Vice chair presses staff on traffic, EIS assumptions and mitigation limits

Vice Chair Jennifer Schulte questioned whether the final environmental review adequately addressed traffic redistribution and stream impacts raised in a detailed comment letter. She said the letter alleged the EIS did not fully reflect existing traffic patterns or account for where trips would be redistributed when commercial uses are replaced by residences.

"That letter in particular looked like there was someone that knew what they were doing, and challenging in EIS," Schulte said, asking staff whether the traffic report had accounted for redirected trips if, for example, a Safeway or other large commercial use were replaced. She also pressed staff on whether intersection levels of service that would require mitigation fall outside the city's authority because they are on state highways, and whether such limitations should change the draft EIS conclusion.

Staff responded that a traffic appendix showed a likely slight decrease in total daily trips but potential peak‑hour increases and that the plan includes intersection reprofiling and restriping ideas to reduce turning conflicts. On stream and stormwater issues, staff said the proposed regional stormwater facility should improve water quality relative to current conditions tied to older infrastructure.

Schulte recommended the commission consider whether a 'significant and unavoidable' finding or an overriding consideration statement would be appropriate where mitigation requires action by state agencies (for example WSDOT) outside the city's direct control. Staff acknowledged the suggestion and said they would review the comment further and consider adjustments such as addenda to the final EIS.

Provenance: Commission exchange about the EIS and traffic/stormwater issues (topicintro SEG 1920, topfinish SEG 2050).