n U '1 LJ n I LJ n LJ n J 11 J ,'1 U Jl LJ Clearing land for development may expose soil to wind and water which facilitates erosion and increases water-borne sediment.ana-contaminants. Some wetland areas will also be filled which will result in the loss of up to~fa;;:e of wetland areai '~-"- ,~~ Most of the wildlife and vegetation currently occupying undeveloped land would be displaced or destroyed when development occurs. Temporary and longer term noise increases will result from construction activity and future development. Traffic levels to and from the proposed annexation area would increase as development occurs over time Annexation and future development would result in increased demands on most public service providers now serving the area. These demands would occur in the areas of personnel, equipment and revenue required to maintain or improve existing service levels. t _ , ~s,> 12 c n U n U n U c o n LJ n LJ n u n I I LJ n I U n , I U n I i LJ [' LJ n U n I I U n U n J n u I ~ 1 .",; Z (10 J' (I 'Pltl".f' INTRODUCTION ~ H-r'rfoIt:y RAu (I. M v N The City of y~ m ~xperienc~ a number of changes associated with population growth in Thurston County Population change and migration in Thurston County are influenced by national, state and regional factors. As large numbers of immigrants arrived from the east and Europe to homestead and work in the forests, the population began to increase dramatically Population growth continued over the next several decades, but at a slower pace, for both Thurston County and the state. In the late 1940's Puget Sound counties experienced a rapid increase from the post-war industrial expansion. Population change was fairly constant for Thurston County throughout most of this period, about 20% per decade. In the 1960's, with the growth of state government and the opening of The Evergreen State College, Thurston County's population increased very rapidly Population increases during the 1960-to-1970 and 1970-to-1980 periods were 40% and 62%, respectively This by far exceeded the 29% increase in Washington State's population for the same periods. Thurston County continued to show a greater annual percentage of population gain than other neighboring counties and almost twice the state-wide growth rate between 1980 and 1990. Olympia is the largest city in Thurston County, containing 21.0% of the county's population. Lacey is the second largest city with 12.0% and Tumwater is third with 6.2% The incorporated areas have been losing their share of total population as growth in the unincorporated areas has increased in recent years. In terms of rat~of increase, Tumwater and Lacey lead the county with 4.1% and 3.3% ~ annua~lne unincorporated portion of the county was the next fastest growing area at 2.7% annually from 1980 to 1990. ,; I \ ....Ir%' ~j 19 , , ~. ,r "'Y1(J>h(J~efll/~" ~,. ef-tl.~ ~!:.~~.phics, Yelm is ;:~~cing a nur/.(:,r' 0" nAexation requests from ~roperty owners surrounding the city ~ eem:id~ ~nnex~approximately 2,000 acres southwest of the current city limits. This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) presents information concerning potential impacts that may occur from annexation and the gcncral Q@\Telopment v,/J AJli1.6r/A ~within the proposed annexation area. According to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) annexation proposals are considered "nonproject" actions under the provisions of WAC 197-11-704 (2) (b) (iv) As such, content of the EIS may be limited, and the lead agency is not required to examine every conceivable policy, implementation measure or designation, but rather should present a general discussion of potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures (WAC 197-11-442) ~ In accordance with these rules, this document provides a general review of impacts associated with the annexation proposal and various development scenarios ithin the proposed annexation area. Many of the 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA) . apply to potential growth and development within Yelm and its surroundings. The EIS includes several elements that discuss the relationship of the proposed annexation to requirements mandated by the GMA. hi thi nal sis pr vire~_ infwat~n C? how the propo an x . ected by GMA r ire nts' is ot. tended to anMfze"ilie it. ~ J rt\ ~e ~V" It is expected that develo ent within the proposed annexation area would occur in phases. Thus potential impacts could _ the time of initial construction with~the full affects of development !t(~ W.hich ilTP-€xJ3eeted lM~spread out over a number of years. Furthermore, site specific development proposals would be subject to detailed environmental review at the time such projects are presented to the city That review may include preparation O~f individual project-level environmental impact statements as specified by SEPA under WAC 197-11- (2) (a) Thus this document is part of a phased environmental review process which may involve anum r of land use actions that are expected to occur over several years. .m.!. .J -1. j _ A ;"lr~Jt.f J." /..J ,"","""" fT\ Unless otherwise noted, the potential impacts and proposed mitigation in this document refer to conceptual development scenarios as presented under the Description of the Proposal and Alternatives. 13 n , I U n I I U n J ~ I I U o n J n U n LJ c n LJ fl i I U n U n . I U n U n U o n U '1 U Jl ~ 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 the eventual scenarios of development within the annexation area. The exact nature of future development within the proposed annexation area is not fully known at this time. Future site-specific, project level environmental review will occur as development within each individual property takes place. d .enVl\,-,Jhe/iJ rcwI'iW fA"!. ;" '~ At the tiR'-e of submittal of a development p~o sal, a list of required mitigation measures -will be f'Iepa~ased on the final project specifi , and the share of mitigah!on attributed to that development. ~i5tjngO.SEP A regulations . I\!'equire the developer tq[ install all mitigation improvemeI1t~ ~attributable to the develop ent, and pay a fee for their proportionate share of ~ ~ area~rmprovements, . im rovements . . for sa' irnpro"eme~ ~/ The State Environmental Policy Act includes public participation i the environmental review process. Opportunities for public involvement are required uring the impact statement scoping process, and again 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. It should be noted that, as future project-specific proposals are received, the public may be involved in these reviews. Some projects may require a project-level environmental impact statement, at which time additional public participation would be required. fr'" J;LA ',. r.lfJjo- ftJl..lC./H e Ity of Yelm a op dinance Number 414 in August 1991 to guide the annexation process. This ordinance provides objectives and policies for consideration in potential annexation decisions. Among these guidelines are the following provisions: Evaluate all annexations on the basis of their short-term and long-term community impact. Annexations shall be consistent with Oty plans for urban densities and uses within the urban area of the City and to assure adequate financial capability of the annexed area to meet the criteria for urban areas under the Growth Management Act. As a minimum the City should analyze and evaluate the condition and safety of all streets, the availability and condition of public utilities and the demand for emergency services. The City may require the development of a plan for public transportation to serve the newly annexed area. When possible plans should be consistent with plans for Intercity Transit for public transportation in South Thurston County Annexation of land should be directly dependent upon the City's ability to provide, acquire, operate and maintain general services and utility services. Annexation will take place only after the City is satisfied that general services, utility resources and necessary utility plan capacity can be made available in a manner cost effective to the City In addition to its role in complying with the State Environmental Policy Act, the analysis in this docun;wnUs intended to help the Oty meet the goals outlined in Ordinance 414. Other documents, such as th~6'mprehensive Transportation Plan and the Sewer ~ Plant -Sbldy, also provide infordC.tion on specific elements that must be reviewed in considerin1otential annexation areas. The chart on the following page provides an overview of the SEP A an annexation process, based on currently available information from government agencies. WHt'f~,;L.. FIt"t' f,',). ~ /1"" 14 n LJ n u n Annexation Request u n u n Threshold Determination u n u n u n u n I tJ n LJ n u n I LJ n u n u n u n LJ n u n LJ n LJ Figure 3 SEPA PROCESS CHART fl LJ n LJ Il I L.J Il LJ n u '1 LJ n J n LJ n u n I u n LJ Il U n u n LJ n I LJ n LJ n I LJ n LJ II u fLcr ro'!!! DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES f)J \ ro e:-' l!J General Site Description ~) ~uthwestern Yelm annexation site is located directly to the southwest of the City of Ycl~rn unincorporated Thurston County in portions of Section 19 Range 2 East and Sections 23,24,26, and 27 of Township 17 North, Range 1 East. Most of the site is comprised of areas of once heavily vegetated forest lands that have been logged-off between eight and ten years ago Some reforestation has occurred through both natural processes and the planting of seedlings on some areas of the central and southern sections of the site. The northeastern boundary of the site is contiguous with the southwestern boundary of the City Yelrn. The northern-most boundary runs in a east - west direction and is approximately a quarter of a mile south of 93rd Avenue S.E. The site is bounded on the north by both Fort Lewis Military Reservation to the west and rural residential/agricultural lands closer to the City of Yelm to the east. The western edge of the site is bounded by a section of the Fort Lewis Military Reservation. This portion of Fort Lewis is primarily used for heavy artillery practice and general training maneuvers. The southern boundary of the annexation site is directly adjacent to agricultural and wooded-open space lands about a quarter mile north of Manke Road. The eastern boundary of the site is, for the most part, the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way (within the proposed annexation area) and the right-of- way for State Route 507 There is an area of land made up of several large parcels that front State Route 507 that are not included in the proposed annexation site area (see site ownership map, Figure 4) I.OPQgr<lp~ /1. The site contains a range of slope gradients from very steep (possibly greater than 40 percent) in the far southern and western portions of the site to relatively level through the northern portion of the site The northern portion of the site is made up mostly of large open fields used primarily in the past as livestock grazing pastures. The central and southern portions of the site are characterized by a series of I undulating mounds and ridges. There are several crater-like depressions located on the southern section of the site, including one large pothole approximately 95 feet deep The site's elevation is lowest in the far northern portion at approximately 300 feet above mean sea level and highest in the west central portion with an elevation of 575 feet above mean sea level. ~oil~ The soils of the Southwestern Yelm Annexation site exhibit a direct relationship to the underlying glacial parent material, the local climate and vegetation. Surficial soil conditions are shown in Figure 5, and are based on the Soil Conservation Map and Classification System (U.S Department of Agriculture, 1956) Thirteen different soil series were identified and mapped on the annexation site. The majority of the site is comprised of both the Alderwood series and Everett series soils. In general, these soil series have good natural drainage characteristics and are suitable to provide satisfactory foundation support, roadway placement, and utility placement, given proper geotechnical design and construction. A description of soils characteristics is provided in the Wetlands Study in Appendix B of this document. Alternative 1: No Action The proposed annexation would not occur Only those areas previously identified for "immediate annexation" in association with the proposed Yelm/Thurston County Joint Plan would be considered for annexation. Under this option, land use would remain as now zoned by Thurston County The proposal site could be developed in accordance with Thurston County Comprehensive Plan guidelines under the present zoning. Thus future development would be expected to occur consistent with existing regulations over a twenty year period. Lands reserved for rural use or preserved for environmental reasons would be assumed to remain in their current use. Forest lands would be assumed to be replanted for timber production. It is expected that this approach would result in a lower density of development than the ? 16 ~ I VlllrS"~ , n u n LJ n u n LJ fI U n U n LJ 11 U n I U n u n LJ n u n I U n I LJ n I U n I LJ n LJ n LJ n LJ s opograp other alternatives, each of which anticipates annexation and development under City of Yelm regulations. Alternative 2: Proponent's Scenario The Proposed Action is for the annexation of approximately 2,000 acres southwest of the City of Yelm. Under the Proposal, a variety of land uses could occur ." on- ro 'ect a . Environmental Pelky~WAC 197-11-7~) (iv),vThe annexation properties include.two large ownerships and a number of smaller parcels (see ownership map, Figure 4) Development plans for /;' -1'. J, these parcels are not complete, however, a mix of residential, recreational, and commercial uses are ~ 'plaRn~. Based on preliminary development concepts, approximately 4,800 to 5,000 multifamily and single family residential units could b~.'9uilt. This total is preliminary and represents a maximum build-out amount for consideration in&environmental impact statement. The proposed development would include roads, landscaping, landscape buffers and open space within the annexation area. Development around sensitive areas such as wetlands and steep slopes would be limited as much as possible. The Proposal would include development at approximately 51 residential dwelling units per acre, based on a maximum of 5,000 units developed on approximately 975 acres, as shown by the conceptual site plan. An existing facility, NisquaIly Valley Golf Course, on approximately 130 acres would ~ aile "sed t~ continue in its present use after a~xation. The exaa number of ~tef\t:i~ dwelling units in the other areas that would ~ develo t tJ:lg..fl:i~ d\i1R~ has not been determined For the purpose of analysis in this environmental impact statement it has been assumed that a portion of the . remaining annexation area would ~ 4 dwelling units per acre ~.thiS"~mtillo LUulJ I~rt~~ ," development of an additional 100-200 esidential units. Figure 6 shows a conceptual site plan for potential land uses under the ~ 1..lJ. fr,,~ \Jrwr' Alternative 3. Compact Scenario . This alternative would modify the proposed land uses to decrease the overall amount of land area to be built upon. Under this approach additional open space would be provided around environmentally sensitive areas, productive natural resource lands and adjacent to the Fort Lewis Military Reservation. This scenario envisions greater use of clustering techniques, wider buffer areas, and a general increase in open space throughout the proposed annexation area. In order to achieve a more open atmosphere while maintaining the overall number of dwelling units, the proposed residential areas would have higher densities of development, primarily in the eastern portion of the site. The potential urban area would be reduced and would result in a density of approximately 6.25 residential units per acre In this manner the Compact Alternative would include the same number of housing units, and approximately the same commercial area, while increasing open space by 170 acres. It would be expected to occur at the same rate of development as the Proposal. Land uses under this approach are shown in Figure 7 Alternative 4: Village Scenario This alternative assumes a lower density of development and a different mix of land uses than the other alternatives. This option would incorporate some features of the Compact Alternative, but would include more extensive commercial development and higher levels of on-site employment than the Proposal. Commercial lands on the site would provide additional employment opportunities and would 17 ___.egend m. Thurston Highlands Associates -. Venture Partners 'IJ)""" ...... ,', :::::: ':: ...... " . " " .......... .g]] Nisqually Valley Golf Course (C. Brown) . D D D D D D D D D Individual Ownerships (Bosequette, Doyle, S!~adman) Multiple Small Ownerships 'Barbara Soeteber ,.Mark Soeteber Carl Horsak Mary Lousie Qemens David Baker Miltem Butler Ernest Burnell Rogel' McKibben Everett Hendrickson Ronald Laughlin G.F Burgman Roy Gibson Glen Newby Theodore Foreid Jade Harmon Virgil Baker John Sherfey William Parker Lila Willu weit c. Total Acres Acre$ 1,240 ?64 115 97- 144 1,860 - ----- -- ----... --_.- ---- D I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I I I D D D D D D D D Thurston Highlands Associates o SOURCE Thurston Highlands Associates If /'7 - .- I / I.' i / /' -- II / I / / ayld Doyl B'os~quet ..< . _ en~ yt'~ .~. Q)Sl . ....... ~,,-,-, ",. ~ - u.~~_ '-" S ..- .. . '.- (JE , oJ 00 '_ I en ~ - r---~ <( I > c .0<..::::':.: I c(S ~ S (1)" ,""'-. 10- --====:=- l... o .c:. ...., 1: ~~ .1 CC; ~ _~.. M__.4j ~.' - ~ t--~ -.. ----"",- . ._".n_ .. , .. .... .-:.-:_.....-.._-----:::~. 1 ,. : .-. . . - , '\ '';' '" -.-........--.......... ._, >. ' I 1/2 -r-I! o as 1/8 1/4 .t- '---t ,~ fa~) 1 ,~~ i;~.~ . o c: - ~ C\J Cl:/ ~ C!:l 0 ~ 1:: .4; > c: III e n ...Cl .1- "8 ON cJ- lJ) ,Q.. .c lJ) .... Q.) C ~ o >. +-' .... (],) a. o .... a.. c o +-' ca X (],) C C <( z o ~ >< UJ Z Z <( ~ -1 UJ >- f- Cf) UJ ~ I f- ::J o Cf) C\J a> - ...-t (],) .... ~ I~ u. I / J c:=JCJCJCJCJCJc:::::Jc:::::Jc:::::Jc:::::JCJCJc::::Jc::::Jc:::::Jc:::::Jc::::Jc::::Jc:::::J ..~? .>. g < !! '" III ~ fIJ !! < 7i !D c: ~ ,. \it. -- cP \11 \11 ~ ~~~~~f~~~~~~~~~m~~~~ ~-=---------t-~---. i ~ ( f f I I ! f f f ~ f [ i rl f f f .. ~~ m-' if'.!.! !8~ffl~cg,cg, 1 " ~ m / I~ 3 ; I ~ ! , '9 l I ! .! ! I q' J ll.! i III I ~; r j ! ! j 8 1 ! ! J f ! g ! ! l! I I l'Jlljil~!~(IJJtfll( ~ )> L ~ 1: tf~H Hln~fH!~Hl 11 i ~ n)> 7""W 11 it t t f tt 1 n 1 Hit " m 0 ~ ~!_ tt H ~ /" ~" . I"'~" \ - ..... ;;',., 't' \ FJ \m -.'\- ~'~~-'-'l '1" :...~5' 1,1'1 'I \I , \ '""" (,..J '- c=;i'~ r _ I' , , I . \.,~ J ~L \ ~ I, , ! ",(\t,"" ") ~:-I I "I~ ~ G) 1 ; I! · i .""'" ~! ! '! ,I I .ri>::::, \..\ - m'lrot' '\ a. I m ,: I [ I,' \ ,,' "-~" i~Fr( .... '~,...~" I 1\1 ......... Ii' ,..~ . I .~~ I . I Ji~ "';" ", - m ~ ~ .- " "'.'!'.' I ~: . . I ';' '" ........ ........--~.' ,.1- : " ~ l' .; ~ ':~' , "ll m ~~ 1 \ j - '-..'tf\ m I J; i I ~~llll " ., '.' . 'i" .;// ,~_ ',:'~..'~ , kJ,,, .I X . """ 'V -; I' I I I "'l~~' _ I,. "'l-o.~' . '- .1. . , '\' "-"""'L _ '1.: "," . '-..!\ \ .,." _ ..-... II I' J ! f '" , r .",., "I'T i' }\<-~ '~'~/"',,, ~ ~,T"{, Cf) ~ -../;, I.' 2"~" :'\' t,; fi I ,to-:.~ !i' I \ I \ ,,', I;:'" ,"-. ,,~ b\ \ a. I ' '- ~I " I . , 11 i " ,........... II =1!" , " ~' -. I " ~~! I Iii ' '- . ll' "l"'':'l" I ~ .' J '~ .......~_i 1'1 id-: . , ' , , -.- - j' 'J 'I 'LJ.1J ,J '-=.'..=_---:.;.... ,.J, \' m I... G), _I "': 'I 1:,1, Tr 1 Ii' I ~ 3 l. I a. m ~"" , ' Itlllil1 .i ~~ I :!') I.' .~. [llo.;'-' J -, ...;-!/ _ I I' I ;.:1 1 I. .' : ,," ~'i ,I Y r~/I ' IJ ",I:!I 111"i': ,-1. ""-___._ ~, I m ~""""""~ ur ~ ~ I j I :', I · :':1, I I I i'l ; .. , ! ---'- ~ - -""" I I" 3 ...... .... I,.,. 'I", 'j. I' .-<' I., 0 ' --- Ii,:' I I I: I, 1 , f I ,\ - , .' , I I 'I i " -' ___ . I ,~, I I, I " ~ I... ~ _ I .: -.., I ~ I .'1 J I . , I, : I i'I': I. " I J .:/ I' ~,"' ,I, ~..., ", I.,~, I ! I . I I I '/'. f-----f'J..LJ I Ii" ,,1\ i 'I -~ II ,..., I I IIi ~.. I :". ".' ,,'! I il'; I '{7/., ;- .. I" ~ \. I I .::::... .", I, . v' t ,. I I,; ! I' I ; J' / I 'j ..' l'~ 'X ,', I , I'.! , c_.-:oH.:.o~) -I :~, 'I' ---~ -: "J ~h :~ '~i1i: ~',.. I 10.1.. I,l"., . · d/.J /', ~'. T ,,\, ! {,\, I - I I :d~ ..'il I ,~l I ! ',,1, \. i 1'/./ / --i'_ T' \1 I I I ;~:" ' . ' .... . I ~ ; . ~! I i I;;: ': I I I ,. .~o/ ~, I" I j . ; .", ,-..,'1, '.. I . ~. I, I I' I ji ! I I j, " · '::~ ' i"--~ I~ II .'1' ,.,<,'" , ~ I' ., '; I.~~ ~I" ,..'_~~ II '_'j '1'1 ~j.1 '\;{...-:. ~, .~I.11 pi" ./",," ;:'1"" I II', i. I.~~;I.'//rl r I I I I'! . (.. ' . 1 I' I" ~ I .' Ie ,~ i "1 I. I " . 1,/ I r ___ ~ '\. I' I · I I . 'I ~,I,." ,I t I!~,: : . / I . __'_1~ ! I I ,.J' : /' .~. / I · I · " i It ! II o i.; " X 'lL. I' i n 'J_r .: I /:'., . ' : "/: ;'/ IJl:&lli!~ I !l i' ,~.;~~,,' , I 0 I' 'ij' I , I, _..' , ',' ; riO", I _A;; ': "-:";,. ~:!:.--:<.' .)' - . I . - I. ; . _ .",,-,, I . \ .., '" iJ; I .~,. '. i> .(, . , , II I I.tn,,,.l; ~r. r~, ">r?l~7:.r~,~;~Jf;'i:'~~!1l.1.Ir.il' I i" :-/~/.I , II' , 1\1,;1')'1'11': I li!' ." ,~,:,"~~':~~~'1-"(~""1''j''~~~';1 .1 '. 'II ;lj~Ij)~I'" /II:T;. " .. 1 'ii . . "",' ;r,1~. "\.., '" .!' oJ " '" ."-. ) . , I r:j \I 1 ! I. ( . ... "t. ,-'r' ," - l')'r f I 1 T"" \',c" ;.," \~' . ~- ~ '~),. \, ':-~"~'I I: 'I I .' f--. ! I 'I I \ I~, '..~.' .' _....~. 1 ,I 'I ' , I r I 'i' .(,....I.:~. ,~, :"-::,'~ ~ ~ I · '1.e:lt] ; . ,Ii - :..' ill, I! I '\-.,..' : ./i:.~~~'>~~g-, "I,''i "'&:!lld I r,! i I' i " ~,::>I,,::-~ I.L "t. ; f, \.'.Am;f"\"'):Z~~ Jr~:\~,:{.!::ti' ,:,., I', il:r"m" .t....,:t:~~.:':;, l'I'l':~~'~ ':: I 1 !J1.. ! I ,or l I, __', .... iC!:-~ij~ ~"I!:"o ......" II. t:j'.... '\r.;~~'; '~'..'" fl:l. " . ,l, . . . I .' "\" ". :"",t,. v' .....,.,. ~,~ I' J , .oj!'( - ..'.00. i' I - - ~ I . ,/, , ' I; \'. ~;. ' ,II If" ~., , I I I I a.;: . ; .....',. . '. ". ." I " . It-.. I l i ..Ill \~ f1,,. ,;.. .~.c . I t &1 r I . :-rtt.';j ..1- . . · ~\ to I; to... I III j,- ,1 ,.lI1.t),~I/'~~hf.~~~.i 1'1 1" ..'"........ ...ri'jJ/!J~A ; n I ,II I I/o '."! II: ; 'If: IL;~i~; .' )':',: hi; ; I ~~i:i:,~", .!. :~~ i/ 'f / -;1q~ a- '" G) III Z CI ~ (I) (II 0'. ... - co ... - .jIo ~ ..... - I\) ~ i I \ ""'. "I ~~; I; ,I , I : 0 ,_.', J.i I' I', P.tk' ,: I ~' '-'" "\ . I i -~ J.',. _.:." . r.. '. niff." · f'Jl1L. · i I i , I 1 I I r:' : :i ! I SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXATION Land.cape Atc'::=: :"1" ~ Envlf-mal Analy." I Land Economic. N Surficial Soils I dm=J' GR job date 110192 2192 R.W. Thorpe & Associates, Inc. SeaUle/Anchorag4l/0enver 9'0 Hoge Building 705 2nd Avenue Seattle. WA 98104 (206) 624-6239 Fipgre 5 o o o o o o o o J J ] ] -lcli&1Q':'EMD -~1'~:~:;:'!.~w;~~~~ ' i:'i:;sti'~Ji!';'::"L. , ..;' ><~. rr---l,"" 'L-.J I I I OPEN SPACE 830 AC ,. - II (GOLF COURSE, WETLANDS, PARKS, I /' BUFFERS, SH:..EP SLOPES) J I PRIMARY CIRCULATION C0RRIDORS TOTAL 1 ,860 ACR:E S II II All Acreages Ar{e preliminary) ;/~I r..------~~:~~~-...t!~~~~;..'-, , ... _.,.. "-~'~:(--'?'r".f1",-'r (_'~r.-' :I J;..I', .r(r'...r:~"':"r':" i_ f/~..) ~.,~ ~"...f';"""~'.'''''I'-'\'( re, l I 'r' C': .J~:1 -;!:"' ..,~.r~~":f-~':'.;'"r ..'-'.:' : r r.:-~" H.:.... -r;"'J , . -....r'-.. ';.!:...0A';j-< "-:~'.. ("~ r' (f) I:~J~Jr ,c;;r ~O:r;~':':,~ ~f i,;J.,;'.:k;/M' , w I ~'_'JJ ,. ,,"Jc, r';" ',.. ~ , ~.((', .r.r. . i "',, ,." ..- r" ,.( . ( ..~rrtt;., rrt Z I '),j-:,J "';.#'~""'f.-..[~r'","'''''' ~.(..(!:..." ~ I. ai <:'f~f~?f~ wtff :> p.""", - ,<,;,,<:, >:.,.~ r, ,.. . ( , . ,,""'_r .., o I' ,. - -, -,,, ~ .", . a. I ~ I ~ I g I uj I ~ It c:( I' "'" .'v - I':":,-y) I- II" ....J... , ~ .j}~j {~'; 5 111;~,;';;.---, ?, a. Ll'...,"'; I I 8 ..... - SOURCE R W Thorpe and Associates, Inc /Design Team o o o o o ~ :..~:. ~ o o -[~T Note c co C\l - Gl a. > ... Q) ell (/) E ::> ~ "C <: C co ....J - co ::J - a. Q) i~11 g ~~ 0 ~ () N ,co !!~ --."'..- co (/) 0 a. 0 ... c... Z 0 - ~ >< LU Z Z <( ~ ...J 0() LU 0 Q)'" >- a. r- .... 0 C/) .c: LU t-i~ I ~~ J ~ a:~O a> C/) C\l a> -- i I~ ~ "tl ... Gl ::J ,~ ~ LL -----..... l - ..,/..-----~~)' y~'i'. / PROpOSAL < ....;. -' '__ .;>t,~~ RESIDENrrfA~ 975 AC _.,fr' 1 .",.--.;,;;..J1' I I ~5 AC I ; ,~~~ Av.,- ..NI -<4 ~ ... ..~ "- ,.i .. COMMERCIAL PUBLIC 20 AC .;. ~._-':. ._--_. . w CJ) ~ "tl a: , ~ ..&...._J.._._ .. ~ !- - ,~~ i ..; .t.:.-:.:...... '-W";- -..,-...... " -~:~..I ,__. ~=.:..::..::a::=.::::::=.=::::::. -~- '. --.t-.--,.--....., i ... , --.--,..--...-----.. ... ,,- ,; I " '- , /"'-t' "." .., '1--- - < , - ,.a." ''''--,--- ,/ , j, /1,; .....,...,........""..... "';" - ----r-r..- O~.~..~e.~stfj'8. 1/4 . .. .., 1/2 '...""''"-.----.'t..'- ---- --' .---'" . T .... 20 --------~ ~---.~ .~- --.-------- --------- -_...--- ~--~.---------- .----.- f: a^!leUJallV' UBld asn PUBl IBnlda~uo~ -l~Bdwo~ eCn-tl9 (~) JA^Uaa/.ee~J"ucr-S NOIIVX3NNV V\J13A lS3MHlnOS t0186 VM 'omlles 1fIU9^'I JNl c;oL .OUI'S9le!OOSS'f 1B adJolll .I: "j / i i ; :i/ )', i -- ! I ~ ! I ~." I ! ,I ~ J r J.' 'I -\JI , j il 1. II I, ~ .1 I: " ,; ';t I" .. 1""4 ;,N r:-. ~,,-:" -, II ; 1 ,. l \0 I I I' r T" I i I .-+ i I I I ! I I I ! , .;;\ l -:;; I I , . I I I , \ \ - ! I "d , , , r ' , ,. . . ~ f. _ .?k: I''''''''"' 0, I~ 0' .;~:; ......, ~1! ;", ~....Qj w.........~' 'h""".-,o' ? a: II) ;~:~::;:~\fu o I tJ~, ji~;SJ,1j;~ '41 <C : ' r,//' ~)~I"Y"" .~. I fs ~ ...:~~~'iQ!:..~;:' .'?.- ... >- 1.(1' :, .,:..' ".~'!''.,,", '\>,' ... . Ii: ,~ " _"':::..';. ;}V"lO..1Jl ,... ." ~" 'j.. .. . c ~ "} --~.~-"....", ~ "\~ iJ "" 1\"'"'' '~'r:J ~,,--'''''''--';~\-l'....,~:)1i'I'~),'-':-~\ ~-l) c: ",':~l'.~;.~ -;1.; . :~';:"~ ..,; ,~,,",,~"~r?i7J"'(.',;,~~'~,~". II~' .:J' ~.... ~....'<"". ~~.":..... t '"\ ,-':\~ ~ "'~. E .,..~,!..~<J?., .lli' ~....... . ,ir..~;:~~:~.:;':~I~~;"')::~~;~,~W;~~~ I ' . .; "'" I' .....' oJ :. ,., ..., ., -, r; -" ""';a..~' .~ ,~ I.:~ ,i; ... ,'. f:'-; )':1. ~:r'h""~ . .... ~ ..~~~~ ,..r - ..... ) ;J';.I ~:) ~~~~iJI -Q) .?..~~..~:f..l~-...) "'~~l~ 1..~..'. ..,i..~1 .~^~'\~ .J.:_"...~~'~"'-1.-') ,'1"':"';)'.. -:~''''JI I ...~. '..).;. . ,.' ~J ')")~, .~ ..)?.l;.J ,- ""'i,..,'r!", , ~... .of' - .....;;..~1 .~.:.F J .'1....J:...~;j-:J ... I..V'..':......Jf W'~J..."''''. ~l\-{"" ......J. .. "\ '~.",)4.;,'~''''' ......,) "'\-.... ",""",~. .....,' _":""f~'-:~ J c.. :.,:~://;~~;.~.3 ~:A ~~~). ~~.J /,;: ;~f, ,~:~i~;;.~~~~~~:~~~.~.~~~~..:~.:?-:;i~~.~,..~..;i/.~rj Il'':'-'''} "'..;...t..).....:- -'-;'''' ..1..., ~J'~~':~~....;/)~....;,;.o..: -"1~,q'~~;\~~.~_of~.f~"'1 Q) -J..,.....; .J:".,..1,).,.:.....' I ._I..J..).J....l~. ,.,~~-l;o,...~,..i~..\ ~;-'J ~""",,,'-;I.'~~~'t...;4""J"),} ,_ I "" "l'l'.i"":" .J.. ...., . ).J.... .. 1._: .iij- '~"'~-,,,.. ; ~ )...,...~- . J . ....:::tl" ... I...."...,........~,.,) j :",.ll.; ))~. },<l.,})~'_.)_.'!;.r ~.~"'l f~;... ''',..:'J') .......~...:., ~ .,..'''';......,;} '":J- ;.,.-:'1 <( I ,~~~!.~~2,~?\1)(/ 'f- J <," .l.J~~1i.1L~'ft~;:;~r/f;.~.~~::l;~;;"~~;> ~~ J~)? (/) l ~ I t ,'4",'" .,.... ~ J ~ '.~ .I ~ ",'..! I J:..o' t ~ -~ oj "'~~ :', ..... '..l - ,~ ". "":;J;;J '" or _ ..J ... .... .. .... ;1 I "I\~ ~.~~ ..I..~~~..r '1"'J ": ..... :'..J i; -1 ;;IJ J;J ).. 1 ':3"-, oJ;,,;::"~~ ('~ . ...d..J.;.1 ~'~./ : "r-~"~; oJ Q) ,~.... ",\...".J oi , ....J...J '( ~ .......c "';. ..)~.. I ~ J~.I... ... ~. f'" ;,;.- ~I ";:""'-,,')t't ..,;, <.:j~ .? ~~JI C') ~lt.")~~ ~~;-;r".J')} ),,;I~.J.)-:' <..,....~ ") ~{ ..ji.-<,: ..1;/'" r.i..7(\..J '. ) ~.~-'- ...~. )....:;.:... Ji; ~ ):"''1:.~' 1]1 - I 'l"" ."':.1." .r"~'''''J.J J;J'~"'.J:; p(.~;f:} J.'~\';:;' .-J '''P'I:''l: \" f"""'l"l.... :1.;,\' J. I;,{ ,r....J....,1....JJ)'... I .....))..\:~~..."'$~..,..>'.../1,' J....J ~--..;#.. )......,~1 Q) I ,~;;;'~J"~ 17~";'''''J~: ~):,)..)~~...~':jf.J'; ~ ~t")'~~,1\{:2~'~~':":"'~ff':~~;;l)~ :~rJ.~,i":,.;.1.; -:,oJ1' " ..... I,J~:"'''''t)'"J:''.;J' ,)J).J. .Jf..J~':" ,,:,~;.).., ....~"'.~~....;"I,~~"";.~)"'/\., :;."....~'L}'-,.,t\~"...I..-!r; fI " () ..~'~~'\~:...~:_) .;)'-f; Jf,-j: J .1!.,J.......t,:J:J~~; l;"J~.)_) tJ:.! ):(~,-;:.., 'l,."'..~~ ;~~\~..~~~~':\ .~.~~~::~.,:.. " <( II ~)".)f ~... ,)J "j,.;, '!'l'~'J)':.J ;:"'1:)'1 ~ -':J.""~.~;/..l "'" -) ~ f I \ :~..\ ~,L 1:., "'1\ ..~~~~, -,,~ \..;..~i>1 . " l")"t\'~~,,!\l~"?~'-'V:,""', '~''',''~-\'"\'''it):,.-....-,,~of''';r.,..~jO:-'.,.s..:.."\. ..,"i\;"l"'~ \ ,~,,,~'~'-. \'~'-1"~ II I ~'l ~"J.:" '0""' ..' " "'.,)' "," . 111' -" '1 ... ',,0"\.' '.. ')'")' . ..,l'i,~. .......:; ?,Y'-."l'- '\:'"'''''' ~?-J? "':.\1."i;f;w,,,:-:,')~'~':;'i' ","~'\..,-",.,-'" ~''''''~'~''\':'''c\:~':''''~'' -. - - .w."~""""".."'i""Olii.Ii'IIiIilo"'~~"_'iIoM ~'liiil,;.. _... <: ..t-..----....--------- S::JNIl C13MOd G31V'80l3C1 lV;I1N310d , i :/r '1 t, t '. I' I It I ! ! i~'i"! I " t. .' Ii .( 1.1 I ..1 ~%lh~ :.~~$f,. t~'t,~c..; "', ',I' '., ,.r',' . .. '.r- ~.~'r:('.~r"r ~:~;( r,... ( 'l)', (':"'rf.r:...J1l., '("r. .... ~,~ \(((~: "\ "t.i}~.... "'00 a: a: "en a: ia::~ 0 0':,< 0 <(00_ \.,"""~"_ en, Z o en w'O 000.._ (\J ~ g.t:( ..-..Jen..J tijo..:::> ~llio w _I-a: O 'w en - :en 0 <C' a:: en a":::> a:: >- C/)owa: z()~<C UJ~ID~ a. 0 - 0" a: ....- a.. " {:i '1, , ," {j~ }.~t.~ "<', t{!q:; C")~: ,!J .. , Uli (j1 0 ..;:' <Ci ~~. --"""':" <C. <C Cl' <C ' ,/ 0 d~' 0 ~ ~. ~ (\J t- CD. 0 't~tY;(~ <C ..J ..J a. ~ <C <C 0, t- O 0: Z a: w w () 0 ~ ..J ~ C/) ~ CO W 0 :::> Z a: 0 a.. III c:t ,~:: "1111' g ,f.. , ,., ...t t" ';t.l t .~ .j.: 'J-::. ,,~, tt ~ ~t tj " , I c\ Cl C1 CJ c=::\ ~ II II 1I '~~~ "-. , \ -, ., \ \ \ \ o CD CO ..- ..J ~ o I- E Q) >- - o >- ... () Q) - o z UJ () a: :::l o Cf:J 1I 1I 1I V1'l iI iI ~ ~ " "'l ~ I' l.J 11 LJ 11 I LJ fl LJ [ n L n ~ 11 L 11 L.J [ (I LJ n ~ 11 LJ !' U (I , LJ [l u [1 ~ [1 , u fl LJ fr'!"/~Jt~ /.trVi tiS ~ . focus on providing C0I1.IIIBITial ~tH~ gg~.'Q~mQ% offices and similar non-industrial land uses. The proposed commercial uses would ~. expected to meet the needs of on-site residents for daily and convenience goods and services, but would generally be limited to a size and type that would largely serve only these residents. The number of potential residential units would be reduced by approximately ten percent to accommodate commercial uses. This would result in an approximate density of 5.0 residential units per acre under complete site development. Potential recreational uses would remain similar to those of the other approaches. This alternative would also attempt to identify additional opportunities for non-automobile modes of transportation within the proposed land use pattern in order to be more pedestrian-oriented. Figure 8 i~es potpntiwland uses for Altern~tive 4 The table below provides a comparison of estimate acreages nder each of the scenanos. I 'l\vtS tv,1 Vjt f U't' V{e /"....tl/ Table 1. Acreages 6iPa~I.I:i~or the Proposal and Alternative Scenarios A IJ/t. I Alt. 2 Proposal Land Use JI~ tJ $1, U'llt} Residential Alt. 3 Compact Alt. 4 Village - -- -- 975 acres 35 acres 20 acres 830 acres 600 acres 40 acres 20 acres 1,200 acres 900 acres Commercial 11 0 acres 20 acres 830 acres Public Open Space Note: Acreages are approximate, based on the conceptual site plans prepared for this document. 22 ~ l-e\d asf\ , \~ \ --\- \. ! \ ! \ \ I , ~ , ; ~ , l ~ , \ \: 'I \ ~ 1..- \, f!') lC"t \ ~ , . , ". ,\ I, .\'.h\\ ~. .- 1r , \ \' \ , \ \ \ ; i ,. ~.~_.~-, , . \ \ , , \ " , . i \' \ \ , t- \ \ \ \ ;; , , , , J \ \ ~. \ ! \ '- , ., i \ '.\r \\ \ :~; t~ ~ ;):--,). :'i ,...\, \ ~ \\ I, \ l .', 'i , i ' \ \ \ \ ~. ~\. -1 c( - r- ,2;-\ W" 0\' - (/) u.1 C!- -1 c( - () C!- Ulu.l ~Q ~u:. Ou- 00 ......... "-, (/) ,,-, ,,-, a:. ,,-,':-, . .......<9 G'''-' -,,~~' "- ,,.,.,,-, .' (/),,,-"- .ce:. ,I' "- . o ~ '"-,,, ~ () () o Q.. - -z. c( c(<Ji~O 0 o Q.. - (!) o'Z o';i cO c;t)cC....J cO ...J c.f) ,...J ~ ~ Q.. ~' ~ ~l\;;;ol Ul \ . l- \~ o \.1.1, c.f) ,() ~ tJ), ~ '. ~ lce\ d)\ ", ~A':) (1';,,:>:" (/) '\R ~$"a:. _: \'-' ~ .~.,.t4 ~~~\~ 0-0 C!- O ~ 0- ~, d) ~ ?" - cO <:t' ~ o o 0'> ~ o ~ ~ ~ o C\l . , .. '=' c( u.1 ~. -1' -1 - ? ,'.r, , 1'<.;''1.., ...J c( .r-'. '0" r- ...... o s ., 0\ ..1\", ;~f :a-'~:' p:r;-' " ,r o - -1 cO ::> 0-- 't\\ - ~ o U I.." ~~ .:.\ ~t (l) ..... o Z \ol3N\Od 03NClO,3\ol ,\jlil'l310d ~ \=:J CJ CJ CJ CJ c:J CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ :'1.1;1.#"" t.~ I' i LJ I' u I' , LJ [ n ~ I' LJ I' I I U I' ~ [ n , u n l1 n L n U n u n u n LJ n LJ n LJ n u I. Natural Environment (;(/1.'1 A. Air I ~I Existing Conditions The Olympic Air Pollution Con 01 Authority (OAPCA) is responsible for regulating air quality standards within a 6-county area ncompassing Clallam, Grays Harbor, Jefferson, Mason, Pacific, and Thurston CJunties. Along with he Department of Ecology, OAPCA monitors air emissions and helps assure that pollutant levels standa~ds. 0- J 0(,;' Jl'ttkWFI f~ , The proposed annexation site is located just southwest of the populated area associated with the City of Yelm. Primary sources of air pollution within the general area are the industrial operations in Tacoma and vehicular emissions in the Yelm and Rainier areas adjacent to the proposal site. Because the site is essentially undeveloped, there are currently few sources of air emissions present. The main exception is a local dairy farm located in the northeastern portion of the area. Odors and emissions from this fa~r~a;~~t~ted.Jn the: past. 1- ~ jm~ . re made w' the Department of Ecol gy and the Olympic Air Pollution Control Authori to determine the current air quality conditio in the Yelm area. According to the DOE and OAPCA, there are no monitoring stations in the~ vicinity of the proposed annexation site. The nearest location that collects relevant data is located in Lacey at Mountain View Elementary School, and this site only moni~ors parti late matter (referred to as PMlO standards) h ~vtr";.c.S p. L~Mr EmissioI. FCC61J::> fWIlI S . n indicde f4nnual arithmetic "'~<I~ for particulate matterirom 1986 through 1990 are shown below The national and state standard for particulate matter is 50 micrograms per cubic meter L4r Particulate Matter (in micrograms per cubic meter) 1986 36 1987 37 1988 34 1989 30 1990 24 Wood burning stoves and fireplaces would be the primary contributors of new pollutants locally Smoke and particulates are the main pollutants emitted by these devices. Wood stove legislation was passed by Washington State in 1987 (under RCW 70.94.501) and later updated in 1990 and 1991 This legislation set new emission performance standards and defines allowable wood burning appliances under the new law Under this legislation new or substantially remodeled construction in urban growth areas and in areas that do not meet federal air quality standards for particulates must have non-wood heat sources after July 1, 1992 so that wood is not the sole source of adequate heat. OAPCA administers this law in the annexation area. During periods of impaired or extremely poor air quality, the Department of Ecology may establish a regional ban on all burning except for homes in which woodstoves or fireplace inserts are the sole source of heat. Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action Air quality in the immediate area of the annexation would not change significantly Emissions concerns associated with the dairy farm would continue. 24 ,'..,'1'.;'\, ! n l.J [ n ! LJ Jl I U r LJ Jl L n L I' G I' U n LJ f' i U I' ~ I' U " LJ Jl u Jl LJ n u f1 LJ J1 LJ Alternative 2: Proponent's Scenario The immediate impacts to air quality from development include short-term construction impacts which would primarily include particulates, with only a minor contribution of carbon monoxide from construction machinery The majority of properties adjoining the project on the west, and south are used as either open space (Fort Lewis Military Reservation) or agriculture; and are less affected by dust dispersion than are residential areas. There are some areas of single family development adjoining the project site; those on the east side lie in the path of prevailing summer (dry season) winds. A typical source of particulates from the construction phase would be smoke from the burning of land clearing debris. These activities, however, would not occur all at once throughout the whole site area, but would rather be spread over an expected development period of approximately twenty years. Long term impacts of development would include increased traffic and potential woodstoves/ fireplaces associated with residential development. Increased use of automobiles in the area could be a concern because of the potential for the vehicle emissions to create localized carbon monoxide (CO) problems. However, full dev~opment of the annexation area would occur over twenty years and automobiles would be subject to"'emission standards designed to limit pollutants they emit. ,fc~ In order to accurately predict the volume of wood smoke that would result from new development, assumptions need to be made about the number of units having stoves or fireplaces, the projected number in use at a given time, and the amount of time over which they are being operated. The exact number of units that would use wood stoves and fireplaces cannot be determined prior to annexation, however, it is expected that electricity would be the primary source of heat for most residences. Thus use of secondary sources is expected to be limited and should not produce significant emission amounts. Emissions would be further reduced under ~ legislation. ~ rel..4n.1 Alternative 3. Compact Scenario Sources of air quality impacts would be the same for this alternative as the Proposal, and emission levels would be expected to be the same as well. They would, however, be more concentrated due to the higher densities. Like the Proposal, this alternative would be developed or phased over a number of years. Alternative 4: Village Scenario In general, air quality impacts would be lower for this alternative due to the lower levels of residential development expected. Because this alternative is intended to encourage alternative transportation methods it is expected to have fewer vehicle emissions than the other annexation alternatives. By providing commercial areas designed to serve the immediate needs of annexation-area residences, for example, individuals would be encouraged to walk or bicycle to convenience, or neighborhood-oriented commercial/retail buildings. This alternative, like the others, would be developed or phased over a twenty year period Mitigating Measures . Watering and/or hydroseeding of the exposed soils during the construction period would limit the emission of suspended particulates and dust into the air The phasing of development itself would reduce the amount of exposed soil and dust at anyone time period. . New state and regional regulatory agency regulations controlling residential wood-burning devices, and the curtailment of use of stoves and fireplaces during air pollution episodes, would apply to residential units erected on the site and would therefore help mitigate an increase in TSP and PMI0. 25 n L.J 11 I L.J It is possible to utilize computer models for predicting increases in wood stove and fireplace emissions for potential development projects. If, after annexation, potential wood smoke pollution from a given development project appears to b~ghificant; additional air quality modeling should be required in future project-specific enviro ental reviews. "" s;," 16-1 ,.,...r rl.s If) n ~ n ~ Unavoidable Sjgnificant Adverse Impacts Additional pollutants would be introduced in the proposed annexation area as a result of traffic increases and new development. 11 LJ i' u n L.J (I I L.J n L.J rI u I' LJ n ~ n u rI u rI L.J 11 , LJ rI LJ rI LJ (i LJ 26 /' l.J ,-, l.J n LJ ,., I LJ n i U ,., l.J f1 LJ f1 I U " i u n LJ n ~ n I U n u 11 u n u n u n u n LJ Ii LJ B. Water 1. Surface Water / E" n i i A Surface Wat and Public Utilities study for the proposed annexation area was prepared by Barghausen nsulting Engineers, Inc. and the information below is from that work. The complete study is . 'n Appendix A of this document. The area within the 2,00D-acre annexation boundary is located generally directly south and west of the downtown Yelm area. The topography of the land within the boundary annexation area is generally rolling in nature with grades ranging between 0% to over 40% in a few areas. However, the average grade could be more accurately described as between 5% and 15% (percent grade defined as the number of the expressed grade in 100 feet, therefore, 15% grade is equal to 15 feet vertically in 100 feet horizontally) It is not uncommon in western Washington to find topography inside urban areas which is rolling in nature. However, the westerly 1,000 acres of the annexation are somewhat unusual. Due to a slowly receding glacier during the ice age, several potholes (enclosed drainage areas or depressions) exist within this part o~ the annexation area. Normally water quality within urban areas is a function of storm water treatment prior to discharge into major draining channels. The amount of paved surfaces or industrial pollution points which discharge directly into streams also significantly affects water quality For the easterly portion of the annexation area, these general water quality principles apply However, approximately half of the area to be annexed does not drain to an open water channel but it percolated directly into the ground via potholes. The depressions collect and pond water Water then slowly percolates into the ground and is filtered by surface and/or wetland vegetation and then is further filtered through the ground percolation process. There does not appear to be a substantial amount of pollutant discharges into these pothole areas. Water quality is a function of pollutant discharges from developed areas. These can occur in the form of farm animal waste discharge as well as oil and heavy metal run off from paved surfaces. In either case, these point discharges appear to be minimal and therefore water quality for the natural environment would be considered to be very good. Wetlands A wetlands study of the proposed annexation area was prepared by IES Associates and the following analysis is taken from that report. A complete copy of the wetlands study is included in this Qocllment ti ",,,,'/~ as Appendix B Wetlands on the site were defined 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) US Fish & Wildlife Service Wetland Classification System, Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, Cowardin and (2) the Yelm Resource Lands and Critical Areas Ordinance. Under the US Fish and Wildlife Service, there were four classes of wetlands identified. (1) Palustrine Emergent Marsh, (2) Palustrine Scrub/Shrub, (3) Palustrine Forested and (4) Riverine Lower Perennial Emergent (non-persistent) There are variations in the hydrologic regime, persistent to non- persistent emergent marsh species and the soil type within each of the Palustrine classes. The persistent wetland type on the site is seasonally flooded Palustrine Shrub/Scrub The US Fish and& Wildlife Service failed to identify any of the areas on the large southwest portion of the property as Palustrine Open Water units, indicating that the wetlands there all dry up during the summer months. Those areas which do not dry up are so heavily vegetated with either shrubs or trees that there are no open water components. Based on the on-site evaluation, some of the wetlands have been changed to Palustrine 27 r u n U n ~ n ~ n LJ n ! LJ n u n u n I LJ n LJ n u n I I LJ n LJ n u n LJ n u 11 LJ n LJ r-r u on others. f- (),. The Yelm Resource Land and Critical Areas Ordinance utilizes the four category classification systeml f There are 17 on-site wetlands and one off-site wetland that will impact or be impacted by the development of the large southwestern portion of the proposed annexation area, and an additional wetlands area, including Thompson Creek, which will be impacted by potential development of the large northeastern portion of the site. There are approximately 55 acres of wetlands on the large southwest portion of the annexation area and approximatelYJJ60 acres of wetlands on the northeast portion where Thompson Creek crosses the area. Figure 9 pr:H id~ a map of the wetland areas. There are four additional areas within the annexation proposal that have hydric indicators and may be classified as wetlands, but because of their size, (i.e, less than 10,000 square feet) none of these wetlands were classified by the US Fish and Wildlife Service or Thurston County as protected wetlands. Five of the 17 on-site wetlands were classified as Category IV wetlands under the Yelm Wetlands Classification System. All of these were either Palustrine, Scrub/Shrub or Open Water, Intermittent areas that dry up early in the spring. Seven of the wetlands are Category III Wetlands under the Yelm system. They are classified as Category III because of their size; isolation, or lack of interaction with other wetland areas, predominance of one wetland indicator species, usually Douglas spirea and the depth and duration of standing or surface water during late spring to early summer months. The remaining five wetlands, three which are located in the southeast comer of the proposed annexation site, are Category 11 Wetlands under the Yelm system. Three of the four provide high functional values, extensive wildlife habitat values and are interconnected through surface drainage with off- site wetlands. Activities associated with these three wetlands could have off-site impacts. Under the Department of Ecology Classification, there would be no Category I Wetlands on the site, since none provide habitat for endangered or threatened plant or animal species. The site has no high quality native wetland communities, which are identified as Category I or Category II quality Natural Heritage wetland sites, it does not have regionally rare wetland communities, nor are the wetlands of exceptional local significance A summary of the wetlands to include these classifications is included as Table 8, Appendix B Individual descriptions for each wetland identified are included in the complete wetlands study (Appendix B) It is estimated that the wetlands within the proposed annexation comprise less than 5 percent of the total area The majority of the wetlands are locate~ent near he defined stream corridors in the central and northern portions of the annexation area. Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action Under this alternative, annexation would not occur and the properties identified would remain in Thurston County Wetlands would be subject to provisions of Thurston County regarding sensitive environmental areas and other development regulations. Alternative 2: Proponent's Scenario Based on current storm drainage conveyance and retention/detention requirements, as well as the State of Washington Department of Ecology and State of Washington Fisheries Department biofiltration requirements, ~ClterQ11.!llit}c1.ronLpotential 'ons within the proposed annexation area ~e -anticipat~~ to be simi.lar to the natural. envir~m : La~d. use .control.s~ ~egula.tions and -imiinanees-reqwnng_Jhe deslgo_and- construction of ex enSlVe blOfIltratIon faCilIties pnor to the discharge of storm drainage from developed areas into open channels are intended to assure that water 28 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o J ] -7------______ I I I I I I I n~ I ~v J ','If , , I 0(1 # I t':::J -' L:.... # -----~.L.---- / ,,- ~ # / b~ 1/ /' ~ '1# / ~'li- ' .\ / ~ / \ / .)..,~ # / '; ./ \: 0<:- ) ___ J / / "- ~ /' . /' " ~/ ./ /' "",,~ /' ./ / / - '( ."J/y \ /' <f/ \ / ~(j # I #~ ( .sl A u ~# ~~/ I \ <j' / \ ~4 \ 0#11 . / \ q "- / / \ #13 '- ~'./ cJJ \ ~' -- --/- #12 \., , '~#3 · (O' \. . \ , / . .. # \.. l\. \.' / J "- \. . #) ~ / /- - - -- '-} . ~ ~~ ./ l ./ \ / #9 / /"---,, /__J /' ( J \. I ~'\ / _/ ) < \ -... \.. / I V ( \. , - -- #10 # ~,~ o ~~v ~O @ Not to Scale -' \ ~#6 Otn ~#8 '- ~---- Note: This map is for orientation purpOses only and is not intended for jUriSdictional or site planning purposes, A more accurate map of the wetlands can result from a Survey by a qualified land surveyor of the flagged wetland edge. - - #14 \/ .;--, ) I I I ) r- -- -" --- - --- '- -- #18 -- legend o Wetlands Property Boundary --- logging Roads #a Wetland Number - -- Thompson Creek Co ~ ~ 0> U) CI.I .... "0 :;, 0) c: u. ~ - .... ~ , >. to Ci i M tG ... 0 0 ~'" ~ ~ -Q.fri ~~ .s ~ ~ Longmire Ad ~ U) .. '0 ~ c: .... ~ c: - ~ .r:: 0 0) U .- J: c: c: 0 .... 0 U) .... '- (I) :J '- .r:: :J I- .r:: f- .. E - ~ (I) CI.I <1>gN .... CI.I 0 CO > Ii) " '_ <' CO N 0'00>0 o ~ ~ ' (I).c>C') '''' ... . v v, ,_ to 0> ~ ~ '0. --- Cl)vE~ UJ""~N Ii) 0 '-' -,... /l u 11 , LJ [ /l l.J n l.J n l.J I' ~ /l u /l , l.J Jl ~ n I U n ~ n u n LJ n u ,., u n U n u ,., u quality similar to the natural environment is maintained. In addition, the preservation of significant wetlands on portions of the annexed area as well as the incorporation of retention systems utilizing the existing pothole areas for natural biofiltration and percolation will also assure water quality similar to the natural environment for proposed future development. Impacts to each individually numbered wetland area are discussed in the complete wetlands study in Appendix B of this document. The following discussion concerns the areas where the most significant potential impacts could occur There are two areas in this portion of the proposed annexation site where significant impacts could occur to wetlands and drainage, or undisturbed climax veget . These are the southeast comer of the site and in the 40 acre inset in the center tion 23. e major drainage from off-site through the project site, starts in a wetland and properties to-the- uth and runs through Wetlands #1 and #2, where the water is isolated lying in a depression. 7 ~H ~'t The drainage way is currently culverted between Wetlands #1 and #2 on the southern-most logging road and north and east of Wetland #2 under the northern entrance logging road. Restricting the drainage through the blockage of the eastern drainage corridor would increase the depth and duration of flooding of Wetland #2 and in all probability, create a intermittent water connection between Wetlands #2, #3 and #4. This would provide an area, approximately 1,000 to 1,200 feet, by the width of the drainage way plus the width of the buffer, which could be utilized for residential or recreational development. Presently, the separation between these three wetlands is approximately 200 to 250 feet each. With a 100 foot set-back from Wetland #2 and a 50 foot set-back surrounding Wetlands #3 and #4, there would be an approximate 50 foot wide corridor between Wetlands #2 and #3 that could be utilized for recreation, road connections or some aspect that does not include permanent fill, or an increase in the potential for surface water run-off or surface water contamination. Wetland #16 is the largest wetland on the large, southwest portion of the property and the only wetland that is technically a forested wetland. The area has a steep slope along the north side that would probably preclude development without significant grading Residences could be established on the crown, backing on the forested area with the backyards being in the cut-over slope The north facing slope would require a 100 foot buffer from the edge of the forest portion of the wetland There is a small depression in the northwest corner of this wetland that is not forested This area should be filled or modified and placed back as a buffer to allow development of the northwest end of this large wetland where the slope is less severe The west end of the wetland is gradually sloped and collects surface water The drainage through the system, the shallow groundwater table and the size of the over-all wetland would prevent it from being filled and utilized on a permanent basis as a part of potential development. The road crossing coming into the property will require filling and culverting of the drainage and wetland that lies at the toe of the steep slope in the southeast corner of the property Mitigation and <l comlPend~tiohn will bel requ,ired ~Secr ,', This ag~i~, ~p~ld be incorporated into the larger forested titS wet an In t e centra portion ~~'- ~ ~ V' The proposed development scenar~-on the ~northeast portion of the property would impact two / wetland areas: (1) the shrub/scrub wetland in the southwest comer of the site; and (2) a portion of the degraded emergent marsh pond area east of Thompson Creek in the vicinity of the existing barns and residence. ~? Losses associated with the development of the small wetland in the southwest comer would be the loss of a water collection depression that dries out early in the spring. Loss of this area would not impact wetland or water dependent wildlife species since the area is not utilized by these species except possibly in the winter Due to the shrub cover and lack of surface water, this use would be extremely limited. Surface water collected in this area could be ~nto grass-lined swales or constructed detention/retention systems providing the same level bf functional water quality treatment value as exists under current conditions. ~ 30 5" 1.( ~t'6 ,.,(i '1 The loss or filling of this portipg of desynchronization alues, ~ f"~fI'Q~ however, with some innovat abitat mani ulatio . the proposed stream com or, these values io~ Yt' could be reinstated. With proper d Sl , peripheral flood detention ponds with back-flow as waters \ \. ,,< "'of recedf'would increase the biofiltration, sediment deposits that would occur with the development 0\ ~II i r1 the land and that does occur on the properties to the south that are not proposed to be modified. These 0 ') Ii) types of structures could increase water quality in the stream as well as meter~water back through the stream, thereby regulating the water level drop within the stream after each rain effect in the spring. ? l;v{fAT " n ~~ The loss of the wel depression and intermittent pond along the east sje of Thompson Creek would eliminate highly degraded emergent marsh area that has the pktential of providing some biofiltration, flood desynchronization, and nutrient out-take. Removal of the cattle from the area with the filling of these wetlands could be considered to be a positi e impact to the overall water quality to Thompson Creek, adjacent wetlands to Thompson Creek do stream from this area, and at times, in the flume from Thompson Creek into the Nisqually River R oval of the cattle would also decrease contamination of groundwater which . shallow-water wells in the immediate vicinity It would remove causes of violation notices from the Department of Agriculture, Public Health Department and Washington Department of Ecology, for groundwater, surface water and Thompson Creek contamination. 1 ? u II LJ II i LJ [1 I LJ n u II LJ n I LJ n LJ Overall, the removal of cattle, the reduction of slurry/manure mix onto the grass meadows, with the proposed wetland corridor, would increase water quality values throughout this portion of the property There will be a net loss in wetlands unless the area is mi.tigated on another portion of the overall property , \~ d)' (If Ht . n ! l.J n Alternative 3: Compact Scenario Impacts would be largely similar to those for potential development under the Proposal. Surface water runoff, drainage and biofiltration improvements would be similar to those proposed for developed sites in the proposed annexation area under Alternative 2. Some reduction in impervious surface may result in a slight reduction of runoff levels. Possible wetland impacts may be avoided where less land is used to achieve the proposed development. LJ n LJ [1 U Alternative 4. Village Scenario Surface water impacts would be similar to those of the Proposal. A lower density of residential development would reduce potential surface water runoff and development adjacent to wetland areas, but increased commercial use may also encroach on some wetland areas. n LJ Mitigating Measures Water quality mitigation will be required for any development within the annexed area. Mitigation will include the design and construction of the following' ~ Ad"Jlt sh1'w-tih-. slrJr"f<. ;#1"'Ci? · Subsurface and/or surface conveyance systems. Open water channel/ditches will be the preferred mitigation alternative wherever possible. n LJ " LJ . Storm drainage detention will be required in order to limit the post-development release rate for storm water to that of the pre-developed site Storm detention facilities in the form of surface, storage ponds, and/or subsurface storage vaults or pipes, will be required. 1'1 u " . Biofiltration in the form of biofiltration swales and/or other mechanical biofiltration facilities will be required to assure water quality. Water quality will be preserved and will be similar in character to the natural environment. , LJ n u ~ " 31 u ~a~ fl u n I U . Storm water retention will be encouraged in order to percolate storm water directly into the ground whenever soil conditions will allow In addition to the biofiltration requirements will be effectively filtered through several layers of surface soils prior to entering the ground water system. fl U . A wetlands mitigation plan could be prepared for potential development projects that could have impacts on wetlands within the proposed annexation area. I' U yJ fl Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 'I~ r ~ ~ Clearing land for development may expose soil to wind and water which .facititates erosion Aand increases water-borne sediment and contaminants. Some wetland areas will also be filled which could !' result in a loss of wetlands. These losses are expected to total less than one acre in area. I LJ n i LJ n i l.J fl l.J fl LJ n LJ [' LJ n u ,., LJ ,., LJ n u 11 LJ ,., u n 32 LJ n u [l u [l I U n LJ n u n LJ n u n LJ n ; u n LJ n \ LJ n , LJ n u n u n LJ n u n i U n u n LJ 2. Groundwater/Aquifer Recharge Areas Existing Conditions The annexation area is part of a much larger system, mostly within the Fort Lewis area, which is a primary recharge area for groundwater, but not directly used. Two groundwater areas have been identified, the Till/Morainal Upland and the Yelm Outwash Prairie. The Till/Morainal Upland area includes the annexation area. The Till/Morainal Upland is on high ground, central to the proposed 1frO)eChrrea. It receives total recharge from l~~al rain, there appears to be no surface runoff and, all ~alling on this terrain enters an aquifer t system. Thus current water quality is expected to be excellent. The groundwater on the Till/Morainal Upland all originates as rainfall, and includes a total recharge area of at least fifteen square miles. In this area all surplus precipitation, ~ove that~ evapotranspiration, infiltrates to the underlying aquifers. Discharge dif:€ctioaJ r~ radial, dramage'i1\t toward Eaton Creek to the north, the Deschutes River to the south and west, and the Nisqually River to the east. Annual net recharge is estimated at 30 inches which over 15 square miles, totals 24,000 acre feet per year, averaging 33 cubic feet per second or 15,000 gallons per minute. Natural discharge from the eastern part of the Till/Morainal Upland, in which the annexation area is located, flows eastward to join eastern aquifers which in turn flow to the Nisqually River The surplus and uppermost part of the underflow springs out to form Thompso~..Creek, also tributary to the Nisqually River Fartherb~~~! is Yelm Creek, and farther east yet are"spiings to the Nisqually River, the major nearb~spring~ Crystal Springs. The mean annual flow, averaged over the past five years, within the Nisqually River near Yelm, is approximately 1100 cubic feet per second according to the United States Geological Survey, as confirmed October 1992. \, ' ' 'L.~"" \ L~f~;: 1'3'(1) Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action vr},4h No annexation would occur and development within the roposed annexation area would not take place . . at i " . Rural development mayor may not occur, however, the rate and extent of such development would likely be less than under the annexation proposal, and thus is expected to have little impact on groundwater conditions. ~/{. ,_~7 Alternative 2: Proponent's Scenario ./i..,,:,Jr v' Since the nearest public water source for the ea is from Yelm's municipal wells, which are presumed to be insufficient to meet the proposed d ew supplies from wells in the area would be needed. Surface geology, an Iffil su surface geolo indicates that a sufficient supply of groundwater would be available. Drilling an es mg would be required before permanent plans for a water system could be made. A network or field of€or more wells~uld be desirable to serve domestic units, such as fro~ 500 gallons per minute wells. For irrigation of potential recreation facilities, sprinkling zones of 2500 gallons per minute are desirable. Where storage ponds are utilized, a constant supply of about 400 gallons per minute during a 4 month irrigation season typically meets the need This water would likely be drawn from the same aquifer as the domestic supply The developed ~ should ideally utilize a well system with a pumping capacity of 2300 to 4400 gallons per minute, the range depending on availability of irrigation pond storage. These quantities are essentially peak day requirements and actual draw from the resource is expected~ less. The total average use for domestic and recreational uses combined would be approximatel 70 gallons per minute (1.6 cubic feet per second) Three wells with pre-existing water rights are within e proposed ~? 33 rl u 11 LJ 11 U n i LJ 11 ~ I' U 11 LJ I' lJ I LJ I' LJ n u I' I LJ 11 LJ rl u n u n u rl LJ rl u rl LJ annexation area. Examination of water certificates for these wells indicated that water depth varied between 150 and 275 feet. Average pump rates varied between 60 gallons per minute to 250 gallons per minute. Future project-specific studies would be needed to determine the adequacy of existing wells to serve possible development proposals. Impacts on groundwater quality could result from plant fertilizer, especially nitrates. Since nitrate loading can be harmful to the aquifer, it is assumed that all domestic sewage would be treated offsite and there will be minimal addition of any chemicals which would be harmful to drinking water Other potential pollutants, such as road salts, unused hydrocarbons, and miscellaneous solutes, are expected to be diluted to insignificant quantities by the major amount of natural recharge, estimated at 30 inches per year The groundwater withdrawal and consumption of approximately 1.6 cubic feet per second would ultimately reduce the flow of the Nisqually River by essentially the same amount, minus any returned through sewage system outfalls to the river However, the overall flow impact is expected to be insignificant relative to the mean average flow of the Nisqually River identified above. Alternative 3: Compact Scenario Potential development under this approach would be the same as for the Proposal. The rate and density of this development is expected to have groundwater and aquifer impacts similar to the Proposal. Alternative 4: Village Scenario This approach would result in an overall lower density than considered for the Proposal and Alternative 3. Impacts would be similar in that additional consumption and pollutant sources would be introduced in the area, however, proportionately lower quantities w~y~ be involved. f( ,,)4 tI Ji 1'i wr Mitigat Measures e~i rf · Domestic Sewa.ge sho~ld not be~ithin t . proposed. annexation area. Offsite treatment and dIsposal IS recommend~~~se e City of Yell1' nas secured a NPDES permit from the Department of Ecology to discharge a ximum of 2.crCFS into the Nisqually River sewage treatment facilities (aside from the . already identified by the City), would require a new NPDES permit. Such a permit would be very difficult to obtain and it is more cost effective to pump or flow by gravity ~w,~~j from the annexation'1o the proposed City of Yelm sewage treatment plant. ~~. ~ Bulk storage of hYdrOCarbo;~~~ chemicals, as well as home heating oil tanks and use~~~c~o/" as gas stations should be .. to protect aquifer recharge. Any application for .Li:ghV. A industrial use should be careful processed for storage plans. (ft~ tf\. . . Lawn and plant fertilization within the proposed annexation area should be managed 6ttffil:icntly enoy~to avoid excessive over-fertilization which could cause adverse impacts to underlying groundwater i stllh AC!fv V& ~ tr- a,~.) A meJ w~ F ~It.. <f".tS' ~t~Ls ,. 34 rr u rr u fI u fI I LJ II i LJ n LJ II u II u II LJ n u II LJ n LJ n LJ rr u fI u II LJ n I u n u rr u 3. Frequently Flooded Areas and Water Absorption ? ;v1~r, Existing conditions Frequently flooded areas of the proposed annexation include property located directly west of the Nisqually Valley Golf Course. In addition, in portion of the southeast corner of the annexation is also subject to periodic flooding. These areas provide substantial water absorption and accommodate storm drainage run off from other portions of the annexation area as well as other off-site areas not to be annexed as part of this proposal. Generally, the bottom of the potholes tend to be wet in nature and under current state law some may be classified as wetlands. There are several potholes located within the proposed annexation area. These potholes vary in size. Many potholes are less than 100 feet in diameter and have less than 10 feet of depth. However, a few potholes are in excess of 500 feet in diameter and more than 40 feet deep. The character of each pothole also varies considerably Many of the potholes have vegetation removed entirely and some have just begun a second growth of timber and have been overgrown by significant vegetation. Only a few of the potholes have undisturbed vegetation. In addition, some of the pothole bottoms appear to remain dry during ~l months of the year Others appear to impoun~pond water in their bottom to varying periodi~epths. Some have permanent wetlands located at their bottom. Those with permanent wetlands, will likely remain in an undisturbed state and would therefore, be afforded the protection required permanent wetlands. This mayor may not include utilizing the bottom of the potholes with wetlands for storm drainage detention, but only as authorized by the City of Yelm. If the City requires that no detention facilities be constructed within these potholes, then storm drainage/retention facilities will be constructed elsewhere on the site as needed Potholes which do not include wetlands also may be used for storm drainage detention/retention as per City requirements. Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action Annexation would not occur and the area would remain in Thurston County Potential impacts associated with future development would be subject to county regulations. Alternative 2: Proponent's Scenario Development would generally increase the total amount of runoff This occurs because the increase in impervious surface area generally associated with development produces higher storm water runoff rates. Additional storm drainage volume results from constructing roadways and/or rooftops, driveway, gravel areas, etc., normally associated with development. The post-development runoff rate will be limited to that of the pre-developed site. In addition, water quality will be assured by utilizing several methods of water treatment including biofiltration. ~J?VV I/}-ftOIk However, a u~it!g~table i!!iPact of any development is the overall increase of net runoff from a site due to the increase in hard surfaces. Assuming that water quality and runoff rates, however, are maintained to mimic the natural environment the additional storm drainage water can in some instances actually be a benefit to certain wetland areas and frequently flooded areas. By adding additional storm drainage to these areas the natural condition will be enhanced. (1",1 Q ~lId - 'IV l' I . Alternative 3: Compact Scenario This alternative would reduce the total area of residential development from approximately 975 acres (the proposal) to approximately 600 acres. In addition, the developed areas would be concentrated toward the easterly portion of the annexation area with substantially more open space being left on the westerly most portion of the proposed annexation area. As a result, the storm drainage impacts to the existing drainages and potholes located within the westerly 20 percent (approximately) of the annexation area, would remain relatively undisturbed. 35 I' U n u n LJ n l1 n u n u n LJ n u n u n u n L.J n u n LJ n u n u n LJ n u n LJ n u The relative density of single-family residential development would remain approximately the same under alternative No.3 as the proposal those areas to be developed. Therefore, the storm drainage impacts within these areas would be approximately equivalent. For instance, the amount of total r; impervious area would be approximately 40 percent less for Alternative No.3 than the Proposal. On a .--" growth basis, there would be approximately 40 percent less residential impervious surface under Alternative 3 than the Proposal. The reduction in storffiwater impacts would, be proportionally reduced. Co ercial area s cified under ative 3 is proxim 40 acres. TheAmmercial area associated with th ro a s approxim y ac s. Tpere e, t ~ wptlld 'no.vb~ significant differ ce' he stormwater impacts between the P po I and itive-NO. 3. Alternative 4: Village Scenario The amount of residential development within Alte 've No.4 is approximately 900 acres. Storm drainage impacts would be approximatelij 10 pe nt higher as a result, assuming the same overall density's per acre. This wuuld b~ ly-t~ nce the proposed residential developments would approximately evenly disbursed throughout the entire area. Commercial and office area for Alternative 4 would be 110 acres. There would be approximately three times the amount of commercial development within the proposed annexation area under this alternative relative to the Proposal. Because commercial development incorporates a substantially greater percentage of impervious surface construction than does single-family residential development, there would be a substantially greater impact within the developed commercial areas of the site. Under alternative No 4, approximately 75 acres of residential development (as compared with the proposal) would be converted into commercial development and distributed in the central portion of the annexation area. Therefore, the potholes and storm drainage corridors would receive 2 to 3 times the storm drainage volume than the Proposal. However, these storm drainage impacts can be mitigated through the use of larger detention/retention facilities. Mitigating Measures tff/7 · Rr.Qvid/siltation control measures for storm drainage entering frequently flooded areas to insure that siltation does not occur This requirement could be satisfied through the use of oil/water/siltation separators in all conveyance storm drainage systems. . Design and construction of biofiltration facilities prior to discharge into discharge of storm drainage water into frequently flooded areas. Biofiltration facilities act as a natural digestive system on heavy metals and silt. 36 n LJ 11 U C Vegetation and Wildlife n u 11 L !' I U r' ~ 11 LJ I' LJ I' I I U I' u n LJ 11 LJ !"I u n LJ n I U n u n LJ n u n u Existing Conditions Ge~et~ A variety of vegetation types are present within the proposed annexation area. Much of the site has been logged in the past, but a large portion has been replanted with Douglas fir which is a dominant tree in the area. Other tree species include black cottonwood, red alder, western red cedar, and Oregon ash. Common understory vegetation observed included red elderberry, osoberry, red-flowering currant and some vine maple, salal, salmonberry and mahonia. Ground covers noted included false lily of the valley, solomon seal, piggyback, and bleeding heart in some areas. In addition to trees and shrubs, a variety of grasses are evident. These include orchard grass, quack grass, velvet grass, cat's ear, English plantain, sweet vernal grass, and sour dock. A partial list of plants as well as a detailed description of vegetation in the area has been included in Appendix B / ~ this document. The greatest variation of vegetation on the site occurs in the depressions around wet pockets; however, even these are limited in species diversity The large central wetland area has a shrub border of Douglas spirea, four willow species, ninebark, osoberry and red elderberry The center core, or deepest part of the wetland, varies with portions being dominated by cattail and hard stem bulrush while the remainder is dominated by dense stands of Douglas spirea. There are open pockets of water in the pond, however, because of logging wood debris, emergent vegetation is limited. What does exist, consists of slough sedge, water parsley, buttercup and smartweed with scattered reed canarygrass. Salmonberry and Douglas spirea are the dominant shrubs extending from the east end of this large wetland in the drainage-way, to the east property line. The shrubs are growing under a young black cottonwood stand with some trees as much as 6 inches in diameter There are eight depressions on the site that are principally circular, intermittently-flooded water holes surrounded by a willow mix with an inner border of Douglas spirea and/or salmonberry Douglas spirea is most prevalent in areas that were not as well shaded prior to logging with the salmonberry being present in those depressions where there is evidence that Douglas fir provided good shade cover Border willows are predominantly with Scouler's willow and Sitka willow in varying elevations surrounding the water with Pacific willow and heart-leaf willow in the deeper water areas. Where there was a steep incline into the depression, the willows were usually dominated by two species, the Sitka willow at the edge and Pacific willow in the deeper water areas. The edges surrounding these depressions have varying grass stands. Those areas that are close to logging roads have more grasses than those which were surrounded by Douglas fir prior to logging. Again, the dominant grass was orchard grass with quack grass, sweet vernal grass and some velvet grass growing in patches along disturbed areas next to the roads or log handling areas. .~ ~f animal species also use the area. wildlife use of the site has been significantly altered by the logging operation. The surrounding unlogged areas, particularly those properties o~ Fort Lewis, continue to provide the necessary habitat to support big game species which utilize,s' this area for movement, migration and feeding. The regrowth of young plants and the invasion of a variety of forest and new young shrubs has provided additional food for browsing species, which probably were not as prevalent prior to logging as they are under existing conditions. The entire area is crisscrossed with animal trails. The stum s, dead logs and snags have bee orked a variety of birds and what ?:ars t be mammal u Skulls, bone fragments, and deposit r horns, which have been gnawed, in lcat redators and small mammals. ? fh f31,h t' Ad' ? 37 11 LJ 11 u II LJ 11 ~ II I LJ II I LJ n LJ 11 , LJ I' LJ 11 i l.J II LJ Il LJ [I LJ Il LJ Il LJ n LJ 11 LJ 11 LJ Il LJ Black tail deer were the most prominent large mammals using the area. Small mammals noted included voles, meadow mice, white tail deer mice long-tail weasel and shrews. Predators included coyote, raccoon, striped skunk and red fox. Opossum, chickaree and some mountain beaver were also ~~ ? Many bird species inhabit lttilize Qr iRhaJ'the area. Bir~~ti~ a~so been modified by the logging activities that have occurred on the site during the past 10 to 15 years. The lost forest canopy has changed the emphasis of bird use from deep forested, upland species, to a mix of open grass/shrub species. Bluebird boxes have been placed around the site in an effort to increase mountain bluebird ~. , which was historically present on the high plains in this area. Dominan~n the site were mall meadow type species including grasshopper sparrows, swallows, white ~en-crowned rrows and juncos. Red-shafted flicker, pileated woodpecker and' owny woodpeckers are using the forested areas along the east side and the 40 acre tract' Section . These species overlap and use the forested area surrounding the site on the Fort Lewis pro and in the open forest pastures to the east. ~ yo/M ::If Red-tailed hawk, marsh hawk and sharp-shinned hawk were observed ~nting the site. There is evidence of great-horned owl use in the large, unlogged, forested wetlan~-The use appeared to be in the northeastern comer in the large black cottonwood and cedar area. Waterfowl, including mallard, pintail, teal and gadwall,were observed using the open water pockets and forested ponds throughout the site. Wood ducks were observed in the brushy, forested wetlands in the southwest comer of the site, in the wooded wetland areas east of the site and in the open pasture wetland habitats. An off-site open pond and the pasture area to the east also supported widgeon, scaup, red-breasted and hooded mergansers and Canada geese. This is an enhanced wetland area that has been turned into a deeper water pond with grass emergent marsh buffers. Great blue heron were observed hunting the areas surrounding the large emergent marsh wetland in the southwest comer where there was evidence of a n rogs. They were also hunting a small drainage ditch in the 40 acre parcel in the center of Section 23 Common garter snake and western terrestrial garter snake were observed in varying locations throughout the site. The wet pond areas, particularly in the southern half of Section 26, in the wetland in the southwest comer of the site and in the 40 acre parcel in the center of Section 23, had high concentrations of Pacific tree frogs and red-legged frogs. Bull frogs were identified in the large, wooded wetland along the south property line, which extends off the site to the south into a heavily forested wetland with a human-made modified pond. Because of the time of the year and the duration and detail of the wildlife studies, no efforts were made to identify salamanders or other aquatic species that might be present in the larger forested wetlands along the south property line, in the southwest comer or in the large unlogged forested area in the center of Section 26. It is anticipated, because of the log downfall, that there should be a good variety and relatively high numbers of bog type salamanders, which are common to western Washin ton. ~ Bir utilization f the area next to the large southwestern portion of the propose warb ers, ro In, Swainson's thrush towhee, chickadee, bushtit and pine siskins. Bir u has been modified by the extensive pasturing, the change in vegetation to a mixed native/non-natIve mix, and the irrigation with the manure slurry The tall grasses in the two northern pastures attracts a variety of grass nesting species such as Savannah sparrow and western meadowlark. The grass pastures in conjunction with the oak woods provides habitat for western bluebirds and Lazuli bunting. The oak tree/alder habitat attracts hardwood users such as warblers, bushtits, and vireos. Wilson's, orange- crowned and Audubon's warblers were seen or heard in the less disturbed portions of these woods. The Douglas fir stands had robin, Swainson's thrush, towhee, chickadee, bushtit and pine siskins. Taller trees at the edges of meadows were used as hunting perches foe red-tailed hawk. Marsh hawk were hunting the larger nongrazed pasture areas. The forested mix coupled with open meadows and cattle feeding areas create an insect community that attracts insect-eating crevice, hole and deciduous 38 n LJ n LJ I' I U f' ~ r' ~ Jl L I' l.J c n ~ n ~ I' I l.J Il , I l.J I' I U [1 L n ~ [ n I LJ n I ~ Il , ~ woods nesting species. Flycatchers, kingbirds, tree swallow, violet green swallow,titmice and others were observed in the mixed woods and flying feeding forays over the pasture areas. Cowbirds, brewers blackbirds and starlings concentrated in and around the feedlot areas. Ruffed grouse, valley quail and ring-necked pheasants were seen or heard in the forested areas and protected areas at the edge of the pastures. During the winter, waterfowl use the creek and pond area in the east pasture below the barns. During this time the water is high and less contaminated, attracting dabbling species such as mallard, pintail and teal. There was no evidence of wood ducks or other crevice or hole nesting waterfowl. Great blue heron hunt the creek because of the abundance of aquatic life. They have also been observed with snakes and mice. Green heron may use the northern portion of the creek, however, they usually desire clearer running water than occurs on the site. The only fish identified in the area are those in Thompson Creek. Washington Department of Fisheries lists coho salmon as probable but not certain in the stream. Small unidentified fingerlings were observed north of the site but not in the reach through the proposed annexation area. A partial list of animals is included in Appendix B of this document. Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action Annexation would not occur as proposed and vegetation dn wildlife habitat would not be disturbed by the proposed activities. The potential annexation properties would remain in Thurston County and development of the area would be subject to County regulations. --- A' P /J7 /""jt? ad. Alternative 2: Proponent's Scenario Each of the development alternatives would alter existing vegetation and wildlife habitat. Potential . #L (1.1 development under the proposal would eliminate much of the native vegetation. Wildlife use of the ~ ./ site would also be likely to diminish, especially among species that prefer little human activity /' Where wildlife or plant species utilize wetlands, any development that results in impacts to wetland areas can also be expected to have an effect on these species. Landscaping and open space areas are intended to provide some habitat for native species but potential development would likely result in an overall reduction in the types and amounts of species within the proposed annexation area. Alternative 3: Compact Scenario Impacts would be similar to the proposal except that larger open space buffers and landscaping components would be included. These areas could result in preserving more habitat for native species and allow somewhat more use by local wildlife. Ips~ ht~ ~~~ Alternative 4: Village Scenario Development would still be expected to eliminate or displace some plant and animal species within the annexation area. A reduction in the size, or the potential changes in uses of the proposed development, would not result in preserving significant amounts of wildlife or vegetation habitat within the proposed annexation area. It is possible that this alternative might result in an overall lower density of use within the area, however, the benefits to plant and animal species would not likely be great. Mitigating Measures Landscaping, open space and buffers would provide some remaining habitat for wildlife and vegetation within the proposed annexation area. Native vegetation could be used wherever possible in, and around, potential development areas. If undeveloped areas could be linked to offsite areas of a similar nature, potential wildlife corridors could be established. Protection and/or buffering of significant wetland areas to avoid human activity would allow a greater opportunity for plants and animals to continue to use the area. 39 n I LJ n ~ Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Most of the wildlife and vegetation currently occupying undeveloped land would be displaced or II destroyed when development occurs. U n u r' I LJ n I LJ n I LJ II , l.J II LJ Il , LJ r' LJ n LJ ,., LJ n LJ n u n LJ n LJ II Li n 40 LJ I' L.J r l.J I' , l.J n ~ I' , LJ n I ~ I' ~ I' ~ I' I LJ I' I i LJ /l I ~ /l I LJ I' , l.J I' I LJ /l U I' , l.J I' , I LJ n LJ I' u D. Environmental Health Noise ~ Existing Conditions ~ Noise impacts and eir effects on humans are determined by a variety of variable including, how loud the noi ~, the tual source, and the frequencies of the noise. Time of day: whether the-sou~is~/Ji...I expect IV , nd duration are also important in determining impacts. J;2u.1:atiOh of n6ies ID1:l5t--alse ~ €eftSi.df>rprl along with noise le'!els wRen e'\1altlating the effects of noisc on peapl~ To simplify estimates of duration, fluctuating sound is usually measured as an average sound level. The average sound level may be defined as the level of steady sound that would produce acoustical energy equivalent to the fluctuating noise over a given time period. Thus, varying noise levels are described in terms of the equivalent constant decibel level, also called the average sound level, and expressed as (Leq) Table 3 provides common sound levels and the typical human response to those levels. Sound sources throughout most of the annexation area are rural to residential in character, produced from light residential activity and natural sounds. The Washington State Administrative Code (Chapter 173-60) establishes limits on the levels and duration of noises crossing property boundaries. Permissible sound levels depend on land use of the source and receiving property Table 2 below illustrates the limits by both the source and receiver of the noise. Table 2. Maximum Permitted Noise Levels Jd-(~ /~j ,Ii/' Noise Source / Receiving Prope~/ _,......- Residential~ Commercial IndustnalY Residential~ Commercial Industrial~ 57 dBA <e-- 60 ~65 60 dBjJ. c:- 65 ~70 55 dBA ~57 &-60 >t-Generahzed Use DeSIgnatIOns tor N01:>e Abatement Purpo~ /It ~ >T Between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am the noise limitations of the foregoing table~ reduced by 10 dBA for receiving properties within residential areas. At any hour of the day or night the applicable noise limitations in the aforementioned provisions may be exceeded for any receiving property by no more than. 5 dBA for a total of 15 minutes in anyone hour period, or 10 dBA for a total of 5 minutes in anyone hour period, or 15 dBA for a total of 1-1/2 minutes in anyone hour period, . ~ No construction, excavation, hauling or removal of fill ~ permitted before the hour of 9:00 am on Saturday or Sunday Among other provisions the following are exempt from the County's noise regulations except during the hours between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am: 1 Sounds originating from temporary construction sites as a result of construction activity 2 Sounds created by motor vehicles when regulated by Chapter 173-62 WAC. 3 Sounds created by motor vehicles licensed or unlicensed when operated off public highways except when such sounds are received in residential areas. 41 ,., u ,., LJ n Table 3 Weighted Sound Levels and Human Response u Sound Source dBA Res nse Criteria ,., 150 u n Carrier Deck Jet Operation - 140 Painfully loud LJ - 130 Limit Amplified Speech ,., Jet Takeoff (200 feet) /Discotheque - 120 u Maximum Vocal Effort ,., Auto Horn (3 feet) Riveting Machine - 110 u n Jet Takeoff (2,000 feet) Shout (0.5 feet) -- 00 LJ n NY Subway Station Heavy Truck (50 feet) - 90 Very Annoying Hearing Damage (8 hours) LJ Pneumatic DriJI (50 feet) - 80 Annoying n LJ Freight Train (50 feet) Freeway Traffic (50 feet) -70 Telephone Use Difficult Intrusive n Air Conditioning Unit (20 feet) - 60 LJ Light Auto Traffic (50 feet) - 50 Quiet n u Li ving room Bedroom - 40 ,., LJ Library Soft Whisper (15 feet) - 30 Very quiet ,., Broadcasting Studio -20 LJ - 10 ,., - 0 u .. Typical A - Weighted sound levels taken with a sound-level meter and expressed as decibels on the scale. The "A" scale approximates the frequency response of the human ear ,., u " Source: U.S. Council on Environmental Quality 1970 \ LJ [l LJ ~ n LJ 42 r-"1 LJ r-"1 LJ ,., LJ ,., u ,., LJ n LJ ,., LJ ,., LJ n LJ n LJ n LJ ,., LJ ,., LJ ,., LJ ,., LJ n LJ n LJ n LJ '1 u 1 r;f The primary sources of ncjise currently affecting the site and the surrounding area are those of traffic on State Routes 507 and 51(1). However, military maneuvers from Fort Lewis Military Reservation also create intermittent nOi~1 at; timet.' The sources of noise originating on the Fort include, but are not limited to: jet aircraft noise, helicopter noise, machine gun fire, and heavy artillery practice. According to Major Lu~ ke from the Fort, maneuvers can occur approximately two to six days at a time and at all hours of the day McChord Air Force Base in Pierce County is also a contributing source of noise for the site. Planes frequently fly directly over the site on approach to or departure from the Air Force Base. The main two types of noise from the Fort are discussed below Aircraft Fort Lewis and McChord Air Force Base participated in a Joint Land Use Study to identify measures that would allow military installations to be more compatible with local development. The study includes information on noise from both aircraft and other military operations at these locations. The primary source of aircraft noise around Fort Lewis comes from helicopters. Since fixed-wing aircraft operations are li~and the airfield at Fort Lewis is located in the middle of the Fort property, noise levels of 6~r greater do not extend onto civilian land. Thus impacts from aircraft are generally limited to ~ndom fly-overs of large aircraft or helicopter sounds from flights entering or leaving the Fort. \7 Artillery Fort Lewis is involved in a variety of exercises that includes firing and detonation of artillery These activities can produce noise, concussion effects, and vibration. This has lead to conflicts with residential land use in the area. Artillery noise differs from aircraft noise in that complaints associated with artillery are likely to occur from a single event or series of events. Aircraft noise usually generates complaints from consistent noise exposure over a long period of time. The Fort Lewis Installation Compatible Use Zone (ICUZ) Study (issued February,28, 1992) contains the goal of maintaining good relationships with surrounding communities. The Fort maintains a record of noise complaints from artillery and small arms fire Between January and September, 1991, 27 complaints related to artillery operations were recorded Of this total 16 originated from Thurston County and 11 from Pierce County All but one were from areas adjacent to Fort Lewis. Similar data for 1992 indicates an increase in complaints received, but a similar distribution rate for the area of complaint. A total of 53 complaints were received from January 1992 through August 20, 1992. There were 16 from Pierce County and 37 from Thurston County Within Thurston County, 31 complaints originated in Olympia and 6 were from Yelm. The Joint Land Use Study indicates that areas around Olympia and Lacey and those around Yelm are probably equally affected by artillery noise It suggests that fewer complaints originate from Yelm since local residents are used to military noises, whereas the Olympia/Lacey area has more newcomers who are unfamiliar with these disturbances. Military Training Mission Noise Levels Military training missions are held approximately 100 times during any given ~ ar and take place during both day and night hours. Noise produced by artillery and small arms f e during a military training mission at Fort Lewis was recorded on the 7th of October 1992. A locatio near the center of the site on a ridge facing the north was chosen to record noise levels. Test firing a to be taking place at a location approximately 7 miles to the northeast of the annexation area. A Mine Safety Appliance noise level meter was calibrated and set to level "C" [db(C)] The c-weighted sound level network provides a more accurate measure of high amplitude, low frequency impulsive noise. The low frequency component of noise can cause buildings and windows to shake and rattle. This is an important ingredient in a person's perception of the annoyance from blast activities. 43 [1 u 11 LJ n u 11 I u 11 , u 11 ~ 11 u n u n l.J [' G n I lJ n u n LJ n u n u n LJ n I LJ 11 , LJ n LJ A background noise level of approximately 53 db(C) was established during a period when artillery firing was not taking place. Over a period of approximately three hours there were 15 recorded heavy artillery firings that had decibel levels between 85 and 92 db(c) Machine gun and small arms fire was recorded at approximately 54 to 65 db(C), and was audible during most of the periods between large artillery blasts. Part of this military training mission involved the use of helicopters, large transport planes and jet fighters. Some of these flights were observed to occur directly over the proposed annexation area and had decibel levels in the range of 63 to 70 db(c) See Table 5 for the time, recorded noise levels and types of noise events observed while on the proposed annexation area. Army planners have developed land use compatibility guidelines based on "Day-Night Average Sound Levels (C-DNL) These are intended to assist local governments in zoning and planning around Army installations. Average noise levels of above C-DNL in an area are considered to be "severe and unacceptable for sensitive land uses." It is important to note that the above recorded measurements represent peak levels for a single event and are not an average noise level over any period of time. If the observed noise events were to be averaged using the same method that was used to determine the Army's compatibility guidelines, the average for these events is estimated to be below the acceptable standards (as determined by the Army) for sensitive land uses. '7 ~? JaM . Farming and logging activity in the area seems to generate a greater proportion of truck traffic on local roads which can result in comparatively higher noise levels than automobiles. The highest recorded sample received during the noise data gathering was from a logging truck using compression brakes on State Route 507 directly adjacent to George Road. ~p~ -- Noise readings were taken at four separate locations on and around the site, please see the Noise Reading Location Map (Figure 10) included in this section. Location number one was near the current site access point on George Road, about 200 feet west of the highway Two internal locations were chosen to establish present background noise levels on the site as it exists prior to any development. A fourth location near the northern boundary of the annexation on Berry Road was chosen to establish a relationship between the existing land uses to the north of the site and the existing uses currently on the site at this location. A Mine Safety Appliance sound level meter, type II , was used for monitoring. At all locations, with the exception of number one, the windscreen baffle was used The sound level meter was calibrated before and after each set of measurements. Measurements were taken for a duration of approximately ten minutes at each location, with a reading recorded once every minute. The readings, by location are shown in the figures below, and summarized in Table 4 which follows. Table 4. Summary of Results of Sound Measurements (in dBA) Lcx:ation Highest (L10) Lowest CL90) Median (50) #1 (George Rd. & SR 507) 65 52 57.9 #2 (on site, south portion) 41 37 39 #3 (on site, north portion) 57 38 41.6 ? G @ #4 (Berry Valley Rd & Dairy Farm) 39 Noise measurements were taken for L10, L50 and L90 levels, where the L10 represents the highest noise levels that occur 10 percent of the time, the L50 represents the median noise level, and the L90 represents background noise in the absence of local noise events. Noise Levels recorded for the annexation area are typical of rural and residential land uses, primarily originating from automobiles, trucks, aircraft and residential activities. 44 r--1 LJ r--1 U Table 5. Observed Military Training Noise Levels (10/7/92) 11 TIme. EYmt Noise Level- db(C) u 9:20 AM Machine Gun and Small Arms 57 n Fire LJ 9:35 AM Heavy Artillery Fire 90 n u 9'48 AM Heavy Artillery Fire 83 (2 rounds) 85 n 10:10 AM Machine Gun Fire 56 u 10:12 AM Helicopter 65 r-l U 10:15 AM Hea vy Artillery Fire 90 r-l LJ 10:18 AM Helicopter 73 r--1 10:30 AM Heavy Artillery Fire 85 (2 rounds) 85 LJ 10:43 AM Heavy Artillery Fire 87 r--1 (2 rounds) 90 u 10:49 AM Heavy Artillery Fire 83 r--1 (2 rounds) 85 u 10:55 AM Fighter Jets (A-6's) 63 r-l 11:04 AM Heavy Artillery Fire 92 u 11 :06 AM Heavy Artillery Fire 91 r--1 (4 rounds) 91 u 91 90 r-l 11 14 AM Heavy Artillery Fire 85 u 11 11.34 AM Heavy Artillery Fire 82 u 11:55 AM Machine Gun and Small Arms 58 Fire r-l LJ 11 LJ r-l U r-l 45 u SUOlleOOl 6u!pea~ as!ON NOIIVX3NNV v.Jl3A lS3MHlnOS o L aJn6!::1 Icu."n (90l) Ja^uaO/.e.~ 10m-ItS ~86 '1M' Of u-os ,)fltJO^" P\Jl liOL ' , .OUI 'S8Je!OOSSV ~ adJOllJ. I ! II JI I '. ; t /r I I J.' 'I -,.. r \J I i I I ~ i i I I I ! i ! I ! I : - -- I I I' I I ! I " , " .. :::'. . 1 I , I l . , I !; Ii :! II : . ! i.._ . . !, 1. i _:: ( I " ? ft - ... I .., i j },.\f) l i z~:f-i ! '.., I ,.\I;...r;~;r'1: : - I , ~ 1 I j I 1 , J , \ I .. i I I / I '1 I I ~ ~ . I .,./.. I 1 I ._J '1 , II I, . i', I ! I II I ! I i I I -t-. I I Iii / ------- I l. I i , . I . ! c:! 0 +-' \ " !(O \ I ; () !O -I I : I I' I ; ,,,~ ...., \ '/" ": i , , , , , . 1 r 1'1" / , , , I , ? , ...... , ' , ",. " /,' "'. '~",' !'~ ;', '" ~,~ . ~ , ~,J, \ " '" r", i I I I il \ .1 , 1'1 , j -I I, f h Ii , " , i . : .. i I~i Ii ~I! ,r" : i'l i -I i i ~. \~ \ ''\ \ \ \ , ~ I I '~!i " . I . , 't. I o \. +-' ~C") o -I \ ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L_______________~_~_~ c: o ~C'I o ~ I I I I I I I I I . I I I I I I I I C\I al CD C\I .., U E. vi Q), +'""~ ~,1 ()." 0' C1) C1) <( all Q) a. ... 0 .s:: ... w ~ u a: a: ::> 0 U'J CJc=:Jc=:JCJCJCJCJCJCJCJCJCJCJ CJ c:=J CJ CJ c:::J c:::J rI LJ n LJ n LJ 70 '"' ca .c 60 't:I ..... It) 50 Q) .c 40 u Q) C 30 20 ~~~~f~mm~f I :::::::::::::::::~: :::::::::::::::::::: ~~~tt~~~~~@~ :::::;:;:::;:::;:::: l'II,:':'I:'i:"':il 55 57 57 n u .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ::::::~::::::::::::: ..................... :::;:::::::;:;:::;:;: .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. [l LJ ,--, LJ ::E 0- ::E 0- C\I ::E 0- o ..- ..- rI C\I C\I C\I u Figure 11. 65 55 1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIil I 68 60 52 54 56 1::llllil:I'i::,i':, ~~~mf~jjrm ~:1:~IjJij:~~~ff~ ~~tmm~mr .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: 1:11:1:11:::::11:1:1 ::E 0- M C\I j~~~~~~~~~~~~~jjjj~~ I :::::::::::::::::::: f~J~~t~t 11111111111111111111 :::::::::::::::::::: ~:~:~:~:~:;:1:~:~:~: .I~~~f}f~ : ~: ~:~ :~~~:j:j:1 j~jf f ::::::;:;:::::::::::: I 1111.:.il'III'I'I.111 .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ;.:.:.:.:.;.;.;.;.;.; :11:::IIIII:I:ill:::1 ::E 0- v ::E 0- ,..... ::E 0- m ::E 0- co C\I ::E 0- Il) C\I ::E 0- w C\I C\I C\I C\I Time Il Noise Reading Location #1 George Road and State Route 507 70 III .c 60 't:I ..... VI 50 40 39 39 40 41 39 39 C1) 38 38 .c 40 u Q) c 30 20 ::E ::E ::E ::E ::E ::E ::E ::E ::E ::E 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0 ..- C\I M v Il) W ,..... co m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '? '? M M M M M M M M M M Time Noise Reading Location #2 Southern Portion of Site u n LJ n u n LJ n LJ ,--, u Il LJ n u rI LJ ,--, LJ n LJ n LJ Figure 12. 47 '\. \ " I' U n i LJ I' Figure 13. LJ LJ 70 - ca .a 60 "C - Ul 50 CI) 40 .a 40 () CI) c 30 20 ~ 0- 0 ~ M 57 I' I , LJ 38 38 n n ::::;::::::::::::::::: u .... ~ M ~ 0- C\l ~ M ~ 0- M ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- '<I' Il) CD r-- co m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M M M M M M Time n LJ ~ 0- n I U Noise Reading Location #3 Northern Portion of Site n LJ n u Figure 14. 70 - ca .a 60 "C Ul 50 45 44 46 45 43 CI) .a 40 () CI) C 30 20 :::!: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :::!: ~ 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- Il) CD r-- co m 0 .... C\l M '<I' ~ ~ C\l C\l C\l '<I' '<I' '<I' '<I' '<I' '<I' '<I' '<I' '<I' '<I' Time Noise Reading Location #4 Berry Valley Road and Dairy Farm n I u n LJ I' , u n , LJ n Li /l I U n LJ 11 I LJ n 48 , l.J . . \ ,~~(, 11 LJ 11 LJ 11 , i u (l < LJ [' LJ n U n , I U r' I LJ I' I ~ [1 ~ 11 I I U n LJ (l , ~ 11 LJ (l I u (l i LJ 11 LJ Jl LJ \ l.J Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action Under this alternative, the noise levels for the site and surrounding areas would continue to stay as they are with very little change anticipated in the immediate future. Future development on site would be expected to be consistent with the existing zoning regulations, and the noise that results from this potential future development would be consistent with current noises. Alternative 2: Proponent's Scenario Noise levels associated with the Proposal are dependent on the extent of development that occurs after annexation. There will be short term impacts from construction equipment and activities related to the development of the site. Based on preliminary development concepts, approximately 4,800 to 5,000 multifamily and single family residential units could be built. This total is preliminary and represents a maximum build-out amount for consideration in the environmental impact statement. The proposed development would include roads, landscaping, landscape buffers and open space within the annexation area. Development around sensitive areas such as wetlands and steep slopes would be limited as much as possible. The long term noise impacts would be those associated with automobiles and typical residential activities. Site specific development proposals would be subject to detailed environmental review at the time such projects are presented to the city That review may include project-level environmental impact statements that could include additional noise impact analysis as specified by SEPA under WAC 197- 11-704 (2) (a) Alternative 3: Compact Scenario This alternative would modify the proposed land uses to lower the area to be built upon. Under this approach additional open space would be provided around environmentally sensitive areas, productive natural resource lands and adjacent to the Fort Lewis Military Reservation. Proposed residential areas would have higher densities of development. Under this alternative there would be more intensive uses of urban space resulting in increased noise levels. The noise levels associated with the development of this alternative would be typical of middle to high density single family residential developments. This alternative would also include greater areas of open space, resulting in areas of decreased noise levels closer to Fort Lewis. Alternative 4: Village Scenario This option would incorporate some features of the Compact Alternative but would include more extensive commercial development and higher levels of on-site employment than the Proposal Commercial lands on the site would provide additional employment opportunities and would focus on providing commercial and government offices and similar non-industrial land uses. Noise levels and impacts associated with this alternative would be consistent with mixed residential and commercial activities. Primary sources of noise would be automobiles and activities associated with commercial and residential land uses. This alternative allows for additional non-automobile modes of transportation, potentially lowering the impacts from automobile noises. Mitigating Measures Sounds from noise sources may be reduced by distance and/or barriers between the source and potential receivers. Generally, a reduction of 6 to 9 dBA may be achieved for each doubling of the distance from a point source (such as mechanical or construction equipment), and a reduction of 3 to 4.5 dBA for each doubling of distance from a line source (such as street traffic) Topographic or human related barriers may also be used to absorb and reduce sounds. Earth berms, trees, acoustical tiles and other 49 n I l.J Il I U manufactured barriers may help reduce or block noise levels. Atmospheric absorption of sound may also become significant at distances greater than 1000 feet. n LJ Short term impacts associated with construction could be reduced through the following measures: r ~ . Equipment to be used on the site should have noise reduction devices such as exhaust mufflers, shrouds, engine covers, etc. and these devices should be regularly inspected and maintained; r l.J . Operating hours for construction equipment could be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Friday; n . The need for quiet equipment could be specified, for example, requiring hydraulic jackhammers instead of louder pneumatic (air powered) units; LJ . Construction equipment should be located as far as possible from sensitive areas and site boundaries; Il u . Scheduling construction to avoid concurrent operation of the loudest equipment and/or to allow the noisiest operations to coincide with the highest ambient noise levels. n ~ Long term impacts could be reduced as follows: . Landscaping with trees and shrubs could be utilized to help absorb noise from the site; /l \ LJ . Acoustical design measures could be implemented for buildings associated with loud, or potential high noise level, uses, /l , I U · Earth berms or barriers could be used where necessary to block the progression of noise. r l.J nvialAvr 1m Temporary and longer term noise increases will result from construction activity, traffic and future development. , f[qe~tl'~ ~J::y ~ P("Gi'~,f} )1tft';J /hil/fl) ~ \ p~~ W~ I ",if",?, ~ I\. n LJ n , I U r u /l LJ n u Il LJ n i U r' U 50 f" LJ II u f" U I' LJ II l.J n u f" I U n , I U II LJ f' I LJ n u f" , LJ II u II u II u II LJ n U n LJ n u II. BUILT ENVIRONMENT A. ENERGY Existing Conditions Electric power would provide the primary energy source for the proposed project. The site is currently served by Puget Sound Power and Light Company (Puget Power). According to information received from Puget Power, there are no current facilities in the proposed annexation area. Puget Power does have facilities on the perimeter of the proposal in the form of underground and aerial electrical lines. The current demand for electrical services in southwest Yelm has been relatively low, due to current land use and the proximity of Fort Lewis in that area. Centralia Light Department does not provide service to Yelm, however, Centralia does own and operate a high voltage transmission line that runs along a 150 foot wide right-of-way almost diagonally through section 27 of the proposed annexation area. That line transports the electrical energy produced at Centralia's hydroelectric facility along the Nisqually River northwest of Yelm, to the City of Centralia in Lewis County That right-of-way must be accessible at all times for maintenance by Centralia crews. No permanent structure, tall trees or other obstructions, that in any way would threaten the line or prevent, or inhibit Centralia's crews from constructing operating or maintaining that line is allowed. Washington Natural Gas has indicated that gas is available within its entire service area which includes the annexation area. Generally, new development would be required to pay for the extension of services to a site. If enough new customers were to be provided at a given time, however, extension of services could be provided at no cost. Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action No changes to the provision of current electrical utility services would occur Alternative 2: Proponent's Scenario The annexation itself will have no affect on Puget Power's facilities, but the development of land in this area will have a significant impact on their facilities. If development occurs as planned, Puget Power will be required to upgrade and construct additional 12.5 kV and 115 kV lines and construct one new substation to serve the projected load. Utilization of alternative energy sources such as natural gas and solar energy make it difficult to predict the exact demands for energy, however, due to the size of the proposed development a second substation would likely be needed to serve the area at full buildout. Puget Power estimates demands for its services at approximately 8kw per single family residence and 4 kw per multi-family living unit. Commercial load estimates are made on a case-by-case basis. These estimated loads are affected by several factors including the following: Availability of natural gas, size of homes, apartment sizes, and types of heating and water heater systems utilized within the proposed development. The high-voltage transmission line that is owned and operated by Centralia Light Department is proposed~e relocated in all of the three development alternatives. This line is a 69,000 volt grounded ~ system. Relocation of the line would involve the acquisition of a new 150' wide right-of- way with s ilar restrictions, engineering and construction of approximately two miles of new transmission line, a shutdown of Centralia's hydroelectric plant while the old line is cut over to the new one and the removal of the old section of line. 51 11 LJ 11 u fI u n u I' ~ n ~ [ n , , LJ I' , U f1 LJ f' I LJ n LJ n I LJ n u 11 LJ 11 u 11 u n LJ f' u If for any reason relocation of the power line would not ~,uAderg<.,.ojurial may also be considered. However, according to Centralia officials it would be very costly to bury because of its size and the difficulty of servicing it in the future. Once placed underground, the cost of special repair equipment, plus the additional down time required to make any repairs (as compared to overhead lines) would also be quite expensive, especially when lost generation time is considered. In addition, a 150 foot right-of-way would be required on the site and no permanent structures could be placed within this area. This option should be explored more fully at the time a specific project is proposed on the site Alternative 3: Compact Scenario Energy consumption and impacts to the utility providers would be similar to those of the proposed annexation scenario. Relocation or burial of the high voltage power lines would still be necessary to achieve the desired land uses and densities under this alternative and Alternative 4. Alternative 4: Village Scenario Residential energy demand would be reduced but commercial demand would be greater Specific energy consumption levels would depend on the types of commercial development proposed within the annexation area. Mitigating Measures Puget Power does not have impact fees, but costs would be imposed as dictated in the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Tariffs which are in effect at the time of development. All costs of relocating the high-voltage power line that is owned and operated by Centrali<,i Light Department would need to be paid for by the developer Energy conservation measures should be promoted for both business and residential uses within the proposed annexation area. The City could require potential developers to provide conservation information to new residents, and energy efficient designs and building materials could be encouraged. 52 n u n LJ n LJ n u n u n u n ! LJ ,n LJ i' , I LJ n ! u n u n u n LJ n LJ n u n LJ n u n u n u B. LAND USE 1. Population Growth/Housing Demand 'J J J. j,t;Y Existing Conditions =~ Information presented here is derive from a Housing Unit Demand stud~repared by Mundy and Associates. The complete study is i Appendix C of this document.lIlnurston County has been one of the state's fastest growing locations in the past decade. Between 1980 and 1990 the county grew at almost twice the state-wide growth rate. While most of the previous population growth occurred in the larger incorporated areas of Olympia, Lacey and Tumwater, the unincorporated area has been increasing its share of population as growth during recent years. While the City of Yelm grew slowly during the 1980s, the unincorporated Yelm-Rainier area experienced relatively strong growth, increasing its share of total housing units from 5.1 % to 5.6% of the county A number of population forecasts have been made for Thurston County The Washington Office of Financial Management and Thurston County Regional Planning Council have prepared forecasts, as shown in the table below In addition to these studies, projections from Mundy and Associates were prepared for this document. Population information discussed here includes material from each of these sources and the complete text of the report from Mundy and Associates is included in the appendix of this document. Growth in Washington State during the 1980s was concentrated in the state's western metropolitan counties, especially in its largest metropolitan area, the Seattle-Tacoma SMSA. King, Snohomish and Pierce Counties accounted for 62% of the persons added to the state's population between 1980 and 1990, compared to only 36% in the previous decade. Table 6, below, shows population growth from 1980 to 1990 in the state's five fastest growing counties which make up the Puget Sound Corridor These five counties accounted for 74% of the state's population growth since 1980 A total of 493,399 people were added to the five-county region during the 10-year period. Table 6. Population Growth Puget Sound's Fastest Growing Counties 1980-1990 1980-1990 Change 1989-1990 County 1980 1990 Number Ann.Cmpd.% Number King 1,269,898 1,482,800 212,902 16% 36,800 Pierce 485,667 574,500 88,833 17% 13 ,600 Snohomish 337,720 450,200 112,480 29% 19,800 Ki tsa p 147,152 188,800 41,648 2.5% 7,300 Thurston 124,264 161,800 37,536 27% 6,700 Total Region 2,364,701 2,858,100 493,399 19% 84,200 Washington Total 4,132,353 4,798,100 665,747 1.5% Region as % of State 57.2% 59.6% 741% Iii Housing demand f01' Thurston County is based on the assumption that new housing units will need to be added to the stock as the economy of the area grows. Economic growth is measured in terms of employment. Therefore, an analysis is made of the relationship between employment and population, 53 !l LJ !l LJ n LJ n u n L.J n LJ n LJ n LJ n LJ r' u n u n u n LJ n u n u !l u n u n L.J n LJ and population and housing. This analysis is shown in Table 7 (Historic Demographic Trends, Thurston County) and Tables 8 and 9 (Projected Demographic Trends, Thurston County) Thurston County has been producing housing in the 1,600 dwelling-per-year range. In 1990, over 2,700 housing units were constructed. The forecast shown in Tables 8 and 9 is a demand forecast. It reflects what the area should be producing, rather than what it is producing. Therefore, the model could be labeled as "idealistic" in the sense that it reflects the quantity of housing which should be constructed / to adequately provide for households in Thurston County Housing demand is forecast to average 1,673 units per year from 1990 to 2000, ranging from a high of 2,780 in 1990 to a low of 1,449 in 1992. f~ ~/) h6t.t \ r r Table 10, (Housing Unit Distribution, Thurston County), shows that Olympia, the largest jurisdiction in Thurston County, is losing its share of total dwelling units, having accounted for 24.8% of the total in 1980 and dropping to 23.7% in 1990. Lacey has maintained its share of county housing at 11.5% The Lacey Environs, on the other hand, increased from 20.2% in 1980 to 21.0% in 1990. Tumwater increased its share from 5.8% in 1980 to 6.7% in 1990. umwater experienced the s f growth at 64.6% for the decade. The Yelm unincorporated area was second wit .8% owth rat uring the 1980s, the overall county growth rate in housin units was 41.5%, with the uni corporated area growing at a faster rate (434%) than the unincorporat d areas (391 %) The Yelm area (including the City of Yelm and the unincorporated Yelm area) accounted for approximately 71% of the total increase in housing units in the county from 1980 to 1990. e e m a ained 6.0% of total housin units in 19 d that share to 6 1990. ProJec Ions by the county are or t e Yelm area to continue to increase its share of new housing In the county, particularly as other areas in the north become more built-out. The Yelm area is located within commuting distance of Lacey, Olympia, Tumwater!~i{~CPort Lewis, as well as other employment and activity centers in Thurston and Pierce counties, mIking it the next logical expanSIOn area for housing development. In addition to housing demand generated by growth within Thurston County, there will be a substantial increase in personnel at Fort Lewis and McChord bases in Pierce County The impact of these increases is discussed in a lat~r section of this report. Another important factor affecting future growth in Yelm is the provision of services. Yelm is(. at the; l'Ti>ct>nt ti~he only city in south Thurston County that has received grants for a sewage treatment plant. The availability of a broader range of housing options than is currently available in the Yelm area will also increase housing demand in the area since it will appeal to a broader spectrum of households. n 1.."\'l"~;vo:l1\) _ 1" The nYImber of people in the 60- d-above age category will increase by 16,343 in Thurston County between 1990 and 2010, or a oximately 817 per year In addition, th~ military personnel stationed at Fort Lewis and McC ord who retire each year According to information from the Public Services Office, they are having a proximately 25 retirement ceremonies per month for people retiring from the post. Of these numbers, not all will remain in Thurston County Som will move to warmer climates or to areas that are closer to their children or other family membe It is estimated that a well designed retirement golf-course community in Yelm can attract a se ent of the retirement housing market for Thurston Coun As of ensus, there were e - n -a ve age category residing in Thurston ounty In addition, there are currently 16, 0 retired Ilitary personnel living within 50 miles of the bases. Some of the retired people residing i Thurston ounty may be retired military personnel so there may e some overlap in the figures. --- All rl.' 0,(1. f"' Of\fn 54 [J [---J [-] [-- ] [J [ ] [-'] [] [J LJ [] L -] [-J ['-J [J ['- ] [J [] [] ~ cre;vt- Table '7 .:.Hlstonc Demographic Trends. Employment, Population & Housmg Thurston County, Washmgton 1980-1990 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Avg. Employment Total Employment 50,200 49,800 49,600 55,800 57,300 60,800 64,300 68,100 70,800 74,200 79,176 4.7% Unemployment 4,603 5,595 6,828 6,826 5,875 5,215 5,591 5,363 5,084 4,485 4,520 -0.2% % Unemployment 8.4% 101% 12.1% 10.9% 9.3% 7.9% 8.0% 7.3% 6.7% 57% 5.4% -4.3% Local Labor Force 54,803 55,395 56,428 62,626 63,175 66,015 69,891 73,463 75,884 78,685 83,696 4.3% Commutmg Factor 7.0% 70% 70% 70% 70% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% Total Labor Force 58,928 59,564 60,675 67,340 67,930 70,984 75,152 78,992 81,596 84,608 89,995 4.3% PopulatIOn (J1 Total 124,264 129,100 131,300 133,500 136,200 139,500 142,200 145,500 149,300 155,100 161,238 2.6% (J1 Labor forcclPopulal1on 0.474 0.461 0462 0.499 0.509 0.528 0.543 0.547 0.546 0.558 1.6% ,0.504 Housmg Dwelling Units 49,734 55,301 56,487 57,576 58,698 59,666 60,749 62,391 64,055 65,844 66,464 2.9% Occupied D U 46,375 48,471 49,594 50,730 52,068 53,651 55,020 56,637 58,467 61,104 62,150 3.0% Vacant U U 3,359 6,830 6,893 6,846 6,630 6,015 5,729 5,754 5,588 4,740 4,314 2.5% Vacancy Rate 6.8% 12.4% 12.2% 11.9% 11.3% 10.1% 94% 9.2% 8.7% 7.2% 6.5% -0.4% Pop./Occup. D U 2.680 2.663 2.647 2.632 2.616 2.600 2.585 2.569 2.554 2.538 2.594 -0.3% Starts/1000 Pop. 12.78 9 19 8.29 8.40 7 11 776 11.55 1144 11.98 16.36 17.24 3.0% Housing Starts (1) 1,588 1,186 1,089 1,122 968 1,083 1,642 1,664 1,789 2,538 2,780 5.8% 1,586 Thurston County Population ProJccl1ons 1990 Actual: 161,238 MedIUm Growth Scenario 139,500 157,618 2.5% High Growth Scenano 139,500 160,844 \ 2.9% Low Growth Scenario 139.500 154,910 2.1% Source: Thurston Regional Planning CouncIl and Mundy & ASSOCiates. [' ] [ ] [J [J [ ] [J [ ] [J [-J [-1 C -J L- ] [1 [ ] L ] [J [1 [J [J Tablc .8 ProJcctcd Dcmographic Trcnds: Employmcnt, Population & Housmg Thurston County, Washington 1990-2000 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Avg. Employment Total Employment 79,600 82,059 84,565 87,117 89,716 92,360 95,048 97,780 100,555 103,371 106,227 2.9% Unemployment 4,096 4,593 4,733 4,876 5,021 5,169 5,319 5,472 5,628 5,785 5,945 3.8% % Unemployment 54% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% Local Labor Force 83,696 86,651 89,297 91,993 94,737 97 ,529 100,368 103,253 106,182 109,156 112,172 3.0% / Commutmg Faclor 7.0% 71% 7.2% 74% 7.5% 77% 7.8% 8.0% 8.1% 8.3% 8.4% Total Labor Force 89,995 93,244 96,238 99,297 102,421 105,611 108,866 112,185 115,568 119,015 122,525 31% <J1 PopulatIOn C'I Total 161,238 167,000 174,000 178,638 183,342 188,112 192,944 197,837 202,789 207,799 212,863 2.8% Labor force/population 0.558 0.558 0.553 0.556 0.559 0.561 0.564 0.567 0.570 0.573 0.576 Housing Dwellmg Units 66,464 68,664 70,754 73,532 75,455 77,414 79,409 81,440 83,506 85,606 87,742 2.8% Occupied D U 62,150 64,579 67,504 69,528 71,590 73,690 75,827 78,002 80,213 82,461 84,744 3.1% Vacant D U 4,314 4,085 3,250 4,005 3,865 3,724 3,582 3,437 3,292 3,145 2,998 -3.6% Vacancy Rale 6.5% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 57% Pop./Occup. D U 2.594 2.586 2.578 2.569 2.561 2.553 2.545 2.536 2.528 2.520 2.512 Starts/l000 Pop. 17.24 13 17 16.81 11.33 11.25 11 16 11 08 10.99 10.90 10.82 10.73 12.32 Housing Demand 2,780 2,200 2,925 2,024 2,062 2,100 2,138 2,175 2,211 2,248 2,283 2,286 Thurston County Population Projections (Revised 8/92) Medlwn Growth Scenario 161,238 196,000 214,000 2.9% Source: Thurston Regional Planmng Council and Mundy & Assoclales. Nole: BuIldmg permIl data for 1991 is an esllmale based on 1,737 permits Issued through 3rd quarter [ J [ J [] [ J [J [ J [ ] [ ] [] [--J [- '] [ ] [J [J L J [l [J [J L ,uJ Table 9 ProJcctcd Dcmographic Trends: Employmcnt, Population & Housing Thurston County, Washmgton 2000-2010 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Avg. Employment Total Employment 106,227 109,169 112,200 115,323 118,540 121,855 125,271 128,791 132,418 136,157 140,151 2.8% Unemployment 5,945 6,110 6,279 6,454 6,634 6,820 7,011 7,208 7,411 7,620 7,844 2.8% % Unemployment 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% Local Labor Force 112,172 115,279 118,480 121,777 125,175 128,675 132,282 135,999 139,829 143,777 147,994 2.8% Commuting Factor 8.4% 8.6% 8.8% 90% 91% 9.3% 9.5% 97% 9.9% 10.1% 10.3% Total Labor Force 122,525 126,151 129,899 133,772 137,775 141,914 146,193 150,617 155,193 159,926 164,988 3.0% <.11 Population ~ Total 212,863 216,994 221,227 225,568 230,018 234,581 239,262 244,062 248,988 254,041 259,486 2.0% Labor force/Populauon 0.576 0.581 0.587 0.593 0.599 0.605 0.611 0.617 0.623 0.630 0.636 Housing Dwelling Units 87,742 89,910 91,738 93,616 95,547 97,530 99,570 101,666 103,822 106,039 108,320 2.1% Occupied D U 84,744 86,668 88,645 90,677 92,765 94,912 97,119 99,388 101,722 104,122 106,698 2.3% Vacant D U 2,998 3,242 3,093 2,940 2,782 2,619 2,451 2,278 2,100 1,917 1,622 -6.0% Vacancy Rate 57% 57% 57% 57% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.5% 5.5% Pop./Occup. D U 2.512 2.504 2.496 2.488 2.480 2.472 2.464 2.456 2.448 2.440 2.432 Starts/l000 Pop. 10.73 8.87 8.94 9.01 9.08 9 15 9.22 9.30 9.37 945 9.93 9.37 Housing Demand 2,283 1,924 1,977 2,032 2,088 2,147 2,207 2,269 2,334 2,400 2,576 2,203 Thurston County. PopulatIon Projections (Rcvlsed 8/92) MedIum Growth Scenano 214,000 231,000 253,000 1.7% Source: Thurston RegIOnal PlannIng CounCIl and Mundy & AsSOCIates. [J [J [J [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [J L-J ['-J [- J [J [J [] L J L-J [J [ ~J Table 10 Housmg Umt Distribution Thurston County by Jurisdiction and Subarea 1980 and 1990 Total Housmg Umts 1980-1990 Change Percent of Tolal Junsdiction or Area 19RO 1990 Number Percent 1980 1990 Incorporated Jurisdictions: B ucoda 213 227 14 6.6% 0.4% 0.3% Lacey 5,838 8,225 2,387 40.9% 11.5% 11.5% OlympIa 12,560 16,963 4,403 351% 24.8% 23.7% Raimer 305 409 104 341% 0.6% 0.6% Tcnino 502 549 47 94% 1.0% 0.8% Tumwatcr 2,920 4,807 1,887 646% 5.8% 6.7% Yclm 470 555 85 18.1% 0.9% 0.8% <.11 Ctl Incorporated Subtotal 22,808 31,735 8,927 391% 45.0% 44.3% Unmcorporated Areas: Griffin 1,415 1,888 473 334% 2.8% 2.6% Cooper Point 1,826 2,436 610 334% 3.6% 3.4% Northeast Thurston 3,655 5,092 1,437 39.3% 7.2% 7.1% Laccy Envlfons 10,225 15,043 4,818 471% 20.2% 21.0% Black Lakc/Litllerock 4,502 6,476 1,974 43.8% 8.9% 9.0% Rochcster 2,313 3,189 876 37.9% 4.6% 4.5% Tcnino Area 878 1,198 320 36.4% 17% 17% Yc1m-Raimcr Area 2,605 4,007 1 ,402 53.8% 5.1% 5.6% SummIt Lake \408 563 155 38.0% 0.8% 0.8% Unincorporatcd Subtotal 27,827 39,892 12,065 434% 55.0% 55.7% Total County 50,635 71,627 20,992 41.5% 100.0% 100.0% Sourcc: Thurston RegIOnal Planmng Council, 1991, and Mundy & ASSOCiates. I' I LJ n LJ n ~ n LJ n LJ I LJ I' I LJ I' ~ [ n L I' LJ n LJ Jl U n u n u fl U ,-, u n u n LJ ar//"cf~ It is estimated that initially approximately 24 units of retirement housing could be ~per year -# ~he proposed Thurston Highlands golf course community in Yelm. This demand will increase with time to 63 units per year by 2005. This estimate is based on the assumption that the retirement community will be well designed with senior activity centers, golf course clubhouse, lots adjacent to or near the golf course, and units that cover a broad price range, including a large proportion in the moderate price range. It is believed that a well-designed and aggressively marketed retirement community at the subject property would be instrumental in increasing Yelm's overall share of housing demand in Thurston County Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action The proposed annexation would not occur and the properties within this area would remain in Thurston County It is expected that population growth would continue to occur, however the rate of growth would likely be less than if annexation were to take place. In a similar manner, housing demand under the rural county zoning would also likely be less than if the area were annexed to the city and the proposed development scenarios reviewed for this document were initiated. Alternative 2: Proponent's Scenario Table 11 (Housing Demand Summary, Yelm Area), shows estimated housing demand for Thurston County and for the Yelm area by year through the year 2013 Beginning in 1993, when the first of the lots would be scheduled to come on line at the subject property, there will be estimated demand for some 592 dwelling units in the Yelm area. Demand will decrease to 336 in 1994, 273 in 1995, and 272 in 1996. After 1996, demand is estimated to increase each year through the forecast period W ~02 ~s in 2013 During the 20-year period 1993 through 2013, an estimated 8,732 units could bect<i~g~rb~~ In the Yelm area. These projections are based on the assumption that a broad range of housing will be offered in the Yelm area during the forecast period, in terms of price, housing type and size, lot size, and amenities. Table 12 (Population Projections, Yelm Area, Thurston County) shows population increases by year in the Yelm Area through the year 2013 The Yelm area includes Census Tract 124 (see Figure 15, Thurston County Census Tract Map) County projections are for the Yelm area to account for approximately 10% of the county population growth through 2010 Mundy and Associates projections are for the area to capture 13 4% of the county population growth, from 1993 through 2013, based on several major factors: . The provision of expanded sewer facilities in the Yelm area will allow the area to accommodate higher density development. . Expansion of personnel at Fort Lewis and McChord Air Force Base will add to Yelm's share of county population growth. . Yelm will be the first town in the south county area to have a 20-year comprehensive transportation plan for local traffic improvements. . The growth management act will restrict growth in areas outside designated urban areas thereby increasing the share of population growth that is captured by urban areas. . The development of a wider variety of housing by quality, price range and style, will attract a greater share of the population to the Yelm Area. 59 ~ I \~ \ / ~ *S ~ ~ \J ~~~ ) ~ 1\ ~~ \ S ~1 / [- ] [J [ ] [J [- ] c--J [1 [J [J LJ [-J c- -J [J L J C--J c-l [- J C- ] LJ Table 11 Housing Demand Summary Yelm Area, Thurston County, Washington 1993-2013 '" o % Yelm % Yelm % Yelm Total Cumulauve Total Yelm Area MilItary Yelm Area Retirement Yclm Area Yelm Area Yelm Area Year County Area Demand Increase'" Area Demand Households Area Demand Demand Demand 1993 2,024 2.0% 40 8,400 0 773 0.0% 0 40 40 1994 2,062 5.0% 103 1,200 1.3% 120 773 31% 24 247 288 1995 2,100 5.3% 112 1.3% 120 797 4.5% 36 268 556 1996 2,138 5.7% 121 1.3% 120 797 4.5% 36 277 833 1997 2,175 6.0% 131 1.3% 120 797 4.5% 36 287 1,120 1998 2,211 6.4% 141 797 5.0% 40 181 1,301 1999 2,248 6.7% 151 797 5.0% 40 190 1,491 2000 2,283 7.0% 161 923 5.0% 46 207 1,698 2001 1,924 74% 142 923 5.0% 46 188 1,886 2002 1,977 77% 153 923 5.0% 46 199 2,085 2003 2,032 8.1% 164 923 5.0% 46 210 2,295 2004 2,088 8.4% 175 923 5.0% 46 222 2,516 2005 2,147 8.7% 188 1,252 5.0% 63 250 2,767 2006 2,207 91% 200 1,252 5.0% 63 263 3,030 2007 2,269 94% 214 1,252 5.0% 63 276 3,306 2008 2,334 9.8% 228 1,252 50% 63 290 3,596 2009 2,400 10.1 % 242 1,252 50% 63 305 3,901 2010 2,576 10.4% 269 1,252 5.0% 63 332 4,233 2011 2,625 10.8% 283 1,252 5.0% 63 346 4,579 2012 2,676 111% 298 1,252 5.0% 63 360 4,939 2013 2,726 11.5% 312 1,252 5.0% 63 375 5,314 Totals 47,220 8.1% 3,828 9,600 50% 480 21,418 47% 1,006 5,314 * Includes Ft Lewis and McChord. Source: Mundy & ASSOCIates Forecasts. 1 -,c115 tJul/J'ty f"{ / ~ ..JYJ ~ c:- ) r~ ~ }//-I .:)/20( #" ~ ~ ~ ,Yrt",,, ~.JP 11 LJ " LJ n u n Table 12 Population Projections Yelm Area, Thurston County 1993-2013 u n i U Yelm Area County County Capture Rate Yelm Area** Yelm Area** Yelm Area** Year Population * Increase of County Pop. Increase Population Housing Units 1990 161,238 44% 7,174 2,938 1992 175,143 ? 1993 179,797 2.0% 93 9,504- 3,895 1994 188,541 - 6.5% 568 10,072 3,935 1995 197,351 7 70% 617 10,689 4,183 1996 205,858 7.5% 638 11,327 4,451 1997 214,107 80% 660 11,987 4,728 1998 218,992 8.5% 415 12,402 5,015 1999 223,859 4,867 90% 438 12,840 5,196 2000 228,868 5,009 9.5% 476 13,316 5,386 2001 233,196 4,328 100% 433 13,749 5,593 2002 237,550 4,354 10.5% 457 14,206 5,781 2003 241,939 4,389 110% 483 14,689 5,980 2004- 246,371 4,431 115% 510 15,199 6,190 2005 251,167 4,796 120% 576 15,774 6,411 2006 256,006 4,839 12.5% 605 16,379 6,662 2007 260,896 4,890 130% 636 17,015 6,925 2008 265,843 4,947 135% 668 17,682 7,201 2009 270,855 5,012 140% 702 18,384 7,491 2010 276,114 5,259 14.5% 763 19,147 7,796 2011 281,412 5,299 150% 795 19,941 8,128 2012 286,756 5,344 155% 828 20,770 8,474 2013 292,146 5,390 160% 862 21,632 8,834 Annual Average Increase. 2.5% 5,572 104% 582 4.2% 42% *Note. The figures m this column reflect population increases from outside the county as well as the employment generated increases in Tables 9a and 9b ** The Yelm Area mcludes Census Tract 124 Source. Mundy & Associates Projections. II I LJ r' I LJ n ~ n LJ Jl I ~ II LJ II u n u Il LJ " u II u " LJ n u n 61 LJ " 'u -- ~ -...'tl__ "7-- ------' -:;~ ;::.;:.- _.,0' .::.-.::l- ." ~- ,0 -'. ,:~':'b.-= ",,'/.l- r,l....-- ... ~ c:. "(:. .... ... () v t ""N\a p re '\5 1'rac Vigu Census County 1'hurston ef) t '7' J'\ t-"' <1. Z. N. ....., ~ o~ o~ Ut; OJ 7-OJef) ~~ .,.4? t-"' '" r r. U1 ~ VJ. ~ ?. ~ ~ ~ u ~ "'" Cl 7- ::> o to '$ (.;) ::> '$ ~ r- (.;) 7- g o .-' ~. ~ ') "r ... ..., '- o J , \ -' ~ :- -"'1 .....-.... u \ \ c \ I" .. I ....~. '\, I; r' U ;~ ./ ", \' \i "'" " u r' U " " u " o " u 'c ... '- e u --7~::-- r--:~ i: .s--- '" .~ ----:;:>./.-- % ... --F~ ~ ':< 1____ ___ ~ --- ^-- " ......".- .. 6,2 - --r - L---- ~ :::J- ~""'-.~ ~:_b.-- , -.-::::t.:--- -----'.f:.:::-- , ---- t...---- --ci:'/~___ .--p~ 1--- __- -I> - -,.YS,C:.-. - " . ' '- - "." :- , '-, o .~. " \0 " I"l u n u " , LJ I' , LJ I' ~ n u " LJ n u rI u 11 LJ " u n u rI u rI u rI u n u n LJ II u n u Alternative 3: Compact Scenario Under this approach population impacts are expected to be largely similar to those of the Proposal. The greatest difference would be in possible housing types, as opposed to any significant changes from those identified for the Proposal. Because the land area provided for potential residential use would be reduced under this scenario, it is expected that more cluster units or townhomes could be utilized in order to maintain the same relative number of units as that of the Proposal. Alternative 4: Village Scenario Population growth and housing demand would take place at a slightly lower level than that of the Proposal. Since the potential mix of uses within the annexation area would involve less residential and more commercial uses, the rate of growth would be expected to decrease accordingly However, given that a substantial amount of potential residential area would still be added to the city, substantial changes from those discussed under the Proposal are not expected from this scenario Mitigating Measures The proposed development would occur in phases and is expected to take place over a twenty year time period. Future market conditions will determine the exact number of housing units that would result from annexation. The Urban Growth Area designation should be coordinated with population projections to accommodate growth in a manner consistent with projected needs within the city 63 " LJ " LJ " LJ n u n LJ " u " LJ n LJ n u " LJ " u n LJ " LJ " u " LJ " u " LJ " u " u 2. Natura! Resource Lands Existing Conditions Natural Resource Lands are areas in Thurston County identified for existing uses involving agricultural, forestry, and mineral production. Activities such as farming, timber growing and mineral extraction occur in these areas, usually in rural parts of the county The Thurston County Comprehensive Plan (June 1988) has identified locations of important resource lands. There are some farm and forestry lands near the site and these are discussed below No significant mineral lands are present. Agricul tural Land Thurston County contains a variety of land in agricultural use. Dairy and poultry farms comprise the largest operations and some conventional row crops are also grown locally However, agricultural land use has been declining as urban development has increased in the county Land in farms decreased by 16.1 percent between 1982 and 1987 in Thurston County, compared to a state-wide average decline of 2.2 percent during the same period. Much of the remaining farmland has been reduced in size to smaller parcels, often isolated by other land uses. This is similar to trends experienced by King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties recently The Washington Institute for Public Policy has indicated that the decrease in land in farms has been greatest where population growth is high. As population numbers indicate, Thurston County confirms this trend. Figure 16 shows areas of Oass II and III soils within and adjacent to the proposed annexation area. Ilrr/nc( 0$" ,/s. "~) ~'-----;:ff- A portion of the proposed annexation site is currently in agricultural use, as is some of the adjacent and .lv,,,,'!' surrounding land Large, contiguous agricultural areas are no longer prevalent although smaller pockets of farmland are still present. Thurston County is currently attempting to define important resource lands in order to comply with the 1990 Growth Management Act. The Act requires counties to identify resource lands of long-term significance and to formulate plans that would protect these areas. The 1988 Thurston County Comprehensive Plan also contains the goal of preserving agricultural land "in order to ensure an adequate base for long-term farm use." A number of proposals are presently being studied by the County and local agricultural interests to protect prime farmlan~ These include zoning measures, a right to farm ordinance, a farmland protection district and possible purchase of development rights or use of conservation easements. 17'tAn..5fo () f"' Forest Land Historically, forestry has played an important part in Thurston County's development Timber harvesting and management has occurred throughout the county According to the Thurston County Comprehensive Plan "approximately 58 percent of the county's land area is managed for long-term forestry production." This amount includes private commercial timber land (41 percent), Department of Natural Resources managed land (12 percent), and federally owned forest land including Fort Lewis (5 percent) Although significant holdings stilI exist, forest land is also threatened by urban development. Smaller forestry areas are particularly vulnerable to potential conversion as a result of urban growth pressures. As with agricultural land, the Growth Management Act also requires Thurston County to identify and protect forest land. Portions of the site were formerly owned by the Weyerhaeuser Company and have been managed for forest production. Several cuttings have occurred on Sections 23, 26 and 27 in the 1980s. Approximately 240 acres of Section 23 were cut and planted between 1980 and 1986, approximately 320 acres were cut and planted in Section 26 between 1980 and 1988, and approximately 570 acres of Section 27 were cut and planted between 1980 and 1986. With the exception of a small portion of Section 23, all logging on the property was done through skid logging procedures. Several areas of these sections have been replanted, with the most recent replanting occurring in 1989 An 83 acre portion of Section 27 was replanted in 1987 after a fire caused by a line drop from a defective insulator support on the Centralia power lines there. The property was replanted with the intent to 64 ~ dSW'SI!OS leJmlnOp6v 9 ~ am6!=l e3tUlOU03i pu., , e,eAIWV ..,ueUlUOJfAU) , .~n'3."IIO~V .cteoepu., , lJutuueld 6tl:9 -1'l:9 (90l:) J'^UaQfe8eJ~/.m8ltS NOI..LVX3NNV ~13A ..LS3MH..LnOS .OUI 'saJef~80Ssie^ViZ SOadJOll.i!pnn~i;i Z61lZIS Z6~O~ ~ eJ8P qof 3>1 Br P'P wP 11/' , ! /, I " . I 't , ./ I I ! , i 1 I' . 1 , I. 'I ~'''J,I.,,' :': l'I'~1i~ 1'-,.' : Ill: I r", , I ',t -f+";7;~' , , J. i F I , Ii\, " ' : I f"11 - , '. i'" I I f .1 "'~'! " ~- I.', I ' I I ~- I !f I: ,.uf ,,\D ..j," ! J, ' i' ,I:. I ! , , I.! , . i" ' i', 11 I I I I J 'I T'-' I I . 1 ; I .~ I " 'Z' / ,~ / / i ! ,i'l f I' ~, : I, I l i ,f / I "j i I I: J I I I! I' j".J . ~.-j ............-.- '-, ...-( I ....~ -=, ...., " I '---==r"- ................. I:' t '~'" "" '. .. . r~' I" , " ! I ",>, , .......... I I' I I' j I I ~ ,!!, '0 UJ - '0 c: as = II) II) a as Z U 'W CI II w ... I I I I ._------------------~ '" i ~ CD ...J - 0 ~ u.. i 0 0 en en ,.... Q) c: ::l '""J <Ii u C/} >- Q) > ... ::l C/} :- 0 C/} >- .... c: ::l 0 U c: 0 .... ui ~ ::l U J: a: ~ :::l 0 C/} '" i CD ...J - o u.. CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ c::=J CJ c::=J 11 u n LJ n LJ 11 LJ 11 I ~ n LJ 11 u 11 LJ n 1.J [ n u n ~ n LJ 11 LJ 11 LJ n LJ n LJ n LJ n ~ meet all Forest Practices Act standards, as well as those of the Weyerhaeuser Company, over and above Department of Natural Resources requirements. Future forest use is not anticipated if the annexation proposal is approved. Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action The site would not be annexed and future land use would be determined by Thurston County The 1988 Comprehensive Plan identifies the site as Rural (outside Growth Areas) The 1990 Draft Yelm/Thurston County Joint Plan shows much of the annexation area (a portion does not appear within the joint plan boundary) as having a proposed zoning of RR 1/5 (Rural Residential, one unit per five acres) The Joint Plan defines Rural areas as areas "to be free of urban land uses. Accordingly, farming, forestry, and housing on lots of one acre or larger are appropriate land uses. Housing densities will depend upon site-specific conditions and vicinity development." Similarly, the Thurston County Zoning Ordinance (1980) defines the intent of the RR 1/5 zone as "to assist in maintaining the commercial timber industry and to protect the public health in areas with severe soil limitations for septic systems, severely limited water supply, aquifer recharge and flood plains (Chapter 20.09) " These designations indicate that this alternative would likely result in less development of the proposed annexation area than the proposal and this would tend to preserve the present rural character of the site. This would also allow existing uses to continue, including the current farm activity, and could allow forest use on that portion of the site presently intended for conversion. Alternative 2: Proponent's Scenario Under the proposed annexation the site would be added to the City of Yelm and could be developed as a part of the city Potential densities vary within the site boundaries, but would be greater than the one unit per five acres designation identified in Alternative 1 above. Development of the site would displace current farm use on the northeast portion of the site, and it would preclude future forest use of the southwestern annexation area. Annexation would also lead to future development adjacent to agricultural activity near the site Farmland immediately southeast, and possibly to the north, may experience conflicts associated with encroachment of urban land uses. As Yelm ~ands its jurisdiction, changing land uses will continue and potentialliiffcnmcd6 may arise. ThpTef~lhe proposed annexation is expected to contribute to these changes, however,\other annexations and boundary changes may also influence land uses within the city ~ } Alternative 3: Compact Scenario ()r$f().(,~ lIvovl d Annexation would occur as proposed, however, develo ment of the site is 8XpG(tQQ to be achieved through a different design approach than the Pro osal ould include. Potential buffer areas and open space would be increased to provid reater translho tween uses within the annexation boundary and surrounding uses. Residential uses would be encouraged to use cluster design techniques more in this approach, which would allow for creation of the larger transition areas. This may help reduce potential conflicts between development and farm activity in the area. This alternatiJe would still result in displacement of the current farm use and preclude future forest use within the proposed annexation site. /'tJ Dsr1 66 1,:'\' ' r-l u r-l u Il u n u n LJ n u Il LJ n LJ Il LJ r-l LJ r-l u n LJ n LJ n LJ r-l u n LJ r-l , LJ Il LJ n LJ Alternative 4: Village Scenario This approach would involve annexation and fewer residential units than the proposal. It would also include more area devoted to commercial use within the annexation boundaries. -€orm:oorcial use IRftY be .-a less-suited to farm activity than potehlial le6iJential dc-.;cl6pnle~s alternative would also displace and discourage rural uses in the same manner as the Proposal, since potential development could be incompatible with farm uses. Mitigating Measures Conflicts between urban and rural uses can be decreased by pursuing measures to identify important agricultural lands and protect them. Mitigation may include agricultural zoning, right-to-farm ordinances, and incentive programs designed to maintain agricultural activity Design features like those associated with Alternative 3 could help to form a transition between developed and open areas. Thurston County is presently exploring ways to protect farmland and/or reduce potential conflicts that may develop when growth occurs. The Thurston County Planning Commission's Subcommittee on Agriculture is studying a variety of measures to protect farmland toward achieving an overall goal "to maintain, enhance, and conserve productive agricultural lands and to discourage incompatible uses." The City of Yelm has expressed a similar desire in the Comprehensive Plan (1985) where a goal under the Residential Agricultural Element is stated "To protect the rights of those who desire to engage in agricultural endeavors." The city does not presently have a program or regulations that would appear to achieve this goal specifically 67 11 LJ n u 11 LJ n LJ n u n LJ n u 11 U 11 G 11 ~ 11 I U n , , LJ [I LJ n LJ 11 LJ n LJ n LJ n u 11 LJ 3. Open Space Corridors Existing Conditions One of the goals of the 1990 Growth Management Act is to "Encourage the retention of open space and development of recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks." Corridors and other types of open space areas would be preserved under this direction. Much of the current use within the proposed annexation area is rural, including areas of undeveloped land. No formal open space corridors exist in the area, however, this lack of development allows the site to contribute to the open setting of much of the land, around Yelm. Specific wildlife corridors are not provided in the area, but because development is sparse, a number of plant and animal species are found within the proposed annexation boundaries (see Plants and Animals element of this document). The Thurston County Comprehensive Plan indicates there are a number of parcels on or near the site participating in the State Open Space Taxation Land program. More parcels in this program are located south of the city No specific recreation trails or parks have been identified in the proposed annexation area. Park space and recreation areas within the City of Yelm are discussed in the Parks and Recreation element of this document. Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action Annexation would not take place and open space around the site would not change. The parcels within the annexation area could be developed at lower densities than the Proposal and this may retain existing rural uses that contribute to the area's present undeveloped state. Retention of undeveloped areas of land associated with the lower density would provide the potential for large open space corridors or greenbelts surrounding the city if permanent preservation is planned. Alternative 2: Proponent's Scenario The proposed annexation would result in a large addition to the city's land base. Much of the annexed land is intended for development and this development would likely occur at a greater density than envisioned by present Thurston County wning regulations. Total open space within the groPOSed annexation area expected under this approach would be approximately 830 acres. (Jv.,e 1 s r rr- Alternative 3: Compact Scenario Under this approach, potential open space corridors larger than those resulting from the Proposal could be achieved, since more land within the annexation area would be available. Potential development designs using clustering techniques would be encouraged by this alternative in order to provide the same development density on less land area. Depending upon the exact nature of development under this alternative, any corridors or trails proposed could be wider or cover a greater area if master planned communities include such areas. Open space planned for available land surrounding the proposed city limits would not change under this option. This approach is expected to leave more open land (approximately 370 acres more open space) within the overall urban growth area than would result from the other approaches. Alternative 4: Village Scenario The proposed annexation area would not change under this approach, however the amount of residential area of the proposed development would be lower The form of open space areas may be different than that resulting under Alternatives 1 and 2 since less residential development is envisioned on the proposed annexation lands. For example, whereas open space associated with Alternatives 1 and 2 might be primarily related to trails adjacent to homes and recreation areas, open space for Alternative 3 could be more related to office or business park settings. Since the size of the 68 rl LJ rl LJ n LJ 11 u n u I' , u n LJ r< u 11 LJ n LJ n LJ n u rl LJ n LJ rl LJ n LJ 11 LJ 11 LJ 11 LJ proposed annexation area would not change under this option, open space opportunities surrounding the new Yelm city limits would remain as discussed for the proposed scenario, and the overall open space area within the proposed annexation would be approximately the same as the proposed scenario. Mitigating Measures Development within the proposed annexation area should include open space corridors wherever possible. Opportunities to connect to existing or planned open space trails should be explored. Where ~wildlife corridors could be provided and maintained they should be included .wilhin thg ~ Land surrounding the ci!y should be considered for preservation of open space corridor~where'ler these ValY8S ar.g appropri~ The city should coordinate with Thurston County to plan for open space areas. f?l1o Since much of this development cWoal ccur as part of a master plan proposal, open space corridors within the annexation area could be planned wherever they would be appropriate. If cluster designs are encouraged, open space features may be included as part of potential development proposals. Public park space could also be provided in connection with recreation and other open space areas. Additional open space areas surrounding Yelm would have to come from the remaining land base around the new city limits. T -bewis :md city Most of the land south of the proposed city limits would remain under rural zoning and could provide a large tract of potential open land. Planning within these areas could include consideration of their potential open space values. Opportunities for incorporating open space corridors designed within the annexation area, into possible trails or wildlife corridors in the remaining rural areas, could also be explored 69 r-l u n u r-l u n u n u n u r-l u n u r-l u n u r-l LJ n LJ n LJ r-l u r-l u n u n u n u n LJ 4. Urban Growth Area Existing Conditions 1... Yelm encompasses a total land area approximately 740 acres in size. The city's present boundaries are irregular (see Figure 18 Annexation ~nd UGA) Figure 17 identifies existing land uses within and around the proposed annexation area. The 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA) requires counties, and municipalities within those counties, to map urban growth areas where future expansion is to occur Specifically, Section 11 (1) of the GMA defines these places as "areas within which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature." A key definition within the Act is that of urban growth, which is defined as "intensive use of land for the location of buildings, structures and impermeable surfaces to such a degree as to be incompatible with the primary use of such land for the production of food, other agricultural products, or fiber, or the extraction of mineral resources. When allowed to spread over wide areas, urban growth typically requires urban governmental services, Section 3 (14)." Designation of urban growth areas must follow this criteria and these areas are to be designed to allow for future population growth and employment while also protecting important environmental features. Growth area boundaries can be reviewed at ten year intervals to ensure that growth is being directed in the manner intended The Growth Management Act also encourages cooperation between cities and counties in developing urban area boundaries. In July 1991, Thurston County and the City of Yelm agreed on an interim urban growth boundary for the land surrounding Yelm. An approximately ten square mile (6400 acres) area has been approved for future growth. Figure 18 shows this area in rela~ioni~ to the current city limits and the proposed annexation. FrescllLly, thh I'rOPOs&}riS being ~5~red ,bY the ):~1111 Planni1Lg COIlLn,ission and will ~ be forwarded to the U~ an Growth Management Subcommittee of the Thurston Regional Planning Council for review and co ent. A final urban growth boundary is not expected to be adopted until e~ . . A J IffY, A fi"J,I. 11I1\/1? Ir~ c.,'? Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action ~~c~~ 4rf4-S r.('~ l,'7- The proposed annexation would not occur and urh n growth there would not occur at this time. The proposed annexation area would still be within t urban growth area for the city of Yelm. Under this approach, most new development would occur . .. I'D lhc cast~ Annexations beyond the designated urban growth areas would be prohibited under the provisions of Section 30 of the Growth Management Act. Because less area suitable for large residential development would be available under this approach, new residential subdivisions would likely be smaller than would occur through the proposed annexation .. . . . a.... . # Land outside the urban area could be developed only at rural densities (1 dwelling unit per five acres) This approach would depend on an effective urban area to provide adequate land for all potential land uses in Yelm over the next twenty years. This would mean that new residential homes would compete with other urban uses, including those that provide additional areas of employment locally Competition among uses would likely be greater simply because less area would be provided for low and ~edium d~nsity housing if the proposed ann.exation ~oes not take pl~ce. If ~n a~equate supply of land -'A~.I/."'" T IS not proVIded by the current boundary, or If the pnce of that land IS too hIgh, It could ~~l--~- through. mO'lQme;Routside the urban growth area. //)J1fYItP 70 ~ J S3sn aiilVl E>NI1SIX3 L ~ 9m6!=l NOI.l'v'X3NN'v' V'J13A .LS3MH.lnOS 1I0lWOU003 pu", I IIll1o\llIUV 19IUeWUOJI^U3 I ed1l08PUU1 I'. DUIl.!il~lit ,. . Ja^uaOl:~~~~:~:/~~?8~~ .~UI 'sale!958ossvU8^Vi sOadJ04I!nsM-g Xl: !,' C\I .... o ~ u ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ z :::> o u ,~ ~~I' \ '. . JI. ~r ~-- ,~~ "'-' ~~ ~~~" ~ ~~ "" ...-/y' , , , I~ ~~ \ a: ~ \j ~ ifi II ~o \-:\ ~ ! \;~ ~6/6~/~ ~61011 9~ qo!' .lMII 119 plp wp '" ~ : U"J ~ ~ : .. - g ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ; ~ ~ a: it it >- . . II 110.0.10 $ ~ ~ ~ '" u u . iii .; E E i: () 'i 'i .: c > > _ 0 _ - 'ii .. 0 0 ~ ... >- >- ~!Gi3 Iii u a: ::;) o '" ;{ :t-- .;j ::; I- Z UJ o u; UJ a: ~ < a: ;:) a: c=Jc=JC:=JC:=JC:=JC:=JC:=JC:=JC:=JC:=Jc:::.::Jc:::.::JC:=JC:JC:JC:Jc:JCJc:::.::J I - I ~ ii ~ I ~ I J ~lI! ~> ~I ...lj ~~ <z d& i i I ! L_............... g c. ". r. ... ai llJ. i ; ~ ~.... --sea;j~.~!lif;xo"jrr ueqJn pue UOnexauu\I NOI1\lX3NN\I L^Jl3A lS3MHlnOS 9 ~ am6!.:l 6Cl9-t;ot9 (90l) t;om96 '<1M 'emeas anual\V pUl SOL d . U!pl!na a OHO~,',6 Ja^Uaa/e6eJO~:lU'l/emeeS .~UI 'Sale!~OSS" 18 a JOll.l -M-l:I ,.~lWouo~a . IWaueUlUOJlAUa · edeo.pue,.:' .iA>:4t&Ullldld e'/' I"- o It) .... .... .... ", .... .... .... .... .... ". ". .... .t, .. . :\ . . Q) > <( 1 . I I I I . l I I , ..- -~._._._.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ;, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ .-J W >- -.: Z:<( O'W 1-0: Cf)<( ex: ::):1: ~I- ~~ 00 wO: (J)C!J Oz 0..:<( oeo 0:0: OJ::) __...._,"~ __..4_....'"__~- . I . I * - Ii "--- - .......... '"E ......\. ..~..~!f!'" ~ :'. m , :, ' . \. ---- " " , , " """" " "" ~ "'~ ~ ... a... ..... a. . . ...... ~ . . ~ - -l W"" , , ~~ ~ "- o I : 1 : I : I: ,'I !: 'I : ,. , . i ~ " : :'-! " . ~ I: . . :" I : ~~.~~-~~.~~~., : !.... ... ........... ...a..:i....... ... ., z o s~ (J)x OW wZ (J)Z 0<( o..~ 0.-1 ex:w 0..>- (/) ~ Q) ...J (/) ~ Q) ...J ... ... o u. .... ... o u. - 0 '<:t to (l) '... N <( II 1U; (l) ...... 'C <U 'C <D s:: ~ CO 0 C,) CO Cf) ~: ,N 't--. / ~ il 0\ '" Q) ... nl (,) o '" '" <( '" 'C c: nl ~ E ell GiX :>- c: _ 0 0.... UJ >- ~ u....::l ex: .- .!:: :JUt- o cJ') c:J c:J c:J c:J c:J c:J c::J c:J c:J c:J c:J CJ c:J c:J c:J c:J CJ L-=:J c:::: n u n LJ n u n u n I LJ n u ,-, u n u n u n u n u n LJ n u n I LJ n LJ ,-, LJ ,-, LJ n LJ n LJ Alternative 2: Proponent's Scenario ? The annexation would proceed as proposed and Yelm city limits would be extended. The urban growth ___ area would remain, however the annexation would allow some development to the west not anticipated by the adopted growth area. The Nisqually River forms a logical boundary to development north and east of Yelm and the urban area boundary takes advantage of this natural constraint. The proposed annexation would also be restricted since much of the land west of the site belongs to the Fort Lewis Military Reservation. The urban growth area designation is intended to limit urban development to areas next to the city The adopted boundary would leave a large areal south of the city for rural use. The proposed annexation would remove a portion of this area, but a large block of rural land would remain south of the city On the north, Fort Lewis land adjoins a part of the urban growth area, however to the northwest another area of rural land remains. It should also be noted that an additional 400 acres located between the proposed annexation site and Highway 507 south of Yelm is also likely to be annexed. Whether this annexation occurs or not, the current proposal would provide more area for housing and would likely result in allowing the adopted growth area to be left to absorb other urban land uses. .Ihe effectiveness of lITban growth areas has-nGt yet beeh deten.rilled adeqUc1lt:ly~e proposed annexation would allow additional area for growth adjacent to the city It would also require~ extension of urban services to the site (see Public Services element in this document) ~ av en a hindr . Population forecasts indicate that Thurston c;;.ounty in gener~and Yelm in particular, will continue to grow and the proposed annexation site wotll~flc eegt ~available for such growth. ~ f~ Studies have shown that large planned developments are better able to pay for improvements to services than separate smaller subdivisions, where open space and infrastructure may not be given adequate consideration early in the development process (see for example, Moudon, 1990) Because of the efficiency that can result when large developments are planned,t Qnl;) tirue,. the proposed annexation is intended to provide an attractive mix of uses that may not achieved as easily as what could result from relyinr solely on the urban growth area. f l' ~\lll J~Qllld be.noted ~~velopment within the proposed annexation area would occur in phases. The urban growth area is intended to direct this future development, and the proposed annexation would accommodate growth by allowing it to take place within the newly established city limits where it is expected that services could best be provided. 1h\lr~n'\l CUll\tj The GMA requires ~o permit the population as projected by the State Office of Financial Management. Each community must determine the best method for establishing and distributing local densities in order to achieve sufficient area for future populations. This process is on-going in Yelm and information regarding land availability or suitability jor specif!.s; land use densities was unavailable for inclusion in this document. It is expected that this ~will be part of Yelm's planning efforts under the Growth Management Act. e1\e \ fit Alternative 3: Compact Scenario Densities would be higher to achieve a greater area for open space. Other uses would not differ greatly from the proposal. The influence on the urban growth area would be the same as expected for the proposal in that more space within the urban growth area would be available for uses other than housing. Larger green areas or buffers would create a better transition to surrounding rural land uses and could help to make this approach less intrusive than the proposal. If these buffers result in a better transition they may also help lessen any negative influence on rural areas that could invite more urban uses adjacent to the proposed annexation. Phased development would also be expected under this approach and may be better directed away from buffer areas. Future development would be more concentrated in two primary areas within the proposed annexation boundaries under this scenario 73 rI u rI u rI LJ f' LJ n LJ II u n LJ n u rI , LJ rI I LJ II LJ n u n LJ \l LJ 'l LJ n u rI LJ rI LJ II LJ Alternative 4: Village Scenario The mix of densities and land uses would change under this option to allow for more commercial use and less residential use. The area of proposed annexation would not change. This approach may result in more mixed uses which could better resemble the mix found in the city presently, and result in a more overall urban perception of the annexation site. Howe~ if it also results in greater clustering of residential areas and lowers their density, it may soften t~_~mpact of the large number of homes that could be located there. Phased development would also oct' under this alternative. ~ Mitigating Measures The GMA allows for review of Urban Growth Boundaries approximately every ten years. The City could elect to review its boundary determinations after five years and make provisions for adjustments as to where the line is located if such revisions are deemed appropriate. Those provisions should include clear instructions regarding criteria that would allow changes to any boundary adopted and would be expected to be subject to review by Thurston County and state officials responsible for GMA compliance. 74 ,., LJ n LJ ,., LJ /l LJ n u n u II u n u /l , LJ II L.J n i LJ !' I L1 n L.J n u ,/l , U n LJ II u n LJ i' L.J 5. Affordable Housing Existing Conditions Housing has long been considered an important element of social stability and a basic necessity of life. The federal standard for affordable housing defines such housing as "adequate, appropriate shelter that costs no more than 30% of gross family income for rent/lease/mortgage and utility payments," (King County Housing Partnership, 1990). Another way of stating this is to define affordable housing as "housing which can be purchased by a person who earns at least 80 percent of the median income, using the assumption that 30 percent of income is devoted to housing" (Seattle-King County Economic Development Council, 1990) A number of factors are involved in determining the cost of housing. Housing supply and demand, land availability, construction costs, impact fees and regulations all combine to affect the price of homes. In many cases assistance programs are necessary to help first-time homebuyers. 1)/11 ? Yelm has experienced growth in the overall number of housing units within the city In 1980 there was a total of 470 housing units in the city, by 1990 that figure had grown to 510 and in 1991 there were 520 units in the city limits. Thurston County has also shown growth in total housing units. In 1980 there were 27,899 units in the unincorporated county and by 1990 this figure had increased to 37,425 units. In 1991 a total of 38,045 units were located in unincorporated Thurston County Housing types also reflect these increases. Yelm had 349 single unit structures, and 105 structures with two or more units, in 1980 By 1990, single unit structures had increased to 417, and two or more unit structures had increased to 125 Mobile homes, trailers and other units increased from 16 to 27 between 1980 and 1990. Overall, Thurston County also had increases in housing units in the same categories between 1980 and 1990. These increases are shown in the table below Table 13. Local Housing Units and Types April 1, 1980 April 1, 1990 One Two + Mobile Total One Two + Mobile Total Unit Units Homes** Units Unit Units Homes""" Units Thurston Co. 33,972 11,112 5,628 50,712 42,319 15,142 10,153 67,614 Unincorp. 19,674 3,350 4,675 27,899 25,068 3,972 8,385 37,425 Incorp. 14,298 7;562 953 22,813 17,251 11,170 1,768 30,189 Yelm 349 105 16 470 417 125 27 569 **Includes mobile homes, trailers and other special units. Source: 1990 Population Trends for Washington State, Office of Financial Management, Forecasting Division, August 1990 Most residents of Yelm reside in single family homes, as is true of the surrounding areq.,-therefore? art . Much of Yelm's housing stock is comprised of older-aged single family homes. I~s had du iU'dbe as a luw-iucollle-€9IDU1Unity thaJ;. ',,"85 ['dIlly C}' ~ed by 1~3t waILufachuea l,vllle Jevelopments?'Yelm has had the lowest family and per capita income in Thurston County and most homes in the city have reflected local income levels. ~J..J4'IIl(n't The city also ~lac "e1gped,neighborhoods or covenanted residential areas. The 1991 Economic Development Summit report found that "there are no moderate density residential areas with middle income, family housing including both single-family and multi-family units." The same document also notes that some local individuals in the community have expressed a need for housing for 75 " LJ rl u r' LJ Il LJ Il I LJ I' u n ~ /l u n L n u n u fl , LJ rl LJ /l u n u rl u /l LJ n u /l u the homeless, victims of domestic violence and for lower income persons. The need to upgrade existing low-income facilities was mentioned, since many are poorly maintained. The Economic Development Summit indicated that among Yelrn's strengths were the large amount of undeveloped land available for housing and the current availability of moderate price housing in the town. Howc'v'cr/weaknesses ~4",,'"t included the lack of development within the town offering middle income housing...s.Pe,,",~I'(;. C /'7 ~ If Rainier housing is similar to that of Yelm, although a recent housing development was completed in 1991 that provided a new neighborhood with newer amenities than found in other areas of the town. Because of the number of low-income residents locally, almost one quarter of Rainier's housing stock is in manufactured homes. Rental housing, including multifamily apartments, is in short supply in Yelm and Rainier In Rainier there is a shortage of middle-income apartments and there appears to be demand for additional residences of this type in the area. Housing in South Thurston County generally resembles that found in Yelm. Many of the homes surrounding the Yelm city limits are older, rural-character residences. Generally, housing in unincorporated Thurston County has been more expensive than within the City of Yelm. According to the 1991 Thurston County Profile, the median value of a single family home in the unincorporated county was $58,700 in 1980. The median value of a home in Yelrn was $44,300 at the same time. The Washington Office of Financial Management estimates the median value of owner-occupied housing for the entire county at $79,700 in 1991, and the median rent was $382.00 per month. Census data indicates the median income in Thurston County in 1990 was $30,967 and the median income in Yelm was $19,053. A further indication of the need for additional affordable housing opportunities in Yelm is provided by poverty level information in the 1990 Census. According to the Census, 10.1 % of all people in Thurston County were below the poverty level, whereas 20.2% of all people in Yelrn were below that level. Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action Annexation would not occur under this option and future housing supplies would have to be located in current city limits or the urban growth area Opportunities for affordable housing would still exist within the town, including upgrading of existing facilities. Since land area for residential use is limited in Yelm, new housing would have to locate within the urban growth area boundary The urban growth area is also limited, however The use of urban growth areas may have a tendency to reduce land supply by defining new boundaries within which a given use may occur This restriction may also result in raising housing costs, making the price of a new home less affordable. When land is scarce, the number of homes that can be built is limited, and prices increase. Housing supply may also be less than demand overall, and an imbalance in type (high, medium or low income) can result. Under the proposed ~, development is expected to occur in large master-planned communities which would allow for a variety in design and type and the resultant efficiencies with respect to provision of services to the area. Under No Action, development would take place at a density of one unit per five acres. Where individual homes are built on separate lots of this type, higher priced homes may result than could be achieved through the master plan process. ? I... Alternative 2: Proponent's Scenario The proposed annexation would provide additional area for growth in Yelm. The exact nature of development on the proposed annexation land is not known, however, additional residential construction is expected. There are no present plans specifically including low-income housing for the annexation area. Some of the potential residential development there could include middle-income residences and a portion of the area may include multi-family apartments. Annexation would result in more area for housing. Generally, housing priced below the median is more affordable than homes at or above that price. Although the exact price of new homes to be built within 76 (1 u /l LJ /l LJ (1 u [l I u 11 u /l u /l I LJ n LJ /l u /l u /l u /l u /l LJ /l u /l LJ /l u /l u n u the annexation area has not yet been determined, these homes are not expected to be offered below the local median. Under the potential development approaches identified to date, it is likely that medium to upper income homes would be constructed in the proposed annexation area. However, this would leave more area adjacent to the city for affordable housing, and through increasing the total land area for residential use, may help keep prices down. Because demand for medium to high income homes in Yelm has been strong, the proposed annexation would be expected to accommodate this demand while being less restrictive than the urban growth area, or infill in current city limits. It would also provide an opportunity for current homeowners to "trade up" to more expensive homes, which in turn would provide a new supply of older, more affordable homes, to first time buyers and/or those with lower incomes. The 1990 Growth Management Act requires comprehensive plans prepared under the GMA to include a housing element, which in part, would include "adequate provisions for existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community" However, it does not appear to be stated nor implied by the GMA that each individual development project provide for affordable housing. Thus housing developed under the annexation proposal may not contribute to the goal of providing affordable housing in Yelm since it is not expected to be marketed for low to moderate income buyers. However, it is expected to contribute toward the GMA intent to provide for the needs of all economic segments of the population because it would provide new housing stock for middle and upper income residents. Alternative 3: Compact Scenario This alternative would also provide additional land for residential development, but would involve less area for buildings. Thus densities would be higher than the Proposal and open space areas would be greater The Growth Management Act is intended, in part, to help avoid sprawl development patterns, which also encourages higher density development. Because density can reduce land costs by adding units in less area, and reduce service costs by allowing for more economical improvements, this alternative might help promote the GMA goals for affordable housing by encouraging higher densities than the Proposal. This option may mean greater opportunities for multifamily residences and/ or cluster designs. Since this approach does not specifically propose low-income housing, the impact on affordable housing would likely resemble the Proposal, in that land would be available within the town and urban growth area for future growth. If fewer single-family residences result, prices for those homes may be higher than under the proposal. Alternative 4: Village Scenario This approach would allow annexation with future development centering on development that is more commercial in nature. It is intended, in part, to provide higher levels of on-site employment than might occur under the Proposal and Alternative 2. While residential units would be reduced in number, they could be more suited to meet the needs of affordable housing. This is so because this alternative would be more oriented toward a cluster design, where residents live and work within the annexation area. This approach would reduce the overall number of residential units and may result in higher prices for those units provided, especially where single-family residences are limited. Mitigating Measures A number of programs exist to allow affordable housing. Many provide funds for capital advances and rental assistance. Others, such as the Farmers Home Administration Program, are designed to provide assistance for construction or rehabilitation of rental housing in rural communities. The City could encourage developers to provide affordable housing in the annexation area, or it could require developer contributions to low-income assistanc~ programs within the city. Annexation approval could provide Yelm with an opportunity to explore new development of affordable housing, either within the annexation area, or in the town if development of the annexation area results in middle to upper income residences. 77 /l u n u C Transportation 11 LJ Existing Conditions The transportation network in the immediate vicinity of the Southwest Annexation parcels includes the following major roadways: 11 n Yelm Avenue <SR-510 and SR-507) is the primary principal arterial in the Yelm UCA. To the west of the City, the SR-510 portion of Yelm Avenue becomes Yelm Highway and connects Yelm through Fort Lewis and the Nisqually Indian Nation Lands to the major Thurston County cities of Olympia, Tumwater and Lacey East of the City, Yelm Avenue iskAe,~ruA-'SR-507 and connects Yelm with Pierce County and the ~rban areas of Tacoma, Spanaway and Puyallup. In the immediate site vicinity, Yelm Avenue is a two-lane roadway with a posted speed limit between 35- and 25-mph. All minor roadways intersecting Yelm Avenue are under STOP control. The only signalized intersection along Yelm Avenue is at SR-507/First Street, where separate left-turn lanes are provided. The roadway is under the maintenance jurisdiction of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). u u /l u n n SR-S07 is another principal arterial in the Yelm UCA. This two-lane roadway is under WSDOT maintenance jurisdiction and connects Yelm wi'th the South Thurston County communities of Rainier, Tenino, and the \1f\i~corporatQEi"Crand Mound area near Interstate 5 All minor roadways intersecting with SR-S07 are under STOP control. The only signalized intersection along SR-507 is at Yelm Avenue/First Street, where separate left-turn lanes are provided. u u 11 93rd A venue SE is a two-lane roadway with a posted 3S-mph speed limit providing access for residences along the Fort Lewis boundary to Yelm Avenue. A Thurston County roadway, its approach to Yelm A venue is under STOP control. u 11 u Longmire Street is a local two-lane roadway with a posted 2S-mph speed limit providing access for residences north and south of Yelm Avenue. At its intersection with Yelm Avenue, both north and south approaches are under STOP control To the south, Longmire Street extends approximately 1 and 1/2 miles to a dead-end. North of Yelm Avenue, the roadway extends four blocks 0/2 mile) to its terminus with Coates Street. n I G /l Berry Valley Road is a local two-lane roadway with a posted 2S-mph speed limit providing access to Yelm Avenue for residences south of the Yelm High School campus. The roadway has several curves throughout its 3/4 mile length before its terminus at Thompson Creek. u /l u McKenzie Street is a local two-lane roadway serving southwest residences within the Yelm City Limits. It currently extends from Longmire Street to Railroad Avenue and has a posted 2S-mph speed limit tljrJ rtjJ~, Georr Road is a local narrow oravel roadway servinB res;d~"al" 11 extends from SR~507 to the u 11 fl LJ n u fl u n LJ fl u fl u n u n LJ n u n LJ n I LJ n I U n u Il LJ n u n LJ Il u n u (l LJ C. Transportation Existing Conditions The transportation network in the immediate vicinity of the Southwest Annexation parcels includes the following major roadways: Yelm Avenue (SR-510 and SR-507) is the primary principal arterial in the Yelm UCA. To the west of the City, the SR-510 portion of Yelm Avenue becomes Yelm Highway and connects Yelm through Fort Lewis and the Nisqually Indian Nation Lands to the major Thurston County cities of Olympia, Tumwater and Lacey East of the City, Yelm A venue is ~~eU7o A-SR-507 and connects Yelm with Pierce County and the ~rban areas of Tacoma, Spanaway and Puyallup. In the immediate site vicinity, Yelm Avenue is a two-lane roadway with a posted speed limit between 35- and 25-mph. All minor roadways intersecting Yelm Avenue are under STOP control. The only signalized intersection along Yelm Avenue is at SR-507/First Street, where separate left-turn lanes are provided. The roadway is under the maintenance jurisdiction of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) SR-S07 is another principal arterial in the Yelm UGA. This two-lane roadway is under WSDOT maintenance jurisdiction and connects Yelm with the South Thurston County communities of Rainier, Tenino, and the tmit\corpora-tQe{"Crand Mound area near Interstate 5 All minor roadways intersecting with SR-S07 are under STOP control. The only signalized intersection along SR-S07 is at Yelm A venue/First Street, where separate left-turn lanes are provided. 93rd Avenue SE is a two-lane roadway with a posted 3S-mph speed limit providing access for residences along the Fort Lewis boundary to Yelm Avenue. A Thurston County roadway, its approach to Yelm Avenue is under STOP control. Longmire Street is a local two-lane roadway with a posted 25-mph speed limit providing access for residences north and south of Yelm Avenue. At its intersection with Yelm Avenue, both north and south approaches are under STOP control To the south, Longmire Street extends approximately 1 and 1/2 miles to a dead-end North of Yelm Avenue, the roadway extends four blocks 0/2 mile) to its terminus with Coates Street. Berry Valley Road is a local two-lane roadway with a posted 25-mph speed limit providing access to Yelm Avenue for residences south of the Yelm High School campus. The roadway has several curves throughout its 3/4 mile length before its terminus at Thompson Creek. McKenzie Street is a local two-lane roadway serving southwest residences within the Yelm City Limits. It currently extends from Longmire Street to Railroad Avenue and has a posted 2S-mph speed limit tl/rJ rtll~, George Road is a local narrow gravel roadway serving residential ~ It extends from SR-S07 to the west for approximately 1,300 feet. ^ 121st Avenue SE/Manke Road SE/118th Avenue SE/Filman Road SE/123rd Avenue SE/Military Road SE is a two lane route extending from SR-507 to Rainier Road in Thurston County The roadway serves residential and agricultural uses along the southeastern boundary of Fort Lewis. Existing Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analyses Figure 19 illustrates existing peak hour travel volumes on the major roadways throughout the Yelm UCA. All traffic counts were collected from WSDOT data sources and surveys by Skillings & Chamberlain, Inc. in preparation of the comprehensive transportation plan. 78 /l LJ n u n , u n LJ n LJ n LJ rI u 11 LJ Il u n LJ Il u 11 u Il u Il u Il u rI u Il u rI u 11 U Major intersections were analyzed to assess existing capacity deficiencies. The analyses were completed using procedures outlined by the current edition of the Highway Capacity Manual for unsigna1ized intersections, and the planning analyses of Transportation Research Circular 212, entitled Interim Materials on Highway Capacity Results from the analyses are recorded in a Level of Service (LOS) six-letter scale ranging from A to F (similar to standard high-school grading) LOS A represents free-flowing travel conditions; and LOS F represents congested travel. Analyses were also completed using the guidelines of the pending Yelm Concurrency Management System (CMS) program. The CMS identifies fifteen major intersections for monitoring traffic impacts. These intersections are identified in the following figure. LOS results compared to the City's LOS standards to determine deficiency or concurrency The City has adopted two LOS for the UGA. ~ LOS D for all intersections along Yelm Avenue between 93rd Avenue SE and the Five- Comers junction; and LOS C for all remaining roadways in the UGA. ~ In future year analyses, a sixteenth intersection was identified for analysis. the South Site Drive to the Southwest Annexation parcels intersection with SR-507 The existing LOS results are summarized in Table 17 Table 14 . Base Year Capacity Analysis Results System Peak Hour Volumes Intersection LOS Concurrency LOS~ Standard ---3~ 2. 93rd Ave, and SR-510 D B 4. Yelm Ave. and Edwards Street D 0 5 Mosman Ave. and SR-507 C B - north intersec., B - south inter sec. 7 Yelm Avenue and l03rd Avenue D 0 8. Five-Comers 0 E 9 Grove and SR-507 C D 10. 3rd Street and Yelm Avenue 0 0 12. Yelm Avenue and First Street D C 13 First St. and Canal Rd-Wilkensen Rd. C A Existing travel conditions throughout the Yelm UGA are consistent with the expectations of rural LOS. within the A-C range. However, segments of Yelm Avenue are at or exceed the LOS standard established by the City In addition, field observations found severe congestion exists during other times of the day and are associated with brief traffic bursts related to school dismissals (near Edwards Street and the High School Campus area) and post office operations (near 3rd Street) 79 ~ ,0 5 15 5 5 t;g ~oo .g'a o.n ~~ .,~ ~.g 93rd AVfE ~ r~ ., ,J>:~ 's 90 /0 .I , 5 W Ac;Cf!3SS '" ..J I' U Ii LJ {/\:> '},"5 ~, I' So ? , 00 U ~Il'l {I U {I \0 l..J '" ,0 ~:'? rv Ii U " L.J " \ l..J ..,... tl L.J southwest yelrTl " Annexation E:IS l..J f\Guf\t. ,\9 VOL.UMes s. CHAMBel2LAIN tl 1992 peAK HOUR ~ ASSOC1A n:S IN l..J 80 ........ ~:- ~ --- --- r-"l u n u n u r-"l u n u n u r-"l u n LJ n u n l.J n LJ 11 u n u n u n u n u n u n u fl u Traffic Accidents A comprehensive accident analysis was conducted for the UGA as part of the comprehensive transportation plan project. The four intersections having the highest accident rates include: ~ ~ ~ ~ Five-Corners (jct. of SR-507/Morris Road/Creek Street/Bald Hills Road) 93rd Avenue SE/Yelm Avenue 3rd Street/Y elm Avenue First Street/Yelm Avenue The transportation plan improvements include mitigating safety deficiencies of these intersections. Public Transportation Presently, the Yelm UGA is not served by public transportation. In May 1992, InterCity Transit sought and won voter approval to extend its benefit area to the southern Thurston County communities (including the Yelm UCA) Initial servic,is expected to primarily benefit peak period commuters along SR-510 between Yelm and urban are s to the north, as well as dial-a-ride customers on an as- needed basis. ;n 1~'J Pedestrian and Bicycles The City of Yelm or Thurston County do no~ maintain separate trail facilities for pedestrians or bicyclists within the Yelm UGA. The City has developed a piece-meal sidewalk system along major roadways in the area including segments of Yelm Avenue (between the High School Campus and the City Center) and SR-507 (between the City Park and the City Center) Planned and Programmed Improvements A summary of the City's Comprehensive Transportation Plan is provided in the following figure Significant improvements effecting the Southwest Annexation parcels include: ~ Y-l, SR-510/SR-507 Connector. relocating SR-SI0 as an alternate route around the City Center through the Southwest Annexation parcels. Initial construction is for three- lanes with major intersections at 88th Avenue SE (the Y-3 proposal), 93rd Avenue SE- Yelm Avenue, the Southwest Access roadway, and existing SR-S07 Twenty-year forecast volumes indicate the need for a five-lane facility (included in the comprehensive transportation plan) ~ Y-2. SR-507/Five-Corners Connector, relocating SR-507 as an alternate route around the City Center to the south. Y-2 begins at the Y-l intersection with existing SR-S07 and locate along a due-east alignment to the present Five-Corners intersection Improvements are planned at this intersections to eliminate fifth- and sixth-legs including signalization. Initial construction is for three- lanes, ultimate construction is for five-lanes. ~ Y-S. Yelm Avenue Improvements include widening the roadway to allow for a bi- directional center left turn lane between 93rd Avenue SE and Five Corners. Edwards Street, 3rd Street, and Jayhawks Shopping Center access intersections are recommended for signals. ~ Y-7. Southwest Access is a collector roadway to link the southwest annexation parcels to the City Center and environs. The new roadway could use existing Longmire Street or Berry Valley Road, or have direct access to 93rd Avenue SE. The comprehensive transportation plan recommends conducting a design study to determine the route of this. / facility (For planning purposes, it was assumed the facility is south of 93rd Avenu~~ would intersect Yelm Avenue near the intersections of Longmire Street or Berry Valley Road.) 81 " LJ " u " LJ n LJ II LJ " LJ " LJ " u " LJ " LJ ,-, LJ " LJ n LJ ,-, LJ " LJ '1 LJ ,-, LJ ,-, LJ ,-, LJ ~ Y-8. City Center Connections are linking two discontinuous roadways: Washington Street and Mosman Road. These connections are intended to "fill-in" the grid system south of the City Center and provide better circulation in these residential areas. The City's six-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), include Y-5 and Y-8 construction and design studies for Y-l, Y-2, and Y-7 as immediate priorities. Funding for these improvements are expected from DOT mitigation to existing deficiencies for Y-5, a combination of City/state Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) funding for Y-8, and developer mitigation for the Y-l, Y-2 and Y -7 design studies. Public transportation in Yelm from InterCity Transit is expected by 1993 The actual services plans, other than preliminary estimates previously mentioned, are not available at the writing of this EIS. The City's Comprehensive Transportation Plan supports transit expansion into the UCA and includes a Transit Center (near the City Center) and policies on construction of transit friendly facilities (Le., bus pullouts, etc.) along new roadways and facility upgrades. Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative No. 1 No Action No annexation would occur and traffic levels would continue to grow at or near their present rates. Alternatives 2: Proponent's Scenario Assumptions Each of the annexation alternatives include varying residential and commercial development densities over a twenty-year (2012) build out. Two interim phase years are included in this EIS analysis: five- and ten-year horizons (1997 and 2002) The following table summarizes the planned densities for the parcels over the three horizon years and for each alternative Table 15. Assumed Development Densities Southwest Annexation EIS Preferred and Compact Village Al terna ti ves Al terna ti ve Land Use 1997 2002 2012 1997 2002 2012 Single Family Dwellings 360 1420 1780 320 1270 1590 Multi-Family Dwellings 260 1000 1260 220 910 1310 Retail Employment 100 400 500 100 400 500 Non-retail Employment (Office) 190 790 980 ~ ~ fUr / if f ; II ) rJ fit '" r'JfIij 1H~Jt - 82 ( L j C J [J [ J LJ [ ] [J [ J C J CJ L J C ] C-J LJ [J CJ [J CJ [1 FIGURE 20 RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM 00 U). 89th. th. Ave. S.E. RECOMMENDATIONS Y-1 SR-507 jSR-1510 COINECTOR Y-2 SR-507/F1~ CORNERS COINECTOR Y-3 CANAl.. ROAD NORlH LOOP Y-4 COA1ES-Sl'E'JENS-103rd. CONNECTOR Y-15 'm.IoI AVE. IWPROVDIENTS Y-8 ~YSTAI.. SPRINGS ROAD EXTENSION Y-7 SW ACCESS Y-B CllY CENltR CONNECllONS Y-lI BAlD HIll. ROAD REAUGNIolENT Y-l0 VANCIl ROAD CONNECllON Y-11 11 oth. AVE. s.E. CREEJ( ~OSSINC Y-12 NISQUALlY PINES SECOND ACCESS I KT.& Southwest Yelm Annexation EIS S . CI4AMBERLAIN e ASSOCIATES INC. ~.~. NDaIhf!'(~ [ 1 [ J [ J [ 1 [ J [ J [. J [ J [ 1 [. J C 1 L .J ~\~\}f\€4j.- CMS I2E:COI2DING INTeRSeCTIONS "\ r:p ~ ~ ~ \ ",1'" southWest Yelm Annexation elS s. CHAMBeRLAIN e ASSOCIA res INC ...... ~. fIO ...- -- n LJ n u n LJ [1 I U n u n u n LJ n LJ n i U f' Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment Forecasting travel growth consists of three components. Trip Generation is applying trip rates, developed from previous local studies or national surveys by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), to the forecasted land use to determine the traffic volume associated with the development. In Trip Distribution, a study is conducted to determine where the development traffic is either destined or originated. The final component, Trip Assignment, applies the results from the trip distribution study to the trip generation values to develop a site travel forecast. Site traffic is then combined with existing volumes and traffic generated by other planned developments to produce a total site travel forecast for the study area. All travel forecasting was completed with the assistance of the Yelm Transportation Planning Model. This model, based on the software package TMODEL2, was developed for the Yelm Comprehensive Transportation Plan project and for the City to use in assessing impacts created by future development. The process used to developed this model included. >- Identifying the model area (which was the Yelm UCA); >- Collecting base year roadway and travel characteristics data including land use data for a Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) system (Figure 22 presents the TAZ system for the Yelm model); >- Converting the land use data into traffic volumes and calibrating a gravity model for trip distribution and capacity-restraint auto assignment; and Developing forecast volumes from future land use forecasts for buildout of the Yelm UCA. >- U Traffic generated by the parcel alternatives was developed through trip generation rates by, ITE. Table 16 below summarizes the horizon year estimated traffic generated by the alternatives for each T AZ (l comprising the annexation parcels. LJ Table 16. Estimated Traffic Generation n Southwest Annexation EIS , u n u n u n u n LJ n LJ n LJ n LJ Horizon Year 1997 2002 2012 Al terna ti ve TAZ In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total 32 90 140 230 180 280 460 355 555 910 33 20 40 60 40 75 115 85 160 240 Preferred 34 110 100 210 220 205 425 440 405 845 /Compact 35 15 25 40 25 50 75 55 100 155 36 25 45 70 50 90 140 95 180 275 Total 260 350 610 515 700 1215 1030 1400 2430 32 65 100 165 265 405 670 330 510 840 33 20 35 55 95 140 235 120 170 290 Village 34 85 80 165 350 320 570 435 400 835 35 20 25 45 70 95 165 85 120 205 36 40 45 85 135 180 315 170 220 390 Total 230 285 515 915 1140 2055 1140 1420 2560 85 c j [ j c j [J ( J [ j [ J (J c j [ J c/j L, -' {',- -rI2Aff\C /""" .- --:::.J . 8 \ ') "",So V.~, if;' a-. southWest '(elm AnnexatiOn e;IS HAME3e~L..AIN ~. A~OCIP- ~ ~ ~. rv"""" .,0 , , u n LJ rilldistribution and assignment for the parcel alternatives was generated by the transportation lal ,ling model. Included in the model are calibrated distribution and assignment algorithms that are ep~sentative of Yelm traffic patterns. Figures 21 and 22 illustrates the parcel traffic assigned to the of'~way network as generated by the transportation planning model for the preferred/compact and vi! 1ge alternatives, respectively Figures 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 summarize the forecasting traffic v/Jl~meS, including parcel and other future land use traffic, by 1997, 2002, and 2012 horizon years; and preferred/ compact and village alternatives respectively r 1'..3ffic Impacts Table 17 summarizes the LOS-capacity analyses completed on the fifteen recording intersections of the I~nding CMS. A sixteenth intersection, the south site drive and SR-S07, was added becau /of a direct Lilation to parcel-generated traffic volumes. rT.n summary, the capacity analysis results indicate traffic generated by the planned action is l iccommodated at most locations by the improvements of the comprehensiv transportation plan. However, there are some locations requiring mitigation to bring the LOS back the City standards as a direct result of the proposed action. These locations need signalization and re identified in following n . I ,sectIOn. L Accidents n Many improvements in the comprehensive transportati L deficiencies over the next twenty-years. In addition, Cit standards were upgraded in the comprehensive plan pr~ss to improve the system's safety an reliability Therefore, it is anticipated n accidents will continue in to the future, and may be the dir esult of traffic generated by the proposed i action. However, the t~sportation plan's enhanced de' an safety standards for the UGA should G decrease, but not diminish, the likelihood of accident throughout the study area. CT' n Public Transportation Presently the Yelm area does not have regularly- eduled transit service InterCity Transit, is in the process of developing service to Yelm in 1993. e ~xact service operation is undefined at this time. At this time, the Yelm Comprehensive Transport ion Plan calls for peak period service to accommodate a 5% modal split along the SR-510 corridor wever, this service level needs discussion with InterCity Transit before implementation. LJ n LJ 'I ..J Demographics show many residents c uting to the Olympia-Tumwater-Lacey area for employment, shopping, and recreational opport nities. It is likely residents will use transit service for these activities. However, the impact is ot assessable until the service level is defined by InterCity Transit and the City of Yelm. As the lanning process continues for the S . rcels, additional project-specific stu es may be required, at which time impact assessment to ubIic transportation can be made. 1 Finally, residents may so participate in vanpooling opportunities. The City is also working with InterCity TranS\t l~ tablish frequent vanpool service to help employers meet the Commuter Trip Reduction (CTRi .slation. The exact impact, however, is not measurable at this time 87 LJ " ~ n ~ "" o 10 I ~ "" o LJ 10 I ~ t n LJ n ,..., o ..., " It)~ 01 It) ('/ ('/ ~... o ..... <0 ... ...... LJ (I , LJ LJ 93rd Ave ','-2 ~~ ~...... ...... n LJ 0(90)t\00i __0 _ t901-00)'2.0 \ ,..... lO 0 ~ ~ ~g ~ ~ 'i(; ~ <0 _ \~ " ~ ~.t i?.>..: ~ -r~ ""IS' ~IS' ?: v,. r~ "0 '<"IS' \~ 'OLO ('/ 1I) n~ ...... lO --- <0 o ... 1I) ...... - ..... n LJ n ; LJ S W ACCESS _ 80(2':')(30) (35)('0)45 - rr L n LJ (I LJ n ~, "'0 :.> r~ -50~ ~ (I --.J -, J 0\ / ~ ~~ ...,':J ~ / ~'\: 0" ~ 4 LEGB>D I xx - 1997 (XX) - 2002 CXXJ - 2012 · - LESS ~ 5 TRPS ..T.a. ~. ~RE 23 M PEAl< J-IOUR VOLUMES -0 --EE{?RED/COMPACT ALTERNATIVE 88. .... ~"'''..4l<-..""",., ~<'"~'~~~cl. Southwest Yelm Annexation EIS s . C~AMBERLAIN e ASSOCtA res tNC. .__.. ~. ,IiH) ...,.____ r< LJ 11 u 11 LJ ,--, LJ n LJ r-, LJ r-, LJ r-, LJ " LJ n LJ r-, LJ 'I L.J r< LJ r-, LJ r-, ~ r-, ~ r-, ---.J ", ~ , .--5 fij ~ ... ... 0 0 - 10 10 I I fX fX 1 0 ~N o - o ;..:; ~~ o ~ 10 N ~ 93rd Ave '\.'\.~ ~ 0 6'0' ~, , 1 ~IO o T co - 1');":; '-' 10 "'0> 10 _ I'-~ N ~ $2,51 4-S\,15I\. - - <.'\1$5))0 ~,&".I'- 'O~ ~/ ~'V ~ ^)'j ~ / ~ro ~O 0'1 (.Ii ~ 4' LEGEf\JD xx - /997 (XX) - 2002 D<XJ - 20/2 FIGURE 24 5 W Access -70(35)(35] (45](20)40 - _ 65(15)[15J [15](20)55 - ~ ~ ~~ o.r, ~ ~'b {,.~ ';.J " PM PEAK /-lOUR VOLUMES VILLAGE AL TERNA T1VE ~, "'0 :.> r~ J -507 (PQRp ) I "rA. Southwest Yelm Annexation EIS 89 i S. C~AMBS<LAIN c ASSOCIA res INC. ....... ~. NO......___ 11 LJ 11 LJ 11 u r-, 10 15 LJ 10 11 LJ N<TERNAL AN€XA TION PROPB<TY ACCESS 010 Ol~ ~g LJ 11 93rd AVE 1010 NT LJ r-, ~ r~ 6' o$,o$~~ , :'>0$ "'/ OJ LJ r-, LJ 5 W r< \ 85 55 r-, \00 85 LJ r-, -.lCll (}\o LJ r< LJ ~~ r< LJ r-, 15 20 LJ r-, L.J r-, LJ r-, I LJ "TA. -, .--5 " FIGURE 25 Southwest Yelm AnnexatIon EIS .-.J I 99 7 PEAK /-IOUI< VOLUMES Pf<EFEI<I<EOICOMPACT AL TEf<NA T1VE S . C~AMaS<LAIN c ASSOCIATES INC. -,00 .._.. .....,.... NG ...., ~ r<.',''':. .' '....~ r< u Il u fl 1J 11 OlVl ~co o (]I 110 u Il OlVl -co o (]I ~~ 010 N... LJ 93rd AVE 90 50 lOll) "'11) ... ... 11)0 ...N " o IClII)O I N..t ~1I)t') ,--, G " u " L.J I' i U /l , LJ fl U ~, "'0 :.> 51<-507 620 10 ~:3 LJ - o (]I " G 5 " u ,--, u r-, " I G ..rA. LJ " Southwest Yelm AnnexatIon EIS LJ " FIGURE 27 2002 PEAK /-lOUR VOLUMES Pf<EFERREOICOMPACT AL TERNA T1VE 92 s . C~AMBEJ<LAIN c ASSOCIA res INC. LJ ..._.. ....,.... /IH)......___ ,--, LJ r-, LJ " LJ 00 195 " CI>~ (}I- 00 100 LJ " CI>~ (}I- 00 ~~ 11)11) NN LJ 93rd AVE 11)0 <'110 ... ... 11)0 ...N " u o Il u [I LJ N<Tl3<NAL A./'l€XA TION F'ROPB<TY ACCESS Il LJ " LJ r--, ~~ (}\U\ LJ r-, 51<-507 720 gg ... ... LJ r-, --.I o (}I LJ 5 r-, LJ r-, LJ r-, LJ I r-, LJ Uo. r-, FIGURE 28 Southwest Yelm AnnexatIon EIS LJ r-, 2002 PEAl< /-lOUR VOLUMES VILLAGE AL TEf<NA T1VE 93 S . C~AMBEJ<LAIN c ASSOCIA TES INC. ~. ~. NG a.--r ~ LJ " u " i U /l LJ 350 11 , .....~ (}I CO 00 200 u 55 Il Ol~ OCD (}I 0 11)0 f'-a> ~g LJ 93rd AVE 1 5 80 00 N~ 11)0 Nt') LJ N<TERNAL A./'l€XA TION PROf'8<T'( ACCESS ~ o " LJ 30 25 4- ~ ~ ~O ";)'1-~p LJ fl LJ r 5 W fl n LJ " ...- <DOl (}\()\ " 51<- 507 860 g~ 1'1..- ~, "'0 :.> ~ LJ LJ " LJ 20 " LJ " LJ " " I LJ MoTA. , LJ r-, Southwest Yelm Annexation EIS I I LJ FIGURE 29 LJ 20 I 2 PEAl< /-lOUR VOLUMES Pf<EFERREOICOMPACT AL TERNA TIVE 94 S. CHAMBS<LAIN c ASSOCIATES INC. ..-. ........... MG"" ~ r-, r-, LJ Il , U fl LJ 320 350 11 \ LJ ~~ (}I 0 50 11 ~~ (}\O o ION 1'-- ~~ u 93rd AVE 1 0 80 100 ON NN 100 Nt') fl N<TERNAL ANEXA T1Q\J ----- PROPERTY ACCESS o ~ r~,o.'o ~L- '", 0 -~' /0..1 Il , LJ LJ 30 ---i5 4- ~"' "J'J\ ~~ ~ r-, u Il ~ 5 W n n tv tv ""tv (}\()\ \a- a-~;JV' 0\ 0' \ ~ 4' :'JO ,,0 0 q,' 1010 10..,. 1'1_ LJ LJ Il 900 LJ tv- o U\ r-, LJ 20 11 LJ fl LJ 11 n I LJ MoT.!. u Il Southwest Yelm Annexation EIS LJ FIGURE 30 11 LJ 20 12 PEAK /-lOUR VOLUMES VILLAGE AL TEf<NA T1VE .95 S. CHAMBERLAIN c ASSOCIA TES INC. ....... ~. NO ...,., ~ [ J [ J [J [ J [ J [ J [ J [ J [ J C J [ J [ J L J \.- Level of Service Ana\ysis southwest Yelm Anne~ation Environmentalltnpact Study "v__ ~on Year \~\17 2002 20\2 Preferred Preferred Preferred Concurrency AlternativO Alternative Alternative Level of No-Action and Compact Village No_Action nnd Compact. Village No-Action and ComPact. Village intersection Service AltR-rnotivO Alternotive Alternntive A\ternotivCl AlternotivO Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative 1 BBth Ave & SR-5\O C NIA D' A (si~,) A (silt.) A (silt.) A A A 2 93rd Ave & SR-510 D C C C D E, A (si~.) E. A (sig~ A A A 3 SW Acmss & SR-510 C NIA NIA D' A (sig.) D' A (sig.) NlA A A 4 Yelm Ave & Edwards St D D E. A (si\(,) E. A (si\(,) A A A A A A 5 Mosman & SR.507 C A 13 B A A A B B B, 6 SR-510 & SR-507 C NIA A U II A C C 7 Yelm Ave & l03rd Ave D C D 0 A A- A B A A S SR-507 & Morris Av-Yelm Av D C D 0 D F. A (sig.) F. A (sig.) A A A (Five Corners) 9 Grove Rd-Bald Hills Rd c F A (silt,) A- (sil:') A (si\:.) A- U U A A A & SR-507 10 Ye\rn Ave & 3rd St D 0 D D A A A A A A 11 coates.Stevens & C B B U A A A B B B First St 12 Yelm Ave & FirstSt D A B B A A A- A- A A \3 First St & Canal Rd C A A A A A- A B A A 14 Yelm Ave & sW AccesS D D E. B (si\(,) E, 13 (sig.) A- A A A A A 15 Canal Rd & Crystal Spgs C NIA A A A D: A (sig.) A A 16 S Site Or & SR-507 C NIA NIA F. A (si!:.) F. A- (sig.) N/A C C KEY NI A- Not applicable to thi3 alteTllative, X, X (,'g.), ",,,, X "p.,,"" LOS """goo'"" S",," , "p""n" LOS W... "g''''' 6/23/92 Table ~ 7 \0 C\ ,\dl\\ngs & Cl1amberla'lo. Inc. r-, LJ r-, LJ 11 u 11 LJ II u n LJ 11 LJ n u 11 LJ fl , U fl u n u 11 LJ r-, u 11 LJ n LJ 11 u 11 LJ n LJ Pedestrians and Bicycles All improvements from the Yelm Comprehensive Transportation plan include provisions for sidewalks and bicycle lanes. It is anticipated most travel by this mode related to the Southwest Annexation parcels is recreational, or minimal number of short commutes. Further, since most residents will work in the Olympia-Tumwater-Lacey area, it is very unlikely many commute by either bicycle or walking due to the distance and lacking separate trail facilities. Therefore, the impact to these facilities is minimal. Alternative 3. Compact Scenario Since the densities under Alternative 3 would not differ from those of the proposed scenario, the impacts of this approach are expected to be the same as those described above. Alternative 4. Village Scenario ~ This alternative would generate more potential traffic than the por~onent's scenario and Alternative 3. The increase in potential commercial use would account for rl1tith of the increased traffic under this approach. Since a differnt mix of uses is expected, lowering the residential densities alone would not offset potential traffic increases. As indicated in the tables above, this alternative would result in approximately 2560 new trips by 2012 which would be about 130 more than the proponen'ts scenario would generate Despite the overall increase in traffic, the level of service at intersections identified in Table 17 is not expected to differ from the changes indicated for the proposed scenario This approach is intended to provide opportunities for residents wiithin the proposed annexation area to live adjacent to their workplace, and is intended to encourage possibilities to better utilize alternative transportation methods. To the extent this intent is met, some transportation related impacts may be reduced or avoided. Mitigating Measures ~ Options The major comprehensive transportation plan improvements are related to activities proposed for the Southwest Annexation parcels. These improvements are identified as SR-510 and SR-507 relocation (Y- 1 and Y-2) and the Southwest Access roadway (Y-7) As indicated in the capacity analysis results, most intersections remain within the City's LOS standard. Therefore, the options for more mitigation related to the direct impacts are very limited. The primary option, then, is to determine responsibility for improvements. Traffic generated by the Southwest Annexation parcels account for 50% of traffic volumes on the SR-510 relocation, 35% on the SR-507 relocation, and 100% on the Southwest Access roadway In addition, the capacity analysis results indicate responsibility for traffic signals and intersection improvements at the following locations by horizon year 1997 Horizon Year Yelm Avenue and Southwest Access Roadway 2002 Horizon Year 93rd Avenue SE-Yelm Avenue and SR-510 Southwest Access Roadway and SR-510 SR-507 and the South Site Drive Effectiveness of Options Additional capacity analyses with signals and improvements show the above intersections' LOS raise above C. This is well within the City's LOS standard. 97 ,--, LJ n LJ Other mitigation options include construction of bus pullouts and transit shelters throughout the annexation parcels to accommodate transit, and constructing bike lanes and separate transit facilities to accommodate non-motorized modes. These measures will provide means for residents of planned developments to use other transportation modes. Environmental benefits include reduced traffic on the regional network, which results in lesser traffic congestion and vehicle emissions than those the potential trip generation based on present travel characteristics and commuting habits. Il u r-, u Il Unavoidable Adverse Impacts e.....~~' The following unavoidable adverse impacts on the transportation system may ~ LJ ~ An increase in vehicular activity on the City's transportation network. r-, ~ More vehicular accidents, despite the increased safety design standards. u ~ More locations for vehicular-pedestrian and vehicular-bicycle accidents, despite increased safety design standards. r-, L.J ~ Construction of improvements, as direct result of this action, may delay travel in the Yelm DCA. ,--, LJ 11 u <, ,--, LJ 11 u n LJ ,--, LJ r-, u r-, LJ r-, LJ 11 LJ r-, u ,--, 98 LJ Il LJ Il u 11 LJ n u '1 u rJ LJ r-, LJ rJ LJ r-, LJ r--1 LJ r-, LJ 11 LJ r-, LJ r-, LJ r-, LJ r-, LJ r-, L.J fl LJ r-, LJ D. PUBLIC SERVICES 1. Schools ExistiI\g Conditions The Southwest Yelm Annexation site is located within the boundaries of two school districts, Yelm Community School District #2, and Rainier School District #307 Currently, there are eight school locations that lie in proximity to the proposed annexation. These schools are Yelm High School (946 full time students), Rainier High School (174 full time students), Yelm Middle School (883 full time students), Rainier Junior High School (108 full time students), Fort Stevens Elementary (409 full time students), Rainier Elementary (348 full time students), Prairie Elementary (425 full time students), and Southworth Elementary (344 full time students) schools. There are currently 630 full time students in the Rainier School District and 3,007 full time students in the Yelm School District. According to school district officials both districts are experiencing slight increases in enrollment figures at all grade levels. Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action The proposed annexation would not occur Under this option, the enrollment in local schools would not be affected by any development on the site and would continue to increase at the same rate as present. Alternative 2: Proponent's Scenario It is expected that development within the proposed annexation area would occur in phases. Thus potential impacts in the form of increased enrollment to the school districts would not occur at the time of initial construction and would be spread out over a number of years. This would possibly give the districts the necessary time needed to accoIllIT\odate the expected enrollment increases. With a potential expansion of OV~~g ~~i~the area over the ne 13 ears he greatest potential impact of the proposed~ e 001 Districts relates to the a of additional ~f students and the ability of the districts to provide additional facilities to accommodate the increased~ CDJ enrollment. The Yelm School District has more facilities and could potentially absorb a greater number / I ( of students before overcrowding becomes a serious issue. It is clear that there will be the need for additional schools in both districts to handle the increase in enrollment. The primary impact and main concern to the school district is of a financial nature State facility support is only available for current enrollments. If additional facilities are built in anticipation of growth, the local districts will bear the bulk of all costs. Based on the proposed action, the enrollment by district, is expected to significantly increase over the next 13 years. Transportation will also be a concern in the future. Both school districts have noted that there is already a shortage of school buses to adequately ensure that transportation is available to all students needing a ride to and from school. Currently a portion of the proposed annexation site is within the Rainier School District (all of Section '2 27) If the annexation is completed, this portion of the Rainier School District would be transferred to~ the Yelm School District. The Rainier School District is on record as opposing the loss of any portion of their existing jurisdiction. The loss, according to the Rainier District, would reduce the size of the district substantially, thus reducing the assessed valuation of the district. 99 ,., LJ ,., LJ ,., u fl i LI 11 LJ Alternative 3: Compact Scenario Impacts to the school district would be largely the same for this alternative as they would for the proposed scenario. The proposed boundary change would also remove the site from Rainier School District jurisdiction under this scenario. Alternative 4: Village Scenario This alternative would create less impacts to the school district than the Proposal would. This is because of the reduced enrollment numbers based on the reduction of residential dwelling units and an increase in commercial developments on the annexation site. Like the previous two approaches, it would also place the entire site within the jurisdiction of the Yelm School District. Il Mitigating Measures u n LJ " LJ " , LJ 11 u ,., LJ ,--, LJ 11 LJ 11 LJ " LJ ,., u n LJ 11 LJ /l I LJ . The Southwest Yelm Annexation proponents could assist the School Districts in the planning for and siting of school facilities and bus stops on the annexation site. The conceptual land use plan for the annexation has allocated space for a future school facility . Additional school buses could be purchased, with some financial help in the form of impact and development fees, to help alleviate the impacts to current school t~nsportation systems. \ W"I'" - (, rc ~~yAC \ pl~{) ~ J V~f . V~ ~ \~ N~ \1\ G~ ~ 100 ,--, LJ 11 u 11 LJ ,11 u Il u r-, u Il LJ 11 LJ r-, LJ ,--, LJ 11 u " LJ 11 LJ 11 u ,--, u " LJ Il LJ 11 LJ 11 u 2. Police Protection Existing Conditions The proposed annexation area would be served by the Yelm Police Department. The police department has recently upgraded its vehicles and presently has five patrol cars. It also has one D.A.R.E. van for the anti-drug program, paid for by the state. Presently there are five full-time police officers and one provisional officer The provisional position is scheduled to become full-time in January 1993. The department also has two administrative staff members and three reserve officers. Reserve officers are scheduled to increase to a total of six in 1993. The city maintains a mutual aid agreement with Thurston County and works with four full-time Thurston County de~ves. .,. The city currently tracks calls for service according to tJ:te present case-load. There were approximately 2,700 cases within the department as of October 1990( Generally three times as many calls are received/ than the actual cases assigned, thus approximately 8,100 calls for service have been received in 1992. The majority of these calls concern domestic violence or theft issues. The court house facilities and the ? police station have recently been separated, thus the current station is adequate for present department,----", ' needs. t7 Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action No annexation would occur and the area would remain in Thurston County and would be served by County personnel. Alternative 2: Proponent's Scenario It is expected that the proposed annexation would increase demands on Yelm police services. New development could result in additional calls for service in the area and could generate new demands for security services. The Police Department uses a formula based on additional acreage being added under \ proposed annexations to determine the impacts on personnel and equipment. Generally, the greater area the department has to cover, the more equipment and staff would be needed The Department ~ estimates that the proposed annexation would result in the need for two additional full-time officers and one additional patrol vehicle. Alternative 3: Compact Scenario Regardless of the exact configuration of future development under annexation, potential service impacts would be associated with the total area to be covered by police personnel Thus this alternative would result in the same need for additional officers and another vehicle as would occur under the Proposal. 101 ,--, LJ " LJ 11 LJ fl LJ Il LJ " u r-, u r-, u Il u 11 LJ Il u ,--, LJ " LJ 11 LJ 11 LJ n u 11 LJ 11 LJ ,--, LJ a r 1(1,"/11 A) ~ rill. raW'" ~/~ 3. Fire Protection tl / ~ 1 f ~ u Existing Conditions / The proposed 2,OOO-acre annexation site is served by the Th~rs on County Fire District No.2, and the City of Yelm. The headquarter station, Main Station No. 21, i located on Yelm Avenue in downtown Yelm. The City of Yelm is placing before the voters in Nove r, approval to build a new main station on Mill Road and 104th Avenue S.E.. If approved by the voters, the facility may be built in 1993. The new Station No. 21 would likely include four drive- through bays to provide storage for 8 fire department vehicles. In addition to the headquarter station, there are two substations within Fire District No 2. Substation No. 22 is located at 123rd A venue and Lindsay Road. Substation No. 23 is located at Vail Loop and Hannus Road. At this time, the City of Yelm has an all volunteer fire department. The personnel consists of one fire chief, two assistant chiefs, one captain, five lieutenants, and approximately 25 volunteer fire fighters. In addition to the main station and the two substations, the City of Yelm has a mutual aid agreement with Fire District No.4 in Rainier, Fire District No 17 in the Bald Hills, and a county-wide mutual agreement. Vehicular equipment consists of four Class A pumpers, four tankers supplying 1,500 gallons, 2,500 gallons, 1,800 gallons, and 13,000 gallons, respectively, one rescue vehicle, two brush rigs, one aid vehicle and one utility rig. The average response time to calls is six minutes from the time call is received to the time of the arrival at the scene. During the three-year period from 1989 through 1991, the Yelm Fire Department responded to an average of 688 calls per year and an average of 233 fire calls, for a average total of 913 fire and aid calls per year Of the total calls, approximately 80 percent of these calls are emergency medical service calls. In the project site itself, the City of Yelm has not received any aid or fire calls during the past year with the exception of a few brush fire calls. Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action The proposed annexation would not occur and the area would remain in Thurston County Because less growth is expected under this alternative, demands for services would not be as great, and the county would continue to provide fire protection service to the area. Alternative 2: Proponent's Scenario A total of approximately 5,000 residential units would or could be ultimately be constructed within the 2,OOO-acre annexation area. The project would create immediate needs upon the Fire Department. The all-volunteer fire department serves a population of 8,445 according to Thurston Regional Planning Council estimates. The additional 5,000 residential units could potentially increase their served population by up to 12,500 assuming an average of 2.5 persons per household. At present, the number of personnel responding to fire calls from the project area would be approximately 6 to 8 volunteer fire fighters depending upon the structure and the time of day Types of vehicles responding would depend on the emergency requirements. At this time, the Yelm Fire Department has no fire equipment capable of suppression or rescue above a two-story construction. Many factors contribute to additional cost factors that the fire department must tt to meet to maintain its current level of service. These factors include needs for additional equipment7~uitable to the type of construction within the project area, an increase in the responses for both fire and medical aid responses within both the commercial and residential areas of the project site,~hours for routine fire 102 1 ;I )D l q,' oJ. ~~A ,--, LJ r-, u r-, LJ n u (/ ~O;7 inspections; responses to vehicular accidents related to an increase in traffic in the project area and / other related fire department service impacts. Normally, new construction offsets negative cost factors for fire services through tax revenues such as property taxes. Although revenues are collected in the form of property taxes by the fire district, these revenues are not received for use by the fire department for approximately two years after completion of the project. In essence, the tax revenues (property taxes) collected do not offset the immediate impact demand created in additional equipment and/or manpower required for such a project. Alternative 3: Compact Scenario Il Impacts would be the same as those identified under the proposed scenario. LJ n L.J Il LJ 11 LJ 11 LJ 11 LJ 11 LJ 11 LJ r-, LJ r-, LJ ,--, LJ Il u r-, LJ r-, u " LJ Alternative 4: Village Scenario Impacts would be largely the same as those identified for the proposed scenario. The lower density under this alternative might result in somewhat fewer calls for service to the area Mitigating Measures Fire service impact mitigation will be required for the development within the 2,OOD-acre annexation area. Mitigation will include the design and/or provis;;;t the following: . A satellite station, including utilities, "9Vi11 be built on one of the public land use nodes shown on the proposal. ~ . The property owners within the annexation area Wn1 contribute toward the purchase of fire support vehicles and/or other capital equipment as deemed necessary by the City - !! . Water facilities will be constructed on the annexation area to provide adequate fire flow and to maintain adequate fire pressure during a fire. A minimum pressure of 20 PSI during fire flow is desired with 30 PSI provided under domestic flow conditions. (See water supply conditions) 103 11 LJ r-, LJ 11 LJ r' LJ 11 LJ r' u 11 LJ 11 L.J Il LJ rI LJ 11 LJ r-, LJ r-, LJ r-, LJ r-, LJ r-, LJ 11 LJ r-, LJ r-, LJ 4. Parks and RecreationJ Existing Conditions ,. Park facilities in the Yelm area provide a wide ran e of passive and active recreational opportunities to local residents. While all facilities receive alt~ at deal of use, sports fields and facilities (softball, football, soccer fields, and tennis courts) in the 1m area receive particularly heavy use by organized athletic leagues and teams, high school teams, e general public. The City owns and operates two public parks. In addition, there are recreational facilities at both the Junior High School and Senior High School that are available for the use of the general public by agreement with the schools. Recreational amenities at these facilities include softball/baseball fields, football/soccer fields, tennis courts, swimming pools, activity centers, and play areas. The surrounding area contains many recreational opportunities. There is an ~ eighteen-hole golf course, Nisqually Valley Golf Course, located directly south of the City and within the annexation area. There are also private and public fishing and picnic facilities located at the Deschutes River Falls, and fishing and boating are available at Clear Lake, Bald Hill Lake, Elbow Lake, and Lawrence Lakes, as well as along the Deschutes, Skookumchuck and Nisqually Rivers. e closest Pierce County park to the proposed annexation area is Rimrock Park, approximately 25 miles east of Yelm. Northwest Trek, a regional wildlife facility is also located in Pierce County approximately 20 miles east of Yelm. A county-wide trail system has been proposed for Pierce Co nty that, if constructed, would include a link to Nisqually Delta, approximately 15 miles north of Yelm t;b Impadll of the Propo,al and Alternatives L- ~ ;(;:1 ~~ Alternative 1: No Action No annexation would occur and the land would remain in Thurston County Since it is expected that less development would occur under this alternative, potential impacts on parks and recreation services would be less than those of the other alternatives. Alternative 2: Proponent's Scenario Population growth in the Yelm area will increase the demand for new parks and recreational facilities. Use of existing County, State and City facilities would also increase, as would park maintenance requirements. The need for specific facilities, such as neighborhood and community parks is, in part determined by population density; a low density dispersed development pattern would not create as great a demand for neighborhood parks as would a higher density development. With the completion of the Proposed Action, a significant number of the total population of Yelm will be concentrated in the southem portion of town, there would be a greater need for neighborhood and community recreational facilities to serve this area. The Proposed Action and the alternatives (not including the No Action Alternative), include provisions for potential golf course use and other recreational facilities such as parks and play grounds with sports fields and an open space system with a linked loop trail Alternative 3: Compact Scenario Impacts would be the same as those described for the proposed scenario Alternative 4: Village Scenario Impacts to recreational facilities would be expected to be less since residential units would be decreased. 104 r-, LJ r-, 11 Mitigat:il\g Measures The proposed annexation development would include recreation facilities, potentially including public golf facilities. Potential open space areas could include walking trails and/or bicycling areas. The City of Yelm could also require developer contributions in the form of payments to help provide revenue for additional parks and recreation improvements. ,1:1. (' th, 'I: ,''- (S~ ~ ~j,.);JJ u LJ ,--, LJ Unavoidable Slgnificant Adverse Inq?acts Future population growth will place new demands on existing parks and recreational facilities, and will contribute to the demand for additional parks and recreational programs. Additional costs for development improvements, and operation and maintenance would be needed. Future development in the annexation area could be required to pay impact fees to help cover costs of new facilities. Il LJ Il LJ r-, LJ Il LJ 11 LJ " u " LJ ,--, LJ 11 LJ r-, LJ ,--, LJ " LJ r-, LJ rt LJ /l 105 u r-l LJ r-, LJ 11 LJ r-, I U II u 11 LJ ,--, LJ 11 LJ 11 LJ r-, LJ 11 LJ r-, LJ 11 LJ ,-, LJ 11 LJ I' LJ r-, LJ ,--, LJ 11 u 5. Water Supply Systems. Existing Conditions ;( The city's water supply system cono/sts of two wells located near the city center, and a newer well located in the eastern part of thf city Wells 1 and 2, the downtown wells, are located in the block bounded by Washington and ~~'nzie Streets, 2nd and 3rd Avenues. Well No.3, the Casavante well, is located east of Yelm between 100th Way and t03rd Avenue. ~rll No.1 is 63-feet deep and will deliver 385 cfM. Well No.2 is 55-feet deep and will deliver 400 G/M. The city's distribution system consists of pipe from 4-8 inches in diameter A to-inch water main connects the southern 500,OOO-gallon tank to the downtown system. Newer lines at the perimeter of the system are generally 6 to 8-inch PVC pipes. Existing service lines closest to the annexation area include the 8-inch servLcl.L'~e in Berry Valley Road and a 6-inch main in Longmire Street. Hydrant flow tests conducte~~.~~e city and reported in the, 1989 comprehensive plan indicate that measured flows vary considerably throughout t~tdty, depe!"f!ng upon the proximity to the storage tanks. Calculated flow at 20 {SI ranged from 700 1m to 1,752 GjM. There is no public water supply system in place to serve the ~ 2,000-acre annexation area as proposed. Furthermore, the site is not within the city water service area and the city service maps would need to be amended to include~roposed ann~n. The City of Yelm 1989 Comprehe ive Water Plan/~ovides guidelines for service area extension. The criteria include the r to-the-tlfy limits, provide capacity to serve the property, and not unduly burden the citizens 0 city Additionally, the city requires that all systems be designed and built to meet city design standards. The maximum instantaneous dem!t MID, for the Yelm Water System is based on the State Health Department "Sizing Guidelines for ~ blic Water Supplies" The Ci of Yelm Comprehensive Water Plan indicates that in January 19 , there were 646 si - amily or uivalent residential unit connections. The MID for the 1989 system, which does t include well #3, is . ated at 535 G M, according to the State Health Department regulations. eak daily demand for the 646 connec 1 is 516,800 gallons. Wells No.1 supply a total of 785 M producing 1,130,400 gallons of water during a 24 -hour . riod ( 'Qle State Healt artment r ublic water system to be cap~ of OVl mg 800 gallons petresidential connection per day: Thus, the actual supp y great y ex s e state mal) sou a State regulations also require equalizing storage. This must be at least equal to 150 times the difference between the MID and the source production rate. For 1989 conditions, this source, 785 G M, greatly exceeds the MID, 535 G M. Therefore, no equalizing storage is required under 1989 conditions. l '\tI\~~~tl\\ To determine the required standby storage, the regulations state that the lar est well must be assumed out of service. Under current conditions, this leaves a source supply of 3 G M, for a total of 554,400 gallons per day For the current system, this results in 858 gallons per co ection per day Therefore, no standby storage is required for the 1989 system. With a storage capa' of 550,000 gallons, the system is anticipated to provide adequate storage for projected demand ver ars with an estimate onnect", and a peak daily demand of 904,000 gallons. This 1989 forecast did not account fo e projected growth of the 2,000-acre annexation, which is discussed below 1m r APIYJltViv ~ Alternative 1: No Action Annexation would not occur, water demand would not increase, and the area would continue to be served by Thurston County 106 ,., \ ; " l.J " LJ fl LJ 11 , LJ f' LJ 11 u " LJ 11 LJ I' LJ II LJ 11 u 11 LJ Il LJ II u " LJ r-, LJ r-, u " LJ II u Alternative 2: Proponent's Scenario Complete buildout of the 5,000 residential housing units, commercial and public buildings would exceed the current storage and source capacities of the city's existing system. The pltimate average demand of the fully developed annexation area is anticipated to be a total of 2,800 GtM for a total of 5,000 single- family or equivalent residential connections. Based on the State Health Department minimum source supply of 800 gallons per residential connection per day, the peak daily demand for the 5,000 new connec~~ns is 4 million gallons. The maximum instantaneous demand, MID, for the 5,000 connections, is 3,583 Gtt. f? ~ Preliminary well source evalua' s indicate that four wells within the annexation area can readily produce a total of 2,000 GP~ out adversely affecting the subsurface aquifer This estimated supply is equal to 0.4 GPM per co tion. Calculations prepared by Robinson & Noble indicate that the rainfall recharge capacity of the aquifer greatly exceeds the project well demand The amount of equalizing storage required must equal 150 times the difference between the MID and the source production rate. Thus, 238,000 gallons of equalizing storage is required. To determine the standby storage, the regulations state that the largest well must be assumed to be out of service. With the largest of the forecasted wells out of service, the source supply of 1,500 G M or 2,160,000 gallons per day is calculated. For the buildout condition, this results in 432 gallons per connection per day This is less than the required 800 gallons per day per connection. Therefore 1,840,000 gallons of equalizing storage will be required. - -------. r 2/ f~~ Therefore, the required equalizing storage of 238,000 gallons and the required standby storage of 1,840,000 totals 2,078,000 gallons. As noted above, this far exceeds the current city storage of 550,000 gallons. Eractically speaki~, ~ill be necessary to build storage capacity to provide both standby and equalizing~~ 0 meet . and state require ents. The size of the facility is currently projected to 1JeI~llion ga in si tIi ~ ' (" ~~~~ [} r The annexation area' water system supply will also need to be designed to accommodate actual fire ~, flow requirements to adequately provide fire flow and to satisfy ISO fire flow requirements, City of ~\ Yelm and Washington State rules and regulations, depending upon the final building configuration and fire rating. ~ In addition, irrigation water will be required for proposed recreational demands. Up to 2500 GPM ",q would be required without storage or as little as 400 GPM if storage is^made available. The latt~r \ ,," a ( would be the preferred design. Storage couId be supplied by constructing several surface reservoir ponds ~~ \j~ "t ~ strategically spaced around the proposed recreational areas. One separate 500 GPM well could provide tl (X~~ I the necessary irrigation water for this type of design. Otherwise, several additional wells would be \ : ~ required to produce up to 2500 GPM. -It :.lIOl:lld 198 not~a Llla~e calculations for water demand (domestic, fire and irrigation) assume that there will be no water recharge after withdrawal even though there clearly will be. Therefore, the calculations presented herein are a worst case scenario relative to aquifer demand Alternative 3: Compact Scenario Impacts of the compact alternative are expected to be similar to the Proposal. Existing capacity would still be exceeded by possible development using this approach. Extended phasing would provide additional time to mitigate potential impacts. Alternative 4: Village Scenario Impacts of the village alternative would be largely the same as the Proposal and Alternative 3 107 11 u 11 11 Mitigating Measures The proposed mitigation for complete development of the annexation area is as follows: . Construct one water reservoir with ~~llion gallon capacity within the annexation area to serve complete buildout conditions. LJ I U 11 . Construct a loop water system throughout the entire annexation site with connections to the existing 8-inch main and Berry Valley Road and Longmire Road. LJ LJ s Provide onsite fire hydrants and fire protection devices as required by city regulations. An-J ~WOj~ I .~I f ~~ ~~.1l'\ \J \ "-- I;l,/ c 1W 11 . r-, LJ /l u " LJ r-, u n u r-, u " LJ rJ LJ r-, u 11 LJ Il LJ 11 LJ 11 LJ " 108 LJ 11 LJ I' U Il LJ f' U 11 , LJ 11 u r-, u ,--, LJ 11 LJ Il LJ ,--, LJ " LJ 11 u 11 LJ " , LJ r-, LJ n u n LJ 11 LJ 6. 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.v ~e waste water facilities plan has been approved by all local and state agencies. This new propoi ~=~ will be sized to serve approximately 2,600 people within the City of Yelm city limits by 1995, in the form of 435 connections. The consultant is using a number of 2,600 people WhOj will be served in the form of approximately 792 connections by the year 2010. The city consultant, Parametrix, has assumed 3.3 persons per connection which is conservative. ~ of 2.4 perSOf\3 p% ~ mon: L'OnsisteAllriJh-pupulatioh profecdullS used by Thurston Coun~' 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~m~t('l~Celllnrlia Power LaHal~ _ ~f 'W. ~t. Proposed primary outfall from the sewage treatment facility will be into the Centralia Power canal (as authorized by a DOE NPDES, 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 the next tw'" ~34S, \<\\'b\ and therefore, will theoretically be availableJto serve a portion of the annexation area. Th ., .. ti' . II f th .Sftrl bltj.~ o.'A.s\''": t . t' t Th e CIty IS anticlpa ng usmg a 0 e aval a e connections 0 servEL ItS CU~:~~lty cus omers. e design of the sewage treatment plant will allow wtti{ expansion tne-connec . approximately 357 additional units to this system by the year 2010. It is anticipated that the city would sell connection rights to the system on a first-come-first-serve basis. The fees associated with connecting to the system w-9Yld be directly proportional to the cost of providing sanitary sewer service to each individual user. ~DrU1eL'tiun lJ~js. ~ . J \) The current government funds which have txJn allocated for the construction of the sewage treatment plant allow for an average daily flow of ~llion gallons per day (MGD) when the plant becomes operational in 199 is is approximately equivalent to 435 connections. mate , c~l ave an expansl or_approximately 97~4i~s wbiGR-wifrbe--u~oo to se~only area~ within-currmt ri~~~. The 1994 projected service area will be for 1,430 people (0.14 M ) The 2010 future service area ~I be for 2,600 people (0.30 MGD) The city fU~-y intends to con ct the plant as provided und~~ste-'Water facilities plan prep~~d by Para rix, I . Based on the projected population of the city in Yelm and including the annexation area of 2,000 acres (approximately 5,000 additional units) substantial expansion of the proposed new sewage treatment with facility would be required. Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action No annexation would occur thus demands associated with potential development under the Proposal 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. 109 ,--, LJ II LJ fl , LJ " I l.J 11 LJ 11 u 11 LJ 11 l.J Il LJ Alternative 2: Proponent's Scenario Because the ultimate build-out of the annexation area would require approximately a 5-fold increase of the maximum currently anticipated sewage flows, a significant expansion of the plant will be required. However, an expansion of this type is feasible as long as a long-range expansion plan is developed to increase sewage treahnent capacity on an incremental basis. For purposes of sewage treahnent design, the following criteria has been used. . Eighty gallons per capita per day is assumed for domestic sewage flow . Seventy-five gallons per capita per day is assumed for commercial sewage flow . A total of 105 gallons per capita per day is assumed for a gravity sewage flow for the proposed annexation area. Alternative 3: Compact Scenario q Waste~ater impacts would remain largely similar to the Proposal under this potential development .; , :::~ve ~ Village Scenario J ~~~ This approach would also result in impacts similar to those described under the Proposal above. ~- Mitigating Measures r-, The proposed total sewage that would be generated by ultimate build- out of the annexation area is summarized as follows: LJ r LJ Il LJ " LJ fl LJ " LJ ,--, LJ ,--, LJ 11 LJ ,--, LJ 5,000 units X 2.4 capita per dwelling unit X 105 gallons per capita per day X 1 day = 1,260,000 total gallons per day is equal to 1.260 MGD ~ /1/ Because the NPDES permit allows for an average daily discharge into the Centralia Power canal of 1.3 MGD (2.0 CFS), once this allowance has been utilized, a new NPDES permit will be required At ultimate build-out, a flow of 1.260 MGD from the annexed area plus 0.3 MGD from the existing deferred service area would produce an average daily flow of 1.56 MGD Individual peaking factors for various neighborhoods would be on the order of 2.5 Lower peaking factors in main trunk lines designed and constructed which would leave from the neighborhoods to the sewage treatment plant would be approximately 1.5 However, for purposes of calculation the maximum sewage flow to the sewage treatment plant, the total as noted above should be used. Clearly, substantial expansion to the proposed sanitary sewage treatmeny~t would be required in order to serve the proposed annexation area. According to the city, ~system will be provided for the city system as currently proposed. Other areas, and particularly those areas within the potential annexation area with only medium density residential development, would most likely be cost- effectively served by gravity sewer systems. The city has purchased approximately 12 acres of property to construct the current sewage treatment plant. Parametrix has completed preliminary calculations which indicate that the existing 12-acre site of the proposed sanitary sewer treatment plant would be sufficient to accommodate the ultimate additional build-out of the annexation area. If additional area is needed, however, the city could purchase (or condemn to purchase) adjacent property in order to expand the sewage treatment plant. 110 I' LJ ,--, LJ Once the proposed system has been constructed, it is likely that the city would provide additional sanitary sewage treatment on a per development basis based on mitigation fees collected at the time of development approval by the city Once a specific development project has been defined and a land use application has been submitted to the city for review, a full analysis of the sewage treatment requirements would be made. The city's consultant, Parametrix, Inc., would then analyze the specific expansion requirements which would be necessary within the current City of Yelm sewage treatment plant system. Fees would then be levied directly to the property owner and/or developer in order to pay for the expansion capacity Fees would then be paid by the developer prior to any connections being made within the development. Once the sanitary sewer system has been expanded, individual housing units and/or businesses would be allowed to connect to the sewer based upon the additional capacity available at that time. ~.lJ!if\h wfJt/ 5elN(,r ~. () . The' rovi a c Ian for the' This c Ian would outline the general expansion requirements of the existing sewage treatment facility on a per development basis. Funding for this study should be contributed on an area basis by each property owner within the annexation. ?~~~~ LJ I' L I' ~ 11 i 11 u 11 LJ . Additional sanitary sewage treatment plant expansion costs will be passed on directly to each development on a direct cost basis. 11 u . On-site sanitary sewer systems will be required to service each development individually Trunk lines will be constructed as necessary in order to serve each individual development as it connects to the existing city system. 11 LJ r-, LJ Il u Il LJ r-1 u r-1 u r-, LJ 11 u r-, LJ 11 LJ r-1 111 LJ 11 LJ r-, LJ Il LJ r< u fl u 11 u 11 LJ fl LJ r< LJ ! LJ r< LJ 11 LJ n LJ r-, LJ r-, u 11 LJ 11 LJ r-, LJ r< LJ 7. Storm Water Drainage and Storm Collection Systems (? ~w- / Existirtg Conditions Drainage Systems Very few storm water collection systems have been constructed or maintained within the annexation area. The Nisqually Valley Golf Course and a few of the farms in the area incorporate primarily open ditches and culverts to collect and convey storm drainage away from buildings and developed areas. Storm drainage collection systems within streets located within the annexation area are non-existent. Water apparently sheet flows toward streams in these areas. Collection Systems Naturally occurring storm water drainage infiltration systems are provided by the existing pothole/depressions located throughout the annexation area. Human-designed detention systems including open surface water ponds and/or underground pipes have not been constructed within the existing developments (primarily the Nisqually Valley Golf Course and farms) within the proposed annexation area. Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action ~"'V The proposed annexation would not take place and impacts associated with the development \t" alt5:ati es under the Proposal would not occur '-~ '1J ~'. lterna 've 2: Proponent's Scenario I pon development, complete storm drainage collection and conveyance facilities will be requirec( This will include providing open water channels (ditches) and/or subsurface p~ping systems to convey storm drainage away from building areas and into storm water collection and storm water treatment facilities. In addition, storm drainage catch basins with oil/water separator sumps would be provided within roadways and all paved areas. Construction of these areas would assure that the storm drainage conveyance system is operated and maintained to a level consistent with current water quality requirements. This alternative would result in the need for approximately 3,150,000 cubic feet of detention volume as calculated below. Assuming that J Washington State Department of Fisheries requirementjvould be imposed on any project within the proposed annexation area, the detention volume provided would be based upon 1/2 of the 2-year release rate and the 25-year storm event detention and storage requirements. Based on this l~ criteria, it is estimated that the following detention volumes for the Proposal would be: \) ~ :. ~::::;~::::::::::~~::t::a:ei:;:I~Ol~,=:b::e:~et. ~ .~;.( c. Public Facilities - 20 acres at 2,500 cubic feet per acre is equal to 50,000 cubic feet. Total Estimated Detention Volum~~nnexation Area is 3,150,000 cubic feet. l'- Regarding runoff collection, developed areas will produce additional storm water runoff due to the construction of impervious surfaces including asphalt, rooftops, and gravel and lawn areas. The additional storm water runoff will require the construction of storm drainage detention and/ or retention systems. Storm drainage detention will be provided either in the form of surface ponds and/or subsurface vaults and/or pipes. Surface ponds can be arranged to accommodate drainage for each drainage basin separately (one pond per basin) or on a regional basis (one pond per several drainage basins) 112 " LJ n I , LJ 11 , u Il u Il u Il u 11 LJ fl LJ Il LJ 11 LJ Il LJ Il LJ Il LJ r-, LJ Il LJ 11 u 11 u 11 LJ 11 u d b d . ed b' d t' r:~NJ\~~.. d h' Multiple use pan scan e eSlgn to com me storm e ention, ~se lrngahon an aest ehc purposes. These ponds could be constructed both within and outside of the defined recreational areas. These facilities will be sized in order to limit the post-development storm drainage flows to that of the pre-developed site. These types of systems are commonly used within western Washington in order to mitigate the impacts of what would otherwise be higher runoff rates than in the natural condition. By constructing these facilities, off-site storm drainage flows are reduced to that of the pre-developed site. AI ~lq- The existing significant depression/pothole/retention areas located primarily on the western portion of the annexation area will be utilized to percolate surface water into the subsurface aquifer where allowed. However, some changes will be required within these pothole areas in order to accommodate the additional storm drainage runoff flows and volumes produced by development. Three types of specific designs are proposed within the drainage basin for each depression/pothole. The three design alternatives for the retention systems are outlined in the attached figures. Although it has not been specifically determined which alternative would work best in each pothole/depression/percolation area located within the annexation area, one of the three alternatives would generally be used depending on requirements of the city These alternatives are explained as follows. ~ \ ~ the existing configuration of each depression/pothole and discharge more storm drainage volume into each pothole. This would result in higher average water levels within the bottom of each pothole. Several of the existing potholes located on the westerly portion of the annexation area have standing water of up to several feet deep during the wet portions of the year A few of the larger depressions appear to pond water year-round. Many of the smaller potholes appear to be dry most of the year r; fY' Each pothole has its own storm drainage infiltration characteristics. Naturally occurring potholes receive storm drainage water of varying amounts depending on the amount of rainfall within a given year As rainfall provides an environment for the growth of various vegetative species, these species flourish in the bottom of the potholes. When the vegetation dies each autumn and regrows each spring. naturally occurring silt and/or organics are deposited on the bottom of each pothole. This process, I ?eneral,ly referred to the eutrophication process, eventually makes the bottom of each pothol\. ImpervIOUS. ' "'- Once this occurs, the primary infiltration area of a pothole is along its side walls. As silt creates an / impervious pothole bottom storm water would pond to a depth higher than the silt and then percolate through the sides of the pothole, rather than its bottom. @ThiS alternative assumes that storm drainage is discharged directly into each pothole. As a result, the water level within each pothole would increase to either a smaller or larger degree depending on the amount of water in the pothole. Dredging and/or cleaning out the bottom of each pothole would be required to assure that the required amount of infiltration is provided on an on-going basis. In this retrospect, the pothole would serve as both a detention area (holding the water in a temporarily ponded state), as well as infiltration facility percolating water into the ground water table. 'V ". A separate detention system could be provided near the top of each pothole which would provide a restriction for stonn drainage water into each pothole. These facilities would be constructed in the form of a surface pond of subsurface storm drainage vault or underground pipe. Primary advantage in this type of facility would be to slow the rate of storm water discharging into each pothole. This type of facility could be used within smaller potholes which could be more sensitive to storm water volume than larger potholes. ~"';Separate retention facilities which would not discharge into the existing storm drainage systems could also be developed. These facilities could be constructed in the fonn of open retention ponds or subsurface 113 r-, LJ 11 LJ 11 u ,--, LJ 11 , LJ fI LJ Il u ,-, LJ r-, u Il LJ 11 L.J ,--, u 11 LJ r-, LJ 11 LJ 11 LJ 11 u 11 LJ 11 LJ percolation system with no outlet. except that they are much larger. <.~ ~,,/>f'~~ Subsurface percolation systems are similar to~ sepnc-- ~ An important requirement for any retention system is proper maintenance. All retention systems should incorporate silt removing facilities prior to discharge into the retention area. Biofiltration facilities mayor may not be required for the infiltration systems. Typically, depending on the gradation of soils within a given discharge area, subsurface filtering of storm water is satisfactory and in many cases, separate biofiltration facilities are not required. Any development within the annexation area with substantial developed area would require the mitigation of storm water discharge volume and rate. This would necessitate the design and construction of storm water detention facilities and/or detention facilities as noted above. The satisfactory operation of these facilities is dependant upon the ability of the soils to percolate water Mitigation for the increase of storm water is proposed below Alternative 3: Compact Scenario By decreasing overall impervious area, this approach would reduce the need for detention volume to approximately 2,050,000 cubic feet of area. This would be approximately 1,100,000 cubic feet less than the Proposal. The use of potential retention/detention facilities would be the same as the Proposal, as would potential designs for accommodating drainage outlined above. The estimated storm drainage detention volumes would be as follows: a Residential - 600 acres at 3,000 cubic feet per acre is equal to 1,800,000 cubic feet. b. Commercial - 40 acres at 5,000 cubic feet per acre is equal to 50,000 cubic feet. c. Public Facilities - 20 acres at 2,500 cubic feet per acre is equal to 50,000 cubic feet. Total Detention Required this alternative is 2,050,000 cubic feet. Because of the additional open space under this approach, fewer existing potholes will be affected by additional storm drainage volume. Therefore, it is expected that less areas of construction for detention or infiltration would be needed. It is estimated that the overall storm drainage impacts of this alternative would be approximately 25% to 33% less than the Proposal. Alternative 4: Village Scenario Impacts would be largely the same as for the Proposal. A total estimated area of approximately 3,250,000 cubic feet of detention volume would be needed for this approach. This area would be approximately 100,000 cubic feet greater than the Proposal The village concept would incorporate more commercial and office space area than other alternatives. As a result, substantially more storm drainage detention would be required than under the Proposal. Storm drainage detention volumes for this approach are estimated as follows: a Residential - 900 acres at 3,000 cubic feet per acre equals 2,700,000 cubic feet. b. Commercial - 100 acres at 5,000 cubic feet per acre equals 500,000 cubic feet. c. Public Facilities - 20 acres at 2,500 cubic feet per acre equals 50,000 cubic feet. Total for this alternative is equal to about 3,250,000 cubic feet. Because there would be significantly more commercial area for this approach, there would be additional storm drainage impacts to areas immediately adjacent to and within the commercial areas. Commercial areas tend to have a substantially higher coefficient of runoff than do residential areas, 114 11 u 11 LJ and therefore would be expected to generate more storm drainage run-off which must then be detained prior to release offsite or retention. Il LJ Mitigating Measures rl Drainage Systems . Surface conveyance systems in the form of open ditches and/or conveyance channels will be required wherever practical within each development. u Il . Subsurface storm drainage collection systems incorporating the design and construction of subsurface storm drainage pipe will be an alternative to open ditches. LJ rl . The design and construction of storm drainage catch basins with oil/water separator sumps to collect oil, heavy metals, and silt from runoff areas will be required in all paved areas. LJ ,--, LJ . Surface or subsurface storm water retention/ detention systems will be required. LJ Collection Systems . Provide storm drainage detention in areas where a viable downstream channel or open body of water exists to accept additional storm drainage flow 11 11 . Provide surface retention in areas without any viable means of surface discharge. LJ . Provide retention facilities in areas where retention does not occur naturally but can be created due to good soil conditions. fl I LJ . Provide de-siltation facilities to ensure that both retention and detention systems operate as designed. 7 X .,';}..\ ~ \ / \)\ 11 LJ 11 LJ r-, LJ r-, LJ r-, LJ rl LJ 11 LJ 11 u 11 115 u ,--, u Il u Il LJ 11 L.J ,--, LJ r1 LJ ,--, LJ Il LJ Il LJ fl LJ r-, u " LJ ,--, LJ r-, L.J r-, LJ 11 LJ r-, LJ r-, LJ r-, u 1 8. Solid Waste Collection/Recycling Systems. fA ~ ' 6 Existing Conditions Solid waste is collected by LeMay Garbage Se According to the Thurston County Solid Waste Management System, the solid waste collection ranchise held by Harold LeMay Enterprises, includes the entire city limits of Yelm and the propose 2,0OD-acre annexation area. Material collected from the city limits is deposited at the Hawks Prairi landfiIllocated northeast of Lacey Thun Field in Pierce County, another sanitary landfill, is also open to residents of the Yelm area. ~hr'? \ ~ The total remaining capacity at the Hawks Prairie landfill is approximate~IO acr s t present levels Ll\~ of waste generation and recycling in Thurston County Approximatel 358 ons 0 waste was genQrate8- 01/, ~ at this facility per day in 1990 and approximately two millio eu ic yar s volume remains at the site The Thurston County 1992 Solid Waste Management Plan currently estimates county waste generation to be approximately 6-7 pounds per person per day This plan estimates that for the 20-year period from 1992 to 2011, the county will require solid waste dispoSal capacity for between 4.9 million and 54 million cubic yards to accommodate 2.4 million to 2.7 million tons of solid waste. Currently, the county is discussing a goal of diverting 60% of solid waste generated county-wide through waste reduction and recycling programs. These efforts may reduce the corresponding amount of solid waste directed into the \\-1'\\ 1J:un Field and Hawks Prairie Landfill from the City of Yelm and the annexation area. At this time, V \ ~aste is being generated by the annexation area, which is largely undeveloped. Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1. No Action Impacts associated with new development would not occur and the proposed annexation area would continue to be served by Thurston County services. Alternative 2: Proponent's Scenario The overall average density of landfill waste is approximately .65 tons per cubic yard. Assuming that 5,500 new residences are developed at full build-out, approximately 32,328,000 pounds of additional waste would be produced each year for the Proposal, assuming 2.3 persons per residence and an average of 7 pounds of waste generated per person per day L I, . ~~ ,,~ ~ ~ t'q~ '\~ ..\~ , ~~\ Converting this additional waste to landfill volume, a total of approximately 10,500 cubic yards per year of additional waste would be generated from the fully developed annexation area. With an average rate of fill at the hawks Prairie landfill equaling approximately 200,000 cubic yards per year, the total additional wastes expected to be generated from the Proposal is 10,500 cubic yards per year This amount would represent approximately 5 percent of the overall total. Therefore, it is estimated that the fully developed Proposal would reduce the remaining 10 year life expectancy of the landfill by about six months. The actual life left at the Hawks Prairie landfill will be dependent upon the level of recycling that occurs and the actual population growth within Thurston County While waste stream reduction by recycling may extend the life of the landfill, other disposal alternatives being considered include developing a new in county landfill (no sites have yet been formally identified), contracting for disposal to existing operational landfills in other counties (such as Rabanco landfill in Klickitat County or the Waste Management landfill in Gilliam, Oregon), and opening and operating a regional landfill to serve the five counties in the southwest region of the state. 116 11 LJ I' i LJ Alternative 3: Compact Scenario This alternative is anticipated to have largely the same impacts as the Proposal, as the number of residential units is anticipated to be approximately the same. Although more multifamily units could be provided, solid waste generation is not expected to differ greatly from amounts expected under the Proposal. Similar impacts to landfill capacity would be expected. 11 ~ n Alternative 4: Village Scenario Under this approach, a greater area could be devoted to commercial use and overall residential use would decrease. This could result in a reduction in the amount of residential waste, however, commercial wastes mayor may not offset this reduction, depending upon the type of business developed. LJ n LJ Mitigating Measures /l \ LJ '() Waste reduction efforts and recycling efforts will be provided in the annexation area in conjunction with the solid waste pickup service. Vf 1411. i/t'nu'rJ d~ sltf f~~V\ . LJ 11 j'1 l.J I"l LJ ,--, LJ Il LJ I"l u I"l u r-, u I"l LJ r-, LJ n u I"l LJ I"l 117 LJ [l u n u r-, LJ l' i U 11 LJ [l u /l LJ {I U 11 u {I LJ 11 u 11 u [l u n u n d /l G I' i LJ fl LJ " u 9. Facility Planning and Concurrency Existilli Conditions 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 order to prevent reducing the present services to local residents. This may require development impact fees based on the level of proposed facilities and existing service availability 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. 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. lt would also require roadway improvements and additions to police, fire and school 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. Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action The area would not be annexed and no immediate new demands on the provision of local services would occur New development would take place under Thurston County regulations and, under provisions of the Growth Management Act, would still be required to locate only in those areas where services could be provided. Since it is expected that growth without annexation would be less than under the other alternatives, this approach would not be expected to result in great changes to the local utility providers ability to meet service needs. 118 (1 (1 [1 (l (1 (1 [1 cJ C -J c-l CJ L -' 1\.\..1.1:.1""1'o-)..L 'Y t. 3 Cott\l'act Residential - Cornrr.crcia\ - 'Pub\iC - Golf Course - 1\.'L~N~ 2 y!ol'osed ve"elol'tt\ent Residentia\ - cotn1l\ercia\ - 'Public - Golf Course - 975 AC. 35AC. 2.0 AC, 2.76 AC. 1 Roads a 2.0,000 l.F Main ~l"d. @ $400/l.F :::: $8I$JJ,000 D 120,()I)J l.r eolleclor / a"'ess roads @ $200/l.F :::: $2.4,000,000 ~ <=> 2.. Sewer . a 140 rJ$J l.F Sewer Ma1ns (8<10",12." ,15" &. 18/1) @ $(jj/U' (average) ~ '.,B,400,()I)J D. Uft Sla\i01'\S - 5 @ $150,()I)J ~ $750,000 . C 'freat1t\ent 'Plant E)(.l'an510n . 5500 units@$1800/unit:::: $9,900,000 '3 'Water . a 140,000 l.F 'Water Ma\ns- (8" , 10" , 12") @ $50/l.F :::: $7,000,000 D. slorage 'tarU<S - 2 U'il\ion gal101'\S @ $2/ gallon:::: $4,000,000 'far Al. :::: $62.,050,000 tfiJ AC, 40AC. 2.0 AC. 2.76 AC. 1 Roads a 20,000 l,'F Main ~hrd. @$400/l.F:::: $8,000,000 D. 90,()I)J l.r Colleclor / acceSS roads @$200/l.F:::: $18,000,000 2. Sewer . a 110,000 l.F Sewer Malns ('I{' _ 1'1{') @ $(jj/l.r (average) :::: $6,tfiJ,000 nN'l D. UII Slal\01'\S - 4 @ $150,""" ~ $600,000 . 'freat1t\ent 'Plant r,)(.pans10n c. 4500 units@$1800/unit:::: $8,100,000 '3 'Water . a 110,000 l.F 'Water Ma\ns- (?f' _ 12") @ $50/l.F :::: $5,500,000 D. Slorage 'tankS - 2 U'illion gallonS @ $21 gallon:::: $4,000,000 'f0'f Al. :::: $50,800PfYJ 900 1\.c. 1101\.c. 20AC. 2761\.c. 2 Sewer . a 128,000 lX Sewer Malns (8" to 18") @$60/l.F :::: $7,680/;ji:!J D l.ill Slatio1'\S - 6 @ $15OpIlO ~ $900,000 . c 'freat1t\ent 'Plant E,q>ans\on . 5\fJJ units @$1800/unit:::: $9,000,000 '3 'Water . a 128,000 l.F water Matns- (?f' to 12") @$50/lX:::: $6,400,000 D. Slorage 'tankS - 2 rn\IUon ga\\o1'\S @ $21 gallon:::: $4,000,000 'f0'f 1\.l. :::: $57,180,000 . h wn in this do01'roent. * Cosl based on ",neep""! "Ie plat'S 5 0 . . I _ october 1992 Sou,''', B"ghausert Consu!hng En!,n"'" nC. [J CJ [J CJ [] CJ [J [J Cl C~ J C -J [l C l [J L J L_ J L J )0..1. N )0..1. SERVICES COST BY LAND AREA COST BY POPULATION YELM SCHOOL DISTRICT $19,670,2~0 ac. = $26,58143 per acre Average annual capture rate Yelm area = 10.4% $19,670,263 Budget 1992-1993 2000 acres to be annexed x $26,581 43 = $19,670,263 + 1,365 persons = $14,410.45 per person $53,162,872 = total additional cost for school service by land area $19,670,263 x 10.4% = $2,045,707.30 per year 20 years x $2,045,707.30 = $40,914,146 = total additional cost per projected population POLICE S],RVlCE $339,175 + 740 ac. = $458.34 per acre $339,175 + 1,365 persons = $248.47 per person $339,175 = 1991 Appropriated Budget 2,000 acres x $458.34 per acre = $916,680 $339,175 x 10.4% = $35,274,20/per year increase 20 years x $35,274.20/year = $705,484.00 EIRE $47,300 + 740 acres = $63.91 per acre $47,300 + 1,365 = $34.65 per person $47,300 1991 Appropriated Budget 2000 ac. x $63.91 per acre = $127,820 $47,300 x 10.4% capture rate = $4,919.20/year increase 20 years x $4,919.20 = $98,384 J:b.RKS AND RECREATION $60,346 + 740 ac. = $81.55 per acre $60,346 + 1,365 = $44.21 per person $60,346.16 Budgeted 2000 acres x $81.55 per ac. = $163.100 $60,346 x 10.4% = $6,27598 per year increase 20 years x $6,275.98 = $125,519.60 TABLE 19 ESTIMATED PUBLIC SERVICE COSTS OF PROPOSAL IN 1992 DOLLARS Yelm - Land Area = 740 acres 1991 population = 1,365 persons Source: R.W Thorpe & Associates, Inc. October 1992 11 LJ n LJ n u Il LJ 11 LJ n LJ n u Il LJ II u 11 LJ 11 u n LJ " LJ n LJ r-, LJ r< LJ r-, u f' LJ n L.J Alternative 2: Proponent's Scenario Annexation would require additional services, and provisions for establishing those services 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. Services and utilities would be available locally, however, some have not contemplated service to the proposed annexation area. While this alternative would provide area for new development, the ability of prospective developers to meet concurrency requirements would help determine the rate at which growth occurs within that area. A general review of costs and revenues was prepared to determine potential expenses for service provisions to the area and potential income from land values associated with the projected development scenarios. Estimated results from this review are shown in the following tables: Table 18 shows infrastructure costs and Table 19 provides public service cost projections. The tables above represent projected service costs under the potential annexation. Table 19 provides a general estimate of costs for services after annexation. These cost projections were arrived at by reviewing 1991-92 budget information and examining total costs by each of two methods. The first method 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 cost of adding the proposed area of annexation. In the second approach the various budgets are multiplied by the projected average annual population capture rate (see Population/Housing element of this document) to determine the cost per year of providing these services to the projected annexation population. This figure is then multiplied by the twenty year annexation period to yield an estimated total cost by population. The land area approach may best apply to possible fire and police service costs, while the population approach is more reliable for cost associated with schools and parks. Both of these approaches represent simplified techniques for arriving at cost approximations for services. They are limited by the assumption that budgets would remain constant (or at least closely resemble current amounts) over the life of the annexation period. Another important assumption is that the current budget is adequately funding the services. If the figures in Table 18 are added to those in Table 19 then total potential costs can be obtained for each scenario Separate totals are provided for services derived from the land area method and from the population method as outlined above. Table 20. Summary of Total Estimated Costs for Infrastructure and Services Wlder the Proposed Development and Alternatives ALTERNATIVE 2 Proposal ALTERNATIVE 3 Compact ALTERNATIVE 4 Village $62,050,000 Infrastructure $54.370.460 Services (by land area) $116,170,460 $50,800,000 Infrastructure $54.370.460 Services ( by land) $105,170,460 $57,180,000 Infrastructure $54.370.000 Services (by land) $111,550,000 $62,050,000 Infrastructure $41.843.533 Services (by population) $103,893,533 $50,800,000 Infrastructure $41.843.533 Services (by pop.) $92,643,533 $57,180,000 Infrastructure $41.843.533 Services (by pop.) $99,023,533 119 r-, u n LJ 11 u 11 LJ n LJ r-, LJ r' u Il u n u 11 LJ /l LJ n LJ /l LJ n LJ n u 11 LJ 11 u If u n L.J Potential costs represent the price of services for the proposed annexation area. Development within this area would also supply money for the city A limited projection of new revenue to be expected is provided in Table 21, Estimated Land Revenues. This table represents estimated land revenues if annexed with the master plan and no development. The numbers in this table were derived from local property values and the tax rate on residential and commercial land. 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. Finally, the tax revenue was multiplied by the twenty year annexation period to determine a potential total for residential property I () ~f" A similar approach was followed for commercial property A recent article in the 01 October 11, 1992) indicated that commercial land in Thurston County is valued at betwee $130,000 $500,000 per acre. After speaking with Century 21 Realtors about recent commercial sa ower number was used as a conservative estimate for commercial land in the Yelm area. The current tax rate was then applied to this figure and multiplied by the twenty year period to obtain a total estimate for commercial land revenues. Each of these approaches represent minimum revenue projections. They are limited in part, by the assumptions of a constant tax rate and constant property values. This 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 sources would include such items as sales taxes, permit fees, and development impact fees. The total estimated undeveloped land values are shown in the table below Table 22. Total Estimated Undeveloped Land Revenue Alternative 2 Proposal Alternative 3 Compact Alternative 4 Village Residential Land Commercial Land TOTAL $4,613,772 $1.386.607 $6,000,379 $2,839,244 $1.526.002 $4,365,246 $4,300,000 $4.196.506 $8,496,506 To further identify potential revenues from land within the annexation area the development value of the land was estimated as shown in Table 23 below In determining this potential value, fees associated with engineering, design, permits, management costs and other development costs were considered as important influences on value. It was estimated that this value would be equal to approximately $40,000 to $60,000 per proposed residential building lot. The value of an 18-hole golf course, with a future potential of 36 holes, was estimated at approximately $10,000,000 based on the value for other golf courses. It was assumed that $50,000 per residential lot would be an acceptable average amount, and this figure was multiplied by the total number of potential lots under the proponent's scenario. The total of $250,000,000 was then added to the golf course value to arrive at a total value of $260,000,000. The total value of $260,000,000 was multiplied by 14.6731 (the tax rate per $1000 of assessed value) to yield the estimated potential revenue of $3,815,006. This estimated revenue figure was then multiplied by the 20 year development period to arrive at a final estimated revenue total of 122 [1 eJ (J L 1: ",,1.1'. 'b1 .,n NO 01'.\l1'.LOftA1'.Nf' nH9~l DOLLA.l~.s NVU'1:10N SCJ'.!'l"R10S ",W - \./>NO RJ'.\I1iN\l1'. f.S1:1tA"Vi. vn"f1\ "N ~ ~ ~_ ~ ___.." """,,,,,.\6,\151"'_..14,5".5'" ,~ "", ' .",'15 1'" "'" · .,,6,,,"" ~, - '" f . to'" 0\ ~ "'" ,"" · .14,5\2.5ll ,14"'" - , .",." ,"""y f'o1"'"" to""""" ",,,, '" 0< " 67' "". ,"". ,,6,,.00 , ,,'75' · ,,,,~':>.l4 \~~\;.,.3: $'!/.'Y> ,"" . \\' 11 .a<' ",Id fo" ",,,, of "OS -"" .' · , Mu'uf'nWY F"1"''''' to" ,ng $'" .96,.'4 ,20 1"'" · "-'" ~...'" $l"~.36 , 20 Y"" · $4,l5O,86,,20 $308 {'f$J SF total 21 acres ~' lAf \o\al ~ 59 . \ acreS $903,000 \o\al saleS ?nce 56 \o\a for reSidential .%3."".56 ,a<" $16.,15 · ",,,g' "", l'" ,a' land "'-\6125 ner acre ,. \ 975 residential acres: 975 acres 1t J/' r l'roPOsa '" ,\ $15,721,875 total po\ent\al "a uC 7 146731 (1992 \a1t rate -per $1{'f$J of $15,721~75 ... 1{'f$J :...~10~,~~1~ : ~~entia\ es\itn'\ted re"enue assessed "alue) '" ",6.-' ,00 . r~ . u 61377280'" total . ""'...... ,'0 y,,, ."",o~\\''''' · ~. . . """",,,, ",,on"' fo< ",'donb" ,.nd , in Thurston Count)' ,. $130,CIJO \0 Cost -per acre for cornrnero~l ?f~-peO/0/92) $500 -~ {Q\",."n\an, 1 \..} \..J [} C} \..} CJ [} CJ ~ \ '. ~ (,j:) /,-ssume $130,{'f$J -per acre for '{ elm area . \; 30,{)$l per acre '" $4,725,()ClO 35 acre:> co~a """ << A 715 ,,,. ,,,, ,,99'''' "" 1'" $''''' ,,,.,,.,, $4 ,725,('f$J ... 1 vvv ,. .,.., "a\ue) ,. $69 ;;30.39 _ ., '56 "" ,,0 . to" \ ,.,,,,, ,'" ,,<on u' '" 69,330.39 1t 20 years - J/ r" ' col1\l'l'lcrc\a\ ' d . ..." om" ",,, ~.' ,,, "" .f 20 Y'" p"" . 1 __ aclobel' 1992 R.W ThOl1'e & AsSOCUlle5, ltC. source: ~ 40 acrCS ,. $5;l00,{'f$J 00 1'2 ~" 00 1t 14.6731" $76;; . \000" $5,200. $5,200,000 ... <;26oo1AO < - $\,., , 2 20 yeaf' - $76.300'\ ~ \ ~~ )'0 '~. $"""'-"" $H;;OO,{'f$J ... \{'f$J" $\4;;00 $14,300 1t 14.6731" $2CfJ/b25.33 $2CfJ~15.331t 20 years" $4,\96;506.60 r-, LJ fl LJ 11 u 11 u fl LJ fl LJ Il u 11 LJ r-, u fl u fl LJ n LJ Il u fl u r-, LJ fl LJ n LJ n LJ r-, u (,.() /1(1 _I "'/J(""..'!II; $76,300,120. This estimate assumes a constant tax rate and no change in value over the 20 year period. . ft~II~) Thus it should be applied with caution and it is utilized here as an indication of potential revenue I" , amounts rather than a definitive projection of the exact revenues to be generated. A breakdown of how the property taxes are spent is provided in Table 24, below This table indicates the amounts of revenue that could be expected from the estimated $76,320,120 total above, per different services. I , 1" J J ~V i;.. ;:A~ It should be noted that the revenue estimate does not include some additional sources of potential revenue s:t!c::h.a,!; reY~Ill,l~pgenerated from local increases in employment during constructio a ditional ~and services demanded by future residents d various taxes that may be associate with the pure se of gooos and servIces. s reVIew also does not attempt to deal with phased development. It is acknowledged that future development within the proposed annexation area would likely occur in phases. However, the specific land areas and number of commercial and residential lots per phase is not known, therefore this analysis is presented as an overview of costs and revenues under full development. Table 23 . Total Potential Revenue (Residential and Recreational Uses) Estimated developed value with service costs added = $40,000 to $60,000 per lot (assume average = $50,000 per 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 $3,815,006 x 20 year development period = $76,300,120 Table 24. Yelm Millage Rate Breakdown Service Portion of Millage Rate Estimated Revenue Percentage City or roads State schools Medic One Library School Cemetery Port 3.1106 3.3029 2.1586 4894 5.2180 1057 .2879 14.6731 $16,175,62544 $17,243,82712 $11,216,117.64 $2,517,903.96 $27,162,842.72 $534,100.84 $1.449.702.28 $76,300,120.00 TOTAL 21.2 22.6 14.7 3.3 35.6 0.7 1.9 100.0 Source: R. W Thorpe & Associates, Inc.-Thurston County Assessors Office/October 1992 124 11 LJ n u 11 u n u Il LJ 11 LJ Il u n u n u r-, u r-, LJ 11 u r-, u r-, u r-, u 11 LJ n u r-, LJ Il LJ Alternative 3: Compact Scenario Impacts would be similar to the Proposal, in that a similar density of development is expected. Reductions in infrastructure and service requirements would lower potential costs associated with this scenario to between approximately $92 million and $105 million dollars. The cost analysis indicates that this scenario would have the lowest potential costs associated with it. This approach is expected to result in revenue amounts similar to that of the proposed scenario. The undeveloped land revenue estimate considered land area by acres identified on the conceptual site plans in this document. Although the Compact scenario utilizes less land area than the Proponent's alternative, it is expected to result in approximately the same number of residential units by allowing development at a higher density Therefore, the amount of revenue generated under this approach is not expected to differ greatly from the proponent's approach. Alternative 4: Village Scenario The lower density expected under this approach could result in the need for fewer service facilities. It would still require that infrastructure be in place prior to opening new buildings. 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. Because of the potential increase in commercial area, this approach is expected to result in greater revenue amounts that the Proponent's scenario. Mitigating Measures Developer impact fees could be assessed for providing some service or facility extensions, and/or improvements to the proposed annexation area. 125 r-, LJ r-, LJ 11 LJ Il LJ 11 LJ n LJ Il LJ 11 LJ r-, u r-, LJ 11 u r-, u n u n u 11 u r-, u 11 u r-, LJ r-, u DISTRIBUTION LIST FEDERAL AGENCIES Army Corps of Engineers Department of Defense - Fort Lewis Military Reservation Federal Communications Commission Region 10, Environmental Protection Agency Soil Conservation Service U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Region 10 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ST ATE AGENCIES Department of Agriculture Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 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 Nisqually River Council Office of Governor Washington Environmental Council Washington State Energy Office Washington State Patrol THURSTON COUNTY DEPARTMENTS Office of Thurston County Commissioners Thurston County Department of Health Thurston County Department of Public Works Thurston County Department of Water Quality and Resource Management Thurston County Parks and Recreation Department Thurston County Planning Department Thurston County Sheriffs Department LOCAL AGENCIES AND MUNICIP ALlTIES City of Centralia Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority Puget Power Puget Sound Regional Council Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Rainier School District S.P .E.E.C.H. Thurston County Economic Development Council Thurston County Fire District No.2 Thurston Housing Authority Thurston Neighborhood Group Thurston Regional Planning Council Town of Rainier Yelm School District 126 " LJ n LJ n MEDIA Nisqually Valley News Ramtha Newsletter Tacoma Tribune The Olympian LJ " LJ MISCELLANEOUS ORGANIZA nONS Audubon Society City of Yelm Public Library Nisqually Indian Tribe Nisqually River Council Sierra Club Timberland Library, Yelm Branch and Olympia Branch Yelm Chamber of Commerce n LJ 11 LJ 11 LJ r-, LJ r-, LJ r-, LJ Il u n u " u r-, LJ r-, u r-, LJ " u n LJ Il 127 u r-, LJ 11 LJ 11 REFERENCES LJ Burchell, Robert W, David Listokin and William R. Dolphin, 1985 The New Practitioner's Guide to Fiscal Impact Analysis, Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, New Jersey r-, LJ fl LJ r-, u r-, LJ r-, LJ n u Il u r-, LJ Il LJ Il u r-, City of Yelm, 1985 Yelm Comprehensive Plan and Development Guide, July 1985. City of Yelm, 1991 Ordinances No. 399 and 414, Annexation Procedures, adopted respectively in May and August 1991. City of Yelm, 1992. City of Yelm Budget Casad. Mary, 1992. Community Relations Officer, I Corps and Fort Lewis, Community Relations Office, letter dated August 26, 1992. Coulter, Gene, 1992. Chairman, Thurston County Fire Protection District No 2, letter dated March 20, 1992. Cummings, William c., 1992. Director, City of Centralia Light Department, letters dated April 2, 1992 and September 17, 1992. Dunnam, Glen, 1992. Police Chief, City of Yelm Police Department, personal communication, October 8, 1992. Golphenee, Bob, 1992. Superintendent, Rainier School District, letter dated March 26, 1992. Houlder, Ken H., 1992. Thurston Division Engineering Manager, Puget Power, letter dated May 28, 1992. King County Housing Partnership, 1991 Blueprint for Affordable Housing, August 1991 Kolilis, Bev, 1992. Realtor, Century 21 Real Estate Company, personal communication, October 22, 1992. Moudon, Anne Vemez, 1990. Master-Planned Communities: Shaping Exurbs in the 1990s, Urban Design Program, College of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Washington. Noble, John, 1992. Principal Hydrogeologist, Robinson and Noble, Inc., letter dated March 13, 1992. U Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority, 1991 Air Quality Report 1989-1990, Olympic-Northwest Region. Il LJ r-, LJ Il LJ n LJ n LJ Pierce County Department of Planning and Land Services, 1992. McChord Air Force Base and Fort Lewis Joint Land Use Study, February 28, 1992. Pierce County Parks, Recreation and Community Services, 1989 Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan, March 1989 Puget Power Economic Development Department, 1988 Economic Development Summit Participant's Report, March 29, 1988. 128 11 u II LJ Puget Power Economic Development Department, 1991 Economic Development Summit South Thurston County Participant's Report., July 16, 1991 11 u Il u r-, u r-, LJ 11 u r-, u rI LJ r-, LJ r-, L.J r-, Seattle-King County ,Economic Development Council, 1990. What's Out There? An Analysis of the Affordable Housing Market in King County. Laying the Foundation for Policy Options, December 1990. Stamm, Todd, 1992. Director of Community Development, City of Yelm Planning Department, letter dated June 8, 1992. The Olympian, 1992. "Future of Rural Land Hangs in Balance," January 5, page C-3. The Olympian, 1992. 'The South Sound Economy. A Look Ahead," March 15, page A-12. The Olympian, 1992. "Despite Mixed Feelings, Yelm Prepares to Grow," June 14, page A-5 The Olympian, 1992. "Building Pace Cools Off," October 11, page E-l Thurston County Assessor's Office, 1992. Personal communication, October 1992. Thurston County Planning Department, 1988. Thurston County Comprehensive Plan, June 1988. Thurston Regional Planning Council, 1989 Draft Employment and Population ProjectIOns for Thurston County, June 16, 1989 Thurston Regional Planning Council, 1992. The Profile for Thurston County, September 1992. Thurston Regional Planning Council, 1991 The Profile for Thurston County, March 1991 Treat, Dan, 1992. Land Use Manager, Weyerhaeuser Company, personal communication, August 25, 1992. United States Soil Conservation Service, 1990. Soil Survey of Thurston County, Washington, June 1990 Washington State Office of Financial Management, 1991 1991 Population Trends for Washington l.J State, August 1991 r-, u r-, u r-, u r-, Washington State Department of Community Development, 1992. Issues in Desig1U1tmg Urban Growth Areas, Part I, March 1992. Washington State Department of Community Development, 1992. The Art and Science of Designating Urban Growth Areas, Part II, March 1992. Washington State Department of Ecology, 1991 Air Quality Report 1989-90, July 1991 Welter, Michael, 1992. Director, Thurston County Parks and Recreation Department, letter dated April 13, 1992. u Yelm/Thurston County Joint Planning Committee, 1990. Commission Draft Yelm/Thurston County Joint Plan, May 2, 1990. r-, ",J r< u ~ L.J 129 '---