Loading...
01 - LUPA Petition~~ ~~ ,.,~, Minor Settlement {No guardianship} (MST 2} ® Petition for Ciuil Commitment (Sexual Predator}{PCC 2} _.__ Seizure of Property from Commission of Crime (SPG 2} „~ Seizure of Property Resulting from a Crime {SPR 2} Subpoenas lMSC 2) q _, Habeas Corpus (VVHC 2) ,_,_,_ Mandamus ~iNRM 2} ,,,~. Restitutian RR 2} ,T Reuiety ~1t1,(RV 2} IF Yf~U CANNOT DETERNfINE 3HE ARPROPRI,ATE CATEGORY, PL.EAISE DESCRIBE THE CAUSE F CTt43N BELOW. Tax 1PUarrant-A notice oaf assessment by Foreclosure-Complaint invoAuing termination ~f a state agency creating a judgmentflien in ownership rights when a mortgage or tax the county in which it is filed. foreclosure is lnuolved, where ownership is not in question. Case Type 2 A¢ri! 2Q01 1 4 5 6 7 S ~, I lI 12 13 4 1 1 17 IS 1~ 1' ~3 ~~ ~~y7Q .G5 IN TI-IE SUPERIOR COURT OFT ESTATE Ole WASHINGTON IN AND :FORT URSTON COUNTY YEL1vI COIv1ERCE GROUP, a Washington non-profit corporation, Petitioner, v, NO. LAND USE PETITION CITY OF YEL ACLANf9, INC,, and OVAL-1VIART STORES, INC. Thss petition Initiates an appeal of the City of Ylm Baring Examiner's decision to approve a site plan and State Envlro ental Policy Act ("SETA"} review for a 'Val-~rlart project proposed for the City of Yel .This is also an appeal of a subsequent afi anon of the Examiner's site plan approval the City of Yelm City Council. This appeal is co enced pursuant to tlae Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), ch. 3C,'7C RCS, rsuant to LUPA, petitioner alleges as follows: I, NAME AID AILING AI~I~RESS OF THE PETITIONERS Yelm Co erce Group P.C}. Box 16I6 Yelm, ~A 9559` LAND USE PETITION - I Bricklin Newman Fold, LI.P ~.ttnznevs-at-[.:iiu (t3Q1 Faurth t~venue, Suite ~3D3 S~attte, SUA 48154 `t'el. (2QG} 264-Sbt~ Fax (2CtFi) 2b4-43(F!7 1 2 3~ i 4i 5 6 "~ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I 19 20 21 ~'', 22 23 24 25 2~s 27 II. NAME AND AILING ADDRESS OE PETITIONER'S ATTORNEYS III. NA E AND ~ AILING ADDRESS OFT E LOOAL JU DICTION WHOSE LAND USE DECISION' IS AT ISSUE City of Yelm 105 Yelm Avenue West P.O. Box 479 Yelrn, WA 95579 ICI. IDENTIFICATION OF THE DECISION- A NG BODY, TOET~IER WITH A DUPLICATE COPY OFT E DECISION The City of Yel Baring Examiner, Stephen Causseaux r., issued an approval of the SETA decision and site plan Case No, SPR-OS-0091.-YL-WAL-MART SUPERCENTE, on November 1> 2005, A copy of the Baring Examiner's Report and Decision is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The City of Yel City Council denied an appeal of the site plan on December 28, 2005, The City of Yelm Resolution No. 460 Upholding the Hearing Examiner's Approval of the Site Plan Review for the Construction of a Wa1- .art Supercenter is attached hereto as Exhibit B. . IDENTIFICATION OF EACH PERSON TO E ADE A PARTY UNDER RCW 36.700.040(2}(b)-d} ACLAND, Inc. 606 Columbia Street NW, Suite 106 Olympia, WA 98501 LAND USE PETITION - 2 Bricklin Newman Bold, LLP Attorneys-at-L.a1v 101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 33t}3 SS:3tt,C, ~~3'~ 9~1 ]'~ Tci. ('246) <44-8bCJ0 Fax (2061264930{? 1' 2 3 4 6 7 10 11 12 1 14 15 1 17~ 18~ 1 ~, 20 21 22 23 2 2S 2 27 24 al- art Stare, Inc. 2001 SE 10`" Street entoville, R "72712-6 I~ACLNI~, Inc. is identified y Warne and address in the earing Examiner's Fritten decision as the applicant for the site plan review, al-IV1art Stores, Inc. is identified lay name and address in the Nearing Examiner's written decision as the owner of the praperty at issue. '~I. EACTS i~E C)NST TINS T AT T E I'ETITI©1*lER IAS STAhTI~II'~G .1 elm Co .arcs Croup (~`CC~"~ participated extensively during the City review process far the proposed dal- art project, YCC and its embers provided test` ony and written evidence before the City of Yelm earing Examiner in the after being appealed, embers of YCC live in the City of del where the project will e located. .2 YCC is incorporated as anon-profit corporation under the laws of I.,AI~iD 1_TSE PETITIi~I~d - 3 riciitin e~zxxan bald, LLF aTtorneps-at-L,ativ d441 FouctFi avenue, Suite 3343 Se~ttle,1~%A 94d ~4 Tai. (34G1 264-hG4f) L':u (20f~) 26a-4~3ot) 1 3 4 S 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 l 15 1 i 17i 1 '', 1 i 20 '; 21 ~' ~~ 22 2'3 '~ 2 25 26 X27 28 'elm and by causing the demise of businesses awned and patranized by members of YCCi, In additian, the project may have significant impacts cancerning starmwater and wetlands which would create adverse impacts to resaurces which {~ and its members seek to prated and which cause adverse flaoding impacts to e detri ent of Y'CG and its errzers. .3 The Hearing Examiner's decisian has prejudiced ar is likely to prejudice ~'CY and its members because the site plan approval allows the praject to praceed and adversely affects the embers of ~t'C as stated in ~( ,2. The interests of YC and its .embers are amapg these that the City of Yelm previsions and palicies of the city as expressed in its variaus adapted ... ardinances." l~1C 17.8-.0201. The intent of the C Chapter 17 {which captains the site plan criteria) includes the need to "prated the health, safety and general welfare of the city's residents,,, and "promote sound economic development and prefect property values." ~ 17,03.#320 ( ~ C). It was necess ~ far the City and Examiner to consider the interest of YC and its zxzembers to fulfill these goals. .5 judgment in fever of the I~'C would substantially eliminate ar redress the prejudice that is caused y the land use decisian in this case. judgment in this case finding the Hearing Ex iner's and Cit3,F Council's decisions to e erroneous would result I..A~lI3 IJSE FETIT~C31~1- ~ $ricklin I~e~van Fold, LLI' Atearneys-eat-Law 1t)tll C=nw'rh Avenue, susre ~3Q~ Seatt3e.~'A 9815<# TeL (206j 28~-86t?0 Fay (206} ?li~#-93t~0 1 3 4 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 I 15~ i 16 17~ 18 '' 1' 20 21 22 23 24 25 2~ 27 2 in a reversal of the decisions approving e project and reversal of the decision that the project has only insignificant adverse enviro ental ° pacts, not warranting preparation of an Enviro ental Impact Statement. .6 The petitioner has exhausted its administrative remedies to the extent required by law. 'YCC3 representatives and members testified during the public hearing before the Examiner and submitted written co ants as well. The CCU and individual cc~ unity members appealed the Examiner's decision to the City of 'elm City Council pursuant to C 2.26.150. That appeal was denied. The Ct~'s only recourse remains with this Court. ~TII. A SEPA TE AND Cl+1CISE STATEI~IET i~F Et~.Cfl E ~I.aLEtsEL~ T ASE BEEN C(~ ITTEU 7.1 The Examiner's decision is clearly erroneous because the Examiner failed to consider that the City did not utilise the proper SEI'r~ process for collecting. adequate information prior to the threshold determination. 7.2 The Examiner's decision is clearly erroneous because the Examiner failed to consider that the City staff did not meet its duty to "independently evaluate" 'al- art's information and the evidence before the Examiner demonstrated the need for an :EIS. .3 The x iner's decision is clearly erroneous because the Examiner failed to consider at e City relied on inadequate and inaccurate information provided by the applicant to make its threshold deter ination. The Examiner's decision is clearly erroneous because the Examiner failed to consider evidence at the hearing that supported a nirx~ that the project wou3d have L A~1D I7SE PETITIOI~I - 5 ~3rickiin New~xrzan I?old, Li.P tlttorezeys-at-Latin iC?07 Faurch tOvenue, Suice 33Q3 susttle, SX~A 92~t54 Tel. (2D6) 264-~6t~fl Pae (2G6) 264-43f}0 1 2 3 4 5 7, 1 ~'', it 1 1 l~ 1 1 'T 1 l 2 21 2 3 ~4 ~~ ~~ `7 ,,~~,.~,. L C? significant adverse land use impacts that could not e mitigated and therefore required an Enviro ental Impact Statement ("EIS"~ 7.5 The Exa1 ~ er's decision not to require an Enviro ental .pact Statement is clearly erroneous because the proposal has probable significant adverse enviro ental pacts which requires preparation of an EIS. 7. The Examiner's decision is clearly erroneous because the proposal. does not meet the requirements of all applicable City codes. CC 17.,C. In particular,. al- art failed to eet its burden of demonstrating that it had complied with the City's transportation concurrency requirements, 7.7 The Examiner's decision should e reversed because the Examiner erroneously interpreted the law concerning the City's concurrency analysis. VIII. A CONCISE l-ATE ENT OF E?~C Ud~ ~VIC PETITICIt`~E RELIES TO SI,TSTAIN THE STATEIvIENT OF ERROR S, l Procedural Sack r~ ound . l . l Pacland, Inc. applied (on behalf of Wal- arty to the City of el .for construction includes Gaff street parking for 22 vetZicles. LAND L7SE PETITION - 6 ricklfn l~Tewznan hold, LLP rlttomet°s-at-taw td~t Fourth A~•enue, Suite 33+?3 Seatde,~Flf 98T54 Tel. (20~) 26<t-86Ck) Fax (2Qq'j 2b~-930t) 11 3 5 6 7 14 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 24 21 22 23 24 25 2 27 28 8.1.2 The proposed project is located in the City of 'elm on a sate zoned Large Lot Co ercial, and is located adjacent to SI2 507. 8.1.3 The proposal underwent review by City of Ye Co unity 8.1,4 The applicant's request for a site plan approval and the appeal of the I)S were the subject of a hearing before the elm City Council Heating Examiner conducted from August 2, 2005 through Septet~er 1, 2005. +C~n I~lovember 1, 2045, the Hearing Examiner approved the site plan and rejected the l~i~l~5 appeal. See Exhibit A hereto.} 8.1.5 YCG appealed the I~T~S to the City Hearing Examiner, alleging that e project had probable significant adverse irrtpacts d that an EIS was required. 8,1.6 The DNS decision was not subject to review by the City Council. Only the Site Plan Approval was subject o review y the Council pursuant to MC 2.26.150. ~C~ and individual citizens appealed the site plan approval to the City Council. The Council denied that appeal. (S~e Exhibit B hereto,} I.Al~ll~ LISE FETITI~1 - ? ric4slin l~ewnsan Laid, I.~.P A,CtpmeYS-aC-i..aw 161(11 Faurth Avenue, Suite 3303 Seattle, ~/~'i °8154 Tel. (200) 264-5600 Fas (206) 26~ 9311(1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 13 14 15 1 17 18 1 Zt~ 21 22 23 24 25 27 8.2 Su ar~of Evidence emonstratinErrors in Gig's Decisions. 8.2.1 ~'G and the citizens of ~' presented evidence at the Examiner's hearing demonstrating that the Val-Dart project will have probable significant adverse impacts on elm's enviro ent. For purpose of giving the other parties notice of our cla' s, we incorporate y reference the post-hearing briefs we submitted to the Examiner. 8.2.2 The project will likely work a ajar transformation in the Yel co ercial district forcing the closure of many business, shifting the co ercial core from its present location to the ~Nal-~%iart site, and potentially leaving the heart of helm struggling with urban Might for years to come, 8.2.3 There is no indication on either the submitted EPA checklist or in 8.2.4 The applicant provided no supplemental information regarding urban blight and related land use issues. 8.2.5 Evidence presented by r. anon oarnet and numerous citizens indicated that the project would have probable significant adverse ' .pacts in the context of land use and urban blight. Testimony indicated that project would have three major .pacts; a. It would effectively ove the downtown core from its current site to the sate of dal- art's proposal; ricklin 1`+Tean Fold, LLP Attorneys-at-Law 1Q02 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3303 Settle, CIA 9815 p p ~qq~ ~y~+~+ Tp TT A7 q Tea. ('206) 26~-8606 A...L"~iY L! b..1.7i:.C ~Tl'. S l~hf tJ Fos (2Q6~ 26.1-9300 ~, 2 4 5 6 8 9 l l 1. l2 13 l4 1S l I 17j 1 ~I l9' ~~ 2 21 22 23 24 25 2~ 27 8.2.6 The City of Yel will e detr° entally affected by tremendous amounts of additional traffic generated y the project, As the citizens demonstrated, the Wal-i4lart traffic will negatively impact safety, the provision of a critical public service education), and even mental health. 8,2.7 Evidence presented at the hearing indicated that traffic volumes at 8.2.8 lwrlost of the data revealing these pacts was buried in abstruse appendices submitted y Wal-Mart's traffic consultant. The report appeared to e designed to shed as little light as possible. on the traffic issues. An EIS would have farce the disclosure of this important information. 8,2.9 The City's EA analysis failed to consider alternative methods for assessing level of service pacts and failed to consider the project's long-term transportation ° pacts. LAND LTSE PETITION - 9 ~riek]in Newman Dotd, LLP attorneys-ac-I.asv 1007 Po~snl~ A4eenue, suite 3303 Seattle, t~UA 98154 Tel. (2t1G) 26~-860ti Faic (2Q6) 26493t?4 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 13 1 15 16 17 1 1 20 21 22 23 2~ 25 26 27 2S 8.2.10 The City's SEPA alysis failed to consider e project's traffic impacts on future development potential in the City. $,2.11 Calculations in the project's traffic analysis understated the ° .pact that the probable traffic congestion would have at the It 507/SR 510 intersection. 8.2,12 The project traffic analysis failed to take into account the large nu bar of pedestrians (including school children) attempting to cross Yelm Avenue, 8.2.13 The City's SEPA analysis was based on incomplete information regarding potentially signifzcant groundwater i pacts. The data available to the City contained considerable uncertainty as to the groundwater level beneath the project's proposed stormwater pond. dal-Mart's consultants only ,guessed as to what the groundwater levels would e during the wettest months of the year and during particularly wet years, In addition, dal- art's extrapolated groundwater levels did not etch data available on-site and adjacent to the site. 5,2,1 The City's SEPA analysis was based on into. plate information a wetland deterinationldelineation. $.2.15 liven the foregoing and other evidence in the record, the Court should find that there was not substantial evidence in the record to support the Ex iner's findings LA~II~ I.TSE FETITIN - 10 ricklira I`*l`ewaex Datd, LLP Ataomevs-at-Law 100i Fourkh Avenue, Suite 33(13 Seactte, WA 9$154 Tei. (206} :648600 FaY (206126493EM1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 1 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 i 1$ 19 2 21 ~', 22 'I 23 2 2S 2~ 27 2$ and conclusions that the project would nut have probable significant adverse enviro ental impacts and would not require a EIS, $.2.16 A site plan ca of e approved unless a proposal complies with the City's transportation concurrency ordinance, According to a1- .art's own transportation analysis, intersections along Sl2 S7 do not satisfy the City's concurrenc requirements. $.2,17 'The City's LQS standards are found in its Comprehensive in the urban core, LQS 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 pla ed, funded and imple ented, $.2.1$ There was not substantial evidence provided y Wal- art car the Cit~T at the hearing that there are any "traffic diversions, bypasses, alternate routes or alternate modes of transportation" that are being "pla ed, funded and implemented" that would mitigate the current traffic congestion on Ylm Avenue. $.2,19 As acl~.nnowledged y testimony at the hearing multiple methods are available to calculate LQS. 'The Ex er's (and staff's) use of o y one available method ignored congestion along it'elm Avenue that would result in LQS E or ~' at various additional intersections as well as along the length of Yelm Avenue itself (using the "urban street LS" method). LAI~iD USE PETITIQI~I - 11 Br~cki3n ~'ewan Dald, LLI~ 1~ttome~~s-ac-Law fl4h~1 F~tuth Avenue, Suite X343 Seattle, WA 9&154 Tel. (2GO 2b3-8Gt2~ Fax (2s~6) ~.G4-930p 1 2 3 5 6 i 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15~ 1 17 18 19 i. 20 21' 22 23 24 '' 25 2s 27 8.2.20 The City applied e wrong level of service standard to test traffic concurrency on the state roads that run through helm and which will be heavily hnpacted by this project. The City applied its own level of service standards for the state routes yet C~V 4'7.80.030 dictates that the level of service on the state routes e established by the regional transportation pla ing organization. 'The City erred in not applying those more stringent standards here. I EIJEST F® REI.IEE 9,1 Petitioner elm Co .arcs Clroup requests the following relief: 9,1,1 order requiring the City of el to submit to the Court a certified copy of the non-duplicative and relevant portions of the administrative record for judicial review; 9,1.2 ~n order reversing the airing Examiner's approval of the site plan and SEA review; 9.1.3 ~4n order directing the City to prepare an EIS; 9.1..4 n order reversing the City of Yelm's City Council .decision upholding the Hearing Exarriiner's decision to approve the site plan; 9.1.5 n award of petitioner's statutory attorney's fees and costs; LAI~I~ L1SE PETITIQN - 12 Bsicklin Newman bold, LLi' :4ttame}'s-at-Law 1oQl Poucch!1e~enue, Suzte 333 Seattle, W'A 9$754 Tel. (~06) 264-$6(?C? Fie (~06) 2(4-93Qt3 1' 2i 1 5' 6 7 8 9 10 ~~ 12 13 16 17 1 I i 19 i 20 I 21 22 23 25 2~ 27 24.5 9.1.6 Any ether relief deemed necessary by the c~~.rt, aced this _~ day ~ 3ana~ary, 2006. aspect lly sub `tied, C II`3 E~ Ahi ~QLD~ Lip YCG\Superioc\Land Use Petition ~ANI~ USA I'ETITIt~N - 1 BflCln Newman I~oIc3, LAP attorneys-ac-Caw 'l441 Fa~zrdx avenue, Seize 3343 5eattie, wa'~8154 'Fci. {2116) 2tS4-S6f10 Fav (24?6) 264-934?4 FiCE THE ER1 l SCI QF YEL~ PC?RT ECtS! O 2205 tGKLt E AN OL£? LP A ,E .; APP-5-1~Y ~ - ~~ i t3CE TER PP~IA, ~': PAC , Ino. ft~ Coi~senbia tenet ~lV, Saito t~ (~?lymi, Ot~l~l 5t?1 RfJPEF2 NEB: l-M~rt tors, Ino, 2L`1 SE `" street Bntonvifle, R ?27`32-6 PPLC T' TTOR3~IEY: Jahn C. 3V3cC~a33oh cCullouh iil Fis4co Frtsomer zenith Dixon 2025 Hest Avenue, ate. ~ 134 Seatt3e, A 12~-21 APEL3_I~NT: ~'e1m Commerce Group ,G. Box 165 'felm, 1P~A 9857 PELLeA T' _~_ ~ ~' 4 AY ;~ APPAL: The Yl Commerce group filed an appeal of the S issued ors June , 2C~5. laid appeal was filed on June 3g, g5, citing probable significant adverse irr~pacts on the environment, t1 ARY t3F C?EClSIC} : Request granted, subject to conditions, L1G HEAR3NC: Auer reviewing Planning and Community C?evelopment staff Report and examining available information on fie with the application, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the request as 'follows; The hearings were conducted on August g, August C~, and September 1, gg. Parties wishing to testify were sworn in y the Examiner. The following exhibits were submitted and made a part of the record as follows: e_ 7b I Frances Easfey 2~c Jana Shia 7 6~iann~ 3unnell 2~e Jahn Soanrman ~7f Rory B. Seaner 27g Char Hayes a~_ _~ __ { __ _~_ _~_ 1t7 Report -Retail 1Nix in ~scansin'~ "Tiny To~ans~ Repart -The ~~c~nomi~ impact ~f a1-dart uper~ente~s on ~cist'rng Businesses in 11 ~A:_..._~..,,.. .._ _~T _~~_ t~T~: ~empiete reccard of this hearing is available in the Difi~ cif eEm Gammnity Development Department D1 GS CC~NCLUSIQ AND L~ECISIQ Environmental checklist {l~larch, 2~. Phase Qne Environmental Site Assessment prepared y Zipper Zeman ASSOiates, dated December, ~.C~~. C. Site reconnaissance Deport prepared y ~"alasaea dated Jant~ar~, Q5. _~_ 1TE PLA ~V1~ _~~_ The site is located ~nrithin the Large Lot Commercial ~C8} zone classi~icatic~n as set forth in Chapter ~ 7.28 of the Yelm unicipal Code ~YIv~C;. section ~1.2i~.011~1~1 sets forth the intent of the C zone classification in part as: section 17.28.050 Y C desrss the site area for a C3 use in part; Minimum size of any parcel to subdi~rded or de~reloped through the binding site plan shall result in at least 75% of the site remaining in one parcel or commercial pad.,.. section °~ 7.28.060 Y'N1C requires setbacs cf 1 frorr~ a3i property lines and aert"son 17.28.080 Yi~C authorizes a maximum height of structures of 55 feet. The Yelm ~, 4 _ pity council adopted zoning for the site and area y rdinanee 555 n gg5. Thin, the site has remained within the ,zone classification for approximately the past 10 years. The G zone auth~aries large, retail, orramercial uses to incla.~de a al-IVlart Supercenter subject to obtaining site plan review approval. 5. Chapter °I°7. YN1 sets forth the criteria fer life flan revie' section 17.~G(~) YI~I provides that a proposed site plan must: ...onfo to the standards, provisions and policies of the city as expressed in its various adopted plans and ordinances including the applicable sections of the shoreline master program for the Thurston Region _, ~- 3. t~~sr erts hive explained the uree ~f S€~ revie~~v a filews: _~~_ 14. do making its th~eshcalcl eterr~tinaticaaa the l~ cs~~iere Section 1.04.x}5 `~il~'lC9 pe~tion et the City's S~l~'A vales, which sets Earth ~ielines by which to measure the significance of environmental impacts as fvllov~m _, °~ espite the abovep the ~ identif,ed areas where the suprcenter would create significant impacts and imposed measures tc mitigate said impacts. The 14tDNS requires the applicant tc implement the fcilcwin mitigating measures: . construct the fol(ewing transper`ati;~n imprc~er~nents; . Provide a secure, prvate space cf at least 1g square feet within the building w~~_ for use by the elm l~'oiice Department and the southeast Thurston ire~E~IS, and provide one parking space dedicated for emergency vehicles. ~;. The appellant submitted both expert and lay testimony challenging the 1DlS in four areas: _~_ Qi'i lt~t streets. The appellants asser~ that due tc the hove unrritlated significant adverse envirc~nrr~ental impacts, the l~ should have issued a l~ and required preparation Q an I, E~' D~ _2~_ directed more toward code compliance and enforcement as apposed `~ inadequate EPA review. TOE T _~~ _~_ and communications). ~ls may consider whether housing is lo~v, middle, or high income. °~hu, the SPA ales do not require n ~1S to discuss economic competition, socio° economic issues, or gage structures. F~V~ °~ x.11 ~}~1)(~, cited y the above 1/~1A, lists the elements of the environrr~ent necessary for consideration in an CIS as. .,,public services and utilities {such as water, seg~rer, schools, fire and police protection, transportation, environmental health such as explosive materials and toxic ~vaste~, and land and sl iorelirse use. _~~_ ~~- Rule- Thumb 1: focal merchants that sell merchandise different rom the supercenter or other big box stores tend tc fare weii and may grin sales as the additional tragic generated by the big stores spills aver into their stores. Rule-C~f--Thumb 2 is not so pleasant: ~.ocai merchants that sell the same merchandise o the big stores will probably face a reduction in sales because of the dif~iculty in competing with rr~ajor chains, _2_ the impacts of supercenters to include VYai-Mart rr~oving into the San Francisco day area f California. A section entitled "implications for the grocery industry" {Page 21 of 104} assesses the impacts cif spercenters on the total S grocery market and specifically traditional superrraarktsm ~. in the section entitled "alai-lVlart in mural Communities" (Page 04 of 104), l~r. Boarnt reiterates the f€ndings of the Mississippi study, Said section points out that businesses which cannot successfully compete with i1Va1-Mart do close. However, the study does not support a conclusion that the Yelm commercial area =gill suffer blight from a ~rholesale closure of businesses or that buildings housing stores which do Close will remasn vacant. ~~~_ SC)RTAT3 _~_ ii) Adequately addressed in tie ereensie play, sub-area plan, applicable eueleprr~er~t requlatic~r~s, er ether l~acai, state, r federal raise r lags by: _2g_ 's ~'he City of Yelm Comprehensive Plan and Joint Plan with Thurston Cour°`ty adapted pursuant to l~lr~ by the `helm Cit' Council on 1"'ebruary 22, 1g~, provides i Chapter ~Il(A}, entitled "Transportation": In section `~fl(C} entitled "1_evels of service (l~ a}" the comprehensive plan reads; The City of Yelm is bisected y two state highways in the urban care which operate at or near failed levels of ervic®, when measured on the A-F scale used by the Thurston regional Planning Council for intersection and turning mavemnts. It is the policy of elm to disperse rather than to concentrate trafif`ic through the urban care to promote a free flow of traffic throughout the community. it is the policy of `elm to adopt levels of service for concurrency and planning purposes which will promote development of transportation alternatives, both routes and methods of transport, rather than continue to enlarge the existing arterials. For concurrency purposes, the following standards shall ppiy in the Urban growth Area: _3~_ ~euelcme~t stanc~ars shall lderttiy the method ~ I_ rr~easurernet acs irralemer~tatiee~.... Subsection ~fl(E) er~titie "Irr~'mentatior~ o~ ~°rasor~tion Plans" provides ire fast; _~~.~ 4~. ~'he s~almnai TdA sows ghat ar~xirrat~Iy °,fo cif chicle frig fi~ and fr~r-n _?~_ _~~- -3~ r, Shea testified that frorr~ at least the late 1 gOs the Cite has had concerns regarding traffic congestion and decided t mitigate said congestion by dispersing trafl"TC as opposed tea concentrating i through the urban core, Tl se City believes that such will promote a free flow of traffic throughout the community. Recording to Nlr, rhea, the City will rr€itigate congestion y constructing tn~ bypass route and by creating ether alternate routes through the City.ld~Ial-Mart will construct _~_ the pertien o the Y` 'ua~s betwe¢n S-~ and 1`~ Street. ~) Shall preside that predi~ral deterrnintic~n~ made by the repc~nsile ef€icial shall b entitled to substantial weight. - C)ur asingte~r~ Supreme Court interpreted the "substantial weight" requirement in enatche° Sportsmen v Chelan County, 141 fin. d 1 ~,2C30), as fc~llcws: _~,_ CLUSIt~ S: 1. The tearing Examiner has jurisdiction to consider and deo`sde the issues presented by this request. 2. The applicant has established that the request for site plan review approval satisfies the criteria set forth in Chapter 17.84 ~'~i1C. 8, The appellant has not shown that the Responsible C~ffecial was clearly erroneous in its issuance of the nt1DN The MCI provides sufficient information to evaluate the l-IV~art uperoenter's environments! impacts. 4, The environmental appeal of the `helm commerce Croup should e denied. The PAC l~lg, Inc, request for site plan review approval should be granted subject to the following conditions: , -38- 5. on completion of the onsite installation pursuant to fil ~e Gita's tie*reloment C.~uidelines, the a.T.~.P. s'ver equipt~ent, appurtenances and Lines shall be conveyed to the itt~, and n easemenfi provided for aintenance, ~ ~ rr~inimum of C} total ar~ir~ spaces ( feet y feet rninir~'zum spaces. _~_ ~" accessible spaces pursuant to the ashington Mate Ar~ndrnents o the Building Codes. ~' rninir~nurn o 4 leading areas. . The civil plans shall include a complete detailed landscape plan in accordance with Chapter 3 C, including provisions for Irrigation and for maintenance o landscaping. The landscape buffer along the frontages of a 5t and Sly. ~ '"elm Loop shall provide parking lot screening according to the design guidelines applicable to the gateway district. The screening shat! incorporate a cor~nbination of the following design elements: The landscaping plan shall Include the plan for parking !ot screening information. 2, The intersection of ~R 507 and the Sly 510 °~`I~ Loop staait incline corner nhanoerr:ents consistdnt'~ult the Qesign uidelir~es for the _Q_ ateway district that include the following elements: °l~e landscaping plan shall include the plan for corner enhancement. ~7. °There shall be no overnight recreational vehicle parking can the site. 8. The site plan is effective for eighteen (~ ~ rnonth~ from the date of th'ss approval. If application for a building permit is not rr'aade within the eighteen -; month period, the approva# sha## automatics#1y terminate.. The applicant may request ssix-month extension of the arova#, if the request is made in writing prior to the expiration date of this sp~srovs#. 1S#C3 ; The appea# of the Yet Commerce Group of the e#m Responsib#e C~fficia#'s dewis~c~n to issue a 1Vlitigated Determinstis~n of Nonsigni~csnce is hei"eby denied, The splicstin of PAC. I~1L~, #nc., for site p#sn review approvs# to s##ou+r construction of a a#- art Superstore is hereby granted subject to the conditions contained in the conclusions above. TRA S l ~L3 this °~~` day csf 1+~Joverrzber, 2005, tc~ the following: PLI T; PAC Q, Inc. X05 Co#uia Street 111~tV, Suite 106 Q#yia, f3PER fl NER: a#-~1srt Stores, lnc. 2001 S~ 10~` Street Bentonvi#le, A 72712-6489 PLI T°S C?F2 ~ John C. l~ilcCu##ugh~Courtn Flors 1Cu#lough i## Fiso Fretscr Smith Dixon 2025 First Avenue, Ste. ~ 130 Saifi#e, iI~FA 93121-2`100 PP~LLA ~': ~e#m Commerce f~rcup P.Q. 13ox 1616 `te#m, A 98597 _~_ i f `~e1 rent sec ami errirn~n °105 '~1rn Avenue est a~ 479 ~'e1m, asington 98597 fee Attached siting List -~- { CC? S1~E T~ Any interested pa or agency of record, oral or written, that disagrees with the decision of the hearing examiner may make written request for reconsideration y the hearing examiner. said request sha{{ set forth specific ewers re{sting to: Erroneous procedures; B, Errors of {avu objected to at the public hearing y the person requesting reconsideration; {ncomp{ete record; An error in interpreting the cor~nprehensive plan or other re{avant materia{; or ~, env{y discovered material evidence vuich was not vai{ab{e at the tune f the whatever reason. ~"he request must be f{ed no later than g p. . on ovmber 1 200 ~°{ days from t~nailin) w{th the Community live{ornent ea~tment 1 ~{e{m avenue es, Ye{m, ~~7. Tls request shall soft forth the bases for reconsideration as {united by the __ above. a hearing examiner shall review said request in ii ht of the record and take such further action as he deems proper. The hearing examiner ay request further information hick shah be prodded within 10 days of the request, 2. PF'~L. F EX IN€R'S EClSi :The final decision by the ~xarrainer rr~ay be appealed to the city council, by any aggrieved person or agency of record, oral or written that disagrees with the decision of the hearing examiner; except threshold date inations ~° C 15.49, ~ g~ in accordance with section 2.6. °l g of ti ~e ~leirr~ unicipal Code ~` C}. T~: In an effort to avoid confusion at the tirr~e of ~iiing a request for reconsideration, please attach this page to the request for reconsideration, _~_ r. Chris Dube s. Cindy Teixeira ~. Carolyn Giaarco Box `elder PMB 377 isqually Valley ~vs Box 2456 100°1 Cooper Pt. Rd. S Bte 140 PC3 Box 597 910 Algiers ®rive C~lyrrtpia, A 98502. ~ Yelm, A 98597 ~ Yel A 9859? r. Roger Gellenbeck ~ arcia cHattie City of Tm~uater Rev• r, Richard Baruch Bcx 1103 PG Bcx 1Q13 13033 lVliiitary Road 88 555 lsraei Road Rainier, V~fA 98576 Tmvuater, V11A 98501 ~ Rainier, WA 98576 l~fs. Rene®' Cahn s. Christine Hartman s. T'ischia G'Farrior 9333 Bridge Road SE P Bcx 806 16415 Pleasant Beach C?rive Yelm, ViIA 98597 Tenino,lNA 93589 'yeim, i~A 98597 r. Bill lai}icholls r. Robert Hastings s. Heidi Bmith PG Box 2107 PG Box 3029 22021 Elboiw Lake Road Yelrn, UVA 98597 'helm, A 9859? Yelr°n, A 98597 9s. Susan Bv~rart~ l1~ls. FCaren f~ougherty s. Fern Raese PG Bcx 68 16942 }-folly St, BE `f2907 Vail Road SB rainier, ~fllA 98576 'elm, i~11A 98597 "Yelm, CIA 98597 s, l~iadine Chantry s. Barb Ver .Alison Barker 33906 102nd Ave 8 P Box 278 Ray 15330 l1~lcKee Lane BB Roy,1J~IA 98580 11~'A, 08580 1~elrn, VVA 98507 its. Gloria V~linnick r. Robert Patrick r. James ~ukovvski P Box 1776 PG Bcx 858 °18717 Sorenson road 17843 Lake Point Crive 14.801 Fox Hilf 4oad 815 Yelm, VIA 98597 elm, OVA 98587 elm, WA 98597 r. Con ~tlcCulloch r. Bugene Ballard l~r1s. l~fancy Ballard 19341 Cougar lVlt. Airport Rd SE 17114 153rd Ave 8 17114 153rd Ave BE X18 elm, USA 98597-9080 Yelm, A 98597 `lelm, VIA 98597 s. Jean Handley s. Linda Powell s. Heather acy PJ Bcx 1657 PG Bcx 891 4305 Fir Tree Road B helm, V~lA 98597 'Y`elrn, WA 9859?' Glympia, A 98501 l~1. ~Jikki Bimolke s. Cathy Blfedge s, yrtle Pinney 21928 Hobson Road P Box 184 17338 154th V"Jay `telm, ~'JA 37597 cPenna, U~iA 98558 `(elrn, ~tA 98597 ~i is Ye6 esolutian o.46Q City of Yeirn Resolution 460 pity of Ylrr~ Resolution 4611 i '? 3 5 '~ ~ I I I I' ~~ ~~ q~® ~t~y d +.' yF~~ L i l I 2 23 4 2 7 L.(~ ~~i THE ~.TPE CSR CART ®F T E ~''I'E (.~P' VVASNGTc~ I ~l'~D FQR'~'IILT S°TC~N CLi'TY YEL COMMERCE CaRQ~.TP, Petitioner, vA CITY C)F f,~1~~;~)1~P{~.F}T~~^~. ryaI.,T~~1Ti1'{~^T~, Ii'~C. ~ and T TJI.1~ L~P6JL~~. A lawsuit has been started against you in the above-entitled Court y Yelm Co arse CJroup, petitioner. Petitioner's cla` is stated i the written Land ITse Petition, a copy of which is served upon you with this u ons. You may demand that the petitioner Ie this Lawsuit with e Court. f you do so, the demand must ire in writing and must be served upon the petitioner. Vi~ithin 14 days after V i~'~LVi~LY ~ - 3 ~ricklin Newman ~?mpd, LLF Attorneys-at-Law 9t?~1 Fourth Avenue, Suite 393 Seattle, WA 9&t54 Tel. (2flC,j 264-8((H} Fax (2t?6) 2fi4-93(1 1 2 4 S 7 S l 11 l? 3.3 14 l ~~ ~~ ~pp C) you serve the demand, the petitioner must Ella is Lawsuit with the court, or the service can you of this Su ons will be void. I you wish to seek e advice o an attorney in is laaatter, you should do so promptly so that your written response, i~ any, may be served on t` e. This Su ons is issued pursuant to Rule 0~ the Superior court ivi1 Rules of the State of Washington. Dated this ~ day of January, 0. espectfully submitted, 'Y~GOSuperior\summ©ns aJ V LY11Y1V~sJ - .G ricklin I~~wrxxan Fold, LLI' Atts~mey°s-at-Cato 4001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3303 Seattle, WA 98154 Tel. {26fi) 264-8bt)0 Far (206} 264-93(JO I 3 4 6 I 7~ i S 9 Its 11 1'~ 13 1 ~- I5 2 l7 yy i? 1 2l 2 23 i 24 5 26 7 G9 N THE SUPERIt~I~ fJLTT C) THE STATE OF V~ASINT IN AND FC3P THUI~ST(~N CC?UNT~' EL QIVIEE I2C}U, a ~lashinton non-profit corporation, Petitioner, ~. N . ELAI~ATIC~N F SERIGE CITY F HELM; PACLAN, INC.; and ~'AL-MART STARES, INC, STATE F ASHINTN ) 4..,V t1 ~TT~ F N1..7 ! I, DANIEL . D EI, under penalty of perjury under e laws of the State of i~ashinton, declare as follows; I am the legal assistant for Briclin New.. an old, LLP, attorneys for 'elm ~onimerce Group, petitioner herein. ~}n the date and in e ma er indicated below, I caused the Land Use Petition and Su ons to e served on: DEtELARATI~N ~?F SERVICE - I $ricklin I~ewrnan Raid, LLP 1ttt~mev~-at-Law 1003 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3303 Beattie, WA 98154 'TeE. {2Ck6) 264-8C,{X) Fat (246j 264-43Qt~ 1i I 2~ 3~ 4~ i 5i I 6 7 9 10' 11 12 1 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 22 23 ~~ :~~i City of Yel 105 elm .Avenue West ,. Box 479 Yelm, A 9$579 [ ] By United States Mail y Legal Messenger By Fats` ile [ y Federal Express/Express ail [ ] By E-Mail I'ACLAND, Inc, 606 Columbia Street NW, Suite 106 lympia, WA 98501 By tTnited States ail [ ~ By Legal Messenger [ ~ By Facsimile y Federal Express/Express ail [ ] By E- ail WaI-Mart Store, Inc. 2001 SE 10`'' Street Bentonville, AR. `72712-6489 By I.lnited States Mail ] y Legal Messenger [ ] By Facs` ile [ ] By Federal ExpresslExpress Mail [ ~ By E-Mail YCGiSuperioriLlecsv DECL:AR~4TIt~N t~F SERVICE - 2 rieklzn Newman I)otd, LLF t5ttamevs-ax-Lacy 1001 E~urdx 11~enue, Suite 3303 Seattle, SG'A 98i 54 Te!- {20~ 264-8600 Fa~c (206) 264938(3