Loading...
2nd Correspondence File Tea City q 9 P, rv Community Dev x~ ~3 q 105 P. q I 9, ~ q a Yelp WASHINGTON ~S October 22, 2004 Carolyn A. Lake Goodstein Law Group, PLLC G~^ 1001 Pacific Avenue, Suite 400 liq r Tacoma, WA 98597 - - Dear Ms. Lake: The City of Yelm is in receipt of your public disclosure request dated and received on October 19, 2004, for all records from the date of October, 1994, to present regarding the-Prairie View Master Planned Development (MPD98-8216-YL). The Prairie View file is quite large, and I expect copy charges to be in the range of several hundred dollars. I anticipate that copies will be available to be picked up or mailed by November 5, 2004. The City did not have it's own email server during most the time period in question, so researching if there are any emails which are responsive to your request will take this time to complete. You are welcome to inspect the project files maintained in the Community Development Department during normal business hours to identify specific records which you would like. This would be both quicker and less expensive than obtaining a copy of the entire file. You can contact myself or Roberta Allen, our Office Assistant, to make arraignments for reviewing the file. I will begin searching for the electronic records that you requested immediately and await your direction as to copying the entire case file. Sincerely,,=.- W Grant Beck, C o ~__Department o 00 U-) LOO LO U-) CD Q iE -1(- N M X I f~ n cp cp O U O - W I k --0 I O CD U-) U-i 1170 1 N N f if Q) 67 N 1 CO CO CO (D > -O O dE 'O -1F t • - tt) _ iF - =rt U C`-) U J 3 W 'O W O E I > m 'E - 't • • O .F. L f +F L * - O fn LL - O * O it L V Cn U) LC) O C W 3 3 Cn V I N O co 3-CT) " -rt U iE U LL 7 ' Cn CO C I N H E dE i-~ -rt O (n I I I O \ L O i(- W L L.C) f~ O 1 - X N +N U U a) 41 U is N V V N Cn O I CU co - C lT W C O > L0 `r cc W W U) E - . E Cr to CU (1) LLI J X U O L E M MCD CC) I F- N~ O V } } ~W 4+ E - C3 Q C/3 co OW ?r .-a) C) I N- U to -Y ~ r' QJ 3 1 <v - 3f 0 N} a) C I UJ O C O O CI- W -M O +F'-6l dE U C O F- O O C N U it f 9t L C=) I F- +W -(n iE Cn O N 4) d O_ I .r * U U H iE CO ?E cp co } -L O O -)f +E f~ U 1 lT it C)} iE Cn 1 Cl C --iE C ~ V Q) 47 I O _ ,~F ~ E C Y Cn u ib i U O m iE ~ 9l- \ ? I N !n U * 4 L (3 c3 I 7 E U iE Cn ~ I U J Q City of Yelm Community Development Department 105 Yelm Avenue West P.O. Box 479 Yelm, WA 98597 WASHINGTON October 22, 2004 Carolyn A. Lake Goodstein Law Group, PLLC 1001 Pacific Avenue, Suite 400 Tacoma, WA 98597 Dear Ms. Lake: The City of Yelm is in receipt of your public disclosure request dated and received on October 19, 2004, for all records from the date of October, 1994, to present regarding the Prairie View Master Planned Development (MPD98-8216-YL). The Prairie View file is quite large, and I expect copy charges to be in the range of several hundred dollars. I anticipate that copies will be available to be picked up or mailed by November 5, 2004. The City did not have it's own email server during most the time period in question, so researching if there are any emails which are responsive to your request will take this time to complete. You are welcome to inspect the project files maintained in the Community Development Department during normal business hours to identify specific records which you would like. This would be both quicker and less expensive than obtaining a copy of the entire file. You can contact myself or Roberta Allen, our Office Assistant, to make arraignments for reviewing the file. I will begin searching for the electronic records that you requested immediately and await your direction as to copying the entire case file. Sincerely,, ' Grant Beck, Director Department of Community Development 4k, d GOODSTEIN LAW GROUP LiQ 1~~ ~c d~ J r 1 PLL 1001 Pacific Avenue Ste. 400 Tacoma, WA 98402 (253) 779-4000 8-3835 (253) 229-6727 Cell U44 FAX (253) 779-4411 Fax Carolyn A. Lake m.wa us clake@goodsteinlaw.com Attorney At Law RECEIVED GOODSTEIN OCT 19 2004 LAW GROUP PLLC 1001 Pacific Avenue Suite 400 Carolyn A. Lake Tacoma, WA 98402 Attorney at Law Fax: (253) 779-4411 clake@goodsteinlaw.com Tel: (253) 779-4000 October 19, 2004 VIA Hand Deliverty City Clerk City of Yelm 105 Yelm Avenue West PO Box 479 Yelm WA98597 Dear City Clerk/Public Records Official: Pursuant to the Public Disclosure Act, RCW Chapter 42.17, please treat this letter as a formal request to the City of Yelm to provide the following information: All correspondence, reports, information, maps, data, reports, or staff report, applications, staff notes. City memos, and or information of any kind sent or received or to and/or from and/or between any City official or employee relating to the permit/project known as Prairie View (MPD 98-8216-YL), including email correspondence from the date of October 1994, through the present date. In the event any of the requested information is withheld from disclosure, whether completely exempt or partially exempt, please identify the specific exception under which withholding is claimed along with a brief explanation of the applicability of the claimed exemption to the information withheld. As you know, the Public Disclosure Act, RCW Chapter 42.17, requires that you furnish a reply to our public disclosure request within five days of receipt or the City may be held liable for reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Please call when the information is available for pick up. We certify our ability to pay all reasonable copying costs. Thank you very much for your courtesy and cooperation. Si 'rely, ood tein Law .oup arolyn A. Lake CAL:drl 041019.PRR clerk GOODSTEIN LAW GROUP PLLC 1001 Pacific Avenue Suite 400 Carolyn A. Lake Tacoma, WA 98402 Attorney at Law Fax: (253) 779-4411 clake@goodsteinlaw.com Tel: (253) 779-4000 July 30, 2004 Grant Beck Community Development Director City of Yelm~~~ 105 Yelm Avenue West 406 PO Box 479 41004 Yelm WA98597 Re: Prairie View (MPD 98-8216-YL) Dear Mr. Beck: We write to you for a third time on behalf of our clients, applicants for the above Master Planned Community. We wrote to you on June 2, 2004 to express our concerns regarding your letter dated May 5, 2004 and again on June 10, 2004. You have not responded to us in any way. Please know that in the intervening time we have had a chance to review the history of this file. Application History My clients are pursuing a Master Plan for the above site. Upon purchasing the property, my client inherited a preexisting conceptual Master Plan which issued October 12, 1994. My clients filed for Final Master Plan approval. In 1999, the City maintained the original conceptual approval had expired, and declined to act on my client's request. The City agreed however to accept a re-filed conceptual Master Plan and to process the Conceptual and final Master Plan approval concurrently. See Mackie letter of January 1999. Accordingly, my clients renewed the conceptual master plan application. The City recommenced its environmental review, at a substantial cost paid by my clients. The costs are estimated to be over sixty thousand dollars for the City's review fees alone. The Planning Commission issued its recommendation and conditions in September 1999. According to the Planning Commission, each of the Project mitigation measures recommended at the conceptual Master Plan level were required to be completed "prior to final Master Plan approval", except for a single condition relating to transportation access (Condition 2d.) Curiously, that condition required the Project Applicants to obtain reciprocal agreements which would dedicate property ownership from the property owners adjacent to the planned access route prior to conceptual plan approval. Condition No. 2(d) however clarified that the actual dedication of the right of way property would not take place until approval of the development contemplated by the Master Plan. See Finding 11 and Condition 2(d) of Planning Commission Recommendation. Project History - Post Planning Commission Recommendation Apparently, after the recommended conditions issues, the City underwent efforts to create an LID for at least a portion of this same access route. The City eventually abandoned that LID Grant Beck Community Development Director City of Yelm July 30, 2004 - 2 - effort, but its proposed formation distracted the city, property owners and applicants for an extended time. By 2002, my client's application still had not proceeded to city council approval, as the City's Master Plan process requires. My clients' representatives pressed the then-City Attorney to complete the reciprocal agreements, as that attorney had agreed to do. Eventually, my client submitted documents which fulfilled Condition 2(d). These documents took the form of Quit Claim Deeds from the property owners, which conditioned deed recording upon the City's approval of the Master Plan (i.e. the agreements were reciprocal in that the title transferred only upon Master Plan approval, which is actually an earlier date that the Planning Commission had recommended) Unfortunately, a (different) attorney responding on behalf of the city rejected these deeds. We are unclear why the documents were not found acceptable, since in the same letter rejecting the deeds, the City's attorney agreed that Quit Claim deeds would be acceptable, and agreed that deeds would not be recorded until approval was granted, but he wanted the timing to be addressed in a separate document. Thereafter, our clients did not hear from the City until your May 2004 letter. We requested to meet with you several times to address this matter, but have not heard from you. Recent City Action Your May 5, 2004 letter purports that the client's application would expire unless the reciprocal agreements addressing the access route were submitted within 30 days of the letter's date. In our prior communications, we asked you for the code supportibasis for this request, and you provided none. In our review of the code we found no reference to the thirty day requirement you cited. You also explain the basis for the application's termination as the `expiration of over a year without action on the application". Again, our review of the Master Plan Code provisions which were in effect when this application was originally filed (and to which the application is vested) does not contain any provision which calls for application termination after a year's time. See Ylem Municipal Code Chapter 17.62, Ordinance 561 and 555, adopted 1995. We note however that YMC now contains 17.62.045.E, which provides that the City may terminate an application when the planning process concludes, or after the expiration of more than one year with no activity. At the conclusion of the planning process, or the expiration of more than one year with no activity, the permit application may be terminated and the balance of the funds, after deducting all charges due the city, may be returned to the applicant. As you know, under Washington law, a project application is vested to the regulation in effect as of the date the application was filed. The new code provision cited above was effective after January 29, 1999 by passage of Ordinance 651. Because the vesting of this application pre-dates the ordinance adoption, this provision does not apply to my client's process. 040727.1tr.YELM Grant Beck Community Development Director City of Yelm July 30, 2004 - 3 - Even if the code section did apply, we also note that application termination is permissive (by use of the word "may") versus mandatory (use of the word "shall"). We know of no criteria to guide the City in this significant decision, and suggest that omission is problematic. We (and a reviewing court) would find unfettered (arbitrary) discretion troubling, especially if the applicant's attempts to contact the City during a critical time period went unheeded, as is the case here. We also point out that as far as we are aware, the City has not set the matter for City Council consideration. This is the sole step necessary to final our client's conceptual Master Plan. Please know that we are in progress to obtain the reciprocal agreements, as your city attorney described them, and expect to obtain them soon. We present these facts and our analysis of the Code and once again request the opportunity to meet with City representatives to forge a better pathway for completion of this application. We present the following requests for the City's action. Applicants' Requests 1. We request and prefer a face to face dialogue, so that any misunderstandings and communications can be addressed forthrightly and efficiently, and or 2. We request that the City set the matter for City Council review of the conceptual Master Plan as called for in YMC 17.62.060: C. City Council Consideration. The planning commission recommendation shall come to the city council for consideration in an open public meeting no sooner than 10 nor longer than 20 working days from the date a decision constituting a recommendation was rendered. and or: 3. We request that the City confirm that YMC 17.62.045 does not apply, or that "action" is occurring on this application, such that the provisions of YMC 17.62.045 are not triggered, or that the City grant an extension for action based on our letters dated June 2, 10th and today. Thank you for your consideration of our information. We very much look forward to a response, the opportunity to meet with you, and to resolve this pending matter. Thank you,. Sincerely, .odstein Law G~ou}~ P-L~-G Ca olyn A. Lake L:drl cc: Paul DeTray Frank Kirkbride 040727.ltr.YELM GOODSTEIN LAW GROUP PLLC 1001 Pacific Avenue Suite 400 Carolyn A. Lake Tacoma, WA 98402 Attorney at Law Fax: (253) 779-4411 clake@goodsteinlaw.com Tel: (253) 779-4000 June 10, 2004 Fax & Mail Grant Beck Community Development Director City of Yelm 105Yelm Avenue West PO Box 479 Yelm WA98597 Re: Prairie View (MPD 98-8216-YL) Dear Mr. Beck: We again write on behalf of our clients, applicants for the above Master Planned Community. We wrote to you on June 2, 2004 to express our concerns regarding your letter dated May 5, 2004 and the proposed deadline described in it. I attach a copy of that letter for your reference. Please contact me today regarding this matter. Thank you. Sincerely, j oodstein Law Group PLLC arolyn A. Lake CAL:drl cc: Paul DeTray Frank Kirkbride 040610.Itr.YELM i GOODSTEIN LAW GROUP PLLC 1001 Pacific Avenue Suite 400 Carolyn A. Lake Tacoma, WA 98402 Attorney at Law Fax: (253) 779-4411 cake@goodsteinlaw.com Tel: (253) 779-4000 June 2, 2004 Fax & Mail Grant Beck Community Development Director City of Yelm 105Yelm Avenue West PO Box 479 Yelm WA98597 Re: Prairie View (MPD 98-8216-YL) Dear Mr. Beck: We write on behalf of our clients, applicants for the above Master Planned Community. We received a copy of your letter dated May 5, 2004 and are gravely concerned by the proposed deadline described in it. Although we have received some project history from the clients and K. Frank Kirkbride, we understand the City's Master Planned Process is unique and the history of this project is long and complicated. We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with the City to explore other and all options to preserve the considerable investment in time, money, and energy which has been expended by both the applicant and the City to date. At the very least, we also are curious for any information supporting the City's decision to apply a thirty day time period for a deadline of such serious consequence, including the potential to divest our client of a significant property interest. We urge that the prudent action would be to postpone any final decision by the City until we have had a chance to discuss this together. We greatly look forward to hearing from either you, or if you prefer from your City Attorney to arrange a convenient time to meet. We also request your confirmation that any proposed deadlines are postponed until that meeting can occur. Thank you. Sincerely, od tein Law Group PLLC aro yn A. Lake CAL:drl cc: Paul DeTray Frank Kirkbride 040602.ltr.YELM i / CF THE pj+ a City o Yelm at 105 Yelm Avenue West YELM P.OBox 479 WASHINGTON Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 February 14, 2000 Debbie Moss 14447 93`d Ave SE Yelm WA 98597 Dear Ms. Moss: Thank you for your letter and attached correspondence dated January 25, 2000. It will be forwarded to Mayor Wolf's office for her review upon her return the week of March 1, 2000. Mayor Wolf is out of town until then. Your letter will be entered into public record when the SW Yelm Conceptual Master Plan goes to the City Council for their consideration. Sincerely, Or Dana Sprey, iAdministrative Assistant for Mayor Kathryn M. Wolf ` D la JN3~ January 25, 2000 Mayor Kathy Wolf 105 Yelm Ave. W Yelm WA 98597 Dear Mayor Wolf I'm writing you in concern about the proposed development of Thurston Highlands, Prairie View. Since you served on the Thurston Council Regional Planning Committee, Nisqually River Council, Thurston County Economic Development Council, and your husband is on the Olympia advisory Board, and Chairman of the City Tree Boards You must fully understand the impact this development will have on all of us; especially since you know yourselves from living here in Yelm, how this small and helpful town has grown. How could a development of 1,860 acres have no impact on the environment, or us the citizens, and especially the traffic on the roads from the proposed 5,000 dwellings. Oh, yes, I know this development is not to begin for:-25 to 50 years according to the October 22, 1999 article in the Nisqually Valley New paper. So why is the surveying being done now, and thru here say the road for the new development to begin on Berry Valley Road in several weeks. My how time flys. The environmental (checklist done by a qualified professional, a person licensed in the applicable combination of people) with a level of education, experience in the field or discipline appropriate for the relevant subject matter as determined by the city Planner. (See City of Yelm ordinance no. 426, page 6.) This envii'mrmental checklist done by Drag, Detroy does not seem very complete to me, looking thru my eyes as someone who has lived in this area for several years, riding horses and hiking, knowing what is alive in this proposed area. Living near Thompson Creek since 1992, I know this creek has been year round for at least the last four years, with little fish. The wildlife is so much more alive and running out there in the woods, then given credit for on the checklist paper. Especially-the Elk, which are migratory animals thus requires special consideration under Yelm ordinance 426 not to mention the wetland and natural vegetation, cannot be fully realized unless walked on by foot. Since so much of this land has seemed to go unnoticed on paper. Why? I'm so glad the City of Yelm Ordinance no.426, interim critical areas resource lands, February 1992 of the City of Yelm draft plans. Exhibit D. the preamble, page 1. Interim Yelm critical areas resource lands, and section 10- statutory authority, purpose, objections.on„page 3. _.(l)-`.`C mffimung the public interest in the conservation arrd~wise use of our lands. If you take note of some of the letters I sent along with this one, requesting additional information on any matters of this development, also the tax paying citizens who signed up for more information at the last hearing over this development on October 18, 1999. Some how we were over looked again, why? Doesn't the flood damage prevention chaptcrA5:32,afect-us? Why didn't someone check with the neighbors when this environmental checklist was being done, or now, to really see how alive this area really is, and the kind of impact it will have on all of us, not just from an odtdated incomplete checklist. . I also think the Adopt-a-tree program is great, I am a little worried though, about the envitmmp&thecklist a*W6dIatkind.of-vegetation will+L-,removed or altered (Page 6 question 4b) : The answer Where development is planned most will-be removed and the site landscaped with grass, ornament I and Shrubs`.' I wouldlike.to think-that some of the natural:setting would be preserved, not tomention the bird nests, animal homes, and.other natural vegetation itself, if this project is approved. ~r. ec,d. Another question is WATER, since Yelm is blessed with relatively large aquifers containing vast quantities of ground water, underlying most of the urban area, which is unprotected. The city wells and many private wells useathis aquifer for their water supply's. (See City of Yehm Comprehensive plan, volume I Draft November 16, 1994, chapter XII, Environment.) This proposed project area is within the City Service Area for water supply, however, the city doesn't have sufficient water rights for development of the entire site, so the master plan area will be expected to provide water service and infrastructure for all new development in the plan area, the same with the waste water plan. (See City of Yelm Master Plan approval, October 12, 4 of 13,) Another question how can out-door recreational activities, (Golf Courses) be allowed to occur on wetlands. (See ordinance of Yelm no. 426 page 16) Especially considering the herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers, will find their way into the ground water and our drinking water, Thompson Creek, and eventually to the Nisqually River. Not to mention how local and private wells would likely be affected by the tremendous water use of the proposed 5,000 dwellings, plus 2 golf courses, an new city, the water of newly planted grass, ornamental trees, and shrubs. Add all this up plus the run-off of water and contamination from all the impervious surfaces including the golf courses, what an impact. Please take note also of what city resource manage of Olympia, Andy Haub has to sayafthe; 'nmportance to Act.Before an Area Becomes Heavily Developed, "The impact-occurs quickly'-'_he.said. (See Olympian Acts to Tighten development rules.) "Don't make us an example like encloseecounty seeks expert to stem flood woes." Thank you, for taking into consideration all these questions and the impact and health of our environment, and city. Cordially V-1i Debbie Moss C'i b U•a)v+~0--, "U o3cd0 berry ~ > Gtiu> ~0 ar5 0 30 0wE0 10 s 0) to 0 co Ong U+air, aoa,A CO W. A a~ ~x^ > Ea a ~o ins W EOO 0- ' ~0 3 C ° w 'TO w fin u' CO (,u co w - El .2? E 0 0- Z-0 a) -14 E, 0ti a) a0i~~°n bn°~a~iA° 3:3-'b o oy bw>,gNQ a~~°'ob 0odoo 0 0"3 =U- b~m0 oar )0 0C 3y~141 - O rn a) maib1a°icdC4J+~CL 30cn0 '1(U Q) m b y cd Ow 7 U C b O ~n G~ > 0.9 (u aDu(uov ~a co" oa~~ c~ t¦~~¦a y° cU„ G Oo uO~p0yy°~w 5n0wW-Z pT, 4 rn (u o - CL) 5 aNi U y cd0A f.- W ~ ~ El a -5 C', Z14U 3~ 3a oF"3° H~~> ,a. Son v .0 w p A~uw pow ~z 0 >.I ~I+a) (U.0 Q) q b a~ o ~a0i x~4b o o li 3 0 0~" ~ 'b o Z 0 19 ~~~aUic~~ ~o 0 cbdon$o0 p~F•1-4 ido- nQ oc~i 0 0- ::j co a) w E O O 'b +cd y ¢.N 4. U y a) ® U G N .CCfC". U N C) by a+ O a) .s4 a -v~i +~y.+ g ~ a-~ .C] w tea, Y~aU W0W. E">-,00 0 CD CU CD 42 f 0•j o 0 '04 o h ~ O ~O•> QU Or• ~'Ly 4. O . N a0>OCl i.+ -!00 O'. 3N z (U d0Oa)xcda)cdcd Do m UV b9'd O Ow ^.MCUd 0.~'0Q)~cd w cad of~O~N~.b..r c'~ b CO v~ 3 O 5 U m r. cd O ..O TJ Q) N 0 cu m } p ; bQ.., ~ ~ W 0 a,.0 V) W L) CU 0 r. .b O 'U O 4.''C ° co cd ° N U vi &:5 E 'J " ~ > ~ oa.` p x cda~oWO`~' ab>mo`~D- auca,.cD do Al aO ° 0 =0 o'~~bqp G 0 ° U O H u 0 ° ° W o W y U I 0.5 cu -0 co Q) U b 0W .%4 O zOa a> . 0 cu 0 (u -0 01's g L9 O U cd ccd cd O 'O b O CU co cu 4 0 14 30 wo~3"E0 M L a e6 ;w (1) ° CL) ~Wn 4.0 0 3 0 CO m C;, as bnp w~ t1~ ~C oU H o_ a>i ~ ° api co I V p n5~_ G) O~ O- y. d i. C>>. G~Yp f , C's (L) cu CU D NOA Ao0czpE~' U~ 2 o cad>+Jxb°n.~°) i. O T~ CO O O O «f U a~ U 0 1.4 i'' by > g +r f3 " ti cd c~ O U O w C) cu M4q ~rn°4ti0" 3°~°0E>~ga~>m3a~'c~y°p.. +••~.-.O t:. cd U 'L7 N O U w cd cd O c'~ U . 04 C.C 04 ~CaTJ 00 y ai a; c az `a w t. 8a 0 CU (p C V) a) o o ~O s q H y N~ CU ; cd cd p cd .4 0 w p > v 4UU c~ ° ° cd n 3 3 vU L) ¦ 00 -or a) a) w a7 ca a) O M..-. p O U O w •T. co O U O' C rn mmc ::,.SL) >v c° Qo. 9 .~bcu U •,0 - O -c' a) w N O ca U E C >,:Y m U N E" w 'd bn . n a)m0a `mEmv~cdocdc >U) o S. c{, ~t a,' Ev ~L o~ ° c>- " nE'v > o I 'ti I o.. wQ N E o L 0) 2 N a) CO w-0 a~ O w b~ o t \ ` o ff o -0 r- p)-0 0 0 W r- CO CD u 0 cu cad o ° ~ ~ ~ ( at m 32 0 v> 3 o ccs o '71 C6 C.) E a> ::1 cd 0 b ~ D4 - a~ aO~wLU> ocdLCn vrycdcd:_v bN~ o n ° ° My ~L c.--0 a) C c~ a) 06- E E cn m O Lm ° a~ ° m oUT, ~w q : w Eo0EoCONC~ca~'caJwwo:gzv°,ccaE ~oV a~~r$a0i;d.~~ ~ C U O U lL N O n'-° a4)i d C V cd j '~cad v~ ~ y cy G •b c >,o d b°oo ~ o cco ° 0 0 m_ Nid UCJ~t nc ° ~L L w C >,O E (n0 a3 (n Y G cd. U cy c~ 0 Id ¦ E a) N 3 L T~ y w c 0 0 t p U' co r. N 0 U a) cp U O LLL E nidEvi =3 Ypo>idiamc~~~0.?'~ N_E~-~Ybao -Ln f Ua)ccan'0 cW>ccoEonca>0 aC°>o' CO cad a°io° E as ns .2 _ as v U as ca -a E -c in -0 - 'd P4 a Cd 4-y fA N• fA N ~ p OC co Ocd ° 0 .r7 y u0i~ ~'S Z.u b wpcz Um0cd G ~o m0 VI 0 a bA ~,d o v G co aUO 0- api4, 0 ° o o U) w CTJ JrOm O I s H Ci m c° O --4 bn cn twd a)a)~cdp> ul, W, o >w10~p v.~ o CL) cu a~i "pia 5 (USQ, 3~.co~w cu W.~ 4. n o... C y a) ~O~.O, d5~+a) O.'OJ wb'b " , ~ co ly p c`a ai X., w P4 ~ td 0 0 o CU li+'~ Dao v,~bu ,Oa~3a+3ai~' ?4` Cc$ W.2 co Cd 0 W o 'm u m a w Cd h, au ~t~>,r• 6 9- b g a } m m o y"H'cJO~0 ~U". E~~ ° 0a;y~¢y pdoma~ < 0 U Q U 0 0.1 a ~ps~ S" C m 55~- fov CPA tit 44 ° 44 5.0 g x Uri- (2), ` of 0 It vat i- 1;a 04 CIO r d . vo-S g 3 d 0 r, 4~_ 00 00 1-H I lot to, ot? 0 A .1 0. VB (V ros + %.12 o al °•o q i l ar o ° O ~r i 48 .0 bO. .6 . .0 = cd 4) ~.'n"n°' IS ~ y TA 4, tg y 0 O ;N 0 .0 O N p O C 'd A 'd7 p v ~r> U N C a by - Z al F Qr W 'pC3" tip' N N .5 >1 00- p 9 N w y W 2.0 0 E F+ ~ E 3 O 7:~ tOj t1 p p ,C > nti p y p E" y O A w '0 '0 O Y N 'pd g''s t~+ by ti, ao r. d0 '0 O O:3 O w y o p ta+ , ral -6 O. ~ 'v 4 N U bt 0 N 0 000 ^ ca'"~ p y A p q? y ° O 'j, ~,O~ V O 'k] w t1, O > p w c~ O V i1 pV G U y o.ti~~1o~Lp~.yjoa WE o p '1 0 ? Y bD R > y Q W M 00! N d^ G tom' ' ~'i O • ~ r+n v~ ~ v 3'dlao0o i p'u- o 40 0 -4 8.8 bQ-d bpd V p. U z i 8I p o o 'm- o ~v p cu 43 p,,o v y y o p oA Y u~ ~49 o~ 2 Y (a ~4j~ V y o e~ a ¢7 p: 0. , ~ y N o yca 0.0 a 044" 0 - CA p T t07 a'q~- dU~ p a td Z7 U ';a s pay ca O M V bu.mto -u 4, - Z4 Designation -r- formal adoption of a policy statement which establishes, fo planning purposes: the classification scheme; the general distribution location and extent of the uses of land, where appropriate, fo agriculture, forestry, and mineral extraction; and the genera distribution, location and extent of critical areas. Development Application an application tendered under the provision o either the Comprehensive Plan. Titles 12, 14, 15, 16, or 17 of the Yel: Municipal Code, or any ordinance adopted to regulate land use or buildin; construction or alteration including but not limited to an application fo: an occupancy permit, a building permit, a conditional use permit, variance rezone or planned development, substantial shoreline development permit, o: an application submitted for a preliminary or final plat, short plat of boundary line adjustment. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas all lands within the following categories: A. Areas with which "priority species" as defined by the Washington Department of Wildlife have a primary association, Priority species are wildlife species of concern due to theit population status and their sensitivity to habitat alteration. B. Priority habitats as identified by the Washington Department of Wildlife. Priority habitats are areas with one or more of the following attributes: comparatively high wildlife density, high wildlife species richness, significant wildlife species richness, significant wildlife breeding habitat, significant wildlife seasonal--_ ranges, significant movement corridors for wildlife, limited availability, and/or high vulnerability. C. Habitats of species of local importance. Such habitats are those with which a given species has a primary association and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain itself and reproduce over the long term. Species of local importance are those species that are of local concern due to their population status or their sensitivity to habitat manipulation and that have been 'so designated by listing in an appendix to this ordinance, or which are game species as determined by the Washington Legislature pursuant to RCW 77.99 or the Washington Wildlife Commission pursuant to WAG 232-12. D. Naturally occurring ponds each over one-half acre and under twenty acres and their wildlife habitat: These do not include ponds deliberately designed and created from dry sites such as canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, temporary construction ponds of less than three years' duration, and landscape amenities. However, naturally occurring ponds shall include those artificial ponds intentionally created with the approval of a regulatory authority from dry areas to mitigate adverse impact upon other ponds. INTERIM YELM CRITICAL AREAS RESOURCE LANDS ORDINANCE NO. 426 PREAMBLE WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.170 of-the Growth Management Act mandates that he City of Yelm designate appropriate agricultural lands, forest lands, ineral resource lands and critical areas; WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.060 of the Act imposes upon the City of Yelm a equirement that development be regulated to protect wetlands, aquifers, ish and wildlife habitat, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous .reas and assure the conservation of agricultural, forest, and mineral ands; WHEREAS, the Act provides that such regulations are subject to •eview when adopting subsequent comprehensive plans and development -egulations required by the Act by July 1, 1994; WHEREAS, pending completion of such plans and regulations and final designation of critical areas and resource lands the City of Yelm elects to enact interim regulations to fulfill the mandate of the Act; NOW THEREFORE, this Interim Resource Lands and Critical Areas Ordinance is hereby adopted by the City Council of the City of Yelm and shall remain in effect until repealed concurrent with enactment, of regulations for the Yelm Comprehensive Plan to be adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A. FAGF 1 SECTION 1.0 STATUTORY AUTHORITY, PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES 1.1 STATUTORY AUTHORITY The Legislature of the State of Washington has, in RCW 36.70A.060, mandated local governments that plan under RCW 36.70A.040 to adopt development regulations to assure the conservation of agricultural, forest and mineral ^esource lands and to adopt development regulations critical areas iesignated under RCW 36.70A.170. Further, the City of Yelm is authorized Dy RCW 35.63.080 to regulate the use and development of land to provide for the general welfare. 1.2 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES It is the purpose of this ordinance to promote the public health, safety ind general welfare by: (1) confirming the public's interest in the conservation and wise use of our lands; (2) assuring the long-term conservation of resource lands; (3) designating and classifying critical areas and resource lands; (4) protecting environmentally critical areas; and (5) complying with and furthering the purposes of the State of Washington's Growth Management Act. 1.3 SCOPE this ordinance applies to all real property within the corporate limits of .he City of Yelm as it is now configured or may, from time to time, be altered. To the extent of any jurisdiction of the City this ordinance also Lpplies to any real property within the urban growth area of Yelm iesignated by Thurston County. OF YELM PAGE 3 :NANCE NO. 4426 B-4 Nisqually Valley News, Friday, December 10, 1999 on December 1u, 19w- - DETERMINATION OF _ - - - - - NONSIGNIFICANCE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SEPA NO: 8244 YELM PLANNING COMMISSION Proponent: City of Yelm DATE: Monday, December 20,1999,4:00 Description of Proposal: Amendments to P•m• Chapter 15.32, Flood Damage Prevention PLACE: Council Chambers, City Hall, 105 to include revised development standards Yelm Ave. W., Yelm, WA for the placement of Manufactured Homes PURPOSE: Public Hearing to receive in fkhodplains and a new section providing comments on proposed amendments to i development standards for the use and Yelm Municipal Code, Flood Damage placement of Recreational Vehicles in Prevention, Chapter 1 . APPLICANT: City of Yelm floodplains lm PROJECT Location of the Proposal: City wide. LOCATION: City wide. Section/Township/Range: City wide. The Yelm Planning Commission will Threshold Determination: The City of Yelm troll a public hearing to receive comments as lead agency for this action has determined on proposed amendments to n Municipal that this proposal does not have a probable 15Code.32,. The Damage Prevention, Chapter e amendments include: revised sigrrficard adverse impact on the envrorrrherd development standards for the placement Therefore, an ermrarriarU Impact statement of Manufactured Homes in floodplains and (EIS) will not be required under RCW a new section providing development - 4321C.030(2)(c). This decision was made standards for the use and placement of after review of a completed environmental Recreational Vehicles in floodplains. checklist and other information on file with Testimony may be given at the hearing the lead agency. This information is available or through any written comments on to the public on request. the proposal, received by the close of the Conditions/Mitigating Measures: None public hearing on December 20, 1999. - Lead Agency: City of Yelm Such written comments may be submitted Responsible Official: Shelly Badger, City to the City of Yelm at the address shown Administrator above or mailed to City of Yelm, P.O. Box Dale of Issue: December 6, 1999 479, Yelm, WA 98597. Comment Deadline: 5:00 p.m., December Any related documents are available 19, 1999 for public review during normal business Shelly Badger, City Administrator hours at the City of Yelm, 105 Yelm Ave. W., This Determination of NonSignificance Yelm, WA. For additional information, please is issued pursuant to Washington contact Cathie Carlson at 458-8408. - " Administrative Code 197-11-340(2). The The City of Yelm provides reasonable City of Yelm will not act on this proposal prior aocommodauons to persons with disabilities. to 5:00 p.m., December 20,1999. Corrnents I - If you need special accommodations to must be submitted to Catherine Carlson, City attend or participate, call the city Clerk, Agnes Planner, at City of Yelm, 105 Yelm Ave. Bennick, at (360) 458-8404,.at least 72 W., P.O. Box 479, Yelm, WA 98597, by r - ' hours before the meeting..., 5:00 p.m., December 19, 1999. YOU may appeal this determination to the Yelm City Council, at above address, by submitting a written appeal no later than 5:00 p.m., December 27, 1999. You should be Aity of prepared to make specific factual objections. Agnes of Yelm Contact Agnes Bennick, City Clerk, to learn Agn Bernick, City Clerk more about the procedures for SEPA Published LEGALNO. in the he 9 Nisqually Valley appeals. This DNS is not a permit and News does W by ben constitute project approval. on December r 1t 10, 1999. The applicant must comply with all applicable ! - - - - requirements of the City of Yelm prior to receiving construction permits which may Include but are not limited to the City of Yelm Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Title (17), Critical Areas Ordinance (14.08), Storm Water Drainage Design and Erosion Control ' Manual (DOE), Uniform Building Code, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Title (14), Road Design Standards, Platfing and Subdivision Title (16), and the Shoreline Master Program. LEGAL NO. NVN-274 Published in the Nisqually Valley News on December 10, 1999. For Sov ~-s~- ~Im coy\cap5-)aI ~as~er qlan)5oy J-+h,e- PUb1 ilc-~ affe d?rnn retuMdc~ puf ors tm tit r I o j t 11,5 f4-o (n -z,r me & o F p 1 1~e~,r i r s ~o lnc-42r r)'kn~ +V) 15 03e C+ I~ es +i-))S O(jov rz l e o-~ n ofi c e.S ~e r l n J-0 D0 pro Y)oQ r,0 Wo-- Qef n 6-T- 1 h -F~ r- r-- 0 0 b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Tl-,u rA-Dn )-hgWcL+-,J S Except for a farmstead, the site is vacant covered in part with third growth trees, pasture grasses, native grasses, shrub species and wetland plants. Where development is planned most will be removed and the site landscaped with grass, ornamental trees and shrubs. City tree nursery,.,,-,, I to help urban forest By Seth Truscott Carlson plans to ordering a mix of trees - a Nisqually Valley News selection of hawthorns, a tree planted historically The City ofYelm is getting a leg up on the cost of along Yelm Avenue, as well as other breeds. A planting trees, by building its own tree nursery. diverse group of trees, she said, prevents the city To save money in its urban forestry program, the from being defoliated if an insect infestation or dis- YeIm.Tree Advisory Board applied for and won a ease epidemic occurs. grant this summer, sponsoring construction of a Excavation work began this fall, and the city will nursery at the city public works complex on Rhoton be adding three feet of topsoil into the site. This Road. Work has begun on the nursery site, and winter, water lines will be added to the lot, and stu- young trees will be planted next spring. dents from Yelm High School will install the irriga- "We've been working towards the new nursery," tion system. Carlson said she will start ordering Yelm City Planner Cathie Carlson said Thursday. trees in March and April of 2000. "It's a pretty big cost savings." , The nursery will grow more than just trees. The nursery will buy "whips," thin, tall young "As the city has more improved streets, there's a trees, considerably larger than tiny saplings, but with lot more opportunities for it to plant annuals and few branches. The whips are about one inch thick, bulbs," grown in the nursery, she said. "This will and the nursery will let them mature until they are also give them a place to over-winter hanging bas- over two inches thick before planting them in the kets." city. The Yelm Tree Board is also looking for a com- The more mature trees, Carlson said, can cost munity member interested in filling a board vacan- $1004150 wholesale, and even more at a retail cy. nursery. Tree Board President John Thompson is leaving "This enables us to save money by raising trees to fill a city council position, and someone is need- ourselves," she said. ed to fill the empty spot on the board. Members can The nursery will house a variety of sizes, ages, write a letter to the city, or call Cathie Carlson at and breeds of trees. 458-3244. 01VMPM1 cis Habitat Protection Areas 1 Green Cove watershed e y or Woodard Creek watershed 45 oda`a Ellis Cove watershed Olympia city limits Thurston County Lacey city limits a s e ie i3udd ~ .~Rd• a[Li?J d + nk r 36th'Ave.: lnlrc ! ,1 a ~a~ r a _ T[ SCdam Aver 42 cc arnaoA Rai ! 1^~ ud - 101.t lF' u ~ ~ Funs w*~ i-J i Chris Oerionrfhe Olympian ® ~ 1 TV ~1 P Eill E ED: I in the past three decades. iE C®The City Council will ' After heavy strms, ,the creek now rises by as mi'1ch protect Green Cove , city and county em as three feet, she,said. She ployees are expected to said she has se n fewei and its salmon with brief Thurston Count the regulations. i y salmon in the creel in recent commissioners on the years. B Trisha Collo f; proposed wetland regu City Council merAers dis- Y pY lations sometime in cussed other ways to manage The Olympian OLYMPIA -The city is mov Haub Krupp November. growth in the area Tuesday - ing ahead with stricter land night, including purchasing management in Green Cove stricter standards likely will Green Cove Creek for now and more land. Creek, one of the city's sensi- slow development in fast- trying to develop a joint plan The city still has to meet tive wetlands. growing northwest Olympia. with the county to reduce the with county commissioners to To buffer the creek from City water resources man- impact of further develop- agree on a formal manage- further development, city ager Andy Haub said it's im- ment in the area. ment plan for the area. employees have recom- portant to act before an area Thurston County also But city policy analyst Em mended reducing the num- becomes heavily developed. could use its environmental mett Dobey said the city could ber of buildings on lots, in- "The impact occurs quickly," review process to prevent de- enact stricter standards to pro- creasing tree cover, requiring he said. forestation in new develop- tect the Green Cove Basin larger buffers between the A recent city study identi- ments, said county develop- while it puts together a plan. creek and buildings, and re- fied Green Cove Creek, ment services director Don "It will at least ratchet up quiring larger stormwater Woodard Creek and Ellis Krupp. what we can do to manage the ponds. w Creek as the best places for Carol Burns, who lives next situation," he said. City Council members Tues- .,salmon and habitat protec- to the creek, said she has seen Trisha Collopy covers day night agreed that the area ion. a dramatic increase in the Olympia for The Olympian. She needs stronger protection..The Jhe city is concentrating on amount of runoff in the creek can be reached at 754-5435. , v 00 I PRS d 1 vapH~~ ~~~y~c G q o 04 ? a~,d~? 50 d> V w ono gg a'o a° - d 3 P a 0. Vo. 0 04 jo '.d .a 0~!~j y p ~?~IA~td7HOF7 yv d ~ rd t~ Y~~ o~ cd n't3 tali q'~`~•~~yypj N _5A 0 0,0 ? ?~o cad ° p 4'n .0 0 7:81 " ay p A.5 d tdd+ fl, o O 0 p NAOUQ ei ° ~ yd~1 qG sNd ° cC~^ d pf5 .C "C~, vi dd ~ A p 'E"7 ~ p •O~ Od id 4l CYi d 4~7~ y~ I v '''^.Q 7 111 Mff1 Y Q r" ~•7^'^ O Oo~"~ 01A V ~ ~C7 y ~ ~ d O7 ~ U'+"` ~ ~ p ~ ° N .L ~ 01 ~ pp ~ . ~ p1 ~ p d N ~r 4? ; q y Ny ~I % y> •Q 3nmypCt.'C1° t~y~Kb~O ~yy~~w?,Od~~"~~4,~ Ki d..+~?apUA •0 Odd`_~o'gv~A ~i Ny ~ aC~ o ~oryO'~ ; ~ yppy id ~ ~ cP Q ~ ~7 ~ ~ ad ~y Gaj a~'i~~ ,mil, 'h ~q' d d ~ U ? •C o ~ d • '+;'Y °0+7 R _ , N~.'..~•.p V p,•Pcg G~F7^ N • q ~^IF 'tai ~d c O P 'p dN~ d 3~ y~ fy s '7 id H •Gi ~ t .1t . z Al* 00 00 "0 10) -0.4.0 ba tA~ oP.D4p.~ou~i.~ SG~~ I d~*gda O 4dt0~o~°0.0 0? ~""wn•',.m.' C~ y 6) R 'y~ O '4 ° O O F q 4) '~.'s Jf ~G N 7 0? Q.~ k'iN~ Odd ^a tdO10~ OgdQ,d~jA,~ o V ~ 'VA R~ j . W/l'LIE: CHECK: Robett' McVeigh ctedcs the sandbag periiXteter aFOtd # iiiCal t. loiUt. ~ h Nkltui +:F . . up 01.4 daep.f m. acne emft-. heff" to keep sMnrl9 .Ae 17 .3 Lk pi nit • X !c r k t J' r r -A?r'+t~ aI•Q'w; rS P 1M lpryyr t i areasouthof.~ pr flood Tom p. t south er; residerits:o#~W#cdker Cou~t_ Of, 'Southeast 1lre.sinWar prop-r . tttIIlW1teL : r t lems. s _ :'Their cud de sac at the hot- 1.8rry filler f tom of a hill remained under „ : 18 inches •to.4 feet-of water z' THURSTON COUNIY T?.a c+ " ' r MOnday. h is a Claromc pmb-a BOb and -Mary !vin'sveri~l.; ~{p a n w i `4 ,F :lain there lA times Qf.he$vy f. r ,rainfall } searched all over Thurston' ti s 11 OU - W~ ;County In 1$90 for Just the Dawn-;Kendrick-McVeigh: right spat' to build:`theZv- who' moved there with her .dream r+et~menthome:'.. ; L' to 'ayeldow°~ pcape~ty husband last.:fall. •-said :she • is Theypi then nest.egg ufo <str itt :the -foot-ii t Ttiroo hopek Thurston, Couaty~will- e S recently low acres if the R 1 tt to g, ~i~r waibea years fife ground- find a way.,to the uaid - lr~ flood floated the,` end of tiny 90th Lie. off Lit-- ;den; : -..t w• ta vuateroding'pro blem on- '1' ' concrete tic nk; • the. ,street.: Fier house . and: derock Road, aud.- into:1hi : their-laud ` thousands of dollars in dam; house th -built: there:In wost; others .wthe street:. thafof. rs'-,:,ap to theirhome and'dea'W . aren't flooded<~ 1991 but the street'. - . t +the: em. .without utilities Tor Mills Bober _ eraf:ai~' and''drivewaye;:ars unpass- :'dry as a lar wo (OPd dpat+cel f+ - Thurston County ~mmds- On Monday; most f.the 5 Wed'like.•to. stay on-to ~ _ roperty, :she: said. €eetaY . -cur his pr~?p- 00- . stoners', ~ust sg a tate first ofst Alonday decla emergencray-`'_ , acres were ttnderwater:' -tion"of a So were' Mary Ann~s~ - ibu ' ..I don"t'.a ow.howare're g°~.to. - ' . ' • •freest; •'tho fodilsa 9, P• in an Larry'_Milier covers Lacey. usedto aitsriowilows out , effort to attract federal aid, and . • Tumwater. • for - 'The "Did you know they bloom of the. •mu' . Held left be- may be the Vedas' besi<ltope - - Olympian: He cart be reached underneath the water? she. . hind arid - o ; residential . for getting relief; at 754-5465;. . October 16, 1999 To: City of Yelm Planning Commision Front: Kelan Moynagh / resident 1444593 Id Ave SE Re: Southwest Yelm Conceptual Master Plan In review of the history of the current proposal of the Southwest Yelm Conceptual Master Plan, I request that the whole process be stopped and the plan denied. Not only has due process not been adhered to according to chapter 16 of Yelm Municipal Code entitled "Subdivisions", but there is also apparent conflict of interest regarding the project. Additionally, the environmental checklist is deficient. Due Process not followed Chapter 16 clearly outlines the proper procedure to be followed regarding subdivisions within city limits. Its purpose is so that the city can responsibly "provide for the health, safety and general welfare of its citizenry and the public." Specifically, it outlines the process required to subdivide: 1. The city identifies an area within city limits that it wants to allow to subdivide. 2. The city drafts a conceptual master plan which outlines the provisions for subdivision. 3. Within 3 years from the master plan's approval, land owners within the area owning at least 200 acres may apply for subdivision and submit a master plan for development which is consistent with the overall conceptual master plan developed by the city. 4. After 3 years, the conceptual master plan expires and the land reverts to its original zoning. No subdivision can occur at this point. e.g. the city now can not accept applications for subdivision. In contrast, here is what has happened: 1. The city approved the Southwest Yelm Conceptual Master Plan in 1994. 2. The plan expired in 1997. 3. This year, the city accepted application and an accompaning $6,000 fee from Dragl/DeTray, LLC 4. Now after accepting the application and money, the city now wants to simply submit the old plan without revision for approval. 5. In an apparent attempt to streamline the project, the city issued a mitigated determination of nonsignificance to avoid any environmental considerations. This when in fact the development may add 5,000 homes and 13,000 residents: more than the current population of Yelm! Addtionally, according to the Y2/Y3 Corridor Executive Summary, Yelm is currently in declared transportation emergency. The original conceptual plan apparently had assumed adoption of the Y1 proposal. No traffic analysis or study has been done to integrate the plan into the Y21Y3 proposal. Conflict of Interest In proposing the Conceptual Master Plan, it is the city's responsibility to do an environmental checklist. A checklist was done. It was prepared by The Kirkbride Group, Inc. and paid for by Dragt/DeTray, LLC. Deficiencies in the Checklist #3b. Water rights is an unresolved issue. See the attached letter from Kari Rokstad, Washington State Department of Ecology to Shelly Badger, City of Yelm dated September 29, 1999. #4. In addition to the vegetation listed, one must add water plants #5. In addition to the birds and animals listed, one must add: Birds: heron, eagles, ducks and other water fowl Mammals: elk, coyotes, mountain lion Fish: unknown type, but Thompson Creek has fish in it #5c. Elk is a migratory animal and thus requires special consideration under Yelm Ordinance 426. (Wetlands also required this special consideration.) #8f. There is no comprehensive plan in effect. #10. Government approvals required? Whereas this project only lists approval of the Conceptual Master Plan which is the purpose of this questionnaire to begin with according the Y2N3 Corridor Executive Summary, the Y21Y3 project required: National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Biological Assessment Concurrence. U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers - Section 404 Nationwide Permit Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife - Hydraulic Project Approval. Washington State Department of Ecology and Thurston County - Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Thurston County - Floodplain Development permit The Southwest Plan includes many of the aspects that the Y21Y3 Corridor exhibits including wetlands, floodplains, bodies of water, oak stands, critical areas of aquifer recharge, hydric soils, and seasonal streams. Why the difference in standards? January 5, 2000 Cathy Carlson City Planning Yelm Dear Ms. Carlson: I see that some decisions have been made concerning Thurston Highlands development. Surveys have been made and stakes are being placed into the ground. Communications between the city and concerned citizens have been minimal, if not just plain nonexistent. Can you please let us know what is going on. In addition, I think it is incumbent upon the city to keep people outside the 1000 foot boundary zone informed. Many more people will be impacted by this development, if it indeed proceeds. Specifically, what I would like to have is a responsiveness summary to the many concerns expressed. There were many thoughtful responses to this planned developed. How have you addressed them? Or have you addressed them? Was there by any chance consultation with expert agencies or groups? Those that come to mind are: 1. Section 7 consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service on the Endangered Species Act. The increased sediment load and pollutants from Thompson Creek will impact the Nisqually River and her fisheries. 2. The Nisqually Tribe for impacts on tribal fisheries. 3. The Nisqually River Council. Thompson Creek is in the Stewardship Management Zone of the Nisqually River Management Plan 4. The Department of Ecology for their regulatory responsibility of water rights, water withdrawals, stormwater controls, and antidegradation of water quality. 5. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permits for any instream work that needs to be done on Thompson Creek 6. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife for any hydraulics code requirements. 7. Rainier School District 8. JZ Knight. Her property will be impacted by the additional flooding of Thompson Creek 9. Fort Lewis 10. I am sure there are others that I will eventually think of. Hopefully a responsiveness summary will have already shown how the many concerns and issues have been addressed. A copy of this letter will go to my many neighbors, and to those entities identified above. Thank you in advance for takin time to answer our concerns. William A. Hashim 13803 93' Ave SE cc: Kathy Wolfe, Mayor Members of the Yelm City Council Members of the Planning Commission December 20, 1999 To: Cathy Carlson / Yelm City Planner From: Kelan Moynagh ==-s Lion to DNS Dear Cathy, L.sc„cc4t cF t_3lnfitfZf7tfi:^~t^.f'~c. 1 55MY th2t the wits uCCide ~ #Llt tj.t.t .4t~tC _ _t - C1~LG~~I{lnci EtCYf€ CE t\ff_ . ~.t,. E .csy ..z-va'U I-Ifen't pcoposa+. i once again am voicing my disapproval of this action. - F.+f-fief s rry utnrcn- - my Ic"ar at.- ll i~.......:t t_o c _ . , e , J t ttGJ tV a is r tai a tt Lc~rrlftiisSinn t?f (lrtrnnar 1 R"' ~~io..4. i:vi C}r{Sn f't rtni in~t riaw.-~.l:~r tI _ RrR a t'~__ _ _ . r.= - f Ct{G QCrPi CiiiliiC3(ifiiAliT.'ai i_,Y1FS!'fCi+ct nrpr+~rard 4...~L..± - vrviiFr. it sa i~i~vsafui tt~ d;~ snm answers are laughable! To accept this incomplete work as the basis for a DNS is simply irresponsible. Sincerely Y~C heavily vegetated and absorbs a lot of water. With this development, we will lose thiV_ngtural:ab;Qrption: and filtering of ground water. Development I Runoff ends up either in the ground, our source of drinking water, or in streams and wetlands. Also, was the cost of Answers are exte nding servicesucalculated needed when permitting this development, and will the developer be required to pay the cost? Were impact fees FAItor, /S--giy that cover Thurston County's cost We are neighboring residents to of managing storm water and the proposed new development drainage systems and related called Prairie View-Thurston issues taken into consideration? Highlands, planned for approxi- Developers should mitigate all mately 1,860 acres in Southwest water issues prior to final plot Yelm. The proposed residential approval. density is between 4,800-5,000 Developers must -be held units with 3.5-4.44 dwelling units accountable when problems with per net acre. Commercial develop- flooding and water systems occur meat is planned for approximately to their developments. Their lack 35 acres, including two golf cours- prroforesight affects us directly and es, associated facilities and profoundly. schools. These issues will only get more The city of Yelm determined that complex and harder to solve as the number of people this proposed development world and home • not have a significant adverse increase. Making sure these issues impact on the environment, of water quality, quantity, storm Therefore, an environmental water control, safety and privacy impact statement (EIS) is not are fully addressed and should be being required. the first priority before develop- ment is permitted. Wilt the neighbors be affected by this "insignificance;' including Debbie Moss and other concerned neighbors flooding, stream bank erosion, pot- Yehn lution of drinking water, wells and aquifers, loss of habitat for fish and wildlife and trespassing on private property due to increased population. Is the government adequately enforcing regulations that prevent people from creating flood and pollution problems as a result of this development? Are these homes being built in flood-prone areas? Will there be adequate sewer, water systems and other support? Will this growth degrade our water quality and way of life? This underdeveloped land i& October 6, 1999 Cathie Carlson Planning Department Yelm City Hail Yelm, WA 98597 Dear Ms. Carlson: Just yesterday I received a copy of the notice of application and MDNS for the Prairie View, Thurston Highlands Project. It was either my neglect, or your process, that kept this out of my sight until now. However, please put my name on your mailing for hereafter. I cannot even vaguely understand how a 1800 acre, 4800-5000 unit project could have a mitigated determination of nonsignificance status. I hope you understand that an environmental checklist cannot do justice to a project of this scope. Even when you consider the SEPA saes, this project sho dd automatically trigger an EIS. Adoption of the Southwest Yelin nnexation EIS is not enough. I have lived on 93rd Ave for nearly 4 years. During that time I have observed seasonal wetlands, saturated soils, and flooding all along 93rd and Berry Valley Road. Even if the county wetland maps do not regard this area as wetland, the site needs to be ground truthed for wetland determination. 4800 units on sewer/septic will add a significant amount of water to the already saturated soils during a large part of the year. In addition, the impact to the community would be enormous. I don't even want to begin describing the potential impacts to Yelm. Increasingly throughout the U.S., responsible officials are under attack from citizen lawsuits when their determinations assault the environment. SEPA requirements are a minimum, this town deserves greater care. It would be in the best interest of all the community, city council, and responsible officials, if at a minimum an EIS were required. Please take care of your community. Thank you for your consideration, William A. Hashim 1380393 rd Ave SE Yelm 98597 STATE Of WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY P.O. Box 47irS * Olympfa, 4washlttglon 98504.777'5 060) 407-6310 October 6, 1999 Ms. Shelly Badger, City Administrator City of YehU PO Box 479 YOM, WA 98597 Dear Ms. Badger. We sent you a letter on September 29* regarding the hfDNS issued for the Conceptual Master Plan Approval for an 1,860-acre development in Southwest Yclm. In reviewing Our databfmc, it wits discoveml that ecology's Water Resonrce+s countnents were not included in that letter. 111 following cotnnients are the Water Resomoos concerns: The Water Resottroes Program, Southwest Regional Office, dues not hnvu adequato information to assess the extent and validity of the water rights associated with the property. It is unclear how irrigation water will be supplied to the 456-acre golf course, or if the City of Yelm's current municipal water rights are adequate to supply domestic luster to an additional 5,000 homes. The City should be aware that water rights may not necessarily be detcnnined by the face value of n certif icate, and that any modification of existing rights %All require detailed evaluation by the Depaulment of Ecology including a showing of historic water use and evidence that they are not subject to reliuquWatient for non-use. We would be happy to provide technical assistance to the Cite regarded; water rights, but until additional information is provided Ecology is concerned thnt the Cit3ls existing water right are not adoqunte to provide water to this project. - If you have any questions or tivould like to respond to these continents, please call Ms..Till Wo' lslt (Water Resources) at (360) 407-0274 or with any other questions regarding this proposal Ms. Kari Itoltstad (SETA Coordinator) at (360) 407-6767. - Si roly, A e &iHee SWRO Adininistrntion AW: (99-6101 a) cc: Kari Itokstad, SWRO/SHA Jill Walsh, SWRO/WR Exhibit F October 4, 1999 City of Yelm 105 Yelm Avenue West P.O. Box 479 Yelm, WA 98597 To Whom It May Concern: As neighboring residents to the proposed new development Prairie View Thurston ITighlands Master Planned Community, we have many concerns. Such as flooding, sh,;am bank erosion, pollution ofdrinidng waiter, wells and aquifers, loss of habitat for fish and wildlife, and public trespassing on private property due to the population in the area ina ceasing. We also have questions that we would-like to have addressed. Is the government adequately enforcing regulations that prevent developers from creating flood and pollution problems in the first place? Was this area mapped and flood areas acknowledged by inferred photos taken during the January 1997 flooding? Were the tests done to evaluate this specific site, local soil analysis and tests for signs of flooding and wetlands? Are these homes being built in these flood prone areas? Will there be adequate sewer and water systems, drainage systems, etc? Will this growth degrade the water quality of the existing homes in the area? This undeveloped land is heavily vegetated, absorbing a lot of rainwater. With development we will lose this natural absorption and filtering of ground water. There will be more impervious surfaces. creating even more water runoM affecting the neighboring residents. Is this development going to affect the natural drainage system now in effect? There are natural ponds, streams, and ditches that are now barely controlling the water runoff Are these drainages going to be blocked, making us more prone to flooding, especially through Thompson Creek? Also, was it taken into consideration the true cost of extending services, calculated when permitting development, and will the developers pay the cost? Were impact fees considered that cover Thurston County's cost of managing storm water and drainage systems and related issues? Will developers have mitigated all water issues prior to final plot approval? Developers should be held accountable when problems with flooding and water systems occur in their developments which in turn affects us. These issues will only get more complex and harder to solve as the number of people and homes increase. Making sure these issues of water quality, quantity, storm water control, safety and privacy are fully addressed should be a priority before development is permitted. Thank you, Concerned Neighbors. 004 *~'j uoA. g9~597 WA . 9 85? . L.,rA. - r.- 73 7(0 ~U Jo K, 43 e ~A%~,o- - c)-, 7 Q O~ COI" "T J f~ vZ ~3~ s r . fS a r A4 g 03 l 12 3~-` , ~c5 19 IOM. F t5 e) QA) ro JA) ~5} c# fae vanV%- G 1V.) PC t h r W i . ry) r> c? S fro IY'\ YIY,3 C o r r) G~.o v- mec,l he-lcL 10 ct , a r~ l~-,° S C. V-\O o I ,S G 0 F)-)S, perm S~~~cL w h ~ ~ a S Cv -t~-c~c ~ ~ ~ -i'h C* t i J &1 rn a 5 n s o 14-ck h t r GL ~.s o -1-ha-1~ w a's as K,e-q~ a 4bo u l +)-,,c I - co V- Y- ctor Y-O u +(2,-) w k ~ k uj o c) I (L r o Q t d-L, a n o r~ - So u +t\ ro cc d- +k r -I kku~-S-W\ Ould.s prop)-c-(J. -7-'p t'_GK Li r1GaC~UC 1DiXr C~,tt~~(( ~SS~C1Gc~e5 }deIs (IS -f ~Lre- C~ ~rv (e--5- `o r) a e pa r~-~rS 3 L cA-Ko- rnoo C i rc.ke-, • a , Uj Cf . q F~ s I 3 5-9- - L3L ~oYK FIX aon C-usc,,-d- how 4-he -e- Ir)-,N cQr,no -1- by ~ IcL a roacL k)-a-ca_u.~- pC tN 1 ar,c,(5 eA, je+ +he-j ear bo ('lcc a- c ci ,-11-\C/t 0. 1~- u -O~cbb i MoS5 ~S s ~ ~'S r= te x t~~ y q 3 t':, a ae- s-c . v)Z.(m • Victsk), ~~5 I COLLOQUY 1 the route is where it is. I think it's been real 2 beneficial. I've been on 100 other parcels because, 3 again, in a setting like this, we can get into each 4 independent issue, but, again, as we start thinking about 5 where we should move the route and where we shouldn't, we 6 went through a whole process of how that was undertaken. 7 MR. FRANKHAUSER: Okay. 8 MR. SHEA: Any other questions? 9 MR. BOW: My name is David Bow. I have one 10 question and that's why, in all of these proposals that it you have, wasn't there a continuous route with Y2 going 12 through the southeast part of Yelm that isn't very 13 developed and connecting it with the highway wing down to 14 Olympia? You're just making a straight shot. You had 15 already done all of this planning for the Y2 and then you 16 go along the north side of town and build - and plan this 17 thing for Y3, when looking on the map you can make a nice 18 straight connection and that was never an option. 19 MR. SHEA: Well, that particular area, again, is 20 a couple things. One is that location is the Thurston 21 Highlands, properties that will be building their own 22 routes to provide access back to these facilities, and the 23 project references the 93rd Avenue connector, which would 24 provide a north-south road down through the Thurston 25 Highlands property. The problem you have is trying to 62 Dixie Cattell & Associates (360) 352-2506 COLLOQUY 1 connect up to Y2. You've have big ponds, wetlands, and 2 environmental issues you can't cross, so that route has to 3 be moved southerly. 4 When those properties come in and start master 5 planning their site, they have to take that into account 6 and those are the restraints that they have, so there's 7 not many opportunities to make a straight shot through. 8 We have looked at-that. That was looked at in the initial 9 comprehensive plan prepared in 1990, 1991 references Y1. 10 That Y1 now has really been considered more of an access 11 commercial collector to that property because you can't 12 provide a direct linkage to the Y2 corridor. 13 Any others questions? if not, I,m going to adjourn - 14 or close the public hearing. Again, we'll take written 15 testimony up-to November 8th. Thank you all for attending 16 tonight and we will be here for at least another 30 17 minutes to an hour as we start to pick up our stuff. If 18 you have particular questions, please stop by. 19 (Concluded at 8:00 p.m.) 20 21 22 23 24 25 63 Dixie Cattell & Associates (360) 352-2506 , y Q o :3 c owo Raj O w o N o ` N V , z a t a CLIO rf p- 40v CD CD 0 CD E FA Ca :M3 -qQ m CA P- 'fDy o,~ P3` W m CD '7• 0 CD p 53 (D 0ti ~w1 :3 CA r lD w '7 N fD CD cr n O rh r-F C, ~a CD o . oI. wop.°pZ V No O n ~G CAI, '0 C) El I $a. p 'Jp fD ° ~i N OQ y 'd z w CD f~/] (D M. ~j 0 co n r-+ (D 0 m r+ ~ A r :5- e'C p R C7 w (D l~ttc Y,r 7 7 wm C1 CD O I K O co _ 0 ~.w o fD m d' o o m w O' N o pi m P. 0 CD 0 U) .•^a - o `L W m rT' (D O M +y Q. S fD b to (D CD fb CD P m CL N w., I C) cr, fro N xj, 041 m O fn f~D p.~V N OC0~N 1 o o- cm En P. co ~ xti H J O r--. o cD ~ ~ r« O::~ C) ° N fq r•* w r7 PS 'L' fD fD lD p' N C7" fD cD w 0- to > w 0 -03 ID N O O ry O co OOC CD C) 0 O= ffb M G N` .r .7 ti 1 C3,w.wo ai O N C', y 0.0 p'Nr ry 0 CD r".00 Fr w 10 p O a_ M (D w w ,b 0 v o to ' bq Kip 'O. Lp aPL EA m P) y•. CD CL Zi han C1 OCCDD 0 CD 0 CD CD CD cn, CD CD CD (D CD r. :3 CD P.- w p O O p n O - G IV.4-Y-3 0 -0 Q 0 0 OQ CD ~v O fD fp a fn, m tD 2 p ° O N f CD 2 -h c CD b tj 0. cn cu , CC cD°a j~ N ~m.c ?C w d u° -0.0 o R' p cro a tiwww sckoe1 ~cmc!g~~'mA)TCD CL CL rrL - tHE p+p~ ity o Yelm C fi, M 105 Yelm Avenue West P.O. Box 479 YELMOTON Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 January 25, 2000 William A. Hashim 13883 93`d Ave SE Yelm, WA 98597 Dear Mr. Hashim: In response to your letter dated January 5, 2000: 1. The City requirement for Master Plan Project notification requires that property owners within 1000 feet of the project site be notified of the project and public hearings. Anyone outside of the 1000 feet can contact the City and request to be included on the mailing list and they will receive all public notifications for the project. 2. The staff report dated October 12, (copy enclosed) that was available at the public hearing provides a summary of the issues which are relevant to the project and type of land use application being considered by the City. As the staff report indicates and through staff testimony at the public hearing, the land use application being considered at this time is a Conceptual Master Plan. The purpose and intent of a Conceptual Master Plan is to establish general land use policies to guide detailed planning for and development of the master plan area. The conceptual plan identifies the generalized land uses, transportation circulation routes and services proposed for the site. When and if an applicant receives conceptual master plan approval, the next approval they are required to obtain is Final Master Plan approval. When and if a final master plan application is submitted for the project site, the applicant shall be required to provide detailed environmental studies to determine necessary mitigation. Surrounding property owners (within 1000') and agencies on the City mailing lists will be notified if a Final Master Plan Application is received by the City. 3. The Southwest Yelm Final Environmental Statement is available for review. It provides discussion and a more detailed summary of the issues. 4. The City maintains an agency mailing list for project notification. Most of the agencies/organizations you reference in your letter were sent notification of the project. The City did not receive any comments from those agencies/organizations, other than from DOE. It is unlikely that the City Council will be reviewing the conceptual master plan application before April, however when the public hearing is scheduled you will be notified at least 10 days in advance. The file for the land use application is public record and you are welcome to review it at any time between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday thru Fridays. Copies of any documents are available at .5¢ per copy for standard size paper. If you have any questions please contact me at 458-8408. Sincerely, Catherine Carlson City Planner cc: Kathryn Wolf, Mayor Shelly Badger, City Administrator I/ OF THE p~~ a~ ce ity o Yelm a M 105 Yelm Avenue West YELM P.O. Box 479 WABHINOTON Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 January 12, 2000 William A. Hashim 13883 93`d Ave SE Yelm, WA 98597 Dear Mr. Hashim: Each member of the City Council will received a copy of your letter addressed to Cathie Carlson, dated January 5, 2000, in their City Council packet for the January 26, 2000, meeting. The City Council, by law, can not discuss the letter until such time the proposed project is brought before them for consideration. Staff has been instructed to include the letter with the other public comments on the proposed project. The public comments will be considered along with all the project information when the project is forwarded, in its entirety, to the City Council for review and consideration. At such time, when City Council review of the project is scheduled, public notice of the meeting will be issued consistent with City of Yelm Public Notice standards. Thank you for your comments and they will be taken into consideration. Sincerely, Kathryn M. Wolf Mayor cc: Cathie Carlson January 5, 2000 Cathy Carlson City Planning Yelm Dear Ms. Carlson: I see that some decisions have been made concerning Thurston Highlands development. Surveys have been made and stakes are being placed into the ground. Communications between the city and concerned citizens have been minimal, if not just plain nonexistent. Can you please let us know what is going on. In addition, I think it is incumbent upon the city to keep people outside the 1000 foot boundary zone informed. Many more people will be impacted by this development, if it indeed proceeds. Specifically, what I would like to have is a responsiveness summary to the many concerns expressed. There were many thoughtful responses to this planned developed. How have you addressed them? Or have you addressed them? Was there by any chance consultation with expert agencies or groups? Those that come to mind are: 1. Section 7 consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service on the Endangered Species Act. The increased sediment load and pollutants from Thompson Creek will impact the Nisqually River and her fisheries. 2. The Nisqually Tribe for impacts on tribal fisheries. 3. The Nisqually River Council. Thompson Creek is in the Stewardship Management Zone of the Nisqually River Management Plan 4. The Department of Ecology for their regulatory responsibility of water rights, water withdrawals, stormwater controls, and antidegradation of water quality. 5. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permits for any instream work that needs to be done on Thompson Creek 6. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife for any hydraulics code requirements. 7. Rainier School District 8. JZ Knight. Her property will be impacted by the additional flooding of Thompson Creek 9. Fort Lewis 10.1 am sure there are others that I will eventually think of. Hopefully a responsiveness summary will have already shown how the many concerns and issues have been addressed. A copy of this letter will go to my many neighbors, and to those entities identified above. Thank you in advance for takin time to answer our concerns. ~-J j- C William A. Hashim 13803 93`d Ave SE cc: Kathy Wolfe, Mayor Members of the Yelm City Council Members of the Planning Commission CRC~IaMt d DEC 2 0 1999 December 20, 1999 To: Cathy Carlson / Yelm City Planner From: Kelan Moynagh Re: Opposition to DNS Dear Cathy, I saw that the city has decided to grant the Determination of Nonsignificance on the Dragt/De Tray development proposal. I once again am voicing my disapproval of this action. Perhaps my wording in my letter to the Planning Commission of October 18th was not strong enough regarding the SEPA Environmental Checklist prepared by the Kirkbride Group. It is incomplete and some answers are laughable! To accept this incomplete work as the basis for a DNS is simply irresponsible. Sincerely, (CSC w~ October 6, 1999 OCT 0 6 1999 B Cathie Carlson Planning Department Yelm City Hall Yelm, WA 98597 Dear Ms. Carlson: Just yesterday I received a copy of the notice of application and MDNS for the Prairie View, Thurston Highlands Project. It was either my neglect, or your process, that kept this out of my sight until now. However, please put my name on your mailing for hereafter. I cannot even vaguely understand how a 1800 acre, 4800-5000 unit project could have a mitigated determination of nonsignificance status. I hope you understand that an environmental checklist cannot do justice to a project of this scope. Even when you consider the SEPA rules, this project should automatically trigger an EIS. Adoption of the Southwest Yelm Annexation EIS is not enough. I have lived on 93`d Ave for nearly 4 years. During that time I have observed seasonal wetlands, saturated soils, and flooding all along 93`d and Berry Valley Road. Even if the county wetland maps do not regard this area as wetland, the site needs to be ground truthed for wetland determination. 4800 units on sewer/septic will add a significant amount of water to the already saturated soils during a large part of the year. In addition, the impact to the community would be enormous. I don't even want to begin describing the potential impacts to Yelm. Increasingly throughout the U.S., responsible officials are under attack from citizen lawsuits when their determinations assault the environment. SEPA requirements are a minimum, this town deserves greater care. It would be in the best interest of all the community, city council, and responsible officials, if at a minimum an EIS were required. Please take care of your community. Thank you for your consideration, William A. Hashim 13803 93`d Ave SE Yelm 98597 October 4, 1999 City of Yelm 105 Yelm Avenue West P.O. Box 479 Yelm, WA 98597 To Whom It May Concern: As neighboring residents to the proposed new development Prairie View--Thurston Highlands Master Planned Community, we have many concerns. Such as flooding, stream bank erosion, pollution of drinking water, wells and aquifers, loss of habitat for fish and wildlife, and public trespassing on private property due to the population in the area increasing. We also have questions that we would like to have addressed. Is the government adequately enforcing regulations that prevent developers from creating flood and pollution problems in the first place? Was this area mapped and flood areas acknowledged by infared photos taken during the January 1997 flooding? Were the tests done to evaluate this specific site, local soil analysis and tests for signs of flooding and wetlands? Are these homes being built in these flood prone areas? Will there be adequate sewer and water systems, drainage systems, etc? Will this growth degrade the water quality of the existing homes in the area? This undeveloped land is heavily vegetated, absorbing a lot of rainwater. With development we will lose this natural absorption and filtering of ground water. There will be more impervious surfaces creating even more water runoff, affecting the neighboring residents. Is this development going to affect the natural drainage system now in effect? There are natural ponds, streams, and ditches that are now barely controlling the water runoff. Are these drainages going to be blocked, making us more prone to flooding, especially through Thompson Creek? Also, was it taken into consideration the true cost of extending services, calculated when permitting development, and will the developers pay the cost? Were impact fees considered that cover Thurston County's cost of managing storm water and drainage systems and related issues? Will developers have mitigated all water issues prior to final plot approval? n Developers should be held accountable when problems with flooding and water systems occur in their developments which in turn affects us. These issues will only get more complex and harder to solve as the number of people and homes increase. Making sure these issues of water quality, quantity, storm water control, safety and privacy are fully addressed should be a priority before development is permitted. Thank you, Concerned Neighbors. jolt OJ4;.Qj -Irna&g-) -~-L -'A4 V, 14S L.~. 5 k s " 1#1131 073 At Wet 9YS91- Nsj uSS 3 t1oA qss 44~r- 73 ?6' e ~Ave- 6U r 77 S-f 1' 2 0 3 3 ~-uE t' zle~~ CL. ~ / o~ rO A) O-od ICI e~muji AA~ q3 V"- AJL C/ 0,/7 NX0 t4 -17 August 10, 1999 Dear Members of the Yelm City Council and Planning Commission, We have recently received information about the current plans for the Prairie View, Thurston Highlands Master Planned Community. On that note, We would like to explain that our family has chosen our residence to live out our lives in a safe, rural location. Please take in consideration our concerns which were expressed in person at City Hall on August 4, 1999: 1. How will Longmire Street and Berry Valley Road be affected? a. When we moved to this location we chose not to live on a busy highway. b. We don't want to lose the land bordering the street to road development, parking area and sidewalks. There is a line of small trees that have been planted along the roadside that we don't want destroyed. We hope they will provide us a buffer... someday. 2. Will there be any additional "utility" lines running down Longmire Street? (water, sewer, power, gas, cable, phone, etc...) 3. Will buffers be mandatory for a development of this grand size? This is an immense change for our happy, peaceful street. According to the Nisqually Valley News, August 6, 1999 issue, the need for a 10 foot buffer zone and 6 foot- high solid fence was approved for manufactured home developments. Doesn't DeTray, the developer, deal in manufactured homes? 4. I consider myself a long-term resident of this area, yet when I moved into my home I was charged a hefty transportation improvement fee. I am sure that every family that moves into each unit in this new development will be charged a transportation improvement fee under the same guidelines. I would like to thank Cathie Carlson for her time and patience during my visit to Yelm City Hall. She answered our questions to the best of her knowledge, yet it is our understanding that anything could change at the drop of a hat. We are very concerned about how we will be represented then, and who will listen? We realize that the development will meet guidelines according to the law, but the law does not take in consideration what is fair for each specific situation, and it surely does not "feel from the heart". Please send us documentation of possible further developments of the Prairie View, Thurston Highlands Master Community. We would like to keep in touch. Thank you, James S. Enlow Janet A. Enlow 15037 Longmire St. SE, Yelm, WA 98597 (360) 458-8169 Gz~ lea-- ~ 8 5 y August 9,1999 City of Yelm P. O. Box 479 Yelm, WA 98597 ATTN: Cathie Carlson RE: Praire View, Thurston Highlands Master Planed Community, Southwest Yelm, . WA 98597 I received my notice of the above referenced project and had several questions and concerns as per our phone conversation this morning. 1. My biggest concern had to do with the widening and improvements to both Durant Road and Longmire Street. My understanding , per our conversation, is that the Berry Valley boulevard road will need to be in place before any development can begin., thus, with the improved access, there will be no reason to widen Longmire St. My other concern in this area had to do with Durant Road and the acquisition of property to enable that road to become 56 feet wide to include planting strip, sidewalk etc.. You mentioned this will be determined at a future step in this process and there will be opportunity to comment at that time. I feel that the necessary changes to that road are being driven by the needs of the Praire View project and therefore the land needed to make those changes should come exclusively from that project. 2. My other concern was regarding buffers required if this was to be a manufactured home community. My understanding is that if this is going to be a mix of stick homes and , manufactured homes , no buffers will be required. I appreciate your willingness to answer my questions and will await each step in this process., as it plays out. Sincerely, Mary Lou Clemens Elene H Newby 15105 Longmire St SE Yelm WA 98597 360-458-3888 August 6, 1999 City of Yelm P. O. Box 479 Yelm WA 98597 ATTN: Cathie Carlson and City Council RE: Prairie View, Thurston Highlands Master Planned Community, Southwest Yelm, WA 98597 I received my notification of changes and additions to the "Thurston Highlands Master Planned Community". I did have difficulty orienting the maps mailed out, but a trip to City Hall solved my problem when it was explained that the "Prairie View" section was not on the "Thurston Highlands Master Plan Conceptual I" map. I did have several concerns and I have presented them orally and now in writing to Cathie Carlson and the City Council: 1. Which approach were the utilities, sewer, power, water, and gas going to use to the development? The qualified reply: Berry Valley and Durant Roads. 2. Which roads will be widened and when? Reply: No estimate. 3. Is the majority of the road widening, where possible, coming out of the "Prairie View" property? Reply: No, state law says "from the center of the present road". (That statement should prevent future donations of land to the city. If you donated an acre and a road had to be put in, you would have to cough up another 27 feet for your half. Yikes!) 4. Are buffers, fences, shrubs being planned to lessen traffic noise and people noise in general? (Of course this may seem like a minor concern when compared with Ft. Lewis' all night firing and the Ramtha get-togethers through the night, but why add to the noise pollution?) Reply: No buffers are planned. We did not complain in years past of the dairy smells and sounds because the dairy was in existence when we moved in and they were "first". Now that the area is changing and we are "first", I feel that my concerns should at least be considered. Cathie was very considerate in listening to my concerns but mostly the replies came with positive qualifiers, and so I was left with the feeling that "well, that may change". It was a little like trying to hold smoke in your hands. May wisdom and not avarice be your guideline. Sincerely, Elene H Newby