08 - Staff Report to CouncilMEMORAND UM
City of Yelm
Community Development Department
To: Mayor Adam Rivas
Yelm City Council
From: Grant Beck, Director of Community Development
Date: December 12, 2005 (for December 28, 2005 City Council Meeting)
Subj: Response to Yelm Commerce Group's Appeal
SPR-05-0091-YL and APL-05-0203-YL
Recommendation
Approve Resolution Number 460, upholding the Hearing Examiner's approval of the site
plan review for the construction of a Wal-Mart supercenter (SPR-05-0091-YL and APL-
05-0203-YL).
Background
The Yelm Commerce Group appealed the Hearing Examiner's issuance of a site plan
review approval for the construction of a Wal-Mart supercenter (SPR-05-0091-YL).
The Examiner issued this approval after a public hearing prompted by an appeal of the
Community Development Department's issuance of a Mitigated Determination of Non-
significance pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act. While the Examiner also
upheld the issuance of the MDNS, this action was not appealed to the City Council
pursuant to Sections 2.26.150 and 15.49.160 YMC.
The Examiner approved the site plan review application on November 1, 2005, after
holding an open record public hearing on August 29 and 30, and September 1, 2005.
Four requests for reconsideration were filed on November 14, 2005, which the
Examiner denied on November 18, 2005. As part of the open record hearing, the
Community Development Department submitted a staff report regarding the site plan
review application, that recommended approval of the site plan review with conditions,
all of which were adopted by the Hearing Examiner in his decision.
The sole basis for the appeal is whether the proposed development meets concurrency
requirements for the City of Yelm as they relate to transportation. Specifically, the Yelm
Commerce Group alleges that the City used the wrong level of service standards for the
State Highways which run through Yelm and that the project fails concurrency when
tested against the City's adopted level of service standard.
Current Situation
1. The City of Yelm establishes the level of service for concurrency
management purposes.
The Hearing Examiner correctly determined that the City of Yelm establishes the level
of service for concurrency management purposes and that the Thurston Regional
Planning Council establishes level of service standards for planning purposes for all
state owned transportation facilities in Thurston County.
The Growth Management Act is clear about concurrency standards for transportation
facilities and how the planning and development review processes intertwine.
Specifically, the Act requires that jurisdictions plan and coordinate planning with the
State and Region, but only requires concurrency tests be made to local facilities. This
two tiered system makes sense, as improvements to state owned facilities are outside
the control of local governments, but may be the weak link in the regional transportation
system. The Examiner's example of this concept was development within the City of
Gig Harbor being held hostage to traffic on the Tacoma Narrows bridge.
First, Section 36.70A.070 RCW requires that local Comprehensive Plans include a
transportation element that establishes level of service standards for regional planning
purposes. The City of Yelm has adopted a transportation plan that meets this
requirement.
Level of service standards for all locally owned arterials and transit routes to
serve as a gauge to judge performance of the system. These standards
should be regionally coordinated; [RCW 36.70.070 (6)(a)(iii)(B)]
For state-owned transportation facilities, level of service standards for highways,
as prescribed in chapters 47.06 and 47.80 RCW, to gauge the performance of
the system. The purposes of reflecting level of service standards for state
highways in the local comprehensive plan are to monitor the performance of
the system, to evaluate improvement strategies, and to facilitate
coordination between the county's or city's six-year street, road, or transit
program and the department of transportation's six-year investment
program. The concurrency requirements of (b) of this subsection do not apply to
transportation facilities and services of statewide significance except for counties
consisting of islands whose only connection to the mainland are state highways
or ferry routes. In these island counties, state highways and ferry route capacity
must be a factor in meeting the concurrency requirements in (b) of this
subsection; [RCW 36.70.070 (6)(a)(iii)(C)]
Specific actions and requirements for bringing into compliance locally owned
transportation facilities or services that are below an established level of
service standard; [RCW 36.70.070 (6)(a)(iii)(D)]
December 12, 2005 Page 2
Partial Transcript from Day 3, Tape 2B starting at 36:41 -
David Bricklin: Right, just so we are clear, TRPC sets the level of service
standard for SR 507 and 510 in Yelm, right?
Perry Shea: In conjunction with the City. It's a collaborative process, the
Comprehensive Plan for the City is melded in to the Comprehensive Plan
for the region which is then adopted and the level of service they are citing
in their regional plan relates to level of service standards for facilities for
what I would view as for planning and design. The City establishes their
own concurrency standard, in this case level of service F for the downtown
core, very similar to what the City of Olympia does...
Next, Section 36.70A.070 (6)(b) RCW requires that local governments adopt a
transportation concurrency management system which mandates that infrastructure
needed to serve new development be in place at the time of development. This
mandate is only required to apply to locally owned transportation facilities, however.
The City of Yelm has adopted such an Ordinance, codified at Chapter 15.40 YMC.
After adoption of the comprehensive plan by jurisdictions required to plan
or who choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040, local jurisdictions must
adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval if the
development causes the level of service on a locally owned
transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the
transportation element of the comprehensive plan, unless transportation
improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development
are made concurrent with the development. [RCW 36.70.070 (6)(b)]
Partial Transcript from Day 3, Tape 2B starting at 26:14 -
Mick Phillips: You mentioned concurrency and can you indicate to the
Examiner how this particular project meets the concurrency ordinance of
the City of Yelm
Perry Shea: The City of Yelm has a concurrency ordinance of level of
service D for their commercial and industrial area, level of service C
elsewhere, and with level of service F in what's called the urban core,
which is primarily the two or three blocks downtown, and it really only
affects the intersection of First and Yelm Avenue, and that's level of
service F and that will be level of service F until the other loop facilities
are developed and opened and then that facility will go back to level of
service D criteria so until then it meets the concurrency test for projects.
December 12, 2005 Page 3
Hearing Examiner finding of fact:
Thus, even if the City declared a moratorium, traffic on said state
highways would continue to increase. Thus, while Yelm might impose a
moratorium, other cities and counties would continue to grow with
commercial and residential development which would use said state
highways. Thus, the answer to traffic congestion on SR-507 and SR-510
is likely regional in nature. Such is akin to prohibiting development within
the City of Gig Harbor due to traffic congestion on SR-16 which crosses
the Narrows Bridge.
2. The methodology for calculating the `planning' level of service established
by the Thurston Regional Planning Council and the `concurrency' level of
service established by the City of Yelm is not the same.
The Wal-Mart Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) does not show that certain intersections do
not pass concurrency when tested against the level of service standard established by
the Thurston Regional Planning Council. As noted by Perry Shea, the level of service
standards listed in the TIA are not equivalent to the level of service standards adopted
by the Thurston Regional Planning Council for planning purposes, as each of these
level of service standards are based on a different peak hour.
The City's methodology for concurrency `grades' the worst 15 minutes of the peak hour
in the afternoon while the methodology used by the Thurston Regional Planning Council
for planning purposes `grades' only the peak two hours of afternoon traffic. Mr. Shea
indicated that the methodology used by the Thurston Regional Planning Council would
show a rosier traffic picture than the City's concurrency methodology.
It is not possible to determine, therefore, that the project would fail the level of service
as established for planning purposes by the Thurston Regional Planning Council.
Partial Transcript from Day 3, Tape 2B starting at 35:48 -
David Bricklin: Now you said that the City has set a level of services D
except in the core where it's F.
Perry Shea: That's correct.
David Bricklin: Now you're aware, aren't you, that the level of service for
State Routes is established by the Thurston Regional Planning Council
and not by the City, are you aware of that?
Perry Shea: They establish regional level of service for corridors, and...
December 12, 2005 Page 4
David Bricklin: Excuse me, are you aware that the state law provides
that...
Perry Shea: for statewide significance for highways of statewide
significance, and then, go ahead, finish your question.
David Bricklin: Well, the LOS for highways, state highways of state
significance are set by WSDOT, right?
Perry Shea: Correct.
David Bricklin: And the LOS for State highways which are not classified
as statewide significance are set by the Regional Transportation Planning
Organization, right?
Perry Shea: And they adopt a level of service D.
David Bricklin: And they what?
Perry Shea: The level of service D for the urban City limit areas, except
in what they call urban core areas in downtown Olympia or along Martin
Way, which is E.
David Bricklin: Right, just so we are clear, TRPC sets the level of service
standard for SR 507 and 510 in Yelm, right?
Perry Shea: In conjunction with the City. It's a collaborative process, the
Comprehensive Plan for the City is melded in to the Comprehensive Plan
for the region which is then adopted and the level of service they are citing
in their regional plan relates to level of service standards for facilities for
what I would view as for planning and design. The City establishes their
own concurrency standard, in this case level of service F for the downtown
core, very similar to what the City of Olympia does...
David Bricklin: Let me interrupt you, I don't care about Olympia right
now. So it's your testimony that even if TRPC establishes a level of
service standard for 507 and 510 at LOS D that Yelm has the right to
establish it at LOS F.
Perry Shea: They're establishing a concurrency standard of LOS F,
they're establishing a corridor of D, in the City, except at this intersection,
which is for concurrency purposes.
December 12, 2005 Page 5
David Bricklin: So it's your testimony that for the purpose of concurrency
under the Growth Management Act that Yelm has the right to establish it's
own level of service on State Route 507 and 510, that's your testimony?
Perry Shea: Yes, because its their City arterial and their right of way.
Partial Transcript from Day 3, Tape 2B starting at 47:16 -
David Bricklin: Use of a peak hour and a peak hour factor within the
peak hour is to zero in on the worst conditions, right?
Perry Shea: We don't like to look at that, we aren't required to look at
that. The regional policy is two hour average, PM peak average, which
then dilutes that so if you wanted to use the regional policy, that you
stated earlier, we could apply the two hour average to conditions in Yelm,
which would then show that things are much better than they are. We
actually like to look at a higher scenario of traffic impacts, so we use the
peak hour factor to look at that peaking or that spiking during that hour.
David Bricklin: First of all, do you think I said that I was proposing using
a regional policy for the peak hour determination?
Perry Shea: No, that's how they develop their level of service standard...
two hour average.
David Bricklin: Ok, so with regard to the peak hour, you said that's a City
call and the City, you said, is focused on, actually, the worst 15 minutes of
the peak hour, right? That's what the peak hour factor accomplishes.
Perry Shea: That's what it does.
3. Consistently using the average intersection level of service methodology
for concurrency purposes is fair and appropriate.
The Examiner was correct in finding that the City's methodology for calculating level of
service standards for concurrency management purposes was appropriate, as was the
City's review of worst case turning movements as part of the environmental review
process.
Perry Shea testified that it is the City's consistent practice to calculate the level of
service gauging intersection performance based on the average movements and that
this methodology is accepted engineering practice and is used in other Thurston County
jurisdictions.
December 12, 2005 Page 6
To change the level of service methodology at this point would hold Wal-Mart to a
different standard than has been consistently applied to all developments in Yelm in the
past.
Partial Transcript from Day 3, Tape 2B starting at 27:10 -
Jack McCullough: Picking up where you left off on level of service, there
was some discussion you heard earlier, I presume, about the difference
between the average for an intersection and a level of service for
individual legs. I'd like to clarify what approach does the City use in
evaluating level of service?
Perry Shea: We use the average intersection level of service for both
signalized and unsignalized, and we request for unsignalized that the
worst movement be cited in the report so we can then evaluate degrees of
impact and in case in point that's why we looked at the 103rd Avenue
extension as a requirement to help mitigate that, but it does meet the
concurrency test that we have applied to projects in Yelm and it's also
very similar to what Lacey and Olympia apply to their projects.
I just want to say something real quick about the regional context. There
are specific tri-city guidelines that we require developers to use, and the
reason I know that is because I prepared those guidelines in 1990 for the
City of Olympia, which then have been adopted by most of the
jurisdictions within this County, including Yelm and they've seen some
changes throughout and within those guidelines it does talk about, the
most recent one from Lacey that we currently model ours, or Yelm's after
is looking at the average intersection delay for both signalized and
unsignalized intersections, and that's what we do.
4. The correct level of service at the intersection of Yelm Avenue and 1Sr
Street is `F'.
The Examiner correctly found that the language of the Yelm Comprehensive
Transportation Plan was clear regarding level of service standards. Specifically, the
plan states:
In the urban core, LOS F is recognized as an acceptable level of service where
mitigation to create traffic diversions, bypasses, and alternate routes and modes
of transportation are authorized and being planned, funded, and implemented.
The only correct manner in which to read this sentence is that LOS F is recognized as
an acceptable level of service where mitigation measures are authorized and being
planned, being funded, and being implemented. According to Merriam-Webster Online,
the primary definition of implement means to:
December 12, 2005 Page 7
CARRY OUT, ACCOMPLISH; especially: to give practical effect to and
ensure of actual fulfillment by concrete measures
The City's traffic consultant, Perry Shea, testified that he is also the designer working on
the Loop and that the project has progressed to the point of right-of-way acquisition.
There is no doubt that this effort is a concrete measure that is going to ensure the actual
fulfillment of the SR 510 Yelm Loop.
Partial Transcript from Day 3, Tape 2B starting at 03:18 -
Mike Phillips: Can you please state your name and spell your last name?
Perry Shea: My name is Perry Shea, S-H-E-A, and I'm a principal
engineer with Parametrix. I manage the office in Lacey, Washington. Our
address is 8870 Tallon Lane, Lacey, WA 98516.
Mike Phillips: And for the record, I'm Mick Phillips of Owens Davies,
Counsel for the City. Perry, can you give us your educational
background?
Perry Shea: I received a Bachelor of Science Engineering at St. Martin's
College in 1984. I'm a professional engineer in the states of Washington,
Oregon, Idaho and Alaska. And I've been practicing traffic engineering
and planning for over 20 years. Most of my experience and work has
been in the south puget sound/Thurston County area. I do work for all the
jurisdictions in the County doing long range planning, subarea planning,
corridor planning, comprehensive planning and also arterial, street,
intersection and highway design. So I have a pretty good knowledge base
of the issues and traffic characteristics in Thurston County, particularly
Yelm.
Mick Phillips: And you've been a consultant for the City of Yelm for a
while?
Perry Shea: I have been working with the City of Yelm since 1989,
primarily as their traffic consultant and expert as it relates to long term
planning and growth, and building their infrastructure.
Mick Phillips: Can you provide the Examiner with some of the history
and background on the Yelm traffic issues?
Perry Shea: Yes. Before we get into the specifics of the traffic study, I
think it's important to give an overview, kind of a regional context with
Yelm.
December 12, 2005 Page 8
In the late 1980's and early 1990's, the City Council, and residents that
have been living here since that time, there's traffic issues, traffic
problems in Yelm. There's only one main corridor going through the City.
And a lot of that traffic is through traffic/background traffic. At the time, in
the early 1990's, when the Council determined that there was a significant
issue, we were asked to evaluate that, and to go through about a year,
year and a half long process to develop their long range transportation
plan, to meet the Growth Management Act in particular. And this study
was actually one of the first transportation plans to be adopted to meet the
GMA requirements in the State of Washington.
Since then, it's gone through several updates. Some of the findings of
that work was that, because of the limited amount of facilities going
through the City, we needed to look at alternate routes. And that's where
the Y3, the Y2 and other corridors like that were developed. The Y
designation represents basically Y stands for Yelm and the number is the
project number that was developed in a list of projects in the plan. So
when you hear the term Y3, Y2, Y6, it just represents a project that's
identified as a needed facility over time. The outer loop, the loop highway
system, has been a primary project that the City, and other stake holders,
such as DOT, Federal Highways, Intercity Transit, Thurston Regional
Planning Council, Thurston County, a whole host of folks, have been
working hard and diligently to get that project to fruition, get constructed.
Since its inception in 1991, a lot of things have happened, an
environmental document, an EA was approved, a FONSI, which is a
Finding of No Significant Impact was issued in 2001 by the Federal
Highway Administration, which basically sited the approved route of the
Y3 Y2 corridor, which is now called the 510 loop and the 507 loop. That
allowed the City and DOT to begin partnering to leverage future funding
dollars to build the corridor. And that has happened. When the gas tax
went into effect, $33 million allocated to this corridor for finishing design at
the access hearing and right of way acquisition. Right now, the project is
currently in design, going through design documentation, developing
preliminary design drawings and additional environmental work for the
corridor as it leads up to the access process and right of way acquisition
procedures.
Because of the uncertainty in the gas tax, the project is not on hold, it's
just on basically a slow burner right now in what we're doing. I'm actually
the project manager for DOT on that corridor. Depending on what
happens, the project will still move forward through design. I can't
speculate exactly what will happen with the dollars for right of way and
construction. But we have been anticipating and programming that this
December 12, 2005 Page 9
corridor could be in place in the next 5, 6, 7 years. And that's been pretty
accurate. We've actually, in 1991, we looked out over 20 years and said
can we, you know, this will take a 20-year plan. Well, you know what?
We're pretty much on target for that. The 510 Loop is the project that is
currently in that cycle. The other loop highways are further out because
they don't provide the emergent benefit that the 510 Loop does by
allowing traffic to circulate around town that really doesn't have a
destination to the City.
It's a lot of the through traffic that goes to Pierce County, to and from
Lacey as commute trips primarily. It also allows for some of the freight
mobility traffic to route around town. And it provides access and
circulation improvements to that quadrant of the City which it currently
does not have. Currently, if you're in that part of town, you have to access
Yelm Avenue to get anywhere. And that's the limitation of the grid system
that the City currently has in place. An important part of the
Transportation Plan that was developed was making street connections,
providing alternate routes to Yelm Avenue. That was a fundamental policy
and it's been a significant goal of the Council, as well as staff, to
implement that, those goals. They do that when developments are
developed. A recent arterial extension was completed and is open that
has provided significant benefits. Stevens Avenue was extended to West
Road which now provides another route to get over to the commercial
area in town, versus using Yelm Avenue. There is testimony about the
extension of 103rd to the north. Again, that is in complete alignment with
the Comprehensive Plan to make street connections to provide alternate
routes for traffic to disperse along the system.
So, over the last, since 1991, significant strides have been made. The
City Council was actually very progressive back then and has been very
diligent in using their dollars and leveraging their efforts to get additional
funding monies to build these street improvement projects. The 510
corridor and the 507 loops, those are significant regional projects that take
a lot of time to develop.
So, as that was unfolding in 1995, the City in the Comprehensive Plan,
looked at the Level of Service policy of the City and developed Level of
Service D for their commercial areas, with the exception of the core area
which is Level of Service F, until, basically, Level of Service F, until other
features, these planned loop facilities are in place, to alleviate the traffic
burden that is currently on the existing Yelm Avenue. That was the policy,
that's been the direction, that's currently what is in place now when
reviewing concurrency. On a corridor level, we look at Level of Service D
for proper planning and design of facilities.
December 12, 2005 Page 10
For concurrency, in the downtown corridor, we look at Level of Service F
because we do not want to widen downtown to six lanes. That was an
underlying goal and a significant reason why the loop highways are being
planned - to keep the Yelm Avenue corridor to a three lane urban arterial
that will basically travel through the City. The loop highways are meant to
divert that traffic, take that additional traffic burden away so that we don't
have the Spanaway's, we don't have the Pacific Avenues, we don't have
the Martin Ways going down through the middle of town, which would
really tear up the entire city. That was a fundamental reason why that
policy was made and the loop highways are now being implemented. So I
just wanted to give some clarity on that, some background.
think it's important so you folks that are here that live in town. The City's
been working diligently on this for a long time, and have made significant
strides and have made several transportation improvement projects to
help circulate traffic around town. And I understand. I drive down here all
the time and I probably know, I have a significant amount of history and
knowledge of the traffic situation here. And why I've been working hard
with the City to make sure these systems are in place as time goes on.
5. The SR 510 Yelm Loop is not required for a finding of concurrency.
Perry Shea was also very clear during his testimony that the SR 510 Yelm Loop is not
part of any concurrency requirement. It was Mr. Shea's testimony that the analysis of
the Loop completed as part of the Traffic Impact Analysis was for environmental impact
purposes and not as part of the concurrency analysis.
Partial Transcript from Day 3, Tape 2B starting at 13:11 -
Mick Phillips: Perry, what's the relationship between the loop roads that
you're talking about and the Wal-Mart proposal or any other proposal?
Perry Shea: In the Comprehensive Planning process, and even the work
that we're doing on the loop highway, to design that facility, we are looking
at travel forecasts out to 20, 25 years. In fact, for the purposes of this
corridor, we did what was called a 2030 forecast. So what will the traffic,
what can we expect in 2030 when the loop system is implemented? And
that's based on the regional traffic model. It's based on the current land
use plans that are adopted within the jurisdictions. It also includes traffic
background or traffic influx from Pierce County.
A lot of things go into this process to understand the relationships of, when
we build these facilities, how will traffic be routed, what attractions will be
made, and how much traffic will have to be on the corridor when it opens.
The corridor always assumed in the analysis that we did since 1991 and
December 12, 2005 Page 11
all the subsequent updates a commercial development of some sort would
be in this particular area because it's zoned that way. So when you look
at the traffic volume, you look at various employment and population
forecasts, there is an underlying assumption of commercial development
activity that goes into the model.
When you get a site specific application like the Wal-Mart proposal, then
we take a really close look to see is that in alignment with, if not what do
we need to do to make sure that that traffic is mitigated? And that's the
exercise, part of the exercise of what we did. And it's one of the reasons
why we requested the applicant to evaluate the 2010 horizon year,
assuming that if the corridor was open in 2010, is the program that they're
doing, the store, the traffic that they're generating, is that going to conflict
or be different than what we're planning for, for the loop highway system.
Mick Phillips: If the loop highway system isn't built for 10 more years or
15 more years, how does that change your analysis of this particular
project?
Perry Shea: It doesn't change the analysis for Wal-Mart, the application,
because they're looking at their impact at the time of opening their store
which is pretty much the requirement, the level of standard that we
request them to do. And so they're required to mitigate their impact for the
time of opening in 2006. We take a broader look as the City or the DOT to
look at, ok, over time, is our system adequate to handle these facilities.
We actually did a detailed traffic component as part of the update for the
510 loop project, which analyzed all of the core intersections downtown as
well as the loop highway system for 2010 and 2030.
And with the corridor in place, we have acceptable service levels in the
downtown area except Yelm Avenue. The only one that's really
problematic currently right now is Yelm Avenue and First Street. When
the 510 loop highway's built, that intersection performs fairly well because
we're diverting such an amount of traffic around town. So we looked at
the cause and effect. If you were to build that corridor, what would that
mean to the existing intersections that we currently travel through right
now. And it does meet that test. It meets the service levels that we would
apply to those intersections.
December 12, 2005 Page 12
City of Yelm
Resolution No. 460
A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE HEARING EXAMINER'S APPROVAL OF THE SITE
PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WAL-MART SUPERCENTER (SPR-
05-0091-YL AND APL-05-0203-YL)
WHEREAS, the Yelm City Council held a closed record hearing on December
28, 2005, regarding an appeal by the Yelm Commerce Group, Valentine Fyrst, Bill
Nicholls, and James Zukowski of the Hearing Examiner's approval of a site plan review
for the construction of a Wal-Mart supercenter in Yelm; and
WHEREAS, the Council considered the appeal, responses to the appeal filed by
the City of Yelm Community Development Department and Wal-Mart, a reply by the
Yelm Commerce Group, et. al., the Hearing Examiner's decision, reconsideration
requests filed by James Zukowski, Bill Nicholls, Valentine Fyrst, and Ed Wiltsie, and the
Hearing Examiner's decision on reconsideration; and
WHEREAS, the Council reviewed the record before the Hearing Examiner prior
to the closed record hearing, including audio from the three days of public hearing and
all written materials submitted to the Hearing Examiner as part of the record, an index of
which is included in the Hearing Examiner's report and decision; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopts the following Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law in the matter of the Yelm Commerce Group's appeal:
Findings of Fact
1. PACLAND, Inc, on behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. made application to the City of
Yelm fora site plan review approval for the construction of a Wal-Mart
supercenter in Yelm.
2. Grant Beck, the Yelm Community Development Director and SEPA Responsible
Official issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-significance on June 7, 2005
and this determination was timely appealed by the Yelm Commerce Group.
3. Pursuant to Chapter 15.49 YMC, the Yelm Hearing Examiner held a duly
advertised open record hearing on the Yelm Commerce Group's appeal of the
MDNS. Pursuant to Chapter 15.49 YMC and Chapter 36.706 RCW, the open
record hearing included the underlying land use permit, a site plan review
approval. At the open record hearing, held on August 29t", 30t", and September
1St, 2005, the Examiner accepted oral and written testimony on the site plan
review application and the appeal of the MDNS and expert testimony regarding
the appeal of the MDNS.
4. The Examiner issued on November 1, 2005, a report and decision which upheld
the issuance of the MDNS and approved the site plan review application, with
conditions as recommended by the Community Development Department. Four
requests for reconsideration were filed by James Zukowski, Valentine Fyrst, Bill
Nichols, and Ed Wiltsie on November 14, 2005. The Examiner denied the
reconsideration requests on November 18.
City of Yelm Resolution
5. On November 28, 2005, the Yelm Commerce Group, Valentine Fryst, Bill
Nicholls, and James Zukowski filed an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision
to approve the site plan review application for the construction of a Wal-Mart
supercenter in Yelm. The sole basis for the appeal is whether the proposed
development meets concurrency requirements for the City of Yelm as they relate
to transportation. The Hearing Examiner's action to uphold the Responsible
Official's SEPA Determination was not appealed to the City Council pursuant to
Sections 2.26.150 and 15.49.160 YMC.
6. Section 36.70A.070 (6)(b) RCW does not require the City of Yelm adopt an
Ordinance relating to concurrency management which mandates the City prohibit
development approval if a development causes the level of service on any state
owned transportation facility to decline below the level of service standards
adopted for the purpose of gauging the performance of the system pursuant to
Section 36.70A.070 (6)(a)(iii)(C).
7. Section 36.70A.070 (6)(b) RCW does not prohibit the City of Yelm from
establishing concurrency requirements for local project review for state owned
transportation facilities, and the City of Yelm has established level of service
standards for concurrency management purposes for State Routes 510 and 507
within Yelm and it's urban growth area.
8. The Yelm Comprehensive Transportation Plan establishes the following level of
service standards for concurrency purposes:
1. In all residential zones, LOS C
2. In all commercial and light industrial zones, LOS D
3. In the urban core LOS F is recognized as an acceptable level of service
where mitigation to create traffic diversions, bypasses, and alternate
routes and modes of transportation are authorized and being planned,
funded, and implemented.
9. Alternate routes, in the form of the Y-2 and Y-3 transportation improvement as
identified in the Yelm Comprehensive Transportation Plan are a primary project
for the City, Washington State Department of Transportation, Thurston County,
and the Thurston Regional Planning Council. A corridor has been established,
an environmental document approved with a Finding of No Significant Impact,
the SR 510 Yelm Loop (Y-3) is currently in design, including additional
environmental work which will lead to the access process and right of way
acquisition.
The work completed to date shows that alternate routes are being planned, being
funded, and being implemented.
10. The level of service standard in the urban core of Yelm is "F" pursuant to the
Yelm Comprehenisve Transportation Plan.
11. The City has consistently utilized the average intersection level of service
methodology for signalized and unsignalized intersections for concurrency
City of Yelm Resolution
management purposes, which is an industry standard and consistent with other
jurisdictions in Thurston County.
12. Utilizing average intersection level of service for signalized and unsignalized
intersections is an appropriate methodology for evaluating concurrency with the
established levels of service for the transportation system.
Conclusions of Law
A. This matter comes before the City Council on an appeal filed by the Yelm
Commerce Group, Valentine Fyrst, Bill Nicholls, and James Zukowski of the
issuance of a site plan review approval by the Yelm Hearing Examiner. The
Hearing Examiners action to uphold the Responsible Official's SEPA Threshold
Determination was not appealed to the City Council.
B. The Yelm Community Development Department and Yelm Hearing Examiner
applied the correct level of service calculation methodology for concurrency
purposes pursuant to Chapter 15.40 YMC and Section 36.70A.070 (6)(b) RCW.
The proposal meets concurrency requirements, including a level of service "F" in
the Yelm urban core.
C. The Hearing Examiner's decision was supported by substantial evidence
submitted through the land use hearing process, particularly by the expert
testimony of the City's transportation consultant, Perry Shea of Parametrix, Inc.
NOW, THEREFORE, BY IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Yelm,
Washington, that the Hearing Examiner's approval of a site plan review for the
construction of a Wal-Mart supercenter is upheld and the Hearing Examiner's report and
decision is hereby adopted.
PASSED and signed in authentication on this 28t" day of December, 2005
Adam Rivas, Mayor
Authenticated:
Agnes P. Bennick, City Clerk
City of Yelm Resolution