The URL can be used to link to this page

East Gateway Final EISFinal Environmental Impact Statement ►► qtr SCJ ALLIANCE r r CONSULTING SERVICES 105 YeIm Avenue West YeIm, WA 98597 grantb(a)ci.yeIm.wa.us Final Environmental Impact Statement FACT SHEET PROJECT TITLE Yelm East Gateway Planned Action PROPOSED ACTION Planned Action EIS to provide a framework forthe coordinated development of seven parcels, approximately 46 acres (project site) in the Yelm East Gateway area. The properties are bisected by Yelm Avenue (SR 507). ALTERNATIVES Maximum Build -out as a Coordinated Development: This development is up to 40% build out, approximately 800,00o sf of shopping center uses and 92% impervious surface coverage. Moderate Build -out as a Coordinated Development (Preferred): This development is up to 25% build out, approximately 500,00o sf of shopping center uses and 55% impervious surface coverage. No Action Alternative: All seven parcels would develop individually without any coordination. This development is up to ii% build out, approximately 229,000 sf of shopping center uses and 26% impervious surface coverage. LOCATION Properties are located on the north and south side of SR 507, east of Creek Street and Yelm Creek, west and south of Walmart Boulevard. A portion of Section 29, Township 17 North, Range z East. PROPONENT /APPLICANT Crossroads at Yelm LLC, Estate of Agnes F. Washington, Yelm LLC, Virgil and Darlene Baker Living Trust, and Peter & Eunice Newgard LEAD AGENCY City of Yelm Community Development Department 105 YeIm Avenue West YeIm, WA 98597 RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL Grant Beck, Community Development Director 105 YeIm Avenue West YeIm, WA 98597 grantb(a)ci.yeIm.wa.us Final Environmental Impact Statement LEAD AGENCY CONTACT PERSON Tami Merriman, Associate Planner City of Yelm Community Development Department 105 YeIm Avenue West YeIm, WA 98597 tamim(a)ci.yelm.wa.us PERMITS AND APPROVALS The planned action allows for up front SEPA Review for those projects consistent with the Planned Action EIS. The Final Planned Action EIS will require approval from the City of Yelm. Other permits /approvals anticipated: WSDOT approval City of Yelm approvals: Building permits Grading permits Land Use approvals Mechanical permits Electrical permits Concurrency Authorization Right of way permits Certificates of occupancy EIS AUTHORS AND PRINCIPAL SCJ Alliance CONTRIBUTORS Theresa Turpin, Laura Barker, Candace Cramer, Draft EIS; Theresa Turpin, Final EIS George Smith, Ryan Shea, Transportation Impact Analysis Landau Associates Sarah Fees, Groundwater Technical Memo PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL Yelm Comprehensive Plan 2009 DOCUMENTS Yelm Transportation Plan zoog Yelm Water System Plan 2010 SEPA Determination of Significance issued February 1, 2013 SEPA Final Scoping Notice issued March 11,2013 LOCATION OF BACKGROUND City of Yelm — Community Development Department INFORMATION DATE OF DRAFT EIS ISSUANCE January 5, 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement WRITTEN COMMENTS Written comments were required to be submitted to: City ofYelm, Community Development Department Attn: Tami Merriman —Yelm East Gateway Planned Action EIS 105 YeIm Avenue West YeIm, WA 98597 Email: tamim(a)ci.yelm.wa.us DATE DRAFT EIS COMMENTS WERE February 5, 2015 DUE AVAILABILITY OF THE DRAFT EIS Copies of the Draft EIS were available at: WAS PROVIDED AT THESE LOCATIONS City ofYelm, Community Development Department Yelm Timberland Library www.ci.yelm.wa.us FINAL EIS Issued April 6, 2015. The only comments received were from WSDOT and the Washington Department of Ecology. These comments requested minor clarification of several minor items and did not result in any substantial revisions to the information contained in the DEIS. The comments and response sheet are provided in Appendix B. PLANNED ACTION ORDINANCE Anticipated Adoption Date: April or May 2015 NEXTACTIONS Following the adoption of the Planned Action Ordinance individual projects will be reviewed on an individual basis for consistency with the FEIS. TABLE OF CONTENTS Final Environmental Impact Statement Page FACTSHEET ........................................................................................... ............................... II TABLEOF CONTENTS ............................................................................. ............................... V LISTOF TABLES ..................................................................................... ............................... VI LISTOF FIGURES .................................................................................. ............................... VII LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................ ............................... VII 1. SUMMARY ......................................................................................... ..............................2 1.1 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSAL .............................................................. ............................... 2 1.2 SEPA PROCEDURES AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................... ............................... 2 1.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................... ..............................3 1.3.1 Maximum Build -out as a Coordinated Development ............................................ ............................... 5 1.3.2 Moderate Intensity Build -out as a Coordinated Development .............................. ............................... 5 1.3.3 No Action Alternative ......................................................................................... ............................... 5 1.3.4 Types of Uses ..................................................................................................... ............................... 5 1.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ........................................... ............................... .............................. 6 1.4.1 Stormwater ........................................................................................................ ..............................6 1.4.2 Groundwater ....................................................................................................... ..............................7 1.4..3 Traffic ............................................................................................................... ............................... 8 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ............... .............................17 2.1 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OFTHE PROPOSAL ............................................................. ............................... 17 2.2 THE PLANNED ACTION REVIEW PROCESS ...................................................................... .............................17 2.3 LOCATION ................................................................................................................ .............................18 2.4 LAND USE ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................... .............................19 2.4.1 Maximum Build -out as a Coordinated Development .......................................... ............................... 20 2.4.2 Moderate Intensity Build -out as a Coordinated Development ............................ ............................... 20 2.4..3 No Action Alternative ....................................................................................... ............................... 20 2.4.4 Preferred Alternative ....................................................................................... ............................... 20 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, POTENTIAL IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES ............24 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................... ............................... 24 3.1 EARTH .................................................................................................................. ............................... 24 3.1.1 Topography ....................................................................................................... .............................24 3.1.2 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................ ............................... 24 3.1.3 Erosion ............................................................................................................... .............................25 3.2 AIR QUALITY ......................................................................................................... ............................... 26 3.3 WATER RESOURCES ................................................................................................... .............................27 3.3.1 Groundwater ...................................................................................................... .............................27 3.3.2 Stormwater ....................................................................................................... .............................2g SCJ Alliance March 2015 Page v TABLE OF CONTENTS Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 3.3.3 Public and Private Water Systems ....................................................................... .............................30 3.4 WETLANDS ............................................................................................................... .............................31 3.5 WILDLIFE, HABITATS AND FISH .................................................................................... .............................31 BUILT ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................. ............................... 33 3.6 RELATIONSHIP TO PLANS AND POLICIES ........................................................................ .............................33 3.6.1 Zoning ................................................................................................................ .............................33 3.6.2 Yelm Comprehensive Plan ................................................................................... .............................33 3.6.3 Capital Facilities Plan .......................................................................................... .............................35 3.7 LAND USE ................................................................................................................ .............................36 3.8 TRANSPORTATION ..................................................................................................... .............................38 3.8.1 Long Range Planning Context ............................................................................. .............................39 3.8.2 Roadway Inventory .......................................................................................... ............................... 40 3.8.2 Site Access ...................................................................................................... ............................... 42 3.8.3 Future Traffic Conditions ..................................................................................... .............................45 3.9 NOISE ...................................................................................................................... .............................54 3.10 POPULATION ............................................................................................................ .............................55 3.11 HOUSING .............................................................................................................. ............................... 56 3.12 LIGHTAND GLARE .................................................................................................. ............................... 56 3.13 AESTHETICS .............................................................................................................. .............................57 3.14 PARKS AND RECREATION ............................................................................................ .............................57 3.15 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES .......................................................................... .............................58 3.16 PUBLIC SERVICES ....................................................................................................... .............................58 3.17 UTILITIES ............................................................................................................... ............................... 59 3.17.1 Water ............................................................................................................ .............................59 3.17.2 Sewer ......................................................................................................... ............................... 6o 3.17.3 Reclaimed Water ......................................................................................... ............................... 6o REFERENCES........................................................................................... .............................6o LIST OF TABLES Table i. Project Trip Generation Summary ................................... ............................... Table 2. Washington State Maximum Permissible Environmental Noise Levels (dBA) ., J �u I i Inc Page vi Page .....45 ••••• 55 March 2015 LIST OF FIGURES Final Environmental Impact Statement Page Figure i Yelm Zoning Map With Project Area ..................................................... ..............................4 Figurez Vicinity Map ...................................................................................... ............................... 2.8 Figure 3 Project Parcels ................................................................................... ............................... ig Figure 4 Moderate Build Out Preferred Alternative Internal Circulation Example .......................... zi Figure 5 Conceptual Diagram of Square Footage Layout ............................... ............................... ii Figure6Yelm Zoning Map .............................................................................. ............................... 37 Figure 7 Transportation Network ...................................................................... .............................39 Figure 8 Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................... .............................4i Figure 9 Uncoordinated Conceptual Access Plan .............................................. .............................43 Figure io Coordinated Conceptual Access Plan ................................................. .............................44 Figure ii Projected 2020 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Preferred Alternative ............................ 47 Figure iz Projected zozo Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Preferred Alternative (site driveways) ......... 48 Figure 13 Projected 2035 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Preferred Alternative .............................49 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Traffic Studies Appendix B DEIS Comments and Responses SO Alliance Page vii March 2015 SECTION I: SUMMARY Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.. SUMMARY 1.1 'urnose and Obiectives of the Proposal The purpose of the YeIm East Gateway Planned Action proposal is to provide a framework forthe coordinated development of seven parcels, totaling 46 acres, along Yelm Avenue (State Route 507 [SR 5071). With seven separate parcels and commercial zoning designations, the site could be developed parcel by parcel without any coordination between these parcels. The planned action considers alternatives, impacts, and mitigation requirements forthe parcels as a combined area. A Planned Action is a tool that the City of Yelm may use to provide regulatory certainty and encourage economic development. This tool is permitted by state law (RCW 43.21C.031 and WAC 197 -11 -164) and uses up -front SEPA review for a subarea plan or a distinct geographic area as a way to streamline SEPA review for subsequent projects that are consistent with the plan. It can also help attract growth and development to designated areas of the City. Reviewing the properties' impacts all together, as a planned action, provides a coordinated development strategy. Objectives of this planned action review include: • Planning forthe future development of the Yelm East Gateway Area as outlined in the Yelm Comprehensive Plan • Fostering economic development while protecting the quality ofthe Yelm drinking water aquifer • Planning foran orderly transition from vacant land to commercial uses with coordinated development of the entire site • Improving transportation mobility through the area with improved arterial connections at Grove Road, Walmart Blvd, and internally within the parcels • Providing coordinated development of access control on Yelm Avenue (SR 507) in compliance with Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) requirements. 17 :GDA Drnex%Aiir4S PnA DIihllIC InvnJ%JPYnPnt A Planned Action is designated by ordinance following preparation of an EIS that evaluates the impacts of planned growth and identifies mitigation measures that the City will require of the development. A Planned Action Ordinance includes the following information: • Designates the area forthe Planned Action • Identifies the types of projects and total amount of development that will be considered Planned Actions for purposes of SEPA compliance • Contains a finding that environmental impacts have been adequately addressed in the EIS prepared forthe sub -area plan • Identifies mitigation measures or conditions that must be met for development to occur • Shows how the designated project meets the statutory definitions and criteria of a Planned Action. SO Alliance March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement The planned action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) allows the environmental review [State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)] to proceed in advance of specific permit applications for subareas, master planned areas, or phased projects. The basic steps in designating planned action projects are to: • Issue a determination of significance (DS) • Issue a scoping notice • Take public input on the scope (areas of review) of the EIS • Prepare an EIS • Designate the planned action projects by ordinance and • Review permit applications for projects. The scoping has been completed and had a comment period to solicit agency and public input on the potential impacts from the planned action. The scoping input purpose is to focus the EIS on areas that require specific review in the EIS. On February 1, 2013, a DS and request for comments on the scope of work was issued with a zi day comment period expiring on February ii, 202-3. The final scoping notice was issued on March ii, 2013. Comments were received from WSDOT and from the Department of Ecology. The DS and final scoping notices were sent to tribes, adjacent cities and counties, various state and local agencies, non - profit agencies, and notice was also published in a paper of record. The scoping results are provided in Section 1.3 below. For a planned action, the intent is to provide more detailed environmental analysis during formulation of planning proposals, rather than at the project permit review stage. A planned action designation shows that adequate environmental review has been completed. It also means that further environmental review under SEPA, for each specific development proposal or phase, will not be necessary if it is determined that each proposal or phase is consistent with the planned action ordinance. When development is proposed in the Planned Action Area, the City of Yelm will evaluate the application to determine if it meets the criteria in the Planned Action Ordinance and "qualifies" as an implementing project. The criteria to determine consistency are: Is this the type of project anticipated in the EIS? Does the project meet the conditions and mitigation requirements of the planned action? Extensive public review of the proposal occurs at the time of the EIS preparation. Since the public is involved in the EIS, the public notice and appeal periods are typically not required when the development permits are submitted since the SEPA process has been completed (note: provided the development is consistent with the planned action ordinance). 1.3 Propt, .,«, d11U miternatives The City of Yelm received a request by the property owners in 2013 to develop the site under a planned action EIS. In March of 2013 the City issued the Final EIS Scope to: Agencies with Jurisdiction; Tribes; and SO Alliance March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement General Public for the East Gateway EIS. Based on the scoping process, the impact analysis is to address the following: • Natural Environment: Runoff /Absorption as the property is known to be impacted by high groundwater • Built Environment: Transportation systems, built and planned, vehicular traffic, movement /circulation of people or goods, and traffic hazards. As stated in the scoping document, the impacts during construction and for the completed project are analyzed. Reasonable mitigation measures that would significantly mitigate any adverse impacts are also identified. The properties are located within a commercially- designated land -use area called the Yelm East Gateway. The properties could develop with a variety of uses. Potential build -out of the properties will be dependent upon market and economic factors but it is likelythat these properties could be developed to full potential within the next io to 15 years. The project site zoning is shown on Figure i. `Or �� [ — ✓!ai Lk SE Zoraiaag Mary - May 2008 + WALtok sgt AViE�_ C:r,• 6f ]elm p� Zoning Designation QC -1 Com erDw C-2 Hmwy comrner°al Q C-3 Let" Lot Coyawoo - - + Village Retail COD Central Dueineaa Disbd ' Imam ID rR6uonnl Umd --------- 1 Village Retail .. Q MPC M8aler Plemw'd Camff_vey i PIGS Parks/OPen Space 1 Q RA Low Density Reardenoa Q R-6 Moderate Denady Res.oer.ua Q R- 14 Hrgn Dft rt" Rt denl-al 1 � ' � L , cEORCE na FIGURE i YELM ZONING MAP WITH PROJECT AREA SO Alliance it Old Tawn Mixcd use % "HAW of Mr.rd Vie D A - t VE SE , r 4P. 1 Auto Oriented Mixed lJ sc 1 j `k M xtd [JrsC UF rxi.eway C-3 s o 1wrnAVesE JP _. ; - ilnikA E Project s� Area n2nc i+ March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement Note: The following impervious calculations are based on the building coverage square feet (sf) and the parking area adding 1.3 times the amount of building coverage (sf). Parking requirements will depend on the site use, 1.3 is a reasonable estimate based on the parking requirements in YMC Section 17.72 Off - Street Parking and Loading. The shopping center square footage plus parking square footage equals the full impervious surface coverage. As a comparison to the information below, the Walmart adjacent to the site is approximately 28% built -out (based on building footprint) and building and parking square footage combined divided bythe total site square footage is approximately 81% impervious coverage (buildings and parking, not including sidewalks). 1.3.1 Maximum Build -out as a Coordinated Development This alternative is for development of the commercial area as a coordinated development and assumes a 40% build -out (building footprints) on the site, up to approximately 800,00o square feet of shopping center uses and 92% impervious coverage (buildings and parking). 1.3.2 Moderate Intensity Build -out as a Coordinated Development The Moderate Intensity Build -out alternative assumes a coordinated build -out of the site with approximately 25% build out (building footprint) on the site, up to approximately 500,000 square feet of shopping center uses and 55% impervious coverage. The Moderate Intensity Build -out is the preferred alternative. This provides for a coordinated development and reflects the current development trends in Yelm and other areas for mixed use commercial developments. 1.3.3 No Action Alternative The no- action alternative assumes that development would occur consistent with existing zoning and would undergo environmental review on a project -by- project basis. Such projects would be subject to site - specific mitigation and potential SEPA -based appeals, without coverage underthe non - project, Planned Action EIS process. The ultimate build out of the parcels is less predictable. The building area used forthe no- action alternative is based on the non - specific growth forecast used by Thurston Regional Planning Council and the City of Yelm in preparing the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. The employment growth projected forthe project site in the current regional forecast is approximately 229,000 -sf of retail building area. Based on this information the estimated impervious coverage isjust over ii %shopping center uses and 26% impervious coverage. 1.3.4 Types of Uses The project analysis of the alternatives was based on uses typically found in shopping centers and commercial districts. This includes uses such as: • Offices • Banks (including drive through) SO Alliance March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement • Grocery • Retail Shops • Health /Fitness • Auto Services • Fast Food Restaurants (including drive through) • Sit Down Restaurants All these uses are allowed within the current zoning designations of C -z Heavy Commercial and C -3 Large Lot Commercial, and comply with the City ofYelm Comprehensive Plan for the area. The project parking requirements will comply with the YMC Section 2.7.72 Off - Street Parking and loading. x.14 .... r..___ .....d Mitig,_ion Meas4. __ Impacts and mitigation that are common to all alternatives are discussed in Section 3 of this EIS. As provided in the Scoping document the two main areas of concern scoped were Runoff /absorption (stormwater, groundwater), and traffic. A synopsis is provided for impacts and mitigation measures in this section, more in -depth review is provided in Section 3 of the EIS and the full Traffic Impact Analysis is provided in Appendix A of this document. 1.4.1 Stormwater Treatment and infiltration of stormwater generated at the site in compliance with the latest Ecology stormwater manual and Yelm Municipal Code (YMC) will mitigate potential impacts to water quality and aquifer recharge. Assuming implementation of appropriate mitigation measures (complying with the existing regulations), there are no significant unavoidable adverse stormwater impacts associated with any of the alternatives. MAXIMUM BUILD -OUT The Maximum Build alternative would have approximately gz% impervious surface for buildings and parking. The stormwater facilities would be large and if the option were to move forward, the facilities would be located underground. The stormwater facilities would be developed in a coordinated manner and shared on the site. MODERATE BUILD -OUT The Moderate Build -out with 55% impervious surface for buildings and parking. The stormwater facilities could be located above ground, below ground, or a combination of the two. The facilities would be developed in a coordinated manner, and the facilities would be shared on the site. NO ACTION The No Action alternative would not provide for shared stormwater facilities and the facilities would be developed as needed parcel by parcel. The stormwater facilities development would not necessarily be a coordinated development. SO Alliance Page 6 March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement 1.4.2 Groundwater The aquifer recharge area in Yelm covers the entire city. Typical activities associated with land development, such as clearing and grading and stormwater management, affect the natural hydrologic cycle. There are two hydrogeologic units above the principal drinking water aquifer in Yelm. These two units provide some aquifer protection however, good stormwater practices are important to protecting groundwater and the drinking water aquifer quality. At this time, site development is only conceptual. Future plans could incorporate features to mitigate potential water resource impacts from construction, development, or other activities. Incorporated features to protect groundwater are anticipated to include stormwater treatment, infiltration facilities (if possible however, high groundwater may preclude this option) and the use of BMP's and spill prevention plans during construction. Prior to development at the site, groundwater elevations should be determined to mitigate potential construction and development activities. Best management practices should be implemented during construction to prevent spills and leaking of petroleum products, which could migrate from soil to shallow groundwater. Small areas along the edges of two of the parcels in the project area are within the high groundwater hazard area. Development along these parcels will comply with Section 2.4.o8.2.20 of the YMC, specifically (G)(3 -4), which state: 3. No development shall locate within So feet, measured on a horizontal plane, from the outer edge of the high ground water hazard area or extending to a ground elevation two feet above the base flood elevation, whichever is less. 4. The bottom of any infiltration facility for stormwater discharge shall be located at least 6 feet above the base flood elevation. MAXIMUM BUILD -OUT The Maximum Build alternative would have approximately 92% impervious surface. For comparison, the Walmart adjacent to the site has approximately 81% impervious surface. This alternative would comply with all stormwater regulations and provide coordinated development of the stormwater facilities complying with all applicable BMP's, an appropriate dewatering plan, and having a spill protection plan during construction activities to provide protection to groundwater. THE MODERATE BUILD -OUT The Moderate Build -out alternative with 55% impervious surface will be able to comply with all stormwater regulations and would provide coordinated development of the stormwater facilities complying with the applicable BMP's, an appropriate dewatering plan, and having a spill protection plan during construction activities to provide protection to groundwater. NO ACTION The No Action alternative would be able to comply with all stormwater regulations, but would not meet the objective to provide for coordinated development, in this case coordinated development of the SO Alliance March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement stormwater facilities. Appropriate BMP's, dewatering plans, and spill protection plans will be required, but the stormwaterfaciIities and work would not be coordinated forthe overall development. 1.4.3 Traffic The traffic analysis considered the highest traffic potential of the build -out scenarios and assessed the traffic characteristics and potential impacts for a development activity that could generate up to a maximum of 2,000 PM peak hour trips. The ability to achieve this level of traffic activity will be predicated on the development type and mix of retail uses that will generally develop in a moderate density. The analysis was prepared for 2020 conditions to identify potential off -site traffic impacts that could require mitigation. A review of 2035 traffic conditions was also prepared to ensure that this development and proposed access system was consistent with the general long -term vision and needs of the area transportation system. The Traffic Analysis (a more in -depth review is in Section 3.8 of the EIS and the full Traffic Analysis is provided in Appendix A) evaluates traffic conditions fortwo distinct planning horizons; zozo and 2035• The zozo analysis provides an evaluation of all of the study intersections to determine if the study intersections will maintain acceptable operation perthe city of Yelm's mobility standards. The 2035 horizon has also been included to evaluate the ultimate needs of the site frontage and driveway accesses in the context of the City of Yelm's general long -term vision forthe corridor. An important consideration is the planned completion of the SR 510 Alternate (Yelm Loop). While the final Stage z completion horizon forthe Yelm Loop is uncertain, regional and local planning anticipates its completion well before the 2035 horizon. The initial Stage 1 of the Yelm Loop was competed several years ago (SR 510 to Cullens Road) and is already providing an important link in the City's long -range transportation system. The final Stage z will finish the loop highway by extending the facility from Cullens Road to the SR 507 (Walmart Blvd) intersection. Upon final completion, Yelm Loop will serve as an important part of the arterial system in and around Yelm and will reduce congestion on Yelm Avenue through the City. Additionally, the City's vision for Yelm Avenue is that it will remain a two -lane corridor (a single through capacity lane in each direction —this does not preclude turn lanes as appropriate at intersections). Although the land -use "shopping center" categorywas used to estimate site - generated traffic levels, other mixes of specific land -uses (see Section 1.3.4 Types of Uses) could potentially yield highertrip generation. Since there is the potential for both the maximum build -out and the moderate build -out to generate highertrips, in the context of the traffic operational analysis, the highest vehicle trip threshold will be used to assess the traffic characteristics and potential impacts to the adjacent and surrounding transportation system. Using the highest vehicle trip threshold, provides flexibility forthe mix of uses within the moderate density scenario without the risk of exceeding the "approved" trip generation potential. Traffic issues were listed during the scoping process and therefore traffic is one of the major elements reviewed in the EIS. The traffic analysis: • Determines the impacts of new development traffic on the existing and future street network 50 Alliance Page 8 March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement • Determines and assesses the appropriate layout and design of the proposed public street system • Determines if the new development can meet acceptable traffic performance measures and the City's regulatory standards for concurrency underthe Growth Management Act • Identifies appropriate traffic solutions and mitigation measures to accommodate the planned traffic growth and development impacts. The study was prepared according to City of Yelm Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) guidelines as part of the required environmental review submittal forthe proposed project. The following intersections in the project area were analyzed: • Creek Street -Bald Hills Road /Yelm Avenue (SR 507) • Bald Hills Road /Morris Road • Grove Road /Yelm Avenue (SR 507) • Walmart Boulevard /Yelm Avenue (SR 507) • Walmart Driveway Access /Yelm Avenue • Creek Street /io3rd Avenue • Grove Road /103rd Avenue • Walmart Boulevard /103rd Avenue • Burnett Road /SR 510 • Killion Road /SR 510 • Cullens Road /SR 510 • Longmire Street /SR 510 • Mosman Street /SR 507 • First Street /SR 510 • Clark Road /SR 507 • 103rd Avenue /SR 507 • First Street /Rhoton Road /Railway Road • 103rd Street /West Road • First Street /Stevens Street The overall development is proposed to be constructed over a 10 to 15 -year period and this study has analyzed the traffic potential for the specific build -out scenarios to occur by 202o and conditions predicted by 2035. Given the complexity of predicting the type and size of potential commercial users, economic trends that will impact the development build -out, and since the types of site uses allowed on the site have the potential to generate a higher number of trips; forthe traffic operation analysis the highest vehicle trip threshold was used to assess the traffic characteristics and potential impacts to the adjacent and surrounding transportation system. In other words for traffic evaluation, the Maximum Build -out and Moderate Build -out traffic impacts are both considered under the highest vehicle trip threshold. The detailed analysis is in Appendix A. SO Alliance Page 9 March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement MAXIMUM AND MODERATE BUILD -OUT ALTERNATIVES The mitigation strategies forthe Maximum and Moderate Build -out listed below are categorized into three types of potential developer contributions and responsibilities. Each of these types is described briefly below, and the project traffic mitigation is organized according to these types: Developer Funded Off -site Infrastructure Improvements — Improvements that are required to meet current Level of Service and concurrency standards if the proposed development creates impacts that affect service levels, safety and /or operational constraints. Site Access and Circulation Improvements — Street and intersection improvements to accommodate internal site access and circulation. These requirements often include provisions for future street connections and corridors linking to adjacent developable properties and identified transportation routes listed in the City's comprehensive planning documents. Traffic Mitigation Fees — Traffic mitigation fees paid in accordance with applicable policies as outlined in the Yelm Municipal Code, Section 2.5.40 Concurrency Management. The following mitigation measures have been identified as necessaryto accommodate traffic resulting from the proposed Yelm East Gateway project. Mitigation is organized according to the types described above. DEVELOPER FUNDED OFF -SITE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS Grove Road /Yelm Avenue (SR 507) Intersection This intersection will serve as a major access point into the proposed Yelm East Gateway development. It will be one of only two locations that will provide left -turn access to /from the subject property via Yelm Avenue (SR 507). Accommodating the volume of traffic predicted at this intersection will require installation of a high volume intersection control. As described in the full Traffic Report, the optimum intersection control was determined to be a modern roundabout. The project developers will construct a two -lane modern roundabout concurrent with development of properties that will access Grove Road within the westerly portion of the development. As described in the full Traffic Report, the optimum intersection control appears to be a modern roundabout. Roundabouts can be an efficient form of intersection control. They have fewer conflict points, lower speeds, reduce injury collisions and traffic delays and vehicle stacking (i.e. queuing), and also allow U- turns. Per Chapter 2.300 of the WSDOT Design Manual, an intersection control analysis (ICA) will be performed to evaluate and determine the appropriate type of intersection control for the Grove Road/Yelm Avenue intersection. The spacing between the Grove Road and Walmart Boulevard intersection is approximately loo -feet and it is doubtful the Washington State Department of Transportation will allow traffic signal control at this intersection due to insufficient spacing for vehicle queuing between intersections. Additionally, to the west, Yelm Creek has an existing two lane bridge and is a fish bearing stream. Therefore, Yelm Creek is a limiting factor for development along Yelm Avenue SO Alliance Page io March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement (SR 507) since any widening of the bridge would require significant permitting and engineering design for construction work to widen the existing bridge and for work over /in a fish bearing stream. Design and construction of the roundabout wiII be paid for by the developers and will require approval by the City of Yelm and WSDOT prior to construction. Walmart Boulevard (Yelm Loop, Y- 2c) /Yelm Avenue (SR 507) Intersection The project developers will construct improvements to this intersection to accommodate the new northbound approach at the intersection, and to accommodate the predicted traffic flows at the intersection with completion of the Yelm East Gateway development. In addition to the improvements that will be constructed by the developers concurrently with construction of the Yelm East Gateway development, the project will grant public right -of -way setbacks for future completion by the City of Yelm and WSDOT for additional improvements associated with completion of Yelm Loop and Y -2C. Yelm Loop and Y -2c Corridors The City of Yelm plans to construct the Y -2C corridorthrough the subject property between Yelm Avenue (SR 507) and Bald Hills Road and the Yelm Loop corridor that will extend from Yelm Avenue (SR 507) to the north along the east edge of the subject property. These projects have long been identified in the City of Yelm Transportation Plan as part of a system of improvements to provide alternate routes to reduce congestion on Yelm Avenue. The Yelm East Gateway development will accommodate these improvements in two ways: Constructing frontage improvements on both sides of the proposed Y -zc alignment and the west side of the Yelm Loop alignment that will accommodate the ultimate cross - section of the Yelm Loop and Y -2C projects. Constructing portions of the Y -zc roadway within the development area that will initially servejust as access to the southern portion of the development, but will also be the future alignment of the completed Y -2C connection to Bald Hills Road. Yeim Avenue (SR 507) The project will design and construct improvements to Yelm Avenue (SR 507) along the project frontage to accommodate projected traffic flows on Yelm Avenue (SR 507) and the construction of site accesses. The developers will construct frontage improvements as well as the ultimate lane configurations on Yelm Avenue (SR 507) along the project frontage concurrently with development of the Yelm East Gateway project. Along SR 507 west of the project site is Yelm Creek. There is an existing two lane bridge over Yelm Creek which is also a fish bearing stream. Therefore, Yelm Creek is a limiting factor for development along Yelm Avenue (SR 507) since any widening of the bridge would require significant permitting and engineering design for construction work to widen the existing bridge and for work over /in a fish bearing stream. The project developers may be due a credit against the overall Traffic Facility Charge (see Appendix A TFC - described in section 8.3 and Section 1.5.40 of the YMC) if they provide off -site improvements to construct SO Alliance Page ii March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement portions of the public roadway system that are also part of city improvements being collected for as part of the TFC. SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS The development of the Yelm East Gateway will require construction of a series of internal private roadway connections. The conceptual site layout, shown in Figure 3 has identified a series of internal drive aisles that will provide the major access points within the area. This coordinated design effort will allow the most efficient access to /from the site and will minimize impacts to the public street system by not overloading individual driveways. As each individual development project within the Yelm East Gateway is designed and constructed it will adhere to the access and circulation system developed for the overall project. While all individual access points have been identified in this study, the exact locations will be determined and approved by the City of Yelm and WSDOT later for each development. Each property within the development will also be required to allow for future connection to adjacent properties as identified in the traffic study. Each individual development will be required to prepare a "Site Circulation Analysis" to identify the trip generation potential of the development and specific site driveway configuration. The analysis will be used to compare cumulative traffic generation within the Yelm East Gateway area to the threshold established in this EIS (z,000 new PM peak hourtrips). The analysis will also determine the final driveway location, driveway intersection configurations and turn lane storage lengths (as needed). City of Yelm Traffic Facility Charge (TFC) Each property owner /applicant within the proposed development will pay the City of Yelm Traffic Facility Charge. The fees will be based on the net new PM peak hour traffic flows on the area roadways caused by the construction of Yelm East Gateway. The fees will be calculated by the City of Yelm for each individual project as it moves through design and approval stage. PHASING OF ON -SITE AND OFF -SITE TRAFFIC MITIGATION IMPROVEMENTS The Yelm East Gateway project is expected to be designed and constructed incrementally overthe next io —15 years. The proposed on -site and off -site improvements will also be constructed incrementally to serve the traffic demands of the public street system and the site access and circulation needs of the development. Site Driveways Each individual development that advances will be required to construct all driveways that will serve the subject property. Each driveway will be designed to accommodate the ultimate configuration, but based on the Site Circulation Study may be constructed to a lesser configuration with property and frontage improvement setbacks to accommodate the ultimate configuration. SO Alliance Page 12 March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement Internal Access and Circulation Each individual development will be required to design the internal site circulation system to accommodate connections to adjacent properties as shown on the conceptual site layout (Figure 3). Internal connections will be designed and constructed as major circulation aisles to accommodate through- traffic within the development between individual parcels. These internal connections will allow traffic from any property within the southern portion of the development to access the public street system via Yelm Avenue (SR 507), or Y -2C. Similarly, all properties North of Yelm Avenue (SR 507) will be able to access the public street system via Yelm Avenue (SR 507), Grove Road or Walmart Boulevard. Frontage Improvements Each property that fronts a public roadway will be required to construct public street frontage improvements along the entire frontage concurrently with development of property. This will include curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscaping improvements, public roadway improvements including turn lanes, and installation of public infrastructure. Where appropriate it may also require additional ROW dedication to accommodate future roadway widening not included as part of the project mitigation. All frontage improvements will be constructed with appropriate setbacks to accommodate future widening. SO Alliance Page 13 March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement Yelm Avenue (SR 507) /Grove Road Any project constructed in the southwest quadrant of the subject property (south of Yelm Avenue and west of Y -2C) that will have its primary public access via the Grove Road /Yelm Avenue intersection will be required to construct improvements to the Grove Road /Yelm Avenue intersection. This will include constructing the new fourth (south) leg of the intersection and necessary intersection improvements to accommodate the new approach leg and development traffic. As stated above, accommodating the volume of traffic predicted at this intersection will require installation of a high volume intersection control. The spacing between the Grove Road and Walmart Boulevard intersection is approximately loo -feet and it is doubtful the Washington State Department of Transportation will allow traffic signal control at this intersection, due to insufficient spacing for vehicle queuing between intersections. Both a modern roundabout and a traffic signal system could be designed at this location to meet acceptable level of service standards. However, a traffic signal would require widening Yelm Avenue (SR 507) further west of the intersection to accommodate vehicle storage. At roundabouts vehicles only turn right to enter the intersection and left -turn lanes are not required. Also vehicles are generally continuously moving which reduces the need for widening to accommodate queued vehicles. Therefore, the optimum intersection control appears to be a modern roundabout (see full Traffic Report and WSDOT comments on the DEIS). Per Chapter 2.300 of the WSDOT Design Manual, an intersection control analysis (ICA) will be performed to evaluate and determine the appropriate type of intersection control for the Grove Road /Yelm Avenue intersection. Roundabouts can bean efficient form of intersection control. They have fewer conflict points, lower speeds, reduce injury collisions and traffic delays and vehicle stacking (i.e. queuing), and also permit U- turns. The timing of the construction of the roundabout will be contingent on the background traffic growth in the area that has occurred and the amount of other development traffic within the Yelm East Gateway project that impacts the intersection. A limit of 25 PM peak hour trips of development traffic (new -to- network and pass -by) using the new south leg of the intersection has been established as the threshold to require construction of a roundabout. Development in the northwest quadrant of the subject property (north of Yelm Avenue) will also require construction of the modern roundabout if it has not yet been constructed by others. The same threshold of 25 PM peak hour trips of development traffic using the existing north leg of Grove Road has been established to require construction of a modern roundabout. Priorto eithervolume threshold being met, the intersection may operate adequately under northbound and southbound stop sign - control until development traffic increases. The roundabout will be designed to accommodate the ultimate two circulating -lane design, but may be initially constructed without all of the auxiliary lanes. This will be determined on a case -by -case basis as each development prepares an individual Site Circulation Analysis. The Site Circulation Analysis would also provide an updated review of the operation of the Yelm Avenue /Grove Road intersection to determine if a modern roundabout is required at that time. The City will consider level of service, delay, queuing, SO Alliance Page 2.4 March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement safety and area traffic circulation efficiency in determining when the modern roundabout is required, and what auxiliary lanes are needed. As stated above, the bridge over YeIm Creek, west of the intersection is also a limiting factor. Yelm Avenue (SR 507) /Walmart Boulevard The first development in the southeast quadrant of the subject property (south of Yelm Avenue and either side of Y2-C) that will use the new Y2-c connection as the primary access will be required to construct all of the improvements necessary to convert this into a four -way intersection. This will include the northbound approach lanes (on Y -zc), a southbound through lane (on Walmart Boulevard) and a westbound to southbound left -turn lane on Yelm Avenue. Improvements will also include all traffic signal system improvements required to accommodate the fourth (south) leg of the intersection. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the No Action alternative the properties would most likely develop independently with no coordination. Each parcel would require access to the public road system. "Piecemeal" development under the No- Action scenario would require more individual driveways onto Yelm Avenue (SR 507). Denser driveway spacing could require variance from City of Yelm and WSDOT intersection spacing criteria. To provide adequate circulation to the parcels would require left -turn access onto and off of Yelm Avenue (SR 507) at each driveway, however, many driveways may only be allowed right -turn movements. Additionally customer interaction between parcels would require drivers to use the public street to drive between separate businesses. Under the No- Action scenario it is anticipated that five full- access driveways onto Yelm Avenue (SR 507) (in addition to Grove Road and Walmart Boulevard) would be required to serve the subject properties (see Figure 9). The No Action alternative would not meet the objective of coordinated development for access along the SR 507 corridor and would most likely not provide internal coordination between the properties. SO Alliance Page 15 March 2015 SECTION II: DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Final Environmental Impact Statement 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2.1 'urnose and Obiectives of the Proposal The project is a coordinated review of seven separate parcels of undeveloped commercially zoned property in the City of Yelm. The coordinated development of these properties was determined to be a beneficial solution forthe City of Yelm and the property owners. The project is being reviewed as a planned action EIS. Through review of this planned action, it is important to note the dynamic nature of the plan. The location of buildings, building heights, mix of uses and internal circulation will meet the code requirements, but any depictions of these features on a site plan are not site specific or exact. Internal circulation and the mix of uses vary. This document establishes the maximum limits fortotal building square footage, types of uses, with fixed connections to the adjacent public road rights of way. The purpose of the planned action EIS is to provide for coordinated development of the seven parcels that is in scale with desired economic development in Yelm and consistent with the zoning designation forthe site. The goal is to: • Plan forthe future site development appropriate to the location adjacent to SR 507; • Ensure transportation mobility along the SR 507 Corridor, including non - motorized transportation; • Provide coordinated internal circulation forthe project area; and • Provide a stormwater plan that protects the groundwater aquifer and provides workable solutions forthe shallow groundwater in the project area. 2.2 -ha planrprll Action RpviPIAI process A Planned Action EIS allows the environmental review to take place in advance of any permit applications for specific projects. Following completion of the EIS, specific development proposals can move forward without further environmental review as long as they are consistent with the EIS and impacts were adequately addressed. Because extensive public review of the proposal has already occurred at the time of the EIS preparation, there is no SEPA action associated with development proposals provided they are consistent with the proposal analyzed in the EIS. Public notice and appeal periods are typically not required when development permits are submitted. The basic steps for a planned action EIS are to prepare the EIS, designate the action projects by ordinance, and review permit applications forthe projects. In February 2013, the City of Yelm issued a Determination of Significance and scoping notice forthe properties. The two main areas for review in the scoping notice were: SO Alliance Page 17 March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement • Natural Environment— Runoff /absorption, as the property is known to be impacted by high groundwater • Built Environment — Transportation systems, vehicular traffic, the movement /circulation of people and goods, and traffic hazards The built and natural environment are reviewed in the document. Based on the scoping results this document also provides an in -depth review of site runoff, groundwater, and transportation. 2.3 vocation The East Gateway commercial area is comprised of approximately forty -six (46) acres of undeveloped property located in the eastern portion of the City of Yelm's commercially zoned district. The project area includes seven distinct parcels of land owned by several independent property and business owners. The properties are situated mostly along the Yelm Avenue (SR 507) corridor, east of Yelm Creek and include areas just east of the Yelm Loop intersection. Figure z shows the boundary area and project vicinity. Figure 3 shows the project parcels. The site zoning designation is C -z Heavy Commercial and C -3 Large Lot Commercial. tlt i Mullaa Rd SF — Yelm"SE O N Nisqualjy Indian Reservadort Y� Wil erg xa..r.e.on FM Lewis Wilmy R.w..Zion 501 M Odc City ROY g - - - - - - North Yelm ,_ . Project Yelm i Area � rF Rainier '— 1481 h Av, $ E FIGURE z VICINITY MAP SO Alliance Page i8 9� yk �r LEGEND =City Limits Urban Growth Area March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement FIGURE 3 PROJECT PARCELS 2.4 '.and Use Alternatives This EIS analyzes three build -out alternatives for potential impacts for a zo -year planning horizon. For analysis purposes, each alternative was evaluated as a shopping center which provides for an appropriate mix of uses (Section 1.3.4) within the C -z Heavy Commercial and C -3 Large Lot Commercial zoning districts. The site is approximately 46 acres or approximately 2,000,000 square feet. The City of Yelm zoning map is provided in Figure 1. Note: The following impervious calculations are based on the building coverage and the parking area adding 1.3 times the amount of building coverage. Shopping center square feet plus parking square feet equals the full impervious surface coverage. As an example, the WaImart has a 28% build -out (building footprint) and has 81% impervious coverage (parking area plus building footprint). SO Alliance Page ig March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement 2.4.1 Maximum Build -out as a Coordinated Development This alternative is for development of the commercial area as a coordinated development and assumes a 4o% build -out on the site, approximately 800,000 square feet of shopping center uses and 92% impervious coverage. 2.4.2 Moderate Intensity Build -out as a Coordinated Development The Moderate Build -out alternative assumes a coordinated build -out of the site with approximately 25% Of the site developed with buildings, approximately 500,000 square feet of shopping center uses and 55% impervious coverage. 2.4.3 No Action Alternative The no- action alternative assumes that development would occur consistent with existing zoning and would undergo environmental review on a project -by- project basis. Such projects would be subject to site - specific mitigation and potential SEPA -based appeals, without coverage underthe non - project, Planned Action EIS process. Commercial properties would most likely develop as single parcel sites. The ultimate build out of the parcels is less predictable, as discussed in Section i of this document, the estimated build out is 229,000 square feet and estimated impervious coverage isjust over ii %site coverage and 26% impervious coverage. 2.4.4 Preferred Alternative Based on the review and the main objectives of the planned action EIS, coordinated development for traffic, and the Yelm Comprehensive Plan, the Moderate Build -out alternative is the preferred alternative and is the most likely to be supported by the community on an economic scale. The Yelm Comprehensive Plan (Gateway Commercial Districts, Yelm Visioning Plan page 1.6, an element of the Comprehensive Plan) encourages coordinated improvements and encourages consolidation of businesses to minimize curb cuts and existing traffic problems. The Moderate Build -out meets these objectives. The Moderate Build -out alternative provides a coordinated development of the site, with approximately 55% site impervious coverage, allows for shared stormwater facilities providing protection to groundwater, provides coordinated internal traffic circulation and coordinated development of transportation facilities. Based on the existing and surrounding population, review of the existing plans and alternatives, the Moderate Intensity Build -out is the preferred alternative. The Maximum Build alternative would have approximately 92% impervious surface for buildings and parking. This level of build out is largerthan the existing Walmart site and is most likelytoo large forthe community (population of 1,265 people per square mile, per Citydata), surrounding rural area, current and future market to support. Therefore, the maximum build -out is not a practical alternative for this site. SO Alliance Page 20 March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement The No Action alternative would not provide for coordinated development of the site, including stormwater /groundwater and traffic. As stated above, the Comprehensive Plan encourages coordinated improvements and for the gateway districts and encourages consolidation of businesses to minimize curb cuts and existing traffic problems. The No Action alternative does not provide for coordinated development and the consolidation of businesses and does not meet the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the EIS. The figures below provide conceptual schematic for the development of the site under the Moderate Intensity Build -out alternative, with estimated square footage. ❑ 1 G 200 400 600feet FIGURE 4 MODERATE BUILD OUT PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE INTERNAL CIRCULATION EXAMPLE SO Alliance Page 21 Conceptual Site Plan Yelm Cum merdal EIS Yelm, WA LEGEND soematl( I ntPrna I or[ulatron (for I1lustriMee purposes oWJ Deveiwp % Zone Rang a of Bu II dl ng Cwem9e (based on 70.25 %[0veraga) - Lane 1 148000 - 175,000 Sf Zone 2 mow - 95A00 Sf Ione 3 100 mo - 120000 5f - Zone 4 4"W - 60.000 d Total 364AW - 450,000 sf 5CJ ALLIANCE March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement FIGURE 5 CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAM OF SQUARE FOOTAGE LAYOUT SO Alliance Page 22 Conceptual Site Plan Yelm Comm QrclaI EIS Ye3m. WA LEGEND Sc hem,iic lnterru I Grcul ation {For ii lustrative purposes only) Buidrng Footpri rets r. n Aplu,Uschemariq Tatal 364,000 •450,000,! +t SCJ ALLIANCE March 2015 Barge of B uil ding Nvelopment Coverage i6ased on Tone if}25+browrayN - 7pnp 1 140om - 17 im is 7nrk 2 7i5 000 - 95p005f . Ton[ 3 100q ow - 1 mow $f - 7nne4 406000- 60p005f Tatal 364,000 •450,000,! +t SCJ ALLIANCE March 2015 SECTION III: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Final Environmental Impact Statement 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, POTENTIAL IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 3.1 _artf The potential impacts of the Yelm East Gateway project on the natural environment in the eastern portion of the City of Yelm's commercially -zoned district are evaluated below. This evaluation includes impacts on geology and soils, air quality, water, and plants and animals. 3.1.1 Topography AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The Yelm East Gateway site is approximately 46 acres in size, located in Section 29, Township 17, Range 2 E in the McKenna Irrigated Tracts plat. The site is relatively flat, with maximum 3% slopes. Elevations on the four parcels located south of Yelm Avenue (SR 507) range from 348 to 358 feet and generally slope to the west toward Yelm Creek. On the three parcels north of SR 507, elevations range from 348 to 354 feet and topography slopes to the north (Thurston County 2014). POTENTIAL IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION All new development projects have impacts on the earth resulting from covering natural areas with impervious surfaces and exposure of soils to erosion through removal of existing vegetation and filling or grading. The site's relatively flat topography will minimize the need for excavation and fill. POTENTIAL DEVELOPED - CONDITION IMPACTS The site will remain relatively flat and the project will require minimal fill. MITIGATION MEASURES During construction all appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be followed to prevent site runoff. The constructed site will remain relatively flat. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS No significant unavoidable adverse impacts to topography are expected to result from any of the proposed alternatives forthe Yelm East Gateway Planned Action. 3.1.2 Geology and Soils The City of Yelm identifies geologically sensitive areas in the Yelm Municipal Code, Chapter 14.o8 (City of Yelm 2014). The City has not designated any areas of the site as geologically sensitive. SO Alliance Page 24 March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Information contained on the Thurston GeoData Center website and the Natural Resources Conservation Service web soil survey classify soils on the site as Spanaway gravelly sandy loam, o to 3% slopes (Thurston County 2014, Natural Resources Conservation Service 2013). The Spanaway series consists of very deep, excessively drained soils that formed in glacial outwash. POTENTIAL IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION During construction some soil erosion could occur. There are no steep slopes or geological hazard areas on the site and therefore no impacts are anticipated. POTENTIAL DEVELOPED - CONDITION IMPACTS The site will have additional impervious surface coverage. MITIGATION MEASURES During construction Best Management Practices, erosion control measures and a stormwater pollution and prevention plan will be used on the site, minimizing the potential for soil erosion. The additional impervious surface will comply with the City of Yelm requirements for impervious surfaces, parking lots, and stormwater treatment. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS No significant unavoidable adverse impacts to geology and soils are expected to result from the Yelm East Gateway Planned Action. 3.1.3 Erosion AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The project work does involve construction on the approximately 46 acre site, the site is relatively flat. It is anticipated the project construction could occur in stages. POTENTIAL IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION During construction there is potential for site runoff to cause erosion and transport sediment. Erosion potential would not differ substantially between the three alternatives. POTENTIAL DEVELOPED - CONDITION IMPACTS No erosion potential would be anticipated following full build -out of the site. MITIGATION MEASURES During construction Best Management Practices, erosion control measures and a stormwater pollution and prevention plan will be used on the site, minimizing the potential for erosion. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS SO Alliance Page 25 March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement No significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to erosion are anticipated during construction or in the completed project. 3.z r,, , .quality AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Air quality is generally assessed in terms of whether air pollutant concentrations are higher or lower than ambient air quality standards set to protect human health and welfare. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets standards forth e entire country for criteria pollutants. These federal standards are called national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) (United States Environmental Protection Agency zoiz). States monitor air quality to find out if the areas are meeting the NAAQS for the following criteria pollutants: • Ground -level ozone (03) • Particulate Matter (PM,. and PM2.5) • Carbon monoxide (CO) • Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) • Sulfur Dioxide (S02) • Lead (Pb) Three agencies have jurisdiction over the ambient air quality in the Yelm Gateway area: the EPA, the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) and the Olympic Region Clean Air Agency ( ORCAA). ORCAA is responsible for enforcing federal, state and local air pollution standards and govern air pollutant emissions from all sources. In the ig8os, Thurston County experienced high levels of PM,. (particulate matter less than io microns in size). The major source was fine particles released by smoke from wood stoves and fireplaces. Areas that exceed federal air quality standards are classified as non - attainment areas, and Thurston County was designated as a non - attainment area for PMlo in iggo. PM,. levels were reduced significantly, and all of Thurston County was re- designated as in attainment. POTENTIAL IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION Construction of new roads and buildings will have short term impacts to air quality, primarily in the form of dust resulting from construction. Exhaust from heavy equipment used during construction will also result. On project completion, traffic on new roads and parking lots will increase exhaust emissions within the local area as people travel to the site. POTENTIAL DEVELOPED - CONDITION IMPACTS SO Alliance March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement The maximum build -out alternative and the moderate build -out will result in approximately 2,000 new evening peak hourtrips in the area, resulting in increased vehicle emissions. The no action will result in approximately 85o new evening peak hour trips. Based on traffic, using 2,000 new evening peak hourtrips, the greenhouse gas emissions will be less than io,000 metric tons of CO, per year (Ecology 2011). Shopping center uses are not anticipated to generate a significant level of greenhouse gases and the project should be below the threshold per Ecology of 25,000 metric tons per year. MITIGATION MEASURES The YeIm Transportation Plan contains goals to reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled, including public education, supporting expansion of transit service, an interconnected network of streets and trails, and TDM strategies (City of Yelm 2009). Zoning and development standards accommodate pedestrians, bicycle and transit users, including connected road systems, safe and accessible transit stops, and safe and attractive streets and sidewalks. The site is already served by Intercity Transit. Roadway improvements includes providing bike lanes, this has the potential to reduce vehicle trips to the site. The following mitigation measures apply: i. Dust suppression techniques such as applying water to disturbed soils or hydro seeding will be incorporated in grading and construction activities. Watertrucks will be kept on site at all times during construction. 2. Any proposed uses that are considered major employers as defined by RCW 70.94.524 will develop and implement programs to reduce drive -alone commute trips and encourage use of alternative transportation modes. 3. Construction vehicles and deliverytrucks will be routed and scheduled to avoid peaktravel times and not be left idling on site to reduce the amount of drive time and vehicle emissions. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS No significant unavoidable adverse impacts to the air are expected to result from the Yelm East Gateway Planned Action. ,., Water Resources 3.3.1 Groundwater The aquifer recharge area in Yelm covers the entire city. Typical activities associated with land development, such as clearing and grading and stormwater management, affect the natural hydrologic cycle. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Groundwater Zones SO Alliance Page 27 March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement The project area is located within the YeIm Creek Basin of the NisquaIly Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA 1.1.). The geology and groundwater in Thurston County has been documented by the US Geological Survey (USGS) and the Washington State Division of Water Resources in a number of regional reports (Drost et al. 1.998, Wallace and Molenaar 1.961., Noble and Wallace 1.966). Geologic deposits in the project area are generally described as advance outwash sand and gravel overlain by glacial till and recessional outwash sand and gravel deposits (PacLand 2oo6). Five hydrogeologic units have been identified in the site vicinity to a depth of approximately 1.50 feet. These hydrogeologic units consist of three aquifers: Recessional Outwash Aquifer (ranging up to 30 ft thick), Advance Outwash Aquifer (ranging from 1.0 ft to 50 ft thick), and Deep Aquifer (unknown thickness). The Upper Aquitard (ranging from 20 ft to 30 ft thick) separates the Recessional Outwash Aquifer from the Advance Outwash Aquifer. The Lower Aquitard (ranging from 5 ft to 6o ft thick) separates the Advance Outwash Aquifer from the Deep Aquifer. The graph below provides a conceptual diagram of these five hydrogeologic units. Recessional Outwash Aquifer (up to 30') Upper Aquitard (20'to 30') Advanced Outwash Aquifer (10'to 50') Lower Aquitard (5'to 6o') Deep Aquifer (unknown) Groundwater Conditions The surrounding areas are shown to have High Groundwater Hazard Area. Groundwater conditions at the project area are anticipated to be similarto those encountered at the adjacent Walmart site. The water encountered at this site is thought to be the Recessional Outwash Aquifer, but was identified in the PacLand (2oo6) report as a perched watertable. The project will comply with the critical area regulations regarding the High Groundwater Hazard Area as outlined in YMC Section 14.o8.1.20. The project area is in an Aquifer Recharge class categorized as Category 1. (extreme aquifer sensitivity). These areas contain coarse soil textures and materials and are derived from glacial outwash materials. Aquifer recharge to the shallow groundwater system in the project area is primarily through infiltration of precipitation (Drost et al. 1.998). Recharge also occurs as seepage from surface water, septic system, reclaimed water infiltration, and irrigation return flow. The Advance Outwash Aquifer (middle aquifer) is the principal drinking water aquifer in the Yelm area. Water from the Recessional Outwash Aquifer, infiltrates through the upper aquitard and provides the primary recharge to the Advanced Outwash Aquifer. Water Quality Conditions SO Alliance March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement The Washington state Department of Ecology (Ecology) identifies one surface water quality monitoring station near the mouth of the Nisqually River. The Thurston County Water Resources Department monitors two sites on Yelm Creek, as detailed in the Thurston County Water Resources Monitoring Report (Thurston County 2012). The Ecology report, Yefm Groundwater Baseline Sampling (Erickson 1.998), documented sampling results from one well within the uppermost aquifer (Recessional Outwash Aquifer) and 22 wells within the principal groundwater supply aquifer (Advance Outwash Aquifer). Groundwater quality reported in this study was generally good and met requirements for drinking water standards. POTENTIAL IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION Typical activities associated with construction, such as clearing and grading, affect the natural hydrologic cycle. Excavation and construction activities could require dewatering if shallow groundwater is encountered at the site. Water quality impacts could occur due to erosion of bare ground during construction. POTENTIAL DEVELOPED - CONDITION IMPACTS All alternatives will increase the amount of impervious surface at the site. Impacts related to impervious surface could include limiting infiltration and recharge to the shallow Recessional Outwash Aquifer and ultimately the deeper Advance Outwash Aquifer. MITIGATION MEASURES Future plans could incorporate features to mitigate potential water resource impacts from construction, stormwater, or other activities. Incorporated features will include stormwater treatment and infiltration facilities and implementation of BMP's and spill prevention plans during construction. Priorto development at the site, groundwater elevations should be determined to mitigate potential construction and development activities. Best management practices should be implemented during construction to prevent spills and leaking of petroleum products, which could migrate from soil to shallow groundwater. The project will comply with the regulations in the YMC regarding High Groundwater Hazard Areas, specifically YMC Section 1.4.o8.1.20 (G) (3-4)• SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Treatment and infiltration of stormwater generated at the site will be in compliance with the latest Ecology stormwater manual and YMC. The applicant will comply with these regulations mitigating potential impacts to water quality and aquifer recharge. Assuming implementation of appropriate mitigation measures (compliance with the existing regulations), there are no significant unavoidable adverse groundwater impacts associated with any of the alternatives. 3.3.2 Stormwater SO Alliance March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The site is currently undeveloped land. Some of the parcels do have structures on them, however much of the area is currently pervious surface. POTENTIAL IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION As stated above there is the potential for erosion during site construction. POTENTIAL DEVELOPED - CONDITION IMPACTS The project will replace pervious surface with impervious surface. If an impervious surface is pollution - generating, such as asphalt, it has the potential to enter surface waters and degrade surface water quality. Infiltration of untreated stormwater could degrade groundwater quality in the uppermost aquifer. MITIGATION MEASURES Treatment and infiltration of stormwater at the site will mitigate adverse impacts to ground and surface water quality and aquifer recharge. The alternatives will require stormwater facilities depending on the amount of impervious surface. Due to the increased impervious surface underthe 40% build -out alternative, larger capacity stormwater facilities will be required to mitigate potential water quality and aquifer recharge impacts. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Treatment and infiltration of stormwater generated at the site in compliance with the latest Ecology stormwater manual and YMC will mitigate potential impacts to water quality and aquifer recharge. Assuming appropriate mitigation measures (complying with the existing regulations) are implemented, there are no significant unavoidable adverse stormwater impacts associated with any of the alternatives. 3.3.3 Public and Private Water Systems AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The Yelm East Gateway Planned Action site is served by the City of Yelm water system. The City of Yelm is currently supplied bytwo 63 -foot deep groundwater wells, Well 1A and Well z, located on Second Street SE between Washington Street SE and McKenzie Avenue. Each well has a capacity of 1,700 gallons per minute (gpm) but only one can be operated at any given time. The capacity of the Yelm water system to provide new connections is currently limited by water rights and storage capacity. While the City has been proactive in water planning since 1994, when application was made with the Washington Department of Ecology for water rights sufficient to serve the City and its Urban Growth Area, the approval of these water rights by the Washington Department of Ecology, the Pollution Control Hearings Board, and the Thurston County Superior Court have been further appealed to the Washington State Supreme Court. Regardless, the City is proceeding with the design and possible construction of new water production, treatment, and storage improvements. SO Alliance Page 30 March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement The Yelm Water System Plan notes that additional storage in the area of the project may be needed to provide required fire flows for larger developments. Additional storage in the area is identified in the Yelm water capital facilities plan, but is not included in the 6 year improvement plan. POTENTIAL IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION Water quality impacts could occur due to erosion of bare ground during construction. There could also be a risk of accidents or spills of petroleum products from construction equipment. The shallow Recessional Outwash Aquifer is susceptible to contamination from surface sources and could be contaminated if a petroleum spill were to occur. POTENTIAL DEVELOPED - CONDITION IMPACTS Development of the Yelm East Gateway Planned Action site would increase the need for water at the site. MITIGATION MEASURES Should the City prevail in obtaining the use of the additional water rights previously approved, the new production and treatment facility be commissioned, and additional storage capacity be constructed, the City of Yelm water system will provide water to the site, per section YMC 13.04.025. Therefore, no mitigation for increased water use at the site would be necessary. Addition water storage may be required for fire flow and will be determined at the time of construction. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS There are no significant unavoidable adverse water system impacts associated with any of the alternatives. 3.4 Netland <. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT There are no surface water bodies, including lakes, rivers, streams, or wetlands located on the site. Yelm Creek is approximately 500 feet west of the site and the Nisqually River is located approximately 0.7 miles east of the site. The project area is located outside any watershed protection areas and outside any ioo- or 5oo- year floodplain areas, as found on the Thurston County GeoData Center website (Thurston County 2014). Therefore, there are no impacts to wetlands caused by any of the proposed alternatives for the Yelm East Gateway Planned Action since no wetlands occur in the project area. 3.5 Wildlife, ..Qui%.at5 aiim �•�� AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT SO Alliance Page 31 March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement Information from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) mapping, shows the City of Yelm has important species and habitat areas. The WDFW Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) database map was reviewed in August 2014 for listed wildlife species on or in the vicinity of the Yelm East Gateway Planned Action site (WDFW 2014). The PHS database shows two occurrences in June 2009 of one species of Townsend's big -eared bat (Corynorthinus townsendii). These occurrences are in the project vicinity, but not on the site. The PHS database shows an area north of the site and north of the existing Walmart as having the potential for Yelm pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama yefinensis). fownsend's Bat The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has designated the Townsend's bat as a Federal Species of Concern. Locally, this bat is a Candidate forthe Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Threatened and Endangered species list, and the U.S. Forest Service has designated it as a sensitive species for Washington (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2005). This species has not been listed as threatened or endangered by state or federal agencies at the time of this report. Townsend's bats use caves, mines, hollow trees and built structures for roosting. Old buildings, silos, barns, caves and mines are common roost structures in Washington. One of the limiting factors for Townsend bats is the disturbance of their roosts by humans. These include vandalism to old abandoned buildings and closing mining caves. The species appears to be sensitive to human disturbance. POTENTIAL IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION The loss of old buildings, barns, warehouses and other buildings reduces available roosts for Townsend's bats, howeverthere is the potential, due to existing human disturbance in the project area, that the Townsend's bats are not in the project vicinity. The last dated sighting of Townsend's bats in the project area in the PHS data was in 2009. MITIGATION MEASURES The existing old buildings on the site should be inspected prior to demolition for signs of Townsend's bats. If Townsend bats are found on the site WDFW area habitat biologist will be contacted for management recommendations. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Provided mitigation measures are implemented, there are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to Townsend's bats caused by the Yelm East Gateway Planned Action. Mazama Pocket Gopher The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Yelm subspecies of the Mazama Pocket Gopher as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in April of 2014. Mazama pocket gophers in Washington live primarily in open meadows, pastures, prairies and grassland habitats where there are porous, well- drained soils (Stinson 2013). SO Alliance Page 3z March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement POTENTIAL IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION Soil maps show the site of the YeIm East Gateway Planned Action as having Spa naway gravelly sandy loam with o to 3 percents lopes. The property is known also to be impacted by high groundwater and therefore has low suitability as habitat for the pocket gopher. MITIGATION MEASURES Prior to construction, YeIm's Community Development Department will require a critical areas report to be prepared forthe individual development proposal. This report will include mitigation measures if it is determined that pocket gophers would be impacted by the development. Compliance with YeIm's requirements underthe Critical Areas Code does not ensure compliance with the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. If pocket gophers are found on the site, the US Fish and Wildlife Service should be contacted to ensure compliance with existing Endangered Species Act regulations. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Provided mitigation measures are implemented, there are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to pocket gophers caused by any of the alternatives proposed in the Yelm East Gateway Planned Action. If it is determined that pocket gophers are in the project vicinity and would be impacted by development, the USFWS will be contacted and the applicant will comply with their recommendations. BUILT ENVIRONMENT 3.b Relationship to Plans and Policies 3.6.1 Zoning The north portion of the Yelm East Gateway Planned Action site is zoned C -3 large lot commercial and the southern portion is zoned C -2 heavy commercial. The intent of these zoning districts is to permit commercial uses and activities which depend more heavily on vehicular access than pedestrian access. The project meets the intent by constructing commercial uses along Yelm Avenue (SR 507). The types of projects anticipated and reviewed fortraffic purposes comply with the existing zoning designation. 3.6.2 Yelm Comprehensive Plan The Yelm City Council adopted its most recent Comprehensive Plan and Joint Plan with Thurston County in 2009 (City of Yelm 2009). The Yelm East Gateway is in the "East" Planning Sub -Area (page II -7) is described as follows: The East Planning Area is characterized by significant commercial development within the City. The UGA is presently characterized by a well - established road network and areas of urban and suburban densities, as well as some property at lower densities, and a potential for future growth. The land is relatively free of SO Alliance March 2015 Page 33 Final Environmental Impact Statement environmentally sensitive lands, other than the aquifer which is shallow and uncapped, and is generally suitable for more intensive development provided groundwater controls are established. The project complies with the area zoning and is in the East Planning Sub -Area. The proposal is in a lower density area that has the potential forfuture growth. The project area is not an environmentally sensitive area therefore, provided groundwater controls are established, the project area is suitable for more intensive development. The Moderate Build -out alternative complies with the Comprehensive Plan intent forthe East Planning Area. Additionally, as stated in Section II of this document, the Comprehensive Plan encourages coordinated improvements and forthe gateway districts and encourages consolidation of businesses to minimize curb cuts and existing traffic problems. The Moderate Build -out alternative meets the Comprehensive Plan objectives. Transportation The Yelm Transportation Plan is an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan with the objective to provide a cost - effective network to accommodate all modes of travel in and around the core area (City of Yelm 2009). The Transportation Plan objectives include public transportation, more roadway connections, transportation system management (TSM) policies, access control, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The City ofYelm's Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) 2013 -2019 includes a number of projects in the study area: • YzC — Bald Hills to SR 507 —This project constructs a new collector street between Bald Hills Road and the traffic signal at the SR 507/SR 510 YeIm Loop intersection. • Y3 -SR 510 YeIm Loop —Construction of this north loop provides a primary alternative for traffic traveling through and around the City Center. • Y9— Bald Hills Road from City limits to 5 Corners — This project reconstructs Bald Hills Road to a three -lane facility between the Western Chehalis Railroad and its intersection with Yelm Avenue (SR 507). Economic Development Economic development in Yelm has been addressed in the past through the Economic Development Summit (Participants' Report), March 29, 1988, Economic Development Summit (South Thurston County), July 16, 1991 and the County -Wide Planning Policies (CPP), August 16, 1993. This Planned Action is consistent with the policies in the CPP. The following is from the Economic Development and Employment section of the CPP and selected applicable policies: City, town and county governments in Thurston County encourage sustainable economic development and support job opportunities and economic diversification that provide economic vitality and ensure protection of water resources and critical areas. In order to attain an economic base that provides an adequate tax base SO Alliance March 2015 Page 34 Final Environmental Impact Statement revenue source, enhances the quality of fife of community residents, and maintains environmental quality, the cities, towns and county will: 6.1 Provide in their comprehensive plans for an adequate amount of appropriately located land, utilities, and transportation systems to facilitate environmentally sound and economically viable commercial, public sector, and industrial development; The City of Yelm designated the East Gateway project area as an area to support economic growth along Yelm Avenue (SR 507), a regional transportation corridor. 6.2 Support the retention and expansion of existing public sector and commercial development and environmentally sound, economically viable industrial development and resource uses; The project is for commercial development in an area that will provide appropriate stormwater controls to protect the underlying aquifer and is relatively free of environmentally sensitive lands. 6.6 Improve regulatory certainty, consistency, and efficiency; The planned action EIS is a tool used to assist with providing regulatory certainty and consistency. By completing the planned action EIS, the applicant will have regulatory certainty, consistency, and efficiency since the planned action provides for a coordinated development strategy and streamlines SEPA review forthose projects that are consistent with the plan. 3.6.3 Capital Facilities Plan The most recent Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) was updated in zoo7 and is included as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan (City of Yelm 2009). The policy of the Yelm City Council is to provide the capital facilities needed to adequately serve the anticipated future growth within projected funding capabilities. New capital facility projects supporting the planning area were included in the current CFP. A large -scale project such as the Yelm East Gateway project could affect the City's need for water, sewer and other public facilities. COMPONENTS OF THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN The City of Yelm Water System Plan was prepared in 2010 (Brown and Caldwell 2010). The City currently holds water rights totaling 894.92 acre -feet. In 2008, the City submitted a Mitigation Plan to the Department of Ecology outlining a phased approach to requested water rights applications and proposed mitigation to offset the impacts of these future groundwater withdrawals. It is assumed that the request for new water rights will be completed in phases as outlined in the City's mitigation plan and will be fully approved by 2037. Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs) have been developed forthe 6- and 20 -year planning horizons to implement the infrastructure improvements necessary to provide the increased capacity SO Alliance March 2015 Page 35 Final Environmental Impact Statement needed to serve future demand. The 20 -year CIP will provide sufficient capacity to accommodate growth through the zo -year planning horizon. Reclaimed Water In 1.999, the City of YeIm completed construction of a reclaimed water facility and Cochrane Memorial Park, transforming the wastewater treatment plant into a Class A water reclamation facility. The City's policy is to reclaim 1.00% of the wastewater generated bythe city and to use reclaimed waterwithin the jurisdiction wherever its use is economicallyjustified, financially and technically feasible, and consistent with legal requirements. Sewer Yelm is currently served by a Class A Water Reclamation Facility plant permitted for one million gallons per day of discharge to the Centralia Power Canal. When Yelm Walmart was constructed, a sewer line was extended to the area with sufficient capacity forthe East Gateway Planned Action site. Police and Fire Police service to the Yelm East Gateway planned action site will be provided by the Yelm Police Department. The Southeast Thurston Regional Fire Authority provides fire protection as well as rescue response and emergency medical services. 3.7 Laiiu AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The Yelm East Gateway Planned Action site consists of approximately 46 acres of undeveloped property located at the eastern City limit border. The properties are mostly situated along the SR 507 corridor, east of Yelm Creek. The site is entirely within the Gateway area and is zoned C -z heavy commercial and C -3 large lot commercial. The intent of the zoning districts is to provide for location of facilities and services needed bythe traveling public and to permit commercial uses and activities which depend more heavily on convenient vehicular access than pedestrian access. The preferred alternative, the Moderate Build -out for Yelm East Gateway Planned Action is to construct a commercial area as a coordinated development in a manner consistent with the City of Yelm comprehensive plan. The uses reviewed for the transportation plan are all in compliance with the current site zoning (Section 1..3.4). Figure 6 shows the City's current zoning map. SO Alliance Page 36 March 2015 ' kZoning Map _ -�- �.. May 2008 - Wu7on 4 HAvESIE City of Yelm FIGURE 6 YELM ZONING MAP Final Environmental Impact Statement ❑,.i 1. `% - •' X1'•.1 0 n •._ Mixed Use Auto- Driente.d Mixed Use + - M:xedUse - - 6vtewvy VE $E 1 {� 110ikA E Project J Area The project site has two single family homes and an older building on one of the parcels and two parcels have storage buildings. Most of the property immediately surrounding the site is undeveloped, with a few single family homes. A Walmart has been constructed adjacent to the northeast portion of the site and Country Storage is located immediately to the west. The City of Yelm Comprehensive Plan divides the City and the UGA into four planning areas. The proposed Yelm East Gateway Planned Action site is located in the "East" Planning Area. The City identified three levels of commercial categories to meet community needs, including a Community Service district intended for "larger and more intensive commercial uses, including auto and machine - oriented, modular housing and recreational sales, service, and repair. The zoning map shows the Community Service district in this C -3 Large Lot Commercial District. POTENTIAL IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION Construction of the Yelm East Gateway Planned Action site would convert vacant land to commercial uses. The proposed commercial uses will be consistent with the comprehensive plan and zoning designations. SO Alliance Page 37 March 2015 1 �Gatewoy Zoning Designation 93RD RVE SE l C� Gt CommamW r u C -2 Heavy Commnraai C•3 Large Lot Cornmerclal viiiige Retail CBD Central euainess District - - - - - - r - - - its I Industrial 1 Villvge ReTeil . it;� ID Insilutivnal District - - - - . ` -1 _ _ - - !� MPC Master Planned Commm:ty + 'Mixed Ros Parkalopen Soave 1 1 Use E I Q R3 [.ow density Resitlantial 1 R -6 Moderate Density Residential E STR Old Tow t� R -14 High Density RnsidbriI l 1 1 r-.-r-- ---- - -- -- - 1--- .�--- . -. Mixed Ilse I - -.. +[45TH A11@SE - 1 + a 1 1 1 1 � - Nr_ 1� go' a GEDRGE n 1 p + — -� - -- - - - -� wi 109MA t 31 +• �! �` ----------- ----- ------- -• - -af FIGURE 6 YELM ZONING MAP Final Environmental Impact Statement ❑,.i 1. `% - •' X1'•.1 0 n •._ Mixed Use Auto- Driente.d Mixed Use + - M:xedUse - - 6vtewvy VE $E 1 {� 110ikA E Project J Area The project site has two single family homes and an older building on one of the parcels and two parcels have storage buildings. Most of the property immediately surrounding the site is undeveloped, with a few single family homes. A Walmart has been constructed adjacent to the northeast portion of the site and Country Storage is located immediately to the west. The City of Yelm Comprehensive Plan divides the City and the UGA into four planning areas. The proposed Yelm East Gateway Planned Action site is located in the "East" Planning Area. The City identified three levels of commercial categories to meet community needs, including a Community Service district intended for "larger and more intensive commercial uses, including auto and machine - oriented, modular housing and recreational sales, service, and repair. The zoning map shows the Community Service district in this C -3 Large Lot Commercial District. POTENTIAL IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION Construction of the Yelm East Gateway Planned Action site would convert vacant land to commercial uses. The proposed commercial uses will be consistent with the comprehensive plan and zoning designations. SO Alliance Page 37 March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement POTENTIAL DEVELOPED - CONDITION IMPACTS The No Build Alternative would not be a coordinated development and would not consolidate businesses as is recommended in the Comprehensive Plan (City of Yelm 2009). Both build - alternatives would provide for coordinated development and consolidated businesses MITIGATION MEASURES The No Build Alternative is less predictable and may require additional review during build out to consolidate driveways and mitigate traffic impacts. For the Moderate and Maximum Build -out alternatives, the development of the site will occur in compliance with all City zoning and development regulations and design standards, no additional mitigation is anticipated. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS No significant unavoidable adverse impacts would be anticipated as a result of the Yelm East Gateway Planned Action. j.8 , , — sportation AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Figure 7 illustrates the site vicinity and the transportation network serving the project area. To determine the potential traffic in the project vicinity, the land -use "shopping center" category was used to estimate site - generated traffic levels. Other mixes of specific land -uses (such as those listed in 1.3.4 Types of Uses) could potentially yield higher trip generation. Since there is the potential for both the maximum build -out and the moderate build -out to generate higher trips, in the context of the traffic operational analysis, the highest vehicle trip threshold will be used to assess the traffic characteristics and potential impacts to the adjacent and surrounding transportation system. Using the highest vehicle trip threshold, provides flexibility for the mix of uses within the moderate density scenario without the risk of exceeding the "approved " trip generation potential. SO Alliance Page 38 March 2015 North Yelm 510 Yel m a 2 C d q F McKenna �SF a Project Area a FIGURE 7 TRANSPORTATION NETWORK 3.8.1 Long Range Planning Context Final Environmental Impact Statement 76 This analysis evaluates traffic conditions fortwo distinct planning horizons; zozo and 2035. The 202O analysis provides an evaluation of all of the study intersections to determine if the study intersections will maintain acceptable operation perthe city of Yelm's mobility standards. Capacity analysis results are described in terms of Level of Service (LOS). LOS is a qualitative term describing operating conditions a driver will experience while traveling on a particular street or highway during a specific time interval. It ranges from A (very little delay) to F (long delays and congestion). The intersections in this study are held to the following LOS standards adopted by the City: • In all residential zones, LOS C • In all commercial and light industrial zones, LOS D • In the urban core, generally between Edwards Street and 4tn Street and Mosman Avenue and West Road, LOS F is recognized as an acceptable level of service where mitigation to create traffic diversions, alternate routes and modes of transportation are being planned, funded and SO Alliance March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement implemented. The LOS standard forthe urban core area shall not preclude the City's ability to require necessary safety improvements of intersections impacted by new development. In -depth information on LOS forthe project area and specific intersections is available in Appendix A, The Traffic Impact Analysis. The acknowledged source for determining overall capacity for arterial segments and independent intersections is the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). For signalized and stop sign - controlled intersections, the HCM 2010 methodology was used. For analysis of "modern roundabout" intersections, the Sidra analysis methodology was used. Capacity analyses were completed for the base year and projected 2020 PM peak hour traffic volume scenarios for all intersections. Capacity analyses were completed for 2035 horizon forthe project frontage area intersections only. The 2035 horizon has also been included to evaluate the ultimate needs of the site frontage and driveway accesses in the context of the City of Yelm's general long -term vision forthe corridor. An important consideration is the planned completion of the SR 510 Yelm Loop. While the final Stage 2 completion horizon forthe Yelm Loop is uncertain, regional and local planning anticipates its completion well before the zo35 horizon. The initial Stage i of the Yelm Loop was competed several years ago (SR 52.0to Cullens Road) and is already providing an important link in the City's long -range transportation system. The final Stage 2 will finish the loop highway by extending the facility from Cullens Road to the SR 507 ( Walmart Blvd) intersection. Upon final completion, Yelm Loop will serve as an important part of the arterial system in and around Yelm and will reduce congestion on Yelm Avenue through the City. Additionally, the City's vision for Yelm Avenue is that it will remain a two -lane corridor (a single through capacity lane in each direction —this does not preclude turn lanes as appropriate at intersections). The 2035 analysis in this report provides a framework forthe required lane configurations on Yelm Avenue (SR 507), Grove Road and Walmart Boulevard to serve local access and regional travel with the Yelm Loop completed. Per direction from the City of Yelm, the roadway frontage and access requirements forthe Yelm Gateway East properties were determined by the 2035 analysis. The "ultimate" lane configurations and recommended access plan forthe 2035 horizon were then used as the basis of analysis forthe zozo scenario. 3.8.2 Roadway Inventory A comprehensive roadway survey was conducted to identify pre- existing conditions of the primary traffic facilities serving the subject properties. YELM AVENUE (SR 507) The City of Yelm classifies Yelm Avenue as an Urban Arterial. SR 507 is a Highway of Regional Significance (Non -HSS) and its state functional classification is R2, Rural -Minor Arterial. Mile Post (MP) 27.32 through SO Alliance March 2015 Page 40 Final Environmental Impact Statement MP 29.90 of SR 507 is located within the incorporated limits of the City. Yelm Avenue consists of a single lane in each direction, with a two -way left -turn lane between Third Street and Creek Street /SR 507 /Bald Hills Road. Curb, gutter, sidewalks and bike lanes are provided along portions of the road. Yelm Avenue also has a two -lane bridge that crosses Yelm Creek, a fish bearing stream. As discussed earlierthis bridge is a limiting factor forYelm Avenue since increasing the width of the bridge would require extensive permitting and engineering design. The road has a posted speed limit of 35 mph west of Bald Hills Road and 45 mph east of Bald Hills Road. YELM AVENUE (SR 510) SR 510 has a state functional classification of Rz, Rural -Minor Arterial. It is a Highway of Regional Significance (Non Highway of State Significance). The City classifies the roadway as an Urban Arterial. The road runs from the east city limits to First Street. One lane in each direction is provided, with a two - way left turn lane west of Longmire Street and between Edwards Street and First Street. GROVE ROAD SE Grove Road is classified as an Urban Arterial. In the project vicinity, the roadway has a single lane in each direction and narrow shoulders. Neither sidewalks nor bike lanes are provided. WALMART BOULEVARD Walmart Boulevard runs in a north -south direction between 103rd Avenue SE and SR 507. A single travel lane in each direction is provided, with sidewalks and planter strips along the Walmart frontage. This roadway alignment is part of the partially constructed Yelm Loop roadway that will provide a direct arterial connection from SR 510 (Yelm Highway) at Mud Run Road SE to SR 507 (Yelm Avenue) atthe current Walmart Boulevard intersection. TRAFFIC VOLUME The City of Yelm and Traffic Count Consultants provided evening peak period turning movement counts. The counts were conducted on January g, 2014 between 3:00 PM and 6:0o PM and April 16, 2014 between 2:00 PM and 6:0o PM. These traffic volumes were used for the base year operations analysis and as the SO Alliance Page 41 March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement basis for future year traffic volume projections. Figure 8 shows the existing 2014 traffic volumes for the study intersections (Figure 8 is in the TIA Page 14, Figure5). 5��, ]J �s— 11kn NO wiel w. Jj4 rm 31 I3gU.. M K *Wft. L15 LS Ll5 Jj4 r� J�4 r� J�4 ris • a c..w :ss. nwlynwk,. slsuser +� n quo '" x3 ism 1 SA 0.651a Ill G_ad0 1071d pi. wum N. C C-31, Lmo � I ;off INft1d RN1 Rd 171&—Rdx 11 12 J 14 ss -)Ir � - �'a}�'. ... •,+ - � . f 115 f% #al i1YUr SIl #s1/Rheeen Ra.e wiR13 lok—, Hrry M#N Rd 1' �•.. . 113 L L;® J L - 7:s�lr Work Rd N) SUM RneA III **a Rd.t 11.Y1l wknr 1mmM . FIGURE 8 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION t5 '6 15 its r� taiIbwR !wdr IOiad A.. 1SJ 1R'aLn.rt NRd ae Y.+m AMe I0310RK 14 4 � a 4. a O. . �rraiee+ fljj yy . Lm Six �sso J1L rn t5) 6M Mib RWCm1k H • W. A. RR Lm J L ins w ]J} w4R.Ii.e K W.k.u# W Mawv+ �[aus Intercity Transit (IT) Route 94 travels between downtown Olympia and the Yelm Walmart. Buses run east on SR 507 through the site to the Yelm Walmart, north on Walmart Boulevard, west on 103rd Avenue, south on Creek Street and west on SR 507. Hourly service is provided on weekdays between 6:oo a.m. and 1o:oo p.m. On weekends, hourly service is between 9:oo a.m. and 8:oo p.m. 3.8.2 Site Access UNCOORDINATED ACCESS PLAN The Yelm East Gateway project area is composed of multiple parcels with many different owners. If the properties were to develop independently with no coordination (as described in the No- Action alternative) each parcel would require access to the public road system. "Piecemeal" development under the No- Action scenario would require more individual driveways onto Yelm Avenue. Denser driveway spacing could require variance from City of Yelm and WSDOT intersection spacing criteria. To provide adequate circulation to the parcels would require left -turn access onto and off of Yelm Avenue at each driveway, SO Alliance March 2015 Page 42 Final Environmental Impact Statement however, many driveways may only be allowed right -turn movements. Additionally customer interaction between parcels would require drivers to use the public street to drive between the separate businesses. Specifically underthe No- Action scenario it is anticipated that five full- access driveways onto Yelm Avenue (in addition to Grove Road and Walmart Boulevard) would be required to serve the subject properties. The Uncoordinated Conceptual Access Plan is shown on Figure 9. It c n LEGEND ■■■ Conceptual Access Network ■ full Access I� - yht -Turn Only Access �Riqht-out only No Internal ■ Roadway Connections � • R 1 # ■ FIGURE g UNCOORDINATED CONCEPTUAL ACCESS PLAN COORDINATED ACCESS PLAN W .1 The Maximum Build -Out and Moderate Build -Out scenarios each include coordination between parcels. This will allow a comprehensive access plan to be designed and constructed with internal connections between adjacent parcels. This will reduce the number of access points onto Yelm Avenue and will allow for limited access (right- turn -only) at some driveways where internal connections would provide drivers access to a controlled intersection with left -turn movements. SO Alliance Page 43 March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement Under the coordinated development scenarios there are no full - access driveways proposed on YeIm Avenue except for via the northbound approach of the Grove Road intersection. The Coordinated Conceptual Access Plan that applies to both the Maximum Build -out and Moderate Build -out alternatives is shown on Figure io. w � e C ! ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ i ■ — — FIGURE io COORDINATED CONCEPTUAL ACCESS PLAN Internal Roadway Connections ■ ■ ■ as m■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ r _i■ MENOMONEE ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Internal Roadway Connections ■■■■■ ■■!■■ ■■RON --- won LEGEND M■■ ConceplualAcrosNetwork ■ Full Access Right -Turn Only Access � r r Right -out i■ only ■ a ■ ■ i ■ ■ ■ra 14- 1 {' 4 CONSISTENCY WITH WSDOT AND YELM POLICY The WSDOT Olympic region access control manual designates Yelm Avenue to be under access control class 4 up to the eastern limits of the city. The project study limits fall within these limits. This allows for driveway spacing of 250 feet. However, based on City and WSDOT input the driveways would most likely not be allowed to provide left -turn movements into and out of the properties at this close spacing. SO Alliance Page 44 March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.8.3 Future Traffic Conditions SITE TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION Project trip generation for each of the three alternatives was calculated using the trip generation rates contained in the current edition ofthe Trip Generation report bythe Institute of Transportation Engineers. The Shopping Center land use (land use code 820) was determined to be applicable. A project such as a commercial center tends to attract a large amount of traffic from people already driving on the area roadways. These trips are not new trips added to the local roadways (primary trips) but represent "pass -by" trips according to the following definition: Pass -by Trips are trips made as an intermediate stop from an origin to a primary destination (i.e., stopping to shop on the way home from work) by vehicles passing directly by the project driveway. The new -to- network trip rate reflects an estimated 34 %occurrence of "pass- by" vehicles forth shopping center. The total project trip generation and new -to- network trip generation for each scenario are shown in Table i. Trip generation was reviewed and approved by the City of Yelm during the traffic scoping process. TABLE i. PROJECTTRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Alternative Total Trips Pass -By New -to- Network Trips In Out Total In Out Total No Action Alternative 63o 681 1311 446 415 450 865 Moderate Intensity Alternative 1052 1140 2192 745 695 752 1447 Highest Intensity Alternative 1444 1564 3008 1 1023 1 952 1033 1985 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS The City ofYelm's Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) 2013 -202.9 includes a numberof projects in the study area: Y -2C — Bald Hills to SR 507 —This project constructs a new collector street between Bald Hills Road and the traffic signal at the SR 507 /SR 510 Yelm Loop intersection. Yelm Loop — SR 52.0 Yelm Loop — Construction of this north loop provides a primary alternative for traffic traveling through and around the City Center. Y -g— Bald Hills Road from City limits to 5 Corners — This project reconstructs Bald Hills Road to a three -lane facility between the Western Chehalis Railroad and its intersection with Yelm Avenue (SR 507). SO Alliance Page 45 March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES The traffic volume forecasts forthe study intersections were prepared using the TRPC travel demand model. The TRPC model reflects the planned household and employment growth predicted by the City for overthe long -term planning horizon. zozo Horizon For the zozo horizon, the "background" area -wide traffic growth rate was determined by the growth trends calculated from model output. Specifically, forthe zozo horizon a 2.5% annual growth rate was used for SR 507 and SR 510, and i.% annual growth rate for all other roadways in the study area. The growth rates were applied to the existing traffic counts collected forthe area. The site - generated traffic volumes forthe three development alternatives were added to the background traffic volumes to calculate the three total traffic assignments forthe study. 2035 Horizon Bythe 2o35 horizon additional roadway connections planned within the City are anticipated to be completed. These new connections will have a notable effect on traffic flows within the localized study area. The current TRPC 2035 model scenario was used as the baseline for calculating the traffic shifts in the area. The 2035 model includes all of the planned improvements in the current Regional Transportation Plan. Specific improvements within the study area that will affect 2035 travel patterns are listed below: Completion of the entire Yelm Loop from Mud Run Road at Yelm Avenue to the Walmart Boulevard intersection at Yelm Avenue. Y -1 Loop (Thurston Highlands area) from Killion Street at Yelm Avenue to SR 507 south of Yelm. Y -2C from Yelm Avenue at Walmart Boulevard to Bald Hill Road. To estimate background traffic volume conditions, the TRPC model was used to predict changes in the traffic patterns associated with the new connections. Specifically the 2035 volume scenarios were calculated by growing the study intersections bythe global growth trends used forthe zozo horizon and adjusting the traffic flows to account forthe localized traffic re- assignment caused bythe Y -zc and Yelm Loop connections. The zozo total traffic assignment forthe highest traffic scenario is provided on Figures ii (Figure ii is also in the TIA page 23, Figure 9) and 12. The total traffic assignment forthe 2035 horizon is shown on Figure 13. SO Alliance Page 46 March 2015 wm.A.. r—� q �fiiv Jj4 r� 517Ir ais— ps�c �sz UM. Ad x Iyhn A.. �u r "jL�s v sz 71 dxxn se �. t� JjL `sss 6652 3°a dwa.UM M.A.. L.m n � ssJ iis� sae "Gx u x 'hk.A.. >o�>osm Ar.x 1F.n Ar. ulsw..e.e MdAw FIGURE ii PROJECTED 2020 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SO Alliance Page 47 Final Environmental Impact Statement )5ywdM7k RwCa em. T.k.A mk-ftwk.r ft— March 2015 F! W-(- -mot S L i Final Environmental Impact Statement - w L30 a� tr -� Project o � L Area t-1 +- '^$ -760 X115 1 t I � ;� �3k65 1k5� t s� Legend �u xxx � PM PEAS( HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE 12 PROJECTED 2020 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (SITE DRIVEWAYS) SO Alliance Page 48 March 2015 II L a 13 p R # If7 .�r Final Environmental Impact Statement y a14 • ot 0 i A 1_4e X130 4-5 2a5� 7 r 125-1 7 i r 1752 n 200" . 31) 103rd Are at 13} 103rd Ave at 'reek St Grose Rd LS ,n!n 160 r15 °"J �95 J 4 rl❑ J j 1, r7❑ Ss�ir = ❑s7Jr 10--. H 400 . "'e 320- rn 310 .n » 14) 103rd Ave at 151 Yekn Are at Watmart N1 d Bald Hills Rd/Greek St ° L 175 a '9' $ g —650 J i J J 4 x145 2301 15-4 2 46S Q M sow 16) Bald Hills Rd at 171 Ye kn Ave at Morris Rd Grove Rd 1-635 r60 J 4 tiz�90 asses - i r 1130? 90-4 18} Yelm Ave at 191 Yelm Ave at 1Malmart Wvd Walmart Vrireway AcCeu x LEGEND XX— PM PEAK HOUR TRAF F I VOLU MES Vii: x,16 I I Project Area Ir FIGURE 13 PROJECTED 2035 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The overall development is proposed to be constructed over a io to 15 -year period and this study has analyzed the traffic potential for the specific build -out scenarios to occur by zozo and conditions predicted by 2035. Given the complexity of predicting the type and size of potential commercial users, economic trends that will impact the development build -out, and since the types of site uses allowed on the site have the potential to generate a higher number of trips; forthe traffic operation analysis the highest vehicle trip threshold was used to assess the traffic characteristics and potential impacts to the adjacent and surrounding transportation system. In other words for traffic evaluation, the Maximum Build -out and Moderate Build -out traffic impacts are both considered under the highest vehicle trip threshold. The detailed analysis is in Appendix A. TRAFFIC MITIGATION The mitigation strategies are categorized into three types of potential developer contributions and responsibilities. Each of these types is described briefly below, and the mitigation forthe project is organized according to these types: SO Alliance Page 49 March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement Developer Funded Off -site Infrastructure Improvements — Improvements that are required to meet current Level of Service and concurrency standards if the proposed development creates impacts that affect service levels, safety and /or operational constraints. Site Access and Circulation Improvements — Street and intersection improvements to accommodate internal site access and circulation. These requirements often include provisions for future street connections and corridors linking to adjacent developable properties and identified transportation routes listed in the City's comprehensive planning documents. Traffic Mitigation Fees — Traffic mitigation fees paid in accordance with City Concurrency policies YMC 15.40. If a developer- funded improvement is contained within the six year transportation improvement program, the off -site improvements maybe eligible for a credit from the mitigation fee. MAXIMUM AND MODERATE BUILD -OUT MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measures have been identified as necessary to accommodate traffic resulting from the proposed Yelm East Gateway project. Mitigation is organized according to the types described above. DEVELOPER FUNDED OFF -SITE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS Grove Road /Yelm Avenue Intersection This intersection will serve as a major access point into the proposed Yelm East Gateway development. It will be one of only two locations that will provide left -turn access to /from the subject property via Yelm Avenue. Accommodating the volume oftraffic predicted at this intersection will require installation of a high volume intersection control. As described in the full Traffic report, the optimum intersection control was determined to be a modern roundabout (discussed above in section 1.4.3 Traffic). The project developers will construct a two -lane modern roundabout concurrent with development of properties that will access Grove Road within the westerly portion of the development. Design and construction of the roundabout will be paid for by the developers and will require approval by the City of Yelm and WSDOT prior to construction. Walmart Boulevard (Yelm Loop, Y- 2c) /Yelm Avenue Intersection The project developers will construct improvements to this intersection to accommodate the new northbound approach at the intersection, and to accommodate the predicted traffic flows at the intersection with completion of the Yelm East Gateway development. In addition to the improvements that will be constructed by the developers concurrently with construction of the Yelm East Gateway development, the project will grant public right -of -way setbacks for future completion by the City of Yelm and WSDOT additional improvements associated with completion of Yelm Loop and Y -2C. SO Alliance Page 5o March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement Yelm Loop and Y -2C Corridors The City of Yelm plans to construct the Y -2C corridorthrough the subject property between Yelm Avenue and Bald Hills Road and the Yelm Loop corridor that will extend from Yelm Avenue to the north along the east edge of the subject property. These projects have long been identified in the City of Yelm Transportation Plan as part of a system of improvements to provide alternate routes to reduce congestion on Yelm Avenue. The Yelm East Gateway development will accommodate these improvements in two ways: Constructing frontage improvements on both sides of the proposed Y -zc alignment and the west side of the Yelm Loop alignment that will accommodate the ultimate cross - section of the Yelm Loop and Y -2C projects. Constructing portions of the Y -zc roadway within the development area that will initially servejust as access to the southern portion of the development, but will also be the future alignment of the completed Y -2C connection to Bald Hill Road. Yelm Avenut The project will design and construct improvements to Yelm Avenue along the project frontage to accommodate projected traffic flows on Yelm Avenue and the construction of site accesses. The developers will construct frontage improvements as well as the ultimate lane configurations on Yelm Avenue along the project frontage concurrently with development of the Yelm East Gateway project. SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS The development of the Yelm East Gateway will require construction of a series of internal private roadway connections. The conceptual site layout, shown in Figure 3 has identified a series of internal drive aisles that will provide the major access points within the area. This coordinated design effort will allow the most efficient access to /from the site and will minimize impacts to the public street system by not overloading individual driveways. As each individual development project within the Yelm East Gateway is designed and constructed it will adhere to the access and circulation system developed for the overall project. While all individual access points have been identified in this study, the exact locations will be determined and approved by the City of Yelm and WSDOT later for each development. Each property within the development will also be required to allow for future connection to adjacent properties as identified in the traffic study. Each individual development will be required to prepare a "Site Circulation Analysis" to identify the trip generation potential of the development and specific site driveway configuration. The analysis will be used to compare cumulative traffic generation within the Yelm East Gateway area to the threshold established in this EIS (z,000 new PM peak hourtrips). The analysis will also determine the final driveway location, driveway intersection configurations and turn lane storage lengths (as needed). SO Alliance Page 51 March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement City of Yelm Traffic Facility Charge (TFC) Each property owner /applicant within the proposed development will pay the City of Yelm Traffic Facility Charge. The fees will be based on the net new PM peak hour traffic flows on the area roadways caused by the construction of Yelm East Gateway. The fees will be calculated by the City of Yelm for each individual project as it moves through design and approval stage. PHASING OF ON -SITE AND OFF -SITE TRAFFIC MITIGATION IMPROVEMENTS The Yelm East Gateway project is expected to be designed and constructed incrementally overthe next io —15 years. The proposed on -site and off -site improvements will also be constructed incrementally to serve the traffic demands of the public street system and the site access and circulation needs of the development. Each individual development that advances will be required to construct all driveways that will serve the subject property. Each driveway will be designed to accommodate the ultimate configuration, but based on the Site Circulation Study may be constructed to a lesser configuration with property and frontage improvement setbacks to accommodate the ultimate configuration. Internal Access and Circulation Each individual development will be required to design the internal site circulation system to accommodate connections to adjacent properties as shown on the conceptual site layout (Figure 3). Internal connections will be designed and constructed as major circulation aisles to accommodate through- traffic within the development between individual parcels. These internal connections will allow traffic from any property within the southern portion of the development to access the public street system via Yelm Avenue, or Y -2C. Similarly, all properties North of Yelm Avenue will be able to access the public street system via Yelm Avenue, Grove Road or Walmart Boulevard. rrontage improvement:. Each property that fronts a public roadway will be required to construct public street frontage improvements along the entire frontage concurrently with development of property. This will include all curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscaping improvements and public roadway improvements including turn lanes. Where appropriate it may also require additional ROW dedication to accommodate future roadway widening not included as part of the project mitigation. All frontage improvements will be constructed with appropriate setbacks to accommodate future widening. Yelm Avenue /Grove Road Any project constructed in the southwest quadrant of the subject property (south of Yelm Avenue and west of Y -2C) that will have its primary public access via the Grove Road/Yelm Avenue intersection will be required to construct improvements to the Grove Road/Yelm Avenue intersection. This will include SO Alliance Page 5z March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement constructing the new fourth (south) leg oft he intersection and necessary intersection improvements to accommodate the new approach leg and development traffic. The project requires intersection controls at this intersection. Due to spacing it is doubtful the Washington State Department of Transportation will allow traffic signal control at this intersection. Therefore, the optimum intersection control appears to be a modern roundabout (see full Traffic Report). The timing of the construction of the roundabout will be contingent on the background traffic growth in the area that has occurred and the amount of other development traffic within the Yelm East Gateway project that impacts the intersection. A limit of 25 PM peak hour trips of development traffic (new -to- network and pass -by) using the new south leg of the intersection has been established as the threshold to require construction of a roundabout. Development in the northwest quadrant of the subject property (north of Yelm Avenue) will also require construction of the modern roundabout if it has not yet been constructed by others. The same threshold Of 25 PM peak hour trips of development traffic using the existing north leg of Grove Road has been established to require construction of a modern roundabout. Prior to either volume threshold being met, the intersection may operate adequately under northbound and southbound stop sign - control until development traffic increases. The roundabout will be designed to accommodate the ultimate two circulating -lane design, but may be initially constructed without all of the auxiliary lanes. This will be determined on a case -by -case basis as each development prepares an individual Site Circulation Analysis. The Site Circulation Analysis would also provide an updated review of the operation of the Yelm Avenue /Grove Road intersection to determine if a modern roundabout is required at that time. The City will consider level of service, delay, queuing, safety and area traffic circulation efficiency in determining when the modern roundabout is required, and what auxiliary lanes are needed. This intersection is west of the existing bridge over Yelm Creek, as discussed above, this existing two -lane bridge is a limiting factor for roadway improvements to the west of this intersection. Yelm Avenue /Walmart Boulevard The first development in the southeast quadrant of the subject property (south of Yelm Avenue and either side of Y2-C) that will use the new Y2-c connection as the primary access will be required to construct all of the improvements necessary to convert this into a four -way intersection. This will include the northbound approach lanes (on Y -zc), a southbound through lane (on Walmart Boulevard) and a westbound to southbound left -turn lane on Yelm Avenue. Improvements will also include all traffic signal system improvements required to accommodate the fourth (south) leg of the intersection. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION MEASURES SO Alliance Page 53 March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement Under the No Action alternative the properties would most likely develop independently with no coordination. Each parcel would require access to the public road system. "Piecemeal" development under the No- Action scenario would require more individual driveways onto Yelm Avenue. Denser driveway spacing could require variance from City of Yelm and WSDOT intersection spacing criteria. To provide adequate circulation to the parcels would require left -turn access onto and off of Yelm Avenue at each driveway, however, many driveways may only be allowed right -turn movements. Additionally customer interaction between parcels would require drivers to use the public street to drive between separate businesses. Under the No- Action scenario it is anticipated that five full- access driveways onto Yelm Avenue (in addition to Grove Road and Walmart Boulevard) would be required to serve the subject properties. The No Action alternative would not meet the objective of coordinated development for access along the SR 507 corridor and would most likely not provide internal coordination between the properties. 3.9 Noise Noise is identified as unwanted sound. It includes population - related noise, such as noise from lawnmowers, stereos, conversations and other activities associated with residential activity as well as traffic - related noise and construction activities. This section evaluates the impacts of noise on the Yelm East Gateway Planned Action site and the properties adjacent to the site that would potentially be affected by noise from the proposed development. Sound pressure is generally measured as a level on a logarithmic decibel (dB) scale. Decibels provide a relative measure of sound intensity. The unit is based on powers of io to give a manageable range of numbers to the wide range of sound audible to the human ear. An increase of 3 dB represents a doubling of sound energy. A- weighted decibels (dBA) express the relative loudness of sounds in air as perceived by the human ear. In the A- weighted system, the decibel values of sounds at low frequencies are reduced because the human ear is less sensitive at low audio frequencies than at high audio frequencies. The quietest sounds that humans can hear have a sound pressure level of o dBA and prolonged exposure to sound pressure levels exceeding 85 dBA can permanently damage the ear. Sound levels in excess of 2-30 dBA are more than the human ear can safely withstand. The City of Yelm (YMC 2-7.57.030) has adopted the Washington State "Maximum Environmental Noise Levels" (2-73 -6o WAC). The state noise code establishes limits on the levels and durations of noise crossing property boundaries. Allowable maximum sound levels are based on the Environmental Designation for Noise Abatement (EDNA) of the source and receiving properties. EDNA categories include residential, commercial and industrial zones. The most stringent limits apply to sounds received in residential districts, and the daytime limits in residential areas are reduced 2-o dBA during nighttime hours (City of Yelm 202-4). SO Alliance Page 54 March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement The state noise rule allows the limits in Table z to be exceeded force rtain brief periods of time during any one hour without violating the limits. The io dBA nighttime reduction applies between io:oo PM and 7:00 AM (WAC 173 -60 -040). TABLE z. Washington State Maximum Permissible Environmental Noise Levels (dBA) EDNA of Receiving Property (A) Residential Edna of Noise Source (Day /Night) (B) Commercial (C) Industrial (A) Residential 55/45 57 60 (B) Commercial 57/47 60 65 (C) Industrial 60/50 65 70 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The site is generally located away from sensitive noise receptors such as densely populated multi-and single family housing, schools, hospitals, and other sensitive noise receptors. The affected environment includes the adjacent SR 507 highway and Walmart shopping center. The highway and the Walmart shopping center contribute to existing noise levels in the project area. POTENTIAL IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION There are a few residential structures in the project vicinity and project construction will have temporary noise impacts. POTENTIAL DEVELOPED - CONDITION IMPACTS The completed project will include traffic noise and shopping center noise, which already exists within the project area. Of the three proposed alternatives, the most noise would be generated by the maximum build out alternative. MITIGATION MEASURES Construction noise will be limited to typical daytime hours. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Since the project is within a commercial district, with an existing highway and commercial uses within the project area, no significant unavoidable adverse noise impacts are anticipated from any of the proposed alternatives. 3.1 'opulation According to the most recent population projection by the Washington State Office of Financial Management, there were 7,915 residents in the City of Yelm in 2014 (Office of Financial Management). SO Alliance Page 55 March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Under all alternatives employment would increase and residential development would likely not be constructed on the site. Although apartments at a density of 1.6 units per acre is permitted underthe C -z zoning as part of a mixed use development the Yelm East Gateway Planned Action EIS is not considering residential as a potential land use. Population increase in the Yelm East Gateway would therefore be negligible under all alternatives. .3.11 1 iw05111y AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT There are two existing single - family residential dwelling units located within the Yelm East Gateway boundaries south of and adjacent to SR 507. These housing units are allowed to remain under the current C -z zoning designation, however it is more likely that the residential units could convert to commercial uses as the site develops. POTENTIAL IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION In both the maximum and moderate alternatives, proposed land uses are uses typically found in shopping centers and commercial districts and do not include residential. There is the potential to lose two dwelling units in exchange for commercial land uses. POTENTIAL DEVELOPED - CONDITION IMPACTS The City of Yelm's Comprehensive Plan identifies an excess capacity of 2,600 housing units needed to accommodate the projected growth between 2oo6 and 2028 (City of Yelm 2009). Any loss of residential units in exchange for commercial land uses within the Yelm East Gateway can easily be accommodated elsewhere within the city limits. 3.12 Light and Glare AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT All three alternatives would create light and glare since the commercial uses and parking lots within the project area will require lighting. POTENTIAL IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION When development occurs, construction will take place during daylight hours and should not impact the surrounding properties. POTENTIAL DEVELOPED - CONDITION IMPACTS The constructed site will provide lighting for safety. There are only two residential houses in the project area and the impact to these residences will be minimal. SO Alliance Page 56 March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement MITIGATION MEASURES Because development of the site will occur in compliance with all City zoning and development regulations and design standards, no additional mitigation is anticipated. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated in conjunction with any of the proposed alternatives. Aesthetir- AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The area currently consists of a couple residences with maintained yards, but much of the area is vacant land with invasive plants (scotch broom and reed canary grass), and old out buildings that appear to be no longer in use. POTENTIAL IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION The construction work will require demolition and grading which may have temporary impacts to the aesthetics in the area. POTENTIAL DEVELOPED - CONDITION IMPACTS The no build alternative could potentially impact on the aesthetics since the project would not be a coordinated development and if the site is not developed or maintained, invasive species would continue to dominate the landscape. Additionally, development underthe no build alternative is less predictable. Under the no build alternative site access and public improvements would not be coordinated and could develop in a disorganized and inefficient manner. The Moderate and Maximum Build -out Alternatives would have internal circulation and coordinated internal development. Site access and public improvements would be coordinated in an effective manner. 3.14 Parks and Recreation AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT There are no parks orformal recreation areas within the project area. The project will provide sidewalks and bike lanes which will improve passive recreation in the project area. In 2oo8 the City of Yelm conducted a parks survey, as detailed in the City's Parks and Recreation Plan (City of Yelm 2oo8). This survey indicated a strong preference for connected trails, bicycle routes and sidewalks. POTENTIAL IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION There will be no impacts to parks or recreation during construction or even during the operation of the site since there are none in the project area. SO Alliance Page 57 March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement POTENTIAL DEVELOPED - CONDITION IMPACTS All the alternatives will add sidewalks and bike lanes. The Moderate and maximum build alternatives are anticipated to provide a better coordinated development of these transportation facilities. 3.1!) r- 1Io%w1 1r, p11M %.JIWidI Rt.avvia.c.a AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The Yelm East Gateway Planned Action site consists of seven parcels totaling approximately 46 acres. Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation records show no properties on the historic register located on the site. POTENTIAL IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION Construction activities that could affect subsurface archaeological deposits include clearing and grading and excavation for building foundations and utilities. Since there are no historic archaeological resources or cultural resources known to be on the site, no impact on these resources is expected. However, there is potential for unknown and undiscovered archaeological resources to be discovered during construction. POTENTIAL DEVELOPED - CONDITION IMPACTS There would not be an anticipated potential for impacts to historic or cultural resources in the developed condition for any of the alternatives, as ground- disturbing activities would only occur during construction. MITIGATION MEASURES In the unlikely event that a known archaeological resource is discovered during construction site earthwork, the following steps shall be taken: i. All activity in the immediate vicinity of the find will cease pending notification of the Nisqually Indian Tribe and the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). z. Consultation with DAHP will take place and if necessary a qualified archaeologist will be retained to assess the significance of the find. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Since there are no known historic or cultural sites on the property, with the proposed mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to cultural or archeological resources are anticipated. 3.16 Public Services AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Public services are those systems or organizations needed to protect the general health, safety and welfare of a community. They include fire protection, emergency medical response, police services, and public education. SO Alliance Page 58 March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement Fire Protection Southeast Thurston Fire Authority provides emergency service to the Cities of Yelm, Rainier and surrounding unincorporated areas (Southeast Thurston Fire Authority 2014). It serves approximately 33,750 citizens living in the surrounding 84 square miles. The main operations are located at Station 21 in Yelm at 709 Mill Road. The station is staffed 24 hours a day and is approximately z miles from the project site. Police Protection The City of Yelm participates in Community Oriented Policing programs and also employs reserve officers to supplement the Yelm Police Department. There are no current standards for level of staffing but the current number of officers per 1,00o population is 1.73. By comparison, information accessed through the City -Data online database shows the Washington State average of officers per 1,00o population at 1.47 (City -Data 2014). Public Education The project does not add residential housing and therefore, no impacts should occurto public education. POTENTIAL IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION Construction will include roadway improvements which may have a minor impact to emergency vehicle response time. POTENTIAL DEVELOPED - CONDITION IMPACTS All alternatives have the potential to increase calls for service in the project area due to an increase in buildings and activity. MITIGATION MEASURES For fire, design review will require fire protection measures such as fire sprinklers in the buildings and requiring fire hydrants on the project site. Additional water storage may be required to ensure fire flow is available on the site. For police protection the development could apply principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) to increase public safety on the project site. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS No significant unavoidable adverse impacts should result from any of the proposed alternatives. a_., itiiitie 3.17.1 Water As stated in Section 3.4.3 of this document, water is available on the site since water service was installed at the Walmart Development. It is anticipated the alternatives will not create any adverse impacts to the SO Alliance March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement water system, provided the City obtains additional water rights and develops the infrastructure required to pump, treat, and store additional water resources. Fire flows could be mitigated through on -site storage orthrough alternatives to fire flow allowed by the International Building Code and Fire Code. 3.17.2 Sewer As stated in Section 3.4.3 of this document, sewer is available on the site since sewer service is installed at the Walmart Development. The City of Yelm has sufficient sanitary sewer capacity for all the proposed alternatives for this site. It is anticipated the alternatives will not create any adverse impacts to the sanitary sewer system. 3.17.3 Reclaimed Water The development on the site will provide additional landscaping in compliance with the design requirements. It is anticipated the alternatives will not create any adverse impacts to the reclaimed water system. REFERENCES Brown and Caldwell (202-0). City of Yelm Water System Plan. Retrieved from http://www.ci.yelm.wa.us/water—system—plan/ Brown and Caldwell (202-3). City of Yelm General Sewer Plan. Retrieved from http: / /www.ci .yelm.wa.us /general_sewer_ plan/ City of Yelm (2-995). Yelm Vision Plan. Retrieved from http: / /www.ci.yelm.wa.us/ uploads /library /reports /VisionPlan.pdf City of Yelm (2oo8). Yelm Parks and Recreation Plan. Retrieved from http: / /www.ci.yelm.wa.us/ uploads /library /reports /ParksPla n.pdf City of Yelm (2009). City of Yelm Comprehensive Plan and Joint Plan with Thurston County. Retrieved from http: / /www.ci.yelm.wa.us/ uploads / library /reports /ComprehensivePla n.pdf City of Yelm (2009). City of Yelm Transportation Plan. Retrieved from http: / /www.ci.yelm.wa.us/ uploads / library /reports /TransportationPlan.pdf City of Yelm (202-4). Yelm Municipal Code. Retrieved from http: // www.codepublishing.com /WA /yelm/ City -Data (202-4). City -Data Online Database. Retrieved from http: / /www.city- data.com /city /Washington.html SO Alliance March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement Drost, B.W., Turney, G.L., et al. (1.998). Hydrology and Quality of Groundwater in Northern Thurston County, Washington [Revised]. US Geological Survey Water- Resources Investigations Report92 -4109 [Revised]. Ecology (201.1.). Guidance for Ecology, Including Greenhouse Gas Emissions in SEPA Reviews; Washington State Department of Ecology, June 3. Erickson, Denis (1998). Yelm Groundwater Baseline Sampling. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Ecology. Natural Resources Conservation Service (201.3). Web Soil Survey. Retrieved from http:/ /websoiIsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov /App /HomePage.htm Noble, J.B. and Wallace, E.F. (1.966). Geology and Groundwater Resources of Thurston County, Washington, Volume z. Water Supply Bulletin zo, Washington State Department of Water Resources. PacLand (2oo6). Wal -Mart Store # 3705 -0o Drainage Report and Erosion Control Report. Prepared by PacLand for Wal -Mart; revised January 5. Southeast Thurston Fire Authority (2014). Southeast Thurston Fire Authority. Retrieved from http: / /sethurstonfire.org/ Stinson, Derek W. (2013). Mazama Pocket Gopher Status Update and Recovery Plan. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Thurston County (2012). Thurston County Water Resources Monitoring Report (2009 -2010 Water Year, 2010- 2011 Water Year). Retrieved from http: / /www.co.thurston.wa.us /health /ehrp /pdf /ARio- 1.1. /ARog- 1.0_1.o- 1.1..pdf Thurston County (2014). Thurston GeoData Center. Retrieved from http: / /www.geodata.org/ Thurston Regional Planning Council (201.4). Small Area Population Estimates, Thurston County Cities and UGAs. Retrieved from http: / /www.trpc.org/ data / Documents /Annual %zoPOpulation / Updated %zo7_22- 14 /SmallAreaPopul ation Estimates. pdf United States Environmental Protection Agency (201.2). National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Retrieved from http: / /www.epa.gov /air /criteria.html Wallace, E.F. and Molenaar, Dee (1.961.). Geology and Groundwater Resources of Thurston County, Washington, Volume 1.. Water Supply Bulletin zo, Washington State Department of Water Resources. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (2005). Townsend's Big -eared Bat. Retrieved from http: / /wdfw.wa.gov /publications /00027 /toba.pdf SO Alliance Page 61 March 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (2014). Priority Habitats and Species (PHS). Retrieved from http: / /wdfw.wa.gov /mapping /phs/ Washington State Department of Ecology (2014). Water Resources Explorer. Retrieved from https: // fortress. wa. gov /ecy /waterresources/ map /WaterResourcesExplorer.aspx Washington State Legislature (2014). Revised Code of Washington (RCW). Retrieved from http: / /app.leg.wa.gov /rcw/ Washington State Legislature (2014). Washington Administrative Code (WAC). Retrieved from http: // app.leg.wa.gov /wac /Default.aspx SO Alliance Page 62 March 2015