Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10/06/2015 07 Union Gospel Mission Expansion; Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision
BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. 7. For Meeting of. October 6, 2015 ITEM TITLE: Public meeting for an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision upholding the approval of an expansion of the Union Gospel Mission clinic, parking and residential area, 1300 N 1st Street SUBMITTED BY: Joan Davenport, AICP Community Development Director Trevor Martin, Assistant Planner (509) 575 -6162 SUMMARY EXPLANATION: Public meeting for an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision upholding the approval of an expansion of the Union Gospel Mission clinic, parking and residential area, 1300 N 1st Street. The Hearing Examiner Public Hearing may be viewed at the following location: http: / /205.172.45.1 O/C ablecast/Public /Show. aspx?Channe]ID=2& S howlD=683 9 Resolution: Other (Specify): Contract: Start Date: Item Budgeted: Funding Source/Fiscal Impact: Strategic Priority: Insurance Required? No Mail to: Phone: APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: RECOMMENDATION: Ordinance: Contract Term: End Date: Amount: Improve the Built Environment City Manager City Staff recommends City Council conduct the public hearing and consider testimony from the closed record hearing. ATTACHMENTS: Description Upload Date Type D Pairt 1 of Ck.)rnjple e Rcxxrd L.Jinlion Gospell Assion 9/25/2015 IBacII<nplP IIaGeirii aII Aplr.x.)all D Pain 2 of Cbrnjple e Rcxxrd L.Jinlion Gospell Missibin 9/25/2015 IBacII<nplP IIaGeirii aII Aplr.x.)all D Pain 3 of Cbrnjple e Rcxxrd L.Jinlion Gospell Missibin 9/25/2015 IBacII<nplP IIaGeirii aII Aplr.x.)all UNION GOSPEL MISSION APP #005 -15 (APP #002 -15 — CL2 #019 -14 & CL2 #004 -15) City Council Closed Record Public Hearing October 6, 2015 Applicant: Appellant: File Numbers: Site Address: Staff Contact: Legal Department Contact: EXHIBIT LIST Union Gospel Mission (CL2 #019 -14 & CL2 #004 -15) William Brado/Yakima Gateway Organization (APP #002 -15 & APP #005 -15) APP #005 -15 (APP #002 -15 — CL2 #019 -14 & CL2 #004 -15) 1300 North I" Street Trevor Martin, Assistant Planner Mark Kunkler, Senior Assistant City Attorney Table of Contents CHAPTER A Staff Report CHAPTER B Class 2 Review — Parking Lot (CL2 #019 -14) CHAPTER C Class 2 Review — Health Care Clinic (CL2 #004 -15) CHAPTER D Appeal (APP #002 -15) CHAPTER E Exhibits Submitted for HE Public Hearing CHAPTER F Hearing Examiner's Interim Decision & Briefs CHAPTER G Hearing Examiner's Final Decision CHAPTER H Appeal to City Council (APP #005 -15) UNION GOSPEL MISSION APP #005 -15 (APP #002 -15 — CL2 #019 -14 & CL2 #004 -15) EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER A Staff Report , ,,,,,��, A -1 ........ ........................ _ ....... ..._._. Staff Report ............M ........ _.............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ........ .... .... ............................... �. ........................... ............................... 06/17/2015 .................. ........................... ... ............. _ (70, 'r 't;%"1 "SIT D TIP,' It 's, ` "D 'IIARI '1A' l!'N " planning DiNsie,on " mone (509) W 6,18? 6,1115 APPEAL OF CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15 LAND USE APPLICATION DECISIONS June 17, 2015 APPEAL DESCRIPTION: The City of Yakima Department of Community Development received an appeal for the Class (2) #019 -14 and Class (2) #004 -15 land use application decisions on May 01, 2015. The reasons for appeal are documented below. APPELLANT: LOCATION: PARCEL NUMBER: LEAD AGENCY: FILE NUMBER: William Brado 1300 N. 1 st St 18131311504 City of Yakima, Washington APPEAL #002 -15 FINDINGS: Zoning History of Union Gospel Mission at this Location: On February 13, 1992, at the request of the City of Yakima (City), a Use Interpretation was initiated by the City Hearing Examiner (Examiner). The purpose of the interpretation, as defined by the Examiner's interpretation INT# 1 -92, was to review the nature of the activities conducted by the Union Gospel Mission (UGM), and determine whether those activities fit within an existing land use classifications of the City's zoning ordinance. Also, in the event that there was no acceptable category of land use, a new land use and level of review would be established and defined. The Examiner defined the activities provided by the UGM as a range of services including: spiritual and material support, meals both on and offsite, clothing and other staples, dental clinics, foot clinic, shower and similar facilities, residential facilities, youth center, food and lodging facilities for homeless men and families, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, dormitory and family shelter, dining and kitchen facilities, auditorium, gymnasium, and maintenance repair shops. The uses primarily reviewed by the Examiner included: Community Center, Halfway House, Detention Centers, Hospitals, Group Home, High Density Multi - Family Dwelling Units, and Boarding Houses. The zoning districts considered included the Central Business District (CBD), Central Business District Support (CBDS) (Currently known as General Commercial (GC)), and Light Industrial Zoning District (M -1). On February 27, 1992, the Examiner issued his Use Interpretation stating that "The combination of uses typified by the UGM shall be characterized as a "Mission, " subject to Class (2) Review in the Central Business District (CBD) and Central Business District Support (CBDS) zones." The Examiner went on to define the Mission use as "...a facility typically owned or operated by a public agency or non - profit corporation, providing a variety of services for the disadvantaged, DOC• IND`X .m typically including but not limited to temporary housing for the homeless, dining facilities, health and counseling activities, whether or not of a spiritual nature, with such services being generally provided to the community at large." On July 10, 1992, the City of Yakima processed and issued a Class (2) Review CL (2) #10 -92 to locate the UGM at 1300 North First Street, subject to three conditions of approval. On July 24, 1992, the Yakima Gateway Organization appealed the Administrative Official's decision for CL(2) #10 -92 to the Examiner on the grounds that: 1) the Administrative Official did not have authority to consider the UGM's application; 2) the Administrative Official's refusal to consider comments was unlawful; 3) the proposed use was incompatible with the uses surrounding it; 4) the proposed use would adversely impact adjoining property values; and 5) the proposal lacked adequate parking. On October 20, 1992, the Examiner rendered his interpretation on the application submitted by the Yakima Gateway Organization upholding the Administrative Official's decision to approve the CL(2) #10 -92 application, to allow the UGM to locate at 1300 N. 1 st Street. On June 9, 1995, at the request of the UGM, the Examiner issued a second use interpretation, amending the previous 1992 interpretation, reaffirming the uses considered to be part of the Mission definition to: "churches, community centers, day care centers half -way houses, hospitals, correctional facilities, libraries, and schools ", and allowing the Mission use to be considered in the M -1 zoning district. History of Applications Subject to Appeal: On December 2, 2014, the Union Gospel Mission submitted an application, CL2 #019 -15, for a proposal to pave a new parking lot that is 13,000 square feet in size and consists of 34 standard parking spaces and two handicapped parking spaces. On December 18, 2014, a Notice of Application mailing was sent out to parties of record and residents within 300 feet of the Union Gospel Mission. One public comment was received during this 20 day public comment period. Upon further investigation, there was an error in our mailing system that did not generate an address for every party of record and every residence within the 300 foot notification radius. This error was not known until March 27, 2015. • On January 20, 2015, the City of Yakima issued a decision, for approval with conditions. • On February 6, 2015, a Certificate of Zoning Review (CZR) was issued for the CL2 #019 - 14 project at parcel 18131311504 for the 34 space parking lot owned by the Union Gospel Mission. On March 3, 2015, The Union Gospel Mission submitted an application, CL2 #004 -15, for the proposal to construct a new 3,585 square foot healthcare clinic and a 5,688 square foot residential second floor. • On March 17, 2015, a Notice of Application and mailing was sent out to parties of record and residents within 300 feet of the Union Gospel Mission. Four written public comments were received during this time. DOC- Appeal 9002-15 2 INDEX • On March 27, 2015, it was brought to the attention of the City that some of the surrounding property owners did not receive notice for CL2 #019 -14, for the 34 space parking lot for the UGM. • On March 30, 2015, a Stop Work Order was placed on the UGM parking lot project, which is still in place. • On April 17, 2015, the City of Yakima issued a decision, for approval with conditions. On May 1, 2015, the City of Yakima Planning Division received an Appeal from William Brado regarding the decisions for both applications CL2 #004 -15 and CL2 #019 -14. Land Use Application and Conditions Imposed Upon the Subject Property: The following conditions were imposed upon the subject property of Tax Parcel Number: 181313 - 11504. 0 CL2 #10 -92 1. Eighty -two (82) parking spaces shall be required. 2. A fence, consisting of a combination of solid wall and wrought iron or similar material, at least 6 feet high, shall be built north of the general entrance area to the motel property, running from North First Street west to the south end of the eastern most wing of the building. 3. A gate onto the property should be constructed within the entrance way to the parking lot from North First Street. 4. A bus pull out shall be constructed along the frontage of North First Street, eliminating the existing small parking lot south of the driveway entrance way. 5. The M -1 property on both parcels shall not be utilized by the mission pending further land use approvals. The M -1 property on both parcels shall be fenced from the CBDS property. Fencing may be of woven wire or equivalent, designed to deter physical access to the M -1 portions of the property. 6. One free - standing sign shall be permitted, limited to 30 feet in height, with no readerboard. 7. The alleyway between the Lewis property and the motel site shall be resurfaced pursuant to the direction of the Yakima City Engineer. 8. The primary entrance to the Mission for Mission clients shall not be located on North First Street. • CL2 #10 -95 1. A total of 82 parking spaces are required, some of which may be located within the M -1 zoning district as reflected on the site plan. All 82 spaces shall be hard surfaced, with appropriate storm drainage designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Appeal #002-15 3 INDEX 2. Six oversized parking spaces, as reflected on the site plan, shall be created for temporary recreational vehicle parking. All six spaces shall be serviced with water, sewer, and electrical connections. The spaces may be graveled, and seal coated as necessary. These spaces shall be fenced, with the fencing designed to include a turnaround at the west terminus of the east/west alley. This terminus area shall also be graved and serve in lieu of a formal cul -de -sac or hammerhead turnaround. 3. The perimeter of the Mission site under the actual use shall be fenced. Future development of play fields or basketball courts will be permitted without subsequent review, all as indicated on the site plan, provided the areas are fenced with appropriate gates. 4. The shop, loading dock, and warehouse are approved as shown on the site plan subject to the condition that no client vehicle maintenance or repair shall be permitted, except on an emergency basis. 5. The prior Class 2 decision, dated October 19, 1992, is hereby amended to delete Condition 3(D), page 32 of that decision. The existing curb cut and approach apron between the curb and existing sidewalk shall be replaced with standard barrier curb consistent with existing curbing (see item number 4 in CL2 #10 -92 above). 6. The fencing condition contained in the original Class 2 decision, Condition 3(E), is also deleted. This condition prohibited Mission use of M -1 property, and required all M -1 property to be fenced, prohibiting access from the CBDS property. Class 2 approval of proposed Mission activities on M -1 property negates the need for this prior condition (see item number 5 in CL2 #10 -92 above). CL2 #019 -14 1. ...this project requires YMC Title 12 improvements, including but not limited to the following: YMC § 12.05 — Sidewalk will need to be constructed per this chapter (and YMC § 12.06.070) around the site's frontage on Oak Street. 2. ...the access aisle adjacent to the two accessible parking spaces are required to be eight feet in width if the parking spaces are nine feet in width. • CL2 #004 -15 The installation of a sampling port (manhole) on side -sewer is required in accordance with YMC § 7.65.150. 2. ...a detailed civil site plan shall be provided for review which accurately shows all existing and proposed utilities and improvements. A detailed plumbing fixture count for the existing and proposed buildings. 3. The driveway entrance on Oak St. shall be gated with an automated access and used exclusively for delivery, maintenance, and operations of the Union Gospel Mission. No client access shall be permitted via this access. 5. A final site plan illustrating new fencing and the relocation of accessible parking shall be submitted to the City of Yakima Planning Division. Hearing Examiner's Jurisdiction over Appeal: In accordance with YMC 1.43.080 (A) Duties and powers, the examiner shall hear, make a record of, and decide matters prescribed by the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance Title 15, and YMC 15.14.070 (Appeals) indicates that any decisions by the Administrative Official under Type (2) review may be appealed to the hearing examiner in accordance with YMC Chapter 15.16. Public Notice: Public notice was provided in accordance with YMC 15.16.030 (D) on May 22, 2015, with a Notice of Appeal mailed to the appellant and parties of record setting the date of the public hearing. An additional supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal was sent to the appellant and the parties of record on May 28, 2015. Appellant's Arguments Regarding the Appeal of the Class (2) #019 -14 and Class (2) #004- 15 Land Use Application decisions: • (Staff response in bullets and italics below) 1. Applications CL2 #004 -15 and CL2 #019 -14 are required to be reviewed as a Class3 Land Use Application: "In 1992, the City Hearing Examiner approved a Union Gospel Mission ( "UGM ") application to locate its facility at its present location, 1300 North 1st Street. The Hearing Examiner's Decision was appealed to the Yakima City Council by the Yakima Gateway Organization ( "YGO "). To resolve the YGO appeal, UGN and YGO entered into a "Settlement Agreement Re: Union Gospel Mission Relocation" ( "Settlement Agreement ") pursuant to which, in exchange for withdrawal of the YGO appeal, UGM agreed to substantial conditions and restrictions beyond those imposed in the Hearing Examiner's Interpretation. The Settlement Agreement was filed with the City August 2, 1994. Section 2 of the Settlement Agreement specifically dealt with future development at the Mission site. Pursuant to Section 2(a), YGO specifically agreed to development as shown on a schematic plan attached to the Agreement. Section 2(b) specifically required future development in excess of that which was shown on the schematic plan attached to the Settlement Agreement would be subject to Class 3 review which would be requested by both UGM and YGO at the time of application for such future development. Neither the parking lot subject to Application CL2 #019 -14 or the present application CL2 #004 -15 are improvements which were contemplated in the Settlement Agreement and are, therefore, subject to Class 3 review. • Staff Response: MEEMMEM INDEX 5 On February 27, 1992, the Examiner issued his Use Interpretation stating that "The combination of uses typified by the UGM shall be characterized as a "Mission, " subject to Class (2) Review in the Central Business District (CBD) and Central Business District Support (CBDS) zones. " Therefore any Land Use Applications submitted by the UGM is required to be processed as a Type (2) use in accordance with YMC § 15.14. On July 24, 1992, the Yakima Gateway Organization appealed the Administrative Official's decision for CL(2) #10 -92 to the Examiner on the grounds that: 1) the Administrative Official did not have authority to consider the UGM's application; 2) the Administrative Official's refusal to consider comments was unlawful; 3) the proposed use was incompatible with the uses surrounding it; 4) the proposed use would adversely impact adjoining property values; and 5) the proposal lacked adequate parking. On June 9, 1995, the Hearing Examiner rendered a decision affirming the Class (2) decision and conditions of approval. UGM breached the Settlement Agreement by filing the above - numbered applications as Class 2 land use applications. The City abetted that breach of the Agreement by processing and entering decisions on the two (2) applications as Class 2 applications. • Staff Response: An appeal to the Yakima City Council was filed by the Yakima gateway Organization (YGO) July 24, 1992. The appeal was withdrawn, presumably, upon the signing of a Settlement Agreement. o As stated by the appellant, the City was and is not a party to the Settlement Agreement that was entered into privately by the YGO and UGM. • The City understands that the Settlement Agreement contained a list of conditions the both the YGO and UGM agreed upon. However, no city official or staff member was a party to this agreement, and there are no conditions within either of the 1992 or 1995 Hearing Examiner's decisions that reference the Settlement Agreement. Appeal 4002 -15 o Although not a party to the agreement, the City understands that the agreement contains a provision for the future development to be processed as a Class (3) Review. However, the City disagrees that it abetted the UGM in violating the Agreements YGO Settlement Agreement Item 2(b) — Request for Class (3) Review. UGM and YGO shall jointly request the City of Yakima (and any other necessary governmental entities) to designate the "Mission" as a Class (3) use within the M -1 zoning district. YGO and UGM agree that such classification and review process shall not be applicable to future development in accordance with the attached schematic plan. Class (3) review shall be applicable only to uses or developments above and beyond those contemplated on the schematic plan; I 6 k—. \ The Settlement Agreement specifically required that both parties request that future projects be processed as a Class (3) Review. Therefore, the agreement was breeched y both parties as neither party requested the review; and The City of Yakima followed its municipal code YMC 15.17 and 15.14 for expansion of Class (2) uses and required by state law. • The City of Yakima is a not a required to enforce any private party agreements and shall continue processing any application submitted by the UGM as defined by the 1992 and 1995 Hearing Examiner interpretation and approved Class (2) Use as long as the application submitted by the UGM continue to adhere to current Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance standards. The Settlement Agreement and its Class 3 review provisions are specifically enforceable as between the members of YGO and the UGM. Although the City itself was not a party to the Settlement Agreement, the permits the City issued for location and construction of Mission facilities were possible only because of the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The City is required to review the above - numbered applications as Class 3 land use applications. The Decisions in both CL2 #004 -15 and CL2 #019 -14 must be reversed and the applications remanded for processing and reviewed as Class 3 land use applications." 2. The Decision on Application CL2 #019 -14 is void: "The UGM expansion contemplated by Application CL2 #004 -15 required additional on -site parking. UGM sought approval for this additional on -site parking through Application CL2 #019 -14. As noted above, the City improperly reviewed this application as a Class 2 land use application rather than a Class 3 application. • Staff Response: • Please see argument above. Additionally, within the YGO Settlement agreement (Item 2(8) Request for Class 3 Review) it states the UGM and YGO shall jointly request the City of Yakima... to designate "Mission" as a Class (3) use within the M -1 zoning district. There was no request received for the action from either group, so the City continued to process the UGM application as a Class (2) use, which it was determined to be under the 1992 and 1995 Hearing Examiner's Interpretations. In addition, the City failed to comply with its own requirements for Class 2 land use review. YMC 15.14.040(6), governing the notice requirements for Class 2 review, provides: DO.. Appear #002 -15 7 INDEX - d "Notification of adjacent property owners. When the administrative official's preliminary decision is to approve the application, or approve with conditions, the administrative official shall, within 5 days, forward a notice of application to all landowners within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the development site...." The 4/17/2015 Decision on this application, Finding 7, acknowledges the City failed to give adequate notice of the parking lot application but finds the Decision "was not appealed ". The fact that Decision was not appealed is not surprising since the adversely affected property owners had no notice of either the application or the Decision. In Prekeges vs. King County, 98 Wn.App. 275, 281, 990 P.2d 405 (1999), the Court specifically held: "One purpose of specific statutory requirements for public notice of an impending land use decision is to insure that the decision makers receive enough information from those who may be affected by the action to make an intelligent decision." In Prosser Hill Coalition vs. Spokane County, 176 Wn.App. 280, 291, 309 P.3d 1202 (2013), the Court recognized defective notice undermines the information gathering process and further recognized and held the proper remedy for effective notice was a remand to the decision maker for hearing after appropriate notice. Limitations of RCW Chap. 36.70C are inapplicable in this situation. Because affected property owners had no notice of the application or Decision, they could not and were not required to file a LUPA appeal within the time permitted by statute. The Decision on the parking lot application, CL2 #019 -14, is void for failure to provide notice required by the City's own code. The matter must be remanded for processing after appropriate notice. Because the UGM expansion contemplated by Application CL2 #004 -15 cannot be approved without adequate parking, that Decision must also be reversed and remanded to the Planning Department." • Staff response: • In 1992 and 1995 the Hearing Examiner's interpretations for CL2 #10 -92 and CL2 #10 -95 indicated that the UGM shall provide at least 82 parking spaces. The UGM currently has approximately 125 parking spaces, more than the required minimum established in 1992 and 1995. Per YMC § 15.06 — Table 6 -1, the proposed dental clinic, requiring one parking space per 200 square feet of gross floor area, would require the UGM to obtain approximately 20 additional parking spaces. The expansion of the multifamily residential space would require the applicant to create one parking space per two beds, which would create a need for an additional 20 parking space. The proposed parking lot would create an additional 34 parking spaces for delivery, maintenance, and operations. The total number of parking spaces would total 159, creating a surplus of approximately 27 additional parking spaces on the UGM property. • Item number four (4) in the YGO Settlement Agreement states "... there shall be no access from Oak Street except for delivery or services to the subject property." In the ®OC. INDEX Appeal #002-15 8 UGM CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15 application and decision is has been stated that the new parking lot will be used for delivery, maintenance, and operations use only, and no client access will be allowed from this area. This area will only be allowed to be accessed via key card, and the proposed access to Oak Street complies with the development standards set forth by YMC § 15.06.065. Staff recognizes the notification error for CL2 #019 -14, and that not all the parties of record and neighbors within 300 feet were properly notified. On May 28, 2015 a Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal addressing the parking lot for CL2 #019 - 15 was sent to parties of record and neighbors within 300 feet. As of June 9, 2015, there was only one comment received from Mr. Brado. 3, Compatibility: "Whether the present application is properly reviewed as a Class 2 or a Class 3 application, compatibility review is required. YMC 15.04.020(6) and (C). The City's Decision on this application notes the compatibility requirement for a Class 2 review but does not address compatibility issues in the Decision or findings. Compatibility was a hotly contested issue at the initial hearings on location of the UGM on North 1st Street. Some of the compatibility issues were addressed in the Settlement Agreement with the imposition of additional conditions to mitigate some impacts of the Mission on surrounding businesses. Those conditions include: Section 3 of the Agreement required the Mission to provide a restroom to the general public 24 -hours per day, 7 days per week. This restroom facility is not presently provided with resulting, anticipated adverse effects on surrounding property. Section 6 of the Agreement provided UGM would provide a reading /day room between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Clients would be allowed to stay on the UGM property as long as they adhere to UGM rules. This facility does not appear to have been maintained, if it was ever provided with the result that Mission residents and clients for other services are out on North 1st Street and surrounding areas most or all of the day. Section 10 of the Agreement provided the Mission would provide two (2) scheduled shuttles per day offering transportation for clients to designated spots in the City for a minimum of one (1) year. The shuttle service was not continued with the result that there is now a steady stream of pedestrians, clients and residents of the Mission, moving up and down North 1st Street on both sides of the street, interfering with businesses in the area and their customers. Section 12 of the Agreement provided a minimum of one (1) uniformed night security guard would be provided by UGM to make hourly patrols of the property and stay in radio communication with the Yakima Police Department. This has not been done. Section 15 of the Agreement limited occupancy of the facility to 260 residents, unless otherwise reduced by the City of Yakima Fire Code provisions. It is unknown what the current number of residents of the facility is or what the total number of DC. Appeal #002-15 9 INDEX - `W�-- residents would be if the proposed expansion is approved. The total number of residents must, however, be limited to 260 consistent with the Agreement. The starting point of any compatibility review for expansion of UGM facilities and operations must be a determination of whether or not UGM has complied with the conditions pursuant to which it began operations on North 1 st Street, and whether or not those conditions were, in fact, adequate to render the Mission and its operations compatible with surrounding land uses. The compatibility of expanded facilities and operations of UGM must also be viewed in light of the effect the current operations have had on property values in the neighborhood. An example of the impact on values is the former Red Lion Inn property, Parcel No. 181313 - 11001. At the 1992 hearing, substantial testimony and evidence was submitted in behalf of Red Lion that the location of the Mission would have a devastating impact on their business and property values. In 2005, the property sold for $3,911,000.00 (Excise Tax Receipt No. 374046). In 2012, the property sold at a trustee's sale following foreclosure of a Deed of Trust for $2,000,000.00 (Excise Tax Receipt No. E001954). In 2013, the property sold for $1,500,000.00 (Excise Tax Receipt No. 433294), approximately 38% of its 2005 value. The 4/17/2015 Decision must be reversed and remanded to the Planning Department for determination about UGM's compliance with the original conditions imposed as well as a specific evaluation of or if additional conditions are required to insure the compatibility of current and expanded Mission operations with the existing businesses on North 1 st Street." • Staff response: The Hearing Examiner clearly defined a "Mission" as a range of services including: "spiritual and material support, meals both on and offsite, clothing and other staples, dental clinics, foot clinic, shower and similar facilities, residential facilities, youth center, food and lodging facilities for homeless men and families, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, dormitory and family shelter, dining and kitchen facilities, auditorium, gymnasium, and maintenance repair shops ". • The Hearing Examiner also provided a clear compatibility argument stating that "the combination of uses typified by the Yakima Union Gospel Mission shall be characterized as a "Mission," subject to Class (2) review in the Central Business District (CBD) and Central Business District Support (CBDS) zones." The Examiner went on to define the Mission use as "...a facility typically owned or operated by a public agency or non - profit corporation, providing a variety of services for the disadvantaged, typically including but not limited to temporary housing for the homeless, dining facilities, health and counseling activities, whether or not of a spiritual nature, with such services being generally provided to the community at large. " • The Class (2) review approved by the City of Yakima (Class (2) # 10 -92 and Class 2 # 10 -95) set forth 14 conditions of approval which were complied with in 1992 and 1995. Appeal #002 -I5 10 INDEX w The terms and conditions of the YGO Settlement Agreement are not applicable to the two appealed decision as the City of Yakima is not a signature to the undated agreement. In terms of compatibility with the expanded use, YMC § 15.17 identifies that modified uses which do not meet the requirements of 15.17 shall apply for a Type (2) Review. A Class (2) Land Use Review is defined as "those uses set forth and defined in the text and tables of YMC Chapter 15.04 and are generally permitted throughout the district. However, site plan review by the administrative official is required in order to ensure compatibility with the intent and character of the district and the objectives of the Yakima urban area comprehensive plan." • Parking lots are a Class (1) use in the Light Industrial (M -1) zoning district. In accordance with YMC § Applications for permits for Class (1) uses permitted outright in the district shall be made in writing to the administrative official on forms supplied by the department. A general site plan conforming to the provisions of YMC § 15.11.040 shall accompany the application... • The UGM submitted an application with a site plan which meets City standards for a parking lot in the M -1 zoning district. The proposed driveway and access comply with YMC § 15.06.065 — Driveway Locations, therefore there is no valid reason, in accordance with the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, that the UGM shall be denied access to any public streets surrounding their property. • Dental clinics are a Class (1) use in the General Commercial (GC) zoning district. The application submitted by the UGM complied with the City of Yakima design standards. The new parking lot previously proposed by the UGM would accommodate for any additional parking necessary to comply with the parking requirements of YMC 15.06. • The 5,688 square foot residential expansion is a Class (2) use in the GC. The expansion, as indicated in the UGM application and City Staff decision, is neither intended nor expected to increase the overall occupancy, which was set at 258 persons, from the 1992 Hearing Examiner interpretation and reiterated in the CL2 #004 -15 application. The housing expansion is being created to update facilities and better separate single men from women and families. • The parking lot, dental clinic, and multiresidential housing are permitted in the M -1 and GC either by Class (1) or Class (2) use. The submitted UGM Land Use applications adhere to the development standards, and there is no evidence of noncompliance which would suggest otherwise. 4. Specific Defects in the 4/17/2017 Decision: "Without waiving any of the foregoing objections to the validity of the 4/17/2015 Decision, the following- described Findings, Conclusions and portion of the Decision are erroneous and require reversal of the Decision: Finding 4: The 1990 Decision and the Settlement Agreement limit the total number of residents at the facility to 260. This includes not merely UGM clients, but also UGM staff residing on the premises. There must be specific evidence and a specific finding the increased residential facilities will not increase the capacity of the UGM facility to house more than 260 residents. Findings 7 — 11: As noted above, the Decision authorizing expanded parking facilities is void for failure to give required notice. In addition, Finding 11 permitting use of the Oak Street access for "delivery, maintenance and operations of the Union Gospel Mission" is contrary to the Settlement Agreement. Settlement Agreement, Section 4, provides: "Access to the property, current and future, shall be restricted to the south side alley entrance designated by the Hearing Examiner. The 1st Street entrance will be for administrative and staff only, access for delivery or services to the subject property." The Agreement as written contains a typographical error. The phrase "delivery or services" was intended to be "delivery of services" and it was understood and agreed by all parties to the Agreement the only access to the UGM facility from Oak Street would be for delivery of utility services such as sewer, water and electricity. No vehicular or pedestrian access from Oak Street was to be permitted. Any approval of the additional parking must specifically preclude any access from Oak Street. Finding 12: The recommendation that a 6 -foot fence be installed along the entire length of the Union Gospel Mission abutting Oak Street should be a requirement, not a recommendation. Conclusion 1: The Conclusion the proposed expansion of facilities and services is "compatible with adjoining land uses" is unsupported by evidence in the record or Findings in the Decision and must be reversed. Decision, Section C: For the reasons stated above, the Decision must be reversed in its entirety." • Staff Response: • In processing the applications received from the UGM, staff referred to the conditions set in the 1992 and 1995 Hearing Examiner interpretation along with the Class (2) #10 -92 and Class (2) #10 -95 approval. Neither of those decision mentioned the YGO Settlement Agreement. The current UGM applications comply with current design standards established by the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance. • As mentioned above, there is nothing in previous Hearing Examiner interpretations or in any of the current or past Land Use applications that would prohibit the UGM from accessing any public street, as long as they adhere to current development standards. Appeal #002 -15 12 MEX • Regardless of any typographical errors in YGO Settlement Agreement. The UGM is allowed to access Oak Street. Whether they are doing it for "delivery or service'; or "delivery of services" does not matter because the application they submitted meets the current development standards of YMC § 15.06.065 and the compatibility of GC and M -1 zoning district. Finding 12, is, and shall remain a finding. There is nothing within either of the current UGM applications that require a fence along Oak Street. The fence is an additional finding per the request of the UGM as a measure to prevent any further undesirable activity from happening on the north side of their campus. 5. Requested Relief: "Appellants request: The Decision in Application CL2 #019 -14 be determined to be void for lack of adequate notice. Applications CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15 be reversed and remanded to the City Planning Department for processing as Class 3 land use applications as required by the Settlement Agreement pursuant to which the UGM was permitted to locate at its present site. The Decision on Application CL2 #004 -15 be reversed and remanded with specific directions to the Planning Department any Decision approving the application specifically include the conditions contained in the Settlement Agreement, and access to the facility from Oak Street be specifically prohibited in addition to any other conditions imposed to insure compatibility." • Staff response: • Both Class (2) #019 -14 and Class (2) #004 -15 are subject to this appeal. • As mentioned above, the Hearing Examiner issued an interpretation in 1992 and 1995 defining the term "Mission" and which zoning districts are compatible with the "Mission" use. Along with defining a "Mission" and where one may be located, a list of conditions which had to be met prior to operation, was also included by the Hearing Examiner (See history above). • Neither the 1992 nor the 1995 Hearing Examiner's interpretation consider reference to the YGO Settlement Agreement. The City of Yakima is a not a required to enforce any private party agreements and shall continue processing any application submitted by the UGM as defined by the 1992 and 1995 Hearing Examiner decision's. • As mentioned above, there is nothing in previous Hearing Examiner interpretations or in any of the current Class (2) Land Use applications that would prohibit the UGM, as long as they adhere to current development standards set forth in the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance. DOC- INDEX, Appeal #002 -15 13 9 , In review of the Appellant's argument, and the above Findings, staff makes the following: Conclusions: The City of Yakima is required, under YMC 15.16, to present Findings and Conclusions; 2. The decision of the hearing examiner on this Appeal may be appealed to that of the legislative body in accordance with the provisions of YMC 15.16.040. 3. The City of Yakima does not enforce any private party agreements and shall continue processing any application submitted by the UGM as defined by the 1992 and 1995 Hearing Examiner interpretation as long as the application submitted by the UGM continue to adhere to current Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance standards. 4. The appellant has not provided sufficient evidence or argument to cause the Administrative Official to resend the Notice of Non - Compliance and Order to Comply. Recommendation Based upon the above listed conclusions, staff recommends that the Notice of Decision for CL2 #019 -14; dated January 20, 2015, and CL2 #004 -15; dated April 17, 2015, be upheld. Appeal 4002 -15 14 UNION GOSPEL MISSION APP #005 -15 (APP #002 -15 — CL2 #019 -14 & CL2 #004 -15) EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER B Class 2 Review — Parking Lot (CL2 #019 -14) B -1 ......... B -2 B -3 ,, ,,,, r , , � � ,,�/ i,,a,�,����; iii ,,,�„ ; ;, � „�� ;;,/ �, , , �,,,,,, ,,,� Land Use Application for Type 2 Review _..........._._ ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................._.................... .............................._ Notice of Determination of Completeness _._ ---- . . . M ............... ........_ ..................... _ ................................................ ...._ ..... ............... ................................................................. ------ �. Maps: Vicinity, Zoning, Future Land Use, Utilities, Arterial %�,,,�,,, 12/02/2014 . ..... ...�. 12/15/2014 12/17/2014 B -4 DST Review & Agency Comments 12/18/2014 B -4a: DST Request for Comments - dated 12/18/2014 B -4b: Comments from Glenn Denman, Supervising Code Inspector /Building Official — dated 12/22/2014 B -4c: Comments from Mike Shane, Interim Development Engineer — dated 01 /07/2015 B -5 Notice of Application 12/18/2014 B -5a: Parties and Agencies Notified B -5b: Affidavit of Mailing B -6 Comment from the public received on January 2, 2015 (no 01/02/2015 ... ..... ._.W_ name or return address) ..................... .......................� —. ._ .....��..............._....._ _ .. B -7 Notice of Decision 01 /20/2015 B -7a: Parties and Agencies Notified B -7b: Affidavit of Mailing B -8 Certificate of Zoning Review 02/06/2015 COMMU; Y DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 129 NOIR1111 2D S"Ill:llffEET, 2ND, FLOOR �u�w���Vl�aui�Nm�m�m� ml�'�prnim��,��mnrw YAKIMA, )VA 98901 -6183 Certificate of Zoning Review This Certificate of Zoning Review certifies that the project proposal described below has been evaluated under the review procedures of Yakima Municipal Code Title 15 and was approved by the reviewing official on 02/06/2015 and is valid for one year from this date. File Number: CL2 #019 -14 Project Name: UNION GOSPEL MISSION Applicant: UNION GOSPEL MISSION Project Address: 1300 N 1ST ST Project Parcel Number: 18131311504 Note: Other parcel numbers may be included in this project. Project Description: PROPOSAL TO PAVE ANEW PARKING LOT THAT IS 13,000 SQ FT AND CONSISTS OF (32) STANDARD PARKING SPACES AND (2) HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACES FOR THE UNION GOSPEL MISSION This Certificate of Zoning Review is not a construction permit and does not in and of itself authorize any use to be established, constructed, made or implemented without a construction permit issued by the Building Official and the conditions pending have been completed. This Certificate shall expire if: a) a construction permit for the approved project is required but not issued within one year from the date of issuance of this certificate; b) the construction permit is issued but allowed to expire; or c) the project is modified and a new Certificate of Zoning Review is issued. Authorized Signature Certificate Expiration 02/06/2015 Date This Certificate will expire on 02/06/2016 if no action or progress is made in furtherance of the development authorized. The Certificate may be extended one time up to one additional year prior to the expiration date, as set forth in YMC Section 15.12.060. Conditions of Approval The Administrative Official gives approval of the project proposal subject to the following conditions: 1. This project requires YMC Title 12 improvements, including but not limited to the following: YMC § 12.05 — Sidewalk will need to be constructed per this chapter (and YMC § 12.06.070) around the site's frontage on Oak Street. 2. The access aisle adjacent to the two accessible parking spaces are required to be eight feet in width if the parking spaces are nine feet in width. DOCIP INDEX — V Page 1 of 1 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA RE: CL2 #019 -14 Union Gospel Mission 1300 N 1St St I, Lisa Maxey, as an employee of the City of Yakima Planning Division, have dispatched through the United States Mails, a Notice of Decision (Administrative Official). A true and correct copy of which is enclosed herewith; that said notice was addressed to the applicant and all parties of record, that are individually listed on the mailing list retained by the Planning Division, and that said notices were mailed by me on this 20th day of JanuAa 2015. That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the statements made herein are just and true. Lisa Maxey d> Temporary D.A. II ,%%, INDEX Rick Phillips 1300 N 151 St Yakima, WA 98901 Parties of Record - Union Gospel Mission - CL2_019 -14 ............................... . _ . ...... In -House Distribution E -mail List Name Division E -mail Address Debbie Cook ............... .......... Engineering Debbie .cDok , akijnawa, gov Dana Kallevig Wastewater datia kallevtt ii v�tktrna a. Gov ... Dan Riddle Engineering data riddle yak ii awa. Mark Kunkler Legal Dept Mar kAunkler rtbva inia� �� Jeff Cutter Legal Dept _..... c�utter ) kimawa. ov Archie Matthews ONDS arcltie.n atthews(@ aly rnawa.gov . Mark Soptich Fire Dept t ark,s y mh �akin w ,g,ov _� ........................ Chief Rizzi _.�... Police Department 1. otninic,.rizzi (t) ci6itxaawa. Gov Joe Caruso Code Administration Joe ®carttsob+akittawa. Carolyn Belles Code Administration carol vtt,belles el) akiiiiawa )ov Jerry Robertson . I Code Administrationrolaertscatti) akintawa. ov Glenn Denman Code Administration iettmi,det ittttn Lid aktt�nawa gov Suzanne DeBusschere —......... ............................................................... . Code Administration Suzanne. debusschere akimawa. gov .. . . ....... Dave Brown ......._ Water/Irrigation ation g .. ,) dave.brovvn aki Ltawa. Gov Mike Shan e Engineering iitike,sliane( akit awa. Randy Meloy Wastewater - tatad .tttelo �iyak.imawa. Scott Schafer Public Works Dept scott,schafer ci` a1dmawa, Gov James Dean Utilities James .dean@ aki nmva. ov James Scott ____ ..... ....... Refuse Division . Jaines.scott a), ak:imawa. ov -- ....... ......... Kevin Futrell Transit Division ....................... . . .. .................... kevin fttirell c yakirt ttw go a v Joan Davenport Planning joan,davenportribyakiniawaagy ' For the Record/File m- _...... ....._vv Binder Copy � _.....�.._ Revised izzoi4 Type of Notice: (y _Vx-G-__'� O I� File Number: C-2 -4 M C� — I Date of Mailing: V DOC. INDEX # 6 --1 rte. Maxey, Lisa From: Maxey, Lisa Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 12:29 PM To: Belles, Carolyn; Brown, David; Caruso, Joe; Cook, Debbie; Cutter, Jeff; Davenport, Joan; Dean, James; DeBusschere, Suzanne; Denman, Glenn; Futrell, Kevin; lbarra, Rosalinda; Kallevig, Dana; Kunkler, Mark; Matthews, Archie; Maxey, Lisa; Meloy, Randy; Riddle, Dan; Rizzi, Dominic; Robertson, Jerry; Schafer, Scott; Scott, James; Shane, Mike; Soptich, Mark Cc: Martin, Trevor Subject: NOTICE OF DECISION - Union Gospel Mission - CL2 #019 -14 Attachments: NOTICE OF DECISION - Union Gospel Mission - CL2_019- 14.pdf Attached is a Notice of Decision regarding the above - entitled project. If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact assigned planner Trevor Martin at (509) 575 -6162 or by email at trevor.rnartinvakimawa.goy. Thank you! ;y,m xey Temporary ary p: epaartrrwnnt Assistani (509) 576 6669 City of Yakima Planning Division 129 N. 2nd St. Yakima, WA 98901 DOC. INDEX COY UNi iYD 'VFLOP EN7'DEPA TMENT CITY OF YAKIMA FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION for REQUEST FOR TYPE (2) REVIEW Application Number: CL2 #019 -14 APPLICANT: Rick Phillips / Union Gospel Mission APPLICANT ADDRESS: 1300 N 1St St„ PROPERTY OWNER: Rick Phillips / Union Gospel Mission PROJECT LOCATION: 1300 N 1St St, . PARCEL NUMBER: 18131311504 DATE OF REQUEST: December 2, 2014 DATE OF DECISION: January 20, 2015 STAFF CONTACT: Trevor Martin, Assistant Planner I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The City of Yakima, Planning Division has received a Type (2) land use application to pave a new parking lot that is 13,000 square feet and consists of (32) standard parking spaces and (2) handicapped parking spaces in the Light Industrial (M -1) zoning district for the Union Gospel Mission. SUMMARY OF DECISION: The Administrative Official approves the requested Type (2) application. FACTS: A. Environmental Review. The project is exempt from SEPA Environmental Review, per WAC 197- 11- 800(12)(a). DOC. INDEX # ? --7 . Code Adini iviradon (509)575-6126 ° Planning (509)57.5-6183 ® (Yflc e of Neighborhood sir DevelopmentServices (509) 575-6101 VaiMms B. Zoning.. The subject property has two zoning designations, General Commercial (GC) and Light Industrial District (M -1). The portion of where the parking will be located is (M -1) and pursuant to YMC § 15.03.020(N) "The purpose and intent of the Light Industrial District is intended to: 1. Establish and preserve areas near designated truck routes, freeways, and the railroad for light industrial uses; 2. Direct truck traffic onto designated truck routes and away from residential streets; 3. Minimize conflicts between uses in the light industrial districts and surround uses. The light industrial district provides areas for light manufacturing, processing, research, wholesale trade, storage, and distribution facilities. The surrounding properties contain uses and zoning as follows: Direction Zoning Land Use North M -1 Apartments South M -1 Mission East GC Mission West M -1 Vacant / Service and Repair C. Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map III -2: The subject property is designated as General Commercial which includes a wide variety of commercial retail and services that are heavily dependent on the convenient vehicle access along major travel routes. General Commercial land uses, and include those uses identified in Neighborhood Commercial or Community Commercial, but do not serve only the adjacent neighborhoods. General Commercial includes uses such as fast food restaurants, auto - oriented services, and other commercial services. D. Statement of Cause: Pursuant to YMC § 15.14.030, the applicant has provided in the application the following statements (paraphrased) explaining the compatibility of the proposed Class (2) Use (see Class (2) Narrative): "In the NW area of the Parcel 181313 -11504 the Yakima Union Gospel Mission (YUGP) proposes to build a new parking area. Also included in the project will be Site Parking Lights, Storm Drainage for the new paved parking area, and additional landscaping that may be required for the parking area to be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinances. (Refer to Attachment B, PLSA Storm Water Calculations and Filter Specifications, and Attachment C Luminaire Schedule). This project will provide parking on currently undeveloped land. The proposed new paved area totals 65-x 200' or 13,000 sq ft., and will provide thirty two (32) standard parking spaces, and two (2) handicapped parking spaces for a total of thirty four (34) new parking spaces. Parcel No. 181313 -11504 has split zoning as follows. The northwest portion (New Parking Area) is zoned Light Industrial (M1). The east balance of the parcel is zoned General Commercial (GC). Refer to attached Site Plan, Dated December 2, 2014. The proposed developed parking area is bordered by the following land uses. DOC. INDEX • West of the proposed parking area is adjacent property with M -1 zoning. The Northwest property line has an existing 6 foot site obscuring chain link fence. • The North property line borders the East Oak Street. Mission Staff and Delivery /Service vehicles will access this parking area from East Oak Street. East Oak Street had a sidewalk located on the North side of the Street, and extending West from North 111 Street to North Front Street. • Primary Client entrance to YUGM campus is from 11t Street. • The new parking area is bounded on the east by a 6 foot Concrete Block Wall which separates the parking area from the Mission courtyard and buildings. • The South Parcel 181313 -1504 demising line is shared between Parcel 11504 to the North and Parcel 11004 to the South. Both parcels have a light industrial (M1) land use classification. Both Parcels are owned by the YUGM. Parking Area Landscaping Types. North Property Line: Existing plantings are consistent with Standard "A" Landscaping and Provide for a ten foot wide planting strip with trees and twenty to thirty foot centers, and includes shrubs and groundcover. This landscaping is generally between the north elevations of the existing buildings and property line and extending to the south curb line of East Oak Street. The landscaping will be extended west to the existing electrical transformer and the new vehicle entry drive. There is no sidewalk on the south side of East Oak Street; however there is a sidewalk on the north side of East Oak Street extending from North (119 Street west to North front Street. East Land Use Line: The east property line denotes the change in the zone from M1 to GC. This demising line between these land Use Zoning Classification requires a ten (10 Ft) standard A landscaping strip. Existing landscaping east of the proposed parking area (trees, shrubs, and ground cover) is consistent with the landscaping along the north property line. To comply with the City of Yakima Standard A landscaping requirements the Applicant requests the following consideration. There exists on the east Land Use line a six (6) foot concrete block wall and on the east side of the wall there exists mature trees (Arborvitae, Juniper, and Willow trees) that would comply with the Standard "A" landscaping requirement. The applicant proposes that the existing 6 foot block wall, and existing landscaping be considered consistent with the required Standard "A" landscaping. South Property Line: the South Property Line abuts existing Land Use Parcel 11004 which is also owned by YUGM. Both parcels have a Light Industrial .. IN�DEX 3 (101) Land Use Classification, therefor no perimeter landscaping is required. The existing chain link fencing and components will be restored. West Property Line: The West Parcel No. 11504 property line abuts the adjacent Parcel 11443, and 11444. These parcels are not owned by the YUGM. Both parcels 11443 and 11444 have a Light Industrial (101) Land Use Classification, therefore no perimeter parking area landscaping is required. The Mission operation is an existing use within an area dominated by commercial and manufacturing uses. The Mission has operated successfully at this location since 1996. The proposed upgraded parking area is merely upgrading an existing onsite parking area already used as parking and located within Parcel 11504 footprint. When completed, it is anticipated to remain consistent and compatible with the surrounding properties. The proposed parking area will help reduce airborne particulate levels by paving over undeveloped property and a storm water collection system will filter surface runoff. These improvements will continue to enhance the YUGM and neighborhood visual image. (Refer to Attachment B for Storm Water Runoff and Storm Water Calculations and Details in the attached PLSA Report Dated April 25, 2013. Refer to Attachment C for New Parking Luminaire Schedule and foot candle readings.) The proposed parking upgrades are a Class 1 use within the General Commercial (GC) and Light Industrial (M1) zone. The Mission itself is a Class 11 within the GC and M1 zone. Past mission development was reviewed by the city between 1992 and 1995, and a new Dental Clinic was constructed in 2011. The Mission provides temporary housing services to the community along with a long list of commercial services which area consistent with the neighboring properties. Service found at the Mission include: providing meals, job skills classes, dental & Medical treatment, addiction recovery programs, catering, recycling, and referrals to other local service providers. All these services require vehicle access (ingress and egress) to supply service and maintain the Yakima Union Gospel Mission. The Mission provides services to countless community members who have found themselves near the end of their resources. Improving the Mission facilities allows them to continue to provide these high quality services which ultimately results in returning struggling individuals to the mainstream population." E. Processing: 1. The existing Mission is classified as a Class (2) use in the M -1 and GC zoning district, and is therefore being reviewed under Type (2) land use review. 2. The application for a Type (2) Review was received on December 2, 2014, and deemed complete for processing on December 15, 2014. 3. The application is being processed under the provisions of YMC § 15.14.040. INDEX . '� 4 4. Pursuant to YMC § 16.05.010, a Notice of Application was sent to adjoining property owners within 300 -feet of the subject property on December 18, 2014. No comment letters were received during the 20 -day comment period that ended on January 7, 2015. 5. The proposal was reviewed by the City's Development Services Team (DST) on January 6, 2015. Final comments of the DST members may be viewed at the City of Yakima Planning Division within City File No. CL2 #019 -14, and are integrated into this decision. IV. APPLICABLE LAW: A. YMC § 15.03.020 (N) Light Industrial District (M -1): Light Industrial District (M -1). The light industrial district is intended to: 1. Establish and preserve areas near designated truck routes, freeways, and the railroad for light industrial uses; 2. Direct truck traffic onto designated truck routes and away from residential streets; 1 Minimize conflicts between uses in the light industrial districts and surround uses. The light industrial district provides areas for light manufacturing, processing, research, wholesale trade, storage, and distribution facilities. B. YMC § 15.03.020 (K) General Commercial (GC): General Commercial District (GC). The purpose of the general commercial district is to: 1. Accommodate wholesale and retail activities with some high- density residential development. This district is primarily located near and along the major arterials as designated in the Yakima urban area comprehensive plan. Like the CBD district, a variety of land uses are permitted. However, the intensity of development is intended to be less than in the CBD district. C. Class (2) Land Use Defined (YMC § 15.04.020(B)): Class (2) uses are generally permitted in the zoning district. However, the compatibility between a Class (2) use and the surrounding environment cannot be determined in advance, and occasionally a Class (2) use may be incompatible at a particular location. Therefore, a Type (2) land use review is required in order to promote compatibility with the intent and character of the district and the policies and development criteria of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan. D. Special conditions authorized (YMC § 15.10.030 (A) (2)): In accordance with YMC § 15.10.030 (A) (2), "[the] reviewing official may impose conditions to mitigate an identified specific or general negative impacts of the development, whether environmental or otherwise." E. Compatibility Defined (YMC § 15.02.020): Pursuant to YMC § 15.02.020, "Compatibility means the characteristics of different uses or developments that permit them to be located near each other in harmony, with or without special mitigation measures." DOCi. INDEX # -rl 5 F. Site Design and Improvement Standards: The Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance in Chapter 12.05, 15.05, 15.06, and 15.07 establishes basic development requirements as minimum criteria, which must be met to assure land use compatibility and promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. Since the proposed use will occupy an existing multi -use center, the following are specific development standards and considered in the review of the subject proposal: a. YMC § 15.06.090(A) — Landscaping of Parking Areas: The standard for landscaping or parking and vehicle storage lots with five or more spaces shall be ten percent of the total parking area. b. YMC § 12.05.010 — Sidewalk Installation Required: Sidewalks shall be installed along both sides of all new, improved, and reconstructed streets. Projects which repair small portions of or maintain existing street shall not be considered "improvement" for the purpose of this section and shall not trigger the requirements of this section. Sidewalks shall also be installed across the frontage of all newly developed or redeveloped lots where feasible. c. YMC § 15.06.100 — Lighting of Parking Lots: Lighting shall be provided to illuminate any off - street parking or loading space used at night. When provided, lighting shall be directed to reflect away from adjacent and abutting properties. d. YMC § 15.06.065(E) - Internal driveways shall be paved and be a minimum of twelve feet wide for one -way travel and twenty feet wide for two -way travel, or wider if required by the International Fire Code e. YMC § 15.06.065(G) - The construction of new driveway approaches from a public street or a modification of an existing driveway approach requires a construction permit pursuant to YMC Chapter 8.64 for the specifications of the driveway approach. f. YMC § 15.07 — Sitescreening: Sitescreening is required along the property lines in accordance with the provisions of YMC Ch. 15.07. Sitescreening requirements vary depending on the intensity of both the proposed use and its neighbors. g. YMC § 8.64 and YMC § 15.06.065: All new driveways shall conform to the design standards of the City of Yakima Standard Detail R4, driveway approaches. h. YMC § 12.03.010 — All new lot shall be served by a sanitary sewer line located adjacent to the lot or development site. V. FINDINGS: 1. The subject property is is owned by the Yakima Union Gospel Mission and going to serve as a parking lot. 2. The subject property is zoned both Light Industrial and General Commercial. 3. YMC § 15.04.030, Table 4 -1 lists Parking Lots and Garage as a Class 1 use requiring a Type (1) level of review in the M -1 and GC zoning districts. However, the primary use of Parcel 18131311504 is listed as a Mission and therefor, applications to augment the parcel need to go through a Class 2 Review. 4. A site plan was submitted on December 2, 2014, which was found to be compliant with the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance Chapters 15.05, 15.06, and 15.07. 5. A Development Service Team (DST) meeting was held on January 6, 2015, for technical review of the project. DST members made the following summarized findings: a. This project requires Title 12 improvements, including but not limited to the following: 12.02 — Easements will need to be established per this chapter; 12.05 — Sidewalks are required to be constructed per this chapter along the site's frontage; 8.64 — Commercial driveway to be constructed per this chapter and standard detail R4. 6 b. The access aisle adjacent to the two accessible parking spaces does not appear to be the required width. The required width (if the parking spaces are the standard 9 -foot width) is 8 feet wide. 6. Per File No. UAZO CL(2) #10 -92 — Sitescreen 7. DST findings may have been altered or omitted. See file number CL2 #014 -14 for the list of full comments. 8. Pursuant to YMC § 6.88.070, this proposal is categorically exempt from review under the State Environmental Policy Act. VI.. CONCLUSIONS: A. Class (2) Use 1. The proposal to pave a new parking lot that is 13,000 square feet and consists of 32 standard parking spaces and two handicapped parking space for the Union Gospel Mission is compatible with the adjoining land uses. 2. The existing site layout is in conformance with all site design and improvement standards of YMC Title 15, Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance. B. Comprehensive Plan VII. The proposal is in conformance with the goals and objectives of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan as the submitted written narrative provides several statements which demonstrate compliance of the proposed use with the Local Business designation, surrounding land sues, and the following Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan: • Goal 3.10 — Provide wide variety of commercial retail and services that are heavily dependent on convenient vehicle access and serve sections of the urban area along major travel routes. • Goal 3.16 — Provide adequate locations for siting essential public facilities. • Policy 3.16.1 — All essential public facilities shall be located and developed to be compatible with adjoining land uses to the greatest possible extent. • Policy 3.16.2 — Essential public facilities shall be located in areas where they are best able to serve the individuals they are intended to serve. VIII. DECISION: The Administrative Official hereby determines that the requested Type (2) application (CL2 #019- 14), complies with applicable zoning and standards and authorizes the issuance of the building permit based upon the above findings and conclusions and subject to the Building Official's determination of compliance with all building codes. 1. Prior to final inspection(s), the development shall comply with the following conditions: a. As stated in the findings above, this project requires YMC Title 12 improvements, including but not limited to the following: YMC § 12.05 — Sidewalk will need to be constructed per this chapter (and YMC § 12.06.070) around the site's frontage on Oak Street. b. As stated in the findings above, the access aisle adjacent to the two accessible parking spaces are required to be eight feet in width if the parking spaces are nine feet in width. INDEX F) 7 DECISION made this 201h day of January, 2015 Trevor Martin, Assistant Planner for Community Development Director, Joan Davenport, AICP This Decision entitles the applicant to a Certificate of Zoning Review, which is valid for one year from the date of issuance. The Certificate may be extended one time only for up to one additional year by application prior to the termination date, as set forth in YMC § 15.12.060. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL This decision shall be final unless appealed within 14 -days after the date of issuance of this decision, in accordance with YMC § 15.06.030. Appeal forms may be obtained from the Department of Community Development and must be accompanied by the application fee of $580.00 INDEX .. 8 tA 2015 CWY QF YAKIMA PUMA/ , •%.�, ., V�cinit Ma Project r + , jir r •••••(I, • • . rr • 41 l • , i_... •' i • CL2#019 _. ,..„..., • r r Related Projects: r r r r • t Applicant: UNION GOSPEL MISSION 'r ! + ' • •.,, • • — '� Location: 1300 N 1ST ST '4 + `�" ' Wednesday - 12/17/2014 - 03:30:48 ���� % %v.. t.yr " Contact City of Yakima Planning DlvR at .,t 09 - 575 -6183 %\ City of Yakima - Geographic Information ices A l l Sly f r. // Sun I _ ara CwNri — l'/')/ E c:. I mi G N et Jo, Mach .7: 44... ' 1 _ Nesl.r Fhbl E �I Ln:• h nn e 1 ;.Y rive \--0 . ,,, Y _ Cw��le N ' Days i r+ E r, .I J v V F $Ite "I ^ ` � / I ENsr t1 Srnshne z . 4 —N.:sse.Ftti—■7 h .nr Maid t { 1 r. • A ,r f z. Faroe LRCOIn 1 ISt . - _ C J;.I ff1! ■ Clam eN d9' z Sciwwl z, " Sourc+es: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Interrnap, increment P Corp., 1:10,000 n NhkAi `�GEBC ; USG 'AN S: FAQ:'NPS7NRCrG'eliBase, Kadaster NL. Qrdnarfce Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, 1. trri.,.:, Sr K and the User Community 7. Proposal: Proposal to pave a new parking lot that is 13,000 sq ft and consists of (32) standard parking spaces and (2) handicapped parking spaces for the Union Gospel Mission. 9 Y Y - 7 '`5 o ,2 � • / 1 / v.— 7---4-4.._12 G 7 -t 6.5I6') Map Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning and illustration purposes only. The City of Yakima assumcDOICiiity for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided or for any action taken, or action not taken by the user in Ilium any maps or information provided herein. (r) AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA RE: CL2 #019 -14 Union G2spel Mission Rick Phillips 1300 N 1st St I, Lisa Maxey, as an employee of the Yakima City Planning Division, have dispatched through the United States Mails, a Notice of Application. A true and correct copy of which is enclosed herewith; that said notice was addressed to the applicant and all property owners of record within a radius of 300 feet of subject property, that said property owners are individually listed on the mailing list retained by the Planning Division, and that said notices were mailed by me on this 18th day of December, 2014. That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the statements made herein are just and true. Lisa Maxey Temporary D.A. II INDEX ,' ................... . .... ... In-House Distribution E-mail List Name Division E-mail Address ...... ... ... --Debbie Cook Engineering Debbie.coplc ...... Dana Kallevig . ........... Wastewater ....... Dan Riddle ................. Engineering danxiddlef, LL NY q Mark Kunkler Legal Dept Mad<A-U111dC1:@Y i1pawagg-K ....... . ..... _. I Jeff Cutter . ............. Legal Dept ................. . . . ............ ............... - ----- Archie Matthews ONDS .... . . . . ............. ............... ............ Mark Soptich . . ... . . .......... ......... . .. . ............ Fire Dept nia&,s )fi cli Cjy�*imayLa any Chief Rizzi Police Department . ........ . ...... Doininic,lizzi Joe Caruso Code Administration _kii awa. ar ,,int,c) q, d fl . . ............. Carolyn Belles ... Code Administration . ................ . ................ cat-oly le 111 - Jerry Robertson Code Administration ................ Glenn Denman Code Administration ...... . . ......................... . In a wa, V_�, ...... . ..................... Suzanne DeBusschere . .................. .. Code Administration ......... . .... SL1Z1fl'1gc.debtisscher — - --------- - ---------- - ....... Dave Brown Water/Irrigation . . ............ Aiiiiam i,()V Mike Shane Engineering ......... . . inikc.sliane( ak 11n aw "ar w, ............ Randy Meloy Wastewater Scott Schafer ....... . ........ Public Works Dept . . . . .................... ........... . ....... . . . ... scoot .sell afer I W .... James Dean . ..... . .............. Utilities L ry jdm q\Va.gqv . .......... ..... James Scott . . .......... Refuse Division ...... . lea 11CS.Sc(.') j�J-priawag0\1 Kevin Futrell Transit Division kevin.futrel ywld 'I Joan Davenport Planning . ........ . . ................ ------------- For the Record/File ........................ . ............. Binder Copy __ .............. ........... — ... . .................. . . . ................ Revised 12/2014 — ---------------------- ............... — Type of Notice: . . . ........... File Number(s): . ......... Date of Mailing: DOC. INDEX # Maxey, Lisa From: Maxey, Lisa Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:39 PM To: Belles, Carolyn; Brown, David; Caruso, Joe; Cook, Debbie; Cutter, Jeff; Davenport, Joan; Dean, James; DeBusschere, Suzanne; Denman, Glenn; Futrell, Kevin; Ibarra, Rosalinda; Kallevig, Dana; Kunkler, Mark; Matthews, Archie; Maxey, Lisa; Meloy, Randy; Riddle, Dan; Rizzi, Dominic; Robertson, Jerry; Schafer, Scott; Scott, James; Shane, Mike; Soptich, Mark Cc: Martin, Trevor Subject: NOTICE OF APPLICATION - Union Gospel Mission - CL2 #019 -14 Attachments: NOTICE OF APPLICATION - Union Gospel Mission - CL2- 019- 14.pdf Attached is a Notice of Application regarding the above - entitled project. If you have any questions about this proposal please contact assigned planner Trevor Martin at (509) 575 -6162 or by e-mail at ryor.martlrwyakirr�awa. o Thank you! Lisa axe)i °i 'trim or<arrgr Department Assistant (509) 576-6669 City of Yakima Planning Division 129 N. 2nd St. Yakima, WA 98901 DOC. INDEX 18131311443 DOUG CHRISTEN HAULING INC 1313 GORDON RD YAKIMA, WA 98901 18113.1504 UNION Goo Pft,,MI S PO BOX 565w-� YAKIA 98907 18131311444 DOUGLAS EDWIN CHRISTEN 1313 GORDON RD YAKIMA, WA 98901 1-18131311440 1 18131311004 J JEAN OWENS REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST UNION GOSPEL MISSION 1602 SPEYERS RD PO BOX 565 SELAH, WA 98942 YAKIMA, WA 989070565 18131311008 UNIT4 i ` 'GOSP L MISSION----' PO BOX 565 YA 18131311006 YAKIMA CITY 129N 2ND ST YAKIMA, WA 989012613 W 5 DATE: TO: FROM. SUBJECT: LOCATION: PARCEL NO ,111:1 ' .(1,11) V1 1 EV 1(1 (H) 11h I N' " T Dh'P,1 ',11E 11 T Planning Division 19 North 'i�:e gPm1 2nd 1"lo or l)'Wthpla, 141(eshin)"V'oll 98901 Phone (5_09') 575 6183 - , w>!~ (15091) 575 00 NOTICE OF APPLICATION December 18, 2014 Applicant and Adjoining Property Owners Joan Davenport, AICP, Community Development Director & Planning Manager Type (2) Review for the construction of a new parking lot that is 13,000 square feet and will consist of 32 standard and two handicapped parking spaces for the Union Gospel Mission. — CL2 #019 -14 1300 N 1 St Street 18131311504 NOTICE OF APPLICATION The City of Yakima Department of Community Development has received a Type (2) Review application (YMC Title 15) from Rick Phillips to construct a new 13,000 square foot parking lot, associated with the Union Gospel Mission (Type 2 Review in M -1 district), at 1300 N 1St Street. The parking lot will be located behind the existing Union Gospel property and primarily accessed from Oak Street. The proposed lot will serve as an additional 32 standard and two handicapped parking spaces located in the Light Industrial (M -1) zoning district. The file containing the complete application is available for public review at the City of Yakima Planning Division, 2nd floor City Hall, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, Washington. REQUEST FOR WRITTEN COMMENT Your views on the proposal are welcome. All written comments received by January 7t'', 2015, will be considered prior to issuing a decision. Your comments on this proposal may be mailed to: Joan Davenport, AICP, Planning Manager City of Yakima, Department of Community Development 129 North Second Street, Yakima, WA 98901 Please be certain to reference the file number(s) or applicant's name in your correspondence. DOC. INDEX ,1 r Wdma :'aa ^fdmnAw °wthsaw f,5040 i.- h 126 °lmain (. vPb ) 575 ON,? •� � a a ^al a�i, /�ip ��a� �a n '�ro�� � a "�� Q k�� i.4 d� NOTICE OF DECISION Decisions and future notices will be sent to anyone who submits comments on this application or requests additional notice. If you have questions regarding this proposal, please call Trevor Martin, Assistant Planner, at (509) 575 -6162, or e-mail to trevor.martin @yakimawa.gov. Other Permits Required: N/A Enclosed: Narrative, Site Plan, and Vicinity Map INDEX DATE: January 7, 2015 TO: Trevor Martin, Assistant Planner FROM: Mike Shane, Interim Development Engineer RE: CL2 #019 -14 -1300 N. V St. (Parcel # 18131311504) – UNION GOSPEL MISSION Project Description – Proposal to pave a new parking lot that is 13,000 sq ft and consists of (32) standard parking spaces and (2) handicapped parking spaces for the Union Gospel Mission. This project requires Title 12 improvements, including but not limited to the following: 12.02 – Easements will need to be established per this chapter. 12.05 – Sidewalks are required to be constructed per this chapter along the site's frontage. 8.64 – Commercial driveway to be constructed per this chapter and standard detail R4. December 22, 2014 To: Trevor Martin, Associate Planner From: Glenn Denman, Building Official Re: CI-2#01 9-14 UGM Parking Lot 1300 N 1St St. Code reference: 2012 International Building Code (IBC) The access aisle adjacent to the 2 accessible parking spaces does not appear to be the required width. The required width (if the parking spaces are the standard 9 foot width) is 8 feet wide. Please amend the site plan to show the required width prior to final site plan approval. INDEX ..� City of Yakima Development Services Team Request For Comments December 18, 2014 Proposal The City of Yakima Department of Community Development has received an application for a Type 1 review to pave a new parking lot that is 13,000 square feet and consists of 32 standard parking spaces and 2 handicapped parking spaces for the Union Gospel Mission. Please review the attached application and site plan and prepare any written comments you might have regarding this proposal. This project will come up for discussion at the weekly DST meeting to be held 16 , �u a u° ��� �� h �)� o i �l, ,u��ii, p As always, should you have comments, but find you are unable ��w �.���W,o,��rv..... �� to attend, please . submit your comments prior to the meeting. My email address is trevor.martin @yakimawa.gov and the Planning Department's fax number is (509) 575 -6105. Should you have any questions, or require additional information, please call me at (509) 575 -6162. DOC. INDEX ____ ,-�:, �.... ,.,,,_ Project Vicinity Map _ ''� + 4, r ■• ...... : c L 2# 0 1 9 _1 4 ,.. • % , : .... ,,,,, ic, ..i. , .. -. k .. ..... . Related Projects: F + •., • • • Applicant: UNION GOSPEL MISSION r { + +, zt Location: 1300 N 1ST ST \" µ � k } y �t = Wednesday - 12/17/2014 - 03:30:48 ,' '''. ..... Contact City of Yakima Planning Division at 509 - 575 -6183 City of Yakima - Geographic Information Sevices 1. All Sl.tl �, — Motel ' CL yYfY F ' I WS NOIR ' � C s r o1 JO — Y' � rfi ■ r Chu ill = SS best rnn f k •.I E k Sl L t, E G St FU,,,,,, F. ,:.n W Double flea bars 1 E I ' E .1 Oak ® , 1 ' Motel z gerer <Rd.+•■•■•■1 LL � ' ` r +Nlli n L.• v fr•.r1..11 L9uln, 111 Moo el 4 •.1 1 J. 0 : YaHola Inn 7 = ., ✓' 1 9 Barge lnuoln I 1,, _ ( J til rlomo taxi School Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., 1:10,000 "°'h°" `/" — 4,.s'_____ --- - GEBC9;'USGS. FAO ; 'NPS; NRCAN, GeoBase, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, i and the GIS User Community `f Proposal: Proposal to pave a new parking lot that is 13,000 sq ft and consists of (32) standard parking spaces and (2) handicapped parking spaces for the Union Gospel Mission. DOC [I NDLk Map Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning and illustration purposes only. The City of Yakima assumes no liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided or for any action taken, or action not taken by the user in reliance upon any maps or information provided herein. t I 1 , �)A K Si • sn o: 1— cn 2 S l I 0 Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, 1 r map, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBas GN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri Chi (Hong Kong), swisstopo, 1:2,000 and the GIS User Community CL2#019-14 Related Projects: Applicant: UNION GOSPEL MISSION Location: 1300 N 1ST ST Proposal: Proposal to pave a new parking lot that is 13,000 sq ft and consists of (32) standard parking spaces and (2) handicapped parking spaces for the Union Gospel Mission. Parcel List: 18131311504 DOC! INDEX •,~ �'l " l i ;.... :Project Parcels !� J � • \ ' �1 Vicinit Map p Contact City of Yakima Planning Division at 509 - 575 -6183 Wednesday - 12/17/2014 - 03:30:52 City of Yakima - Geographic Information Services Map Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning and illustration purposes only. The City of Yakima assumes no liability - for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided or for any action taken, or action not taken by the user in reliance upon any maps or information provided herein. • 0 2 .. ti Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, 1:2,000 and the GIS User Community CL2#019-14 Related Projects: Applicant: UNION GOSPEL MISSION Location: 1300 N 1ST ST Proposal: Proposal to pave a new parking lot that is 13,000 sq ft and consists of (32) standard parking spaces and (2) handicapped parking spaces for the Union Gospel Mission. Parcel List: 18131311504 Low Density Residential Professional Office MI Large Convenience Center Medium Density Residential Regional Commercial Arterial Commercial ®®C. 4J_ High Density Residential Neighborhood Commercial CBD Core Commercial Industrial I c+f Y • ��� . : Project Parcels • Future Land Use Map Contact City of Yakima Planning Division at 509 - 575 -6183 Wednesday - 12/17/2014 - 03:30:52 City of Yakima - Geographic Information Services f Map Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning and illustration purposes only. The City of Yakima assumes no liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided or for any action taken, or action not taken by the user in reliance upon any maps or information provided herein. OAK ST 1 M-1 GC — - .......�... ...� E i . Su rt Mc 4113 Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, 1:2,000 and the GIS User Community C L2 #0 1 9 -1 4 Related Projects: Applicant: UNION GOSPEL MISSION Location: 1300 N 1ST ST Proposal: Proposal to pave a new parking lot that is 13,000 sq ft and consists of (32) standard parking spaces and (2) handicapped parking spaces for the Union Gospel Mission. Parcel List: 18131311504 DOC. Yakima Urban Area Zoning Outlines INDEX Floodway Areas . •, 'l „ . • Project Parcels f` : ., (_ 4 ; Zoning Map Contact City of Yakima Planning Division at 509 - 575 -6183 `' , Wednesday - 12/17/2014 - 03:30:52 City of Yakima - Geographic Information Services Map Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning and illustration purposes only. The City of Yakima assumes no liability � } for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided or for any action taken, or action not taken by the user in reliance upon any maps or information provided herein. .:,s. 1 g i . : 3 8 • 8 —___. • I co co ,1 % E I. 8 8 G 6 '3Uiu I tvk 0 I. w Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, Tom om, In rrrp, i ncrement P Corp., G EBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, G oBase G , Kadaster NL, 1:2,000 Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Es(i Chi H�i Kong), swisstopo, and the GIS User Community I CL2#019-14 Related Projects: Applicant: UNION GOSPEL MISSION Location: 1300 N 1ST ST Proposal: Proposal to pave a new parking lot that is 13,000 sq ft and consists of (32) standard parking spaces and (2) handicapped parking spaces for the Union Gospel Mission. Parcel List: 18131311504 • • Project Parcels DOC. fill Hydrants INDEX %,, i ,, - Water Pipes `' • 4 � � Utilities Map Contact City of Yakima Planning Division at 509 - 575 -6183 '` 1' Wednesday - 12/17/2014 - 03:30:52 City of Yakima - Geographic Information Services .. .- Map Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning and illustration purposes only. The City of Yakima assumes no liability ., for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided or for any action taken, or action not taken by the user in reliance upon any maps or information provided herein. i f -. " 'Im- . r r' . t L 4x -1. , r ,� {xJ it , { a■ , �, � = ► - . +r` . ��� 1 1 1 • k it: j• .. - r . . - ; iL , 1 r 1 4 — +. . f • r.a! . , .. - t •• ill 1 0 1---"` . ` Pik .0 . w - F . I IN .4. 4040 Tri.. 1.2 000 1 Source` Esri, DigilalGfdbe, GeoEye: i=cube•.,IIStn ,LiI3GS. AE etinapping, Aerogrid, IGN, 1GP, swisstop , : d !} =JS User Gemmunity CL2#019-14 Related Projects: Applicant: UNION GOSPEL MISSION Location: 1300 N 1ST ST Proposal: Proposal to pave a new parking lot that is 13,000 sq ft and consists of (32) standard parking spaces and (2) handicapped parking spaces for the Union Gospel Mission. Parcel List: 18131311504 DOC. -- INDEX ' 1 1 -, : •••• : ProjectParcels w '6- I . ne) Aerial Photo Ma P Contact City of Yakima Planning Division at 509 - 575 -6183 Wednesday - 12/17/2014 - 03:30:52 City of Yakima - Geographic Information Services Map Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning and illustration purposes only. The City of Yakima assumes no liability wy, - for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided or for any action taken, or action not taken by the user in reliance upon any maps or information provided herein. ( 0li!',11 U111\17T )' IM''VVI, , A11,,".l l" '11' I R I IWENT 1 "Imm in", J)il hdon 129 2nd 1�7001' Yakima, H7(lslfhl�,I'toll 98901 tlona�^ I r,n1I , r'"i Applicant: Applicant Address: Re: Proposal: Site Address: Parcel: DETERMINATION of COMPLETENESS Rick Philips / Union Gospel Mission 1300 N 1st St., Yakima, WA 98901 Type (2) Review Application —CL2 #019 -14 To pave a new parking lot that is 13,000 square feet and consists of 32 standard parking spaces and 2 handicapped parking spaces for the Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N 1st Street, 18131311504 Pursuant to Yakima Municipal Code Section 16.04.020, the above described application has been reviewed by the Yakima Department of Community Development to determine if all elements of a complete application have been submitted. Based on the submitted information, Application CL2 #019 - 14, Type (2) Review for the proposed use to pave a new parking lot that is 13,000 square feet which will consist of 32 standard and two handicapped parking spaces in the Light Industrial (M -1) zoning district is hereby deemed complete. Continued processing of your application will include the following: A Development Services Team meeting will be held on January 6t" with city departments to determine compliance of the project. A copy of your application, written narrative, preliminary site plan, and other pertinent information will be mailed to you and all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. This notice provides opportunity for the public to submit comments on the proposal during a 20 -day comment period. 3. A Decision will be made by the Planning Division, and forwarded to the Building Official. DETERMINATION OF COMPLETION made this 15th day of December, 2014. For the City of Yakima: Trevor Martin Assistant Planner Department of Community Development You may contact me at (509) 575 -6162 or trevor.martin @yakimawa.gov if you have any questions regarding this matter. ® ®C. IND : Ma ark N 'a: ^a l I hbasa da ru aI X, D vM rIusp;praad : aHI Vex u wu a %o, �b ,,y Diu 10 Vag dMa LAND USE APPLICATION CITY OF YAKIMA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 129 NORTH SECOND STREET, 2ND FLOOR, YAKIMA, WA 98902 VOICE: (509) 575 -6183 'FAX: (509) 575 -61,05 Answer all questions completely, If you have any questions about this form or the application process, please ask a Planner. Remember to bring all necessary attachments and the required filing fee when the application is submitted. The Planning Division cannot accept an application unless it is complete and the filing fee paid. Filing fees are not refundable. This application consists of four parts. PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION AND PART IV — CERTIFICATION are on this page. PART II and III contain additional informations ecitic to our gra osal and MUST be attached to this eage to corn lte the application, r y a I. Applicant's Name, Address, Name Union Gospel Mission (Rick Phillips, Executive Director) And Phone Number Street 1300 N. 15` Street City Yakima ST WA Zip 198901 Phone 509) 248 -4510 2. Applicant's Property Interest Check ® Owner ❑ Agent ❑ Purchaser ❑ Other One 3. Property Owner's Name, Name Union Gospel Mission Address, And Phone Number Street 1300 N. 1" Street (If Other Than Applicant) City Yakima ST I We Zip 98901 JPhone 509248 -4510 4. Subject Property's Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 18131311504 5. Legal Description of Property. (if lengthy, Dlepse attach it on a separate document). See attached Legal Description for Parcel No 181313 —11504 6. Property's Existing Zoning: ❑ SR ❑ R -1 ❑-R =2 ❑ R -3 ❑ B -1 ❑ B -2 ❑ HB ❑ SCC ❑ LCC ❑ CBD '® GC ❑ AS ❑ RD ® M -1 ❑ M -2 7. Property Address: 1300 N. I" Street, Yakima, WA 98901 8. Type Of Application: (Check All That Apply) ❑ Administrative Adjustment ❑ Environmental Checklist (SEPA) ❑ Easement Release ® Type (2) Review ❑ Right -of -Way Vacation ❑ Rezone ❑ Type (3) Review ❑ Transportation Concunency ❑ Shoreline ❑ Short Plat ❑ Non - Conforming Structure/Use ❑ Critical Areas ❑ Long Plat ❑ Type 3 Modification ❑ Variance ❑ Admin. Modification ❑ Interpretation by Hearing Examiner ❑ Amended Plat ❑ Appeal ❑ Temporary Use Permit ❑ Binding Site P1An- ❑ Home Occupation ❑ Comp Plan Amendment ❑ Planned Development ❑ Short Plat Exemption: ❑ Other: 9. SEE ATTACHED SHEETS rN;,ff'orr , /m ! r srrar r r 4 ✓ r uJw„ 0.. 10.1 certify that the. information on this application and the required attachments- are -true and correct to the best of my knowled e. ROPERT OWNERS JIGNATURE DATE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE USE ONLY Revised 02 -11 Notes: FILE # DATE FEE PAID I RECEIVED BY Amount Receipt No. I Hearing Date DEC INDEX 0 2 201, YAKIMA PLANNING DIV l A' 2. SITE PLAN REQUIRED: (please use the CitZ of Yakima Site Plan Cl ecl 3. NARRATIVE: (See Part IV) 4. TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY: (if re wired, see YMC Ch. 12.08, Traffic C 5. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: (if required by the Washineton State A. Fully describe the proposed development, including number of dwelling units and parking spaces. If the proposal is for a business, describe hours of operation, days per week and all other relevant information related the business. In the NW area of Parcel 181313 -11504 the Yakima Union Gospel Mission (YUGM) proposes to build a new parking area. Also included in the project will be Site Parking Lights, Storm Drainage for the new paved parking area, and additional landscaping that may be required for the parking area to be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinances. (Refer to Attachment B, PLSA Storm Water Calculations and Filter Specifications, and Attachment C Luminaire Schedule). This project will provide parking on currently undeveloped land. The propose new paved area totals 65' x 200' or 13,000 Sq Ft., and will provide thirty two (32) standard parking spaces, and two (2) handicapped parking spaces for a total of thirty four (34) new parking spaces. Parcel No 181313 -11504 has split zoning as follows. The northwest portion (New Parking Area) is zoned Light Industrial (Ml). The east balance of the parcel is zoned General Commercial (GC). Refer to attached Site Plan, Dated December 2, 2014. The proposed developed parking area is bordered by the following land uses. • West of the proposed parking area is adjacent property with M -1 zoning. The northwest property line has an existing 6 foot site obscuring chain link fence. • The North property line borders the East Oak Street. Mission Staff and Delivery /Service vehicles will access this parking area from East Oak Street. East Oak Street has a sidewalk located on the North Side of the Street, and extending West from North 1sT Street to North Front Street. • Primary Client entrance to YUGM campus is from V Street. • The new parking area is bounded on the east by a 6 foot Concrete Block Wall which separates the parking area from the Mission courtyard and buildings. • The South Parcel 181313 -11504 demising line is shared between Parcel 11504 to the North and Parcel 11004 to the South. Both Parcels have a Light Industrial (Ml) land Use Classification. Both Parcel are owned by the YUGM. Parking Area Landscaping Types. North Property Line: Existing plantings are consistent with Standard A Landscaping and provide for a ten foot wide planting strip with trees at twenty to thirty foot centers, and includes shrubs and groundcover. This landscaping is generally between the north elevations of the existing buildings and property line and extending to the south curb line of East Oak Street. This landscaping will be extended west to the existing electrical transformer and the new vehicle entry drive. There is no sidewalk on the south side of East Oak Street; however there is a side walk on the north side of East Oak StreetAxJcn Ong from North First (19) INDEX Street west to North Front Street. • East Land Use Line: The east property line denotes the change in zone from Ml to GC. This demising line between these land Use Zoning Classification requires a ten (10 Ft) Standard A landscaping strip. Existing landscaping east of the proposed parking area (trees, shrubs and ground cover) is consistent with the landscaping along the north property line. To comply with the City of Yakima Standard A landscaping requirements the Applicant requests the following consideration. o There exists on the east Land Use line a six (6 Ft) concrete block wall and on the east side of the wall there exists mature trees (Arborvitae, Juniper, and Willow trees) that would comply with the Standard A landscaping requirement. The applicant proposes that the existing 6 foot block wall, and existing landscaping be considered consistent with the required Standard A landscape. • South Property Line: The south property line abuts existing Land Use Parcel 11004 which is also owned by YUGM. Both parcels have a Light Industrial (Ml) Land Use Classification, therefore no perimeter landscaping is required. The existing chain link fencing and components will be restored. • West Property Line: The West Parcel No. 11504 property line abuts the adjacent Parcel 11443, and 11444. These parcels are not owned by the YUGM. Both Parcel 11443 and 11444 have a Light Industrial (Ml) Land Use Classification, therefore no perimeter parking area landscaping is required,. B. How is the proposal compatible to neighboring properties? The Mission operation is an existing use within an area dominated by commercial and manufacturing uses. The Mission has operated successfully at this location since 1996. The proposed upgraded parking area is merely upgrading an existing onsite parking area already used as parking and located within the Parcel 11504 footprint. When completed, it is anticipated to remain consistent and compatible with the surrounding properties. C. What mitigation measures are proposed to promote compatibility? The proposed paved parking area will help reduce airborne particulate levels by paving over undeveloped property and storm water collection system will filter surface water runoff. These improvements will continue to enhance the YUGM and neighborhood visual image. Refer to Attachment B for Storm Water Runoff and Storm Water Calculations and Details in the attached PLSA Report Dated April 25, 2013 Refer to Attachment C for New Parking Luminaire Schedule and foot candle readings. D. How is your proposal consistent with current zoning of your property? The proposed parking upgrades are a Class I use within the General Commercial (GC) and Light Industrial District (M -1) Zone. The Mission itself is a Class II use within the GC & M -1 zone. Past Mission development was reviewed by the city between 1992 and 1995, and a new Dental Clinic was constructed in 2011. E. How is your proposal consistent with uses and zoning of neighboring properties? The Mission provides temporary housing services to the community along with a long list of commercial services which are consistent with the neighboring properties. Services found at the Mission include: providing meals, job skills classes, dental & medical treatment, addiction recovery programs, catering, recycling, and referrals to other local service providers. All these services require vehicle access (ingress and egress) to supply service and maintain the Yakima Union Gospel Mission. F. How is your proposal in the best interest of the community? The Mission provides services to countless community members who have found themselves near the end of their resources. Improving the Mission facilities allows them to continue to provide these high quality services which ultimately results in returning struggling individuals to the mainstream population. Note: if you have any questions about this process, please contact us City of Yakima, Planning Division, 129 N. 2nd St., Yakima, WA or 509 -575 -6183 Revised 02 -11 INDEX DEC 1 T)a ;�AOIIG SITE PLAN CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS I'"'RUCTIO S In Order For Application To Be Determined Complete, A Site Plan Must Be Completed And Returned. A Detailed Site Plan Is Required: On August 8, 1996, the City Council passed a resolution (No. R- 96 -91) adopting a requirement that all site plans submitted in conjunction with my building permit application, land use application, and environmental application shall contain certain information and be approved by the appropriate Division Manager. All information that is applicable to your proposal shall be checked off and clearly displayed on the site plan. It is in the applicant's best interest to provide a carefully drawn and scaled site plan with all required information. The decision on whether or not to grant approval of your development proposal is largely based on the information you provide. An application cannot be processed until an adequate site plan is submitted. Please complete this checklist and include it with your site plan. The site plan must contain all pertinent information. Items not applicable to the proposed project shall be noted. 1) Use Ink: Use blue or black permanent ink. It may be helpful to draft the site plan in pencil then trace over in ink. Ink is necessary for adequate duplication. 2) Use A Straight Edge: All lines must be straight and done with the aid of a ruler or other straight edge. Use a compass when delineating circular drawings such as cul -de -sacs. Computer drafted site plans are acceptable. 3) Draw To Scale: Site plans shall be drawn to scale. The site plan template has a suggested map scale of one inch equaling twenty feet (1 " =20'). Distances on the map must be as representative of reality as possible. For example, if the distance from a structure to a property line is 20 feet, the distance on the site plan will be 1 inch. 4) Use Site Plan Checklist: Use the site plan checklist and provide all applicable information on the site plan. 5) Fill In Information On The Site Plan Template Available At The City Of Yakima Or Attach The Information Below To Your Site Plan: Complete all information requested on the bottom of the site plan template. If you use a different medium, provide the requested information on the alternative paper. Note: You may benefit from the aid of a professional in the preparation of a site plan. Check all boxes as: 4 Included or - Not ADDllcahle Note: Planning Division or reviewing official may require additional information to clarify the proposal, assess . acts, or determine compliance with the YMC and other laws and regulations. Revised 02 -1.1 INDEX DOM N PLANAN46 01j/ The site plan shall be legibly drawn in ink on paper of sufficient size to contain the required information, but not J&s than 8.5" X 11" for Class (1) projects and 11" X 17" for Class (2) and Class (3) projects. All site plans shall be drawn to a standard engineering scale and indicated on the site plan. The scale selected hall best fit the paper. Planning staff recommends 1 " =20'. Site address, parcel number(s) and zoning designation of subject property. _ Property boundaries and dimensions. Names and dimensions of all existing streets bounding the site. j Dimensions, location and use of proposed and existing structures including loading docks. - - ,,", Structure setbacks. North Arrow. Lot coverage with calculations shown on site plan. ocation and size of an easements. Location and type of existing and pLojosed landscaping including landscaping within the itblic right -o way. Location and size of existing and proposed side sewer and water service lines. Adjacent land uses and zoning designations. Location and size of all parking spaces shown on the site plan. L poation and dimensions of proposed or existing driveway approaches. Vision clearance triangles at street - intersections and where driveways and curb cuts intersect with streets. SEE 15.05.040 — Vision Clearance attached to Sample Site Plan Location and size of proposed or existing signs. 'to- cation and size of required site drainage facilities including on -site retention. T Location, type, and description of required sitescreening. ocation and size of existing or proposed public sidewalks that are within 200 -feet of the subject property. Proposed improvements located within the public right -of -way. Gie-1' Name, address, phone number, and signature of the owner or person responsible for the property. Note: Planning Division or reviewing official may require additional information to clarify the proposal, assess . acts, or determine compliance with the YMC and other laws and regulations. Revised 02 -1.1 INDEX DOM N PLANAN46 01j/ :NGTRANSFORMER - -- -_ - - -._ SAW CUT - - 70M 1:>R�ING t� m3nNCmTYPEa LANDSCAPE PROPERTY LINE - - - -- - - - - - GENERAL NOTES EXISTING ASPHALT FENCE@EETSSTANCARDC) STRRINFUWIERE REQUIRED $ E � OAK No signap sign will be added NEW EOF REfE - .,. 385' _ -- U6116es shown on print eta fed , 1 1 under r' - -- ground c GATE CONTROL £ r % / ^r. f !t f /' GENERAL NOTES ' A GATE OPERATOR i ``+ RAN €G POWER r§n EXISTING BUILDING - ? aPfone eeaementm 9a9f aide 6ROOIRONFENGEi - ' OCCUPANCY R1 j 9 �, of Imposed parldrg Wt FENCE2BBLOCK METER sProect description -Pave existing 13,325 store lot GATES �° k WALL FENCE r s r f r : , f . ,{ ; PI'm'iding service "hide aocaes, storage and 32 • UBlidea easement. located routs $ EXISTING ENTRNNCE partdn spears and 2 t>s a a oes, Instal t •i W25UR+ICE3 "" EXISTING LAWN f r / g an Oak Saee{and ghbngior Ure' akle of Oak Street .3 Iii CONC. SLAB r ntY socraity ll r TO THE PROPERTY u _ f fs f area. kohl diets wtmnce to parking area from N tat ( • 10Y. was easement located h a wx 1 ...fffrrr r - street. access farm Oak Street is gmlted to or REWIRE CHAIN 1 e � �' ; I � t ser'Ac� to the Subject property. Refer to staff & 1994 Plrorre easement In The � h - EXISTING IOTYPE ( _ [ settlement agreement ��� W LANDSCAPE, • Access - Client Sumps from n -_ LIGHT POLE a m I INFLLLWHERE I r' I ' Akld€ose DRY WELL _ a IYI [ REQUIRED ' r r. 1300 N. FImt Street YeMma, WA 98901 I North 1st Street on Common THICKEN tYl r '- Drive Parcel 911008 ASPNALTEDGE v a 1V NEWGATE_- r I sl ;`. Parcel Numbers •Landscapin Detelis r 18131311504 Zon GO & W1. Ad' TYR U.N.O. ' a - t { mm f tag Adjacent Property to 3 Fence �•mda6rg 8• Q M West M-1. masonry block f+A ��a, I I 9 I SLATTED CHAIN UFIK r\ 'e f EtdaOn�g diaas tIrr •EVosed Land FENCE _ e ____ r ---- �1 {. cs Union Mission Main FSoftly 6X 69'•B�ded.area SSTANDARDO,NO -t-y - - LIGHT POLE PARCEL# �'.. r 5A 3 -2' neat to GAPING REQUIRED) a s s.,' -� 11504 _ r rr -rte .f r -'r VISION 3- Arborvitae trees nerd to LU N S ( S peridng lot GRADENEWPAVEMENT EXISTING ES 3'-0SANARYEER, 100' TOC.8. CR03SLOPE ZONED GC 3- Juniper business next to MAYNOTEXCEEE02%. PmM�AEMEN iSTFROCCUPANCY -B Large greae area DRnr S, FENCE 3:VBLOCK n A tN 7 g _ WALL FENCE - a 1 111 °sxetwaPxwrtsi n . 1 Wnow re DwNAGER� a T PH E Total of 133 Square feat never parking am LIGHT POLE oa r E70SMNGGA7Eg0 L LLI , \ l \\ FNnxv sxw W Landscaping VACATED ORDINANCE2909C01 u 3 p - \ I I 1 { \ \ i ADMINISTRATION } � ?fI WSX 25' -1,737.691, POINERFED EXISTING PAINTED LINES a 9 �� URGROIANOIOI I I / t _ PLANTER j (11)STALLS i I` 13%oFTotalpaldng area µal NEWASP1t4LT P as \ ` 1 LIGHTING FROM I I I I f - - - -__ YAKIMA URBAN AREA = C I PANEL IN GAZEBO ~ N I I rrff I I ZONING ORDINANCE e)::• � ' a � —LE 7- 1 SITE SCREENING O M- 7 &OCZSNNINO ADJACENCY Ii �- REQUIRES STANDARD •A' : I i -" WSTTNG ! tlR nz SITESCREENINO. It I s EXIST NG 4\ f a l p 7z STANDARD'A < STANDARD 0- RESTORE H FENCE 8 WEST LOT - ^`. , ; ... I < STANDARD •C• FENCE COMPONENTS -_- GUEST PARKING r °' r .>f i z (38) STALLS I I - r fjs ;r �( sTAP1DAR0'A•- A6rvr4mt+vMe a PARCEL #11004 ZONED M -1 - I 1 / aEXiSTING handsmped �airg strap v4lhtrece t j EXISTING t j SLOOEEWWAL a at bvemydmt to mnty- dootmnlNS, a I I ( f { Includes annma and �oumpwa . p R.V. AREA k1 INNER CWRT ?_ PAL f F:X35F NG k�i STANDARD °C'-A abMod V SOUTH PARKING I _� f LAWNI Q w M1 G ' /- (21 STALLS \ i a 11 .�waaxumgfmm meted w L shadad tV ( I `f ` r I ( dean link Mock material. matadaal. A ' or l.j `� a a three- frxit-do planting strip J g combination be, shrubs, et gaiMmver EKIST. PAVED LOT Of `DUSTINf j led tlrer b I adjacent W a strmL ° r SCALE: V 40' -O" EBNGB UADNG pdasnWel-EXI N G OUPANCY -R7 e% " .Legal oesa piton - LOT COVERAGE TABLE THAT PORTION OF BLOCKS 5 AND 6, PLAT OF CENTRAL WASHINGTON ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME •B' OF PLATS, PAGE 33, RECORDS OF YAKIMA COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST pRpl NO tpLy QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 13 NORTH, RANGE 18 EAST, W,M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT SIZE 2.78ACRE8 DRAWN BY BUILDINGAREA: 28% OF LOT DATE i?l02114 BEGINNING AT INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF OAK AVENUE AND THE WEST LINE NORTH FIRST STREET, THEN SOUTH 3252 FEET, THEN WEST 400 FEET, THEN NORTH 3252 FEET, THEN EAST 400 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, INCLUDING VACATED PAVED AREAL DATE ON - 4 STREE -f AND ALLEY, EXCEPT THE EAST 100 FEET OF THE NORTH 120 FEET. EXISTING: 55,774 S.F. SHEETNO. ALSO PROPOSED: 69,089 S.F. 62.3% OF LOT LOTS 1 THROUGH 5, BLOCK 6, PLAT OF CENTRAL WASHINGTON ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME'S' OF PLATS, PAGE 33, RECORDS OF YAKIMA COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LANDSCAPING: 21.7% OF LOT AOO .1 1 EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING EASTERLY OF A LINE 400 FEET WESTERLY OF STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER 3 RIGHT-OF-WAY, ALSO THE EAST 10 FEET OF VACATED ALLEY IN BLOCK 6 ABU17WG LOTS 1 THROUGH 5. _- -_ -__- eall ATTACHMENT — A Short Plat Exemption Approval + Backup Dated 2l Day oJul¥21. INDEX +dam df% d� 2$� » < \<\\\ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 129 North Second Street, 2nd Floor, Yakima, Washington 98901 Phone (509) 575 -6113 • Fax (509) 576 -6576 www.yakimawa.gov CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF YAKS" SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE July 21, 2014 In the Matter of the Application received from Union Gospel Mission for a. 'Short flat Exemption to facilitate a merger of two contiguous parcels. (File No: UAZO Short Plat Exemption #01.8 -14)„ The subject properties are located 1300 N 1' St. and are split zoned General Commercial (GC) & Light Industrial (M-1). Properties affected by transaction: Assessor 's Parcel #'s Pro ert Owner 181313 -11012 Union Gospel Mission 181313 -11441 This transaction qualifies as an exempt activity (as defined in Section 14.05.160, YMC) for the following.. reason: This short plat exemption is made for the purpose of merging two like zoned properties, and dues not create any additional lot, tract, parcel„ site or division, nor does the division further create a lot, tract, parcel or site which is insufficient in area or dimension to meet minimum requirements for width and area for a building site. Brief description of transaction: Merger of parcels 1.81313 - 11,012, and 151313 -11441 to redevelop the subject property as more fully described in the attached legal descriptions. No additional review by the City of Yakima is required for this transaction.' 11' 1 r� e w • , .. k Ili property r - proposed r m w r •I� :N days of w property transfer is required, theft a Record Change needs to be filed with the County e aMN FINDINGS 1. This application conforms to the subdivision requirements of the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance„ Ch. 15.05.030 YMC„ 2. The proposed action also complies with all the subdivision requirements of the Yakima Subdivision Ordinance, Ch. 14.05 YMC, and qualifies as an exempt activity as defined in Cli. 14.05,160 YM.C, 3, The proposed lot line adjustment meets the subdivision standards for lot size and lot width in the GC & M -1 zoning districts. DECISION Pursuant to the aforementioned Findings, the application for Short Plat Exemption is a rowed. Entered: this 21th Day of July- 2014, pursuant to the authority granted under Chapter 14.05 Yakima Municipal Code. left' et i , u�rvising Planner DOC- INDEX 1 oi- -..; -- fenoi cvc —<721 flffiro of ]Voiohhnrhnnd & Develnnment Services (509) 575 -6101 Yakima '�li� imm pplemental Application For: SHORT CITY OF YAKIMA, SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 14 ,a PART' 11- AP ;LICAT.ION INFORMATION, 1. TYPE OF SHORT PLAT EXEMPTION: (check all that apply) ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Court Order ❑ Financial Segregation ❑ Lot In Approved Binding Site Plan Merger Of Property ❑ Cemeteries ❑ Testamentary Division ❑ Divisions Of 40 Acres Or More (NO FEE REi VIREDy t' O FEE REQUIRED), ❑ Prior Division Of Land ❑ Other FEE REQUIRED) 2. PROPERTY OWNERS (attach if long): List all parties and financial institutions having an interest in the property. Union Gospel Mission is! Y ct k t ri� a vat., 953,3 01 3. SURVEYOR AND/0R CONTACT PERSON WITH THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION: Jim Bell, Bell & Upton Land Surveying, 315 N. 3rd St., Yakima, WA 98901, (509) 457 -7656 BART .- USED ATTACHMENIS .. :. 4. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: ❑ A scaled drawing(s) depicting the existing & proposed property configurations. Note: The scaled drawing(s) must include information requested in the,attached plat plan checklist including the property boundaries, structures on the property with setbacks, existing easements, lot coverage calculations, si: e of reconfigured lots in square feet, sitescreening, driveway locations, and access. ❑ A legal description of the existing property configuration and proposed property configuration, prepared by a licensed Drofessional engineer or professional land surveyor.. PART I'V-,NARRATM S. OTHER INFORMATION: ❑ Yes ® No Will the proposed boundary line adjustment create an additional lot, tract, parcel, site, or division? Will the adjustment create a lot, tract, parcel, site, or division which contains insufficient area or dimensions to meet [I Yes No the minimum requirements of the zone in which the affected lots are situated? Will any lot be created or modified which does not have adequate drainage, water supply, or sanitary ❑ Yes ® No sewage disposal; lacks adequate access for vehicles, utilities, or fire protection; or, renders an existing public easement impractical to serve its p urpose? ® Yes ❑ No proposed �' J o Title 15 provisions, including: lot Will the ro osed bound line adjustment be consistent with applicable coverage, structure setbacks, sitescreenmg, and access. I her authorize t e �ubmittal o'fthis short plat exemption for review by the City of Yakima. del 'I oper O Signature required) Date Property Owner Signature (required) Date Note: if you have any questions about this process, please contact us City of Yakima, Planning Division,, 129 N. 2nd St., Yakima, WA or 509 - 575 -6183 Revised 02 -11 DOQ A4 , INDEX toF C 0 2 2 :iLa� PLWAM Dlv ypYVMA pplemental Application For: ! {a l r SHORT PLAT EXEMPTION CITY OF YAKIMA, SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 14 PART' II - ,APPLI(CATION IN ORMATION 1. TYPE OF SHORT PLAT EXEMPTION: (check all that apply) ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Court Order ❑ Financial Segregation ❑ Lot In Approved Binding Site Plan 91 Merger Of Property ❑ Cemeteries ❑ Testamentary Division ❑ Divisions Of 40 Acres Or More (NO FEE REQUIRED) (NO FEE REQUIRED) ❑ Prior Division Of Land ❑ Other (NO FEE REQUIRED) 2. PROPERTY OWNERS (attach if long): List all parties and financial institutions having an interest in the property. Union Gospel Mission 130 njo. lit S4tc <tf Yakttti�ct, .V'JA 9Sg01 3. SURVEYOR AND /OR CONTACT PERSON WITH THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION: Jim Bell, Bell & Upton Land Surveying, 315 N. 3rd St., Yakima, WA 98901, (509) 457 -7656 ,PA!T,111- REQUIR E ATTACHMENTS" 4. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: ❑ A scaled drawing(s) depicting the existing & proposed property configurations. Note: The scaled drawing(.r) mist include information requested in the,attached plat plan checklist including the property boundaries, structures on the property with setbacks, existing easements, lot coverage calculations, size ofreconfigured lots in square feet, sitescreening, driveway locations, and access. ❑ A legal description of the existing property configuration and proposed property configuration, prepared by a licensed rofessional engineer or rofessional land surveyor. PART IV- NARRATIVE 5. OTHER INFORMATION: ❑ Yes g No Will the proposed boundary line adjustment create an additional lot, tract, parcel, site, or division? ❑ Yes tR No Will the adjustment create a lot, tract, parcel, site, or division which contains insufficient area or dimensions to meet the minimum re uiremcnts of the zone in which the affected lots are situated? Will any lot be created or modified which does not have adequate drainage, water supply, or sanitary ❑ Yes %No sewage disposal; lacks adequate access for vehicles, utilities, or fire protection; or, renders an existing public easement impractical to serve its purpose? provisions, including: ® Yes ❑ No Will the proposed boundary line adjustment be consistent with applicable Title 15 p ding: lot covers a structure setbacks„ sitescreening, and access. uthori a submittal of this short plat exemption for review by the City of Yakima. ahe dQir Signa (required) L Date Property Owner Signature (required) Date Note: if you have any questions about this process, please contact us City of Yakima, Planning Division, 129 N. 2nd St., Yakima, WA or 509 -575 -6183 Revised 02 -11 f 7 �fP1 I --�•� Y.q 181313 -11012 THAT PORTION OF BLOCKS 5 AND 6, PLAT OF CENTRAL WASHINGTON ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME "B" OF PLATS, PAGE 33, RECORDS OF YAKIMA COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER. OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 13 NORTH, RANGE 18 EAST, W.M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF OAK AVENUE AND THE WEST LINE NORTH FIRST STREET, THEN SOUTH 325.2 FEET, THEN WEST 400 FEET, THEN NORTH 325.2 FEET, THEN EAST 400 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, INCLUDING VACATED STREET AND ALLEY, EXCEPT THE EAST 100 FEET OF THE NORTH 120 FEET. 181313 -11441 LOTS 1 THROUGH 5, BLOCK 6, PLAT OF CENTRAL WASHINGTON ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME "B" OF PLATS, PAGE 33, RECORDS OF YAKIMA COUNTY, WASHINGTON, EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING EASTERLY OF A LINE 400 FEET WESTERLY OF STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER 3 RIGHT -OF -WAY, ALSO THE EAST 10 FEET OF VACATED ALLEY IN BLOCK 6 ABUTTING LOTS I THROUGH 5. CWreptt W CrNion 181313 -11504 THAT PORTION OF BLOCKS 5 AND 6, PLAT OF CENTRAL WASHINGTON ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOL "B" OF PLATS, PAGE 33, RECORDS OF YAKIMA COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 13 NORTH, RANGE 18 EAST, W.M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF OAK AVENUE AND THE WEST LINE NORTH FIRST STREET, THEN SOUTH 325,2 FEET, THEN WEST 400 FEET, THEN 3252 FEET, THEN EAST 400 FEET TO THE 'POINT OF BEGINNING, INCLUDING VACATED STREET AND ALLEY„ EXCEPT THE EAST 100 FEET OF THE NORTH 120 FEET. ALSO LOTS I THROUGH 5, BLOCK 6, PLAT OF CENTRAL WASHINGTON ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME `B" OF PLATS, PAGE 33, RECORDS OF YAKIMA COUNTY, WASHINGTON, EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING EASTERLY OF A LINE 400 FEET WESTERLY OF STA:I.E HGHWAY NUMBER 3 RIGHT-OF -WAY., ALSO TBE EAST 10 FEET OF VACATED ALLEY IN BLOCK 6 ABUTTING LOTS 1 THROUGH 5, INDEX RECEIVED My OF Y KN IA 'PLANMNG 01V BEFORE AFTER s r Seg e: FAR REQUEST ME_ E# �_..- 131003 k Range 18 Township 13 Section 13 ; AWL ATTACHMENT - B Storm Water Calculations with Treatment Filter Calculations Prepared By: PLSA Engineers Dated 04 -13 -2013 INDEX D �., IV 0, M00009L lour—Im ENCANEE RING—SURVEYING—PLAWING The fok;,,wir�q inforTnalhon. s o conh rmf it, n Of to be Pula= It any 0 the informathr, shown haek is not in acewdance MT ywr undus1,'(.'.m4Jinq, p ease a,,Jwise hmeddQ We 91 nd be respwaitle fw any wN(',h may ar�se frory'r Of TAKEN BY: Scott Garland DATE: 04-19-2013 JOB NO. TSD ORDERED BY KL TO: Union Gospel Mission ADDRESS: ADDRESS: 1300 North 1st Street Yakima, WA 98902 PHONE NO.: PHONE NO.: 961-8161 v , u � � .. 77Y7771—j� 77-7-7.'.. --- 7777 — "" SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: Fee not ho exceed $30 kftj 14� 1904 �'klun�s � � q Ctiorges fo�r ihe work desubed hgln lug be or on hourly bats at 0 cwmt 001% retes, for tnr,r�,e ind ,,jamh, Me sv*r Wess Ma0d athahs Eorrazes given t,;� 0,,,,procrn01e j.1,p")n tr�f�)r 0 do howem, condikss may be encounfiered whd(ch rnaterk,,j`y this coe';. ei WmenN I'm serims awy be rudwed mimWy am pqmmt wM Ur, Q chn 30 doys therieclie,, A mmie chmge of 15% per muot or 0 nkOmm of re wd be apWd aphs! the unp6d 3('� doy5; r1qtw eo(jt sto(errten�., ?o tnu�' eyeM' the "kecO's account is ref;-sred in x� co coilec6on ogency for ony ressot), the, ckP�T",', lo �xiy ot cob, (0 cd=n coMs as jdh,ed dcanages F` the sw" Of N"Y MY M 0 Pw uqdd b* nu o . f we oam, or (b) attorney fees, OW4 OTMS US he yowe fu my adin relMing to to 0 mop at OW DOM M PAk be 0 Q C. of NWM0 Noq WA, or ar, the court which 4tdudes the lofqest My In any county in wHc➢ Me awrl has Wk% ,onr the d0t, Concok;hon 0 this Wer does not mlieve the as f pone pady o pqmerg hr wWk aSky compimed Wars MaMd Or Wkes ut xe not to tae;' e,red yer ccn.so,ucton uMh Wmathn M Ymik fli-tually PeHormed .s re2';6ved born mis Dke, "he stonaar� 0 ;ore for oV senticcl's f)erforrn��d or fw&Med by WAyprit �jndjerr, this A�tsr,.,.,merl� witi be th� skA oni care usad by numbws of Com0onl's pYofe�rs' or pr(jcticimg sirrdior cjumpancn at Me sme the am in 1E Nme locatity Consu4ant maWs no wrtrmys, VVns or hWkl Wer It ATmment V Othaw•e, in conechn 'irk AnnRons, setoces Drow6qs, sketches, fidd ale% electronk Add Igo, computer 60,', cok",uk��ions ird - Oh � r e siK!or do�urnents ,Sed �n RIY" p i u S ;l r 'PaT"nq pialn's, sj)eCJi(.;V;60r"S and", Maps ore inxtwmerts Of sw0a, at OS Vxh We lo rumb te propvty Cr he cwpmmjC, SIGNATURE OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY,,,- DATE: 14, 1120 West Lincoln Avenue # Yakima, Vh)'Nngton 98902 * (509) 575-6990 * FAX (509K,565-6993 DOW INDEX 11 21 ENGINEERING & SURVEYINC �M � Mr. Jim Klwsen Union Gospel Mission 13,00 North, I is' Street Yakima, Washington 9891 BRADLEY J, CARD, RE. RICHARD L. WEHR, PIS SCOTT GARLAND, P.E. JOSEPH W BAKER, PIS RE: Stormwater Calculations — APN 181313-114* S70� PLSA Project No, 13071 Please find attached calculations, general detail drawings, ngs, and cut sheets for required treatment filterS for the paving project referenced above. Stormwater retention and runoff calculations have, been performed using. HydroCad 10,0 stormwater hydrology software, and the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograpb method. Dry wells have been sized to fully retain the 25-year 24- hour (peak volume) long duration rain fall event and the 25-year 3-bour (peak flow) rainfall event. Minimum time of concentrations (5 minutes) and long term design infiltration rates (30 indies, per hour) have been used based on experience with adjacent sites and, soil conditions reported in the USDA Soil Survey for Yakima County, I I he runoff Curve Number for the paved parking area is 98. The two proposed drywells each support, a tributary area of approximately 7000 square feet (sf) of asphalt paving, Photographs of the proposed dry wells, indicate that they are standard Wilbert Precast Product No. 1803 and 1801 with Wade rings and grated lids. The attached calculations show that these drywell s are adequate when constructed in an 8.0 foot diameter by 7.0 foot tall drain rock envelope. See attached typical drywell detail. As mentioned above, the native Sand and gravel has a rapid rate of infiltration, however, provides minimal stormwater treatment. PLSA recommends installing a medium :size FlexStorrn "PC" type inlet filter on each grated inlet. FlexStorm product brochure is attache& It is understood that drywell rim elevations and asphalt grades will be provided on-site by the m4rnpr/contractor. If you have any questions or need further assistance please feel free to contact SG j c Sincerely, 41.,2 � - / 3 1120 Westlincoln Avenue 0 Yakima, Washington 98902 0 (509) 575-6990 a rAX (509) 575.6993 IA Z-L\ Paving 7,000 SF D ll ,Pubca�� �Ren'h DEC 0 2 20,14 MAM WDEX 2013LQA�_20 �m UGM ug E-WA Long R2 24-hr 25 YR - 24 HR Rainfal1=1.80' Prepared by PLSA Engineering and Surveying Printed 4/2412013 l ydroCADO 10.00 sin 02654 0 2012 HXqroCAD S vare Solutions LLC Pan Summary for Subcatchment 1A: Paving 7,000 SF Runoff = 0.05cfs@ 9,00 hrs, Volume= 920cf, Depth= 1.58" Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-72,00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs EVA Long 1 2 24-hr 25 YR - 24 HR RaWall=1.801' Area, (sf) CI' Description 71000 98 Paved Area 7,000 98 100.00% trripervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description min) (!tLtl_ -I LVD (f I cfs 5.0 .. Vsec) Dirac% Entry, Subcatchment IA: Paving 7,000 SF Hydrogaiph V'w4 1 -o ff �- 1 11 1 IT E-,WA Long R2 24-hr 0,045- 25 YR - 24 HR RaWatl=1.8014 0,04 Runoff Area=7,000:sf Runoff Volume=92,0 cf Runoff Depth=1.5,8" Tc--5.0 min 0,025 1 CN=O/!98 0016 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 � j8 40 d2 44 46 48 ' ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' " time (hours) 5�O 52' 64 56 58 6D 62 64 66 68 70 72 DOC. MEX ZEL. UGM 201 _0 _20 _ ugm E - -hr 25 YR - 24 HR Rainfall= 1. 80" W A Long R2 24 Prepared by PISA Engineering and Surveying Printed 412412013 Summary for Pond A- Drywell Inflow Area 7,000 sf,100,00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1,58" for 25 YR - 24 HR event Inflow 0.05 cfs @ 9.06 hrs, Volume= 920 of Outflow 0.04 efs @ 9.24 hrs, Volume= 920 of, Atten= 10%, Lag= 11.4 min Discarded = 0.04 cfs @ 9,24 hrs, Volume= 920 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0,00-72,00 firs, dt= 0.01 hrs. Peak Bev= 0.57' @: 9.24 hors Surf Area= 50 sf Storage= 11 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 1.O min calculated for 919 of (100% of inflow) Center-,of-Mass det, time= 1.0 min ( 683.3 - 682,3 Volume Invert Avail.Storaae #1 0,00, 114 c 8.00'D x 7.00'H Drain Rock Envelope 352 of Overall - 67 of Embedded = 285 of x 40.0% Voids #2 1.00, 67 of 0 ell! (Conicl Listed below Recap Inside #1 . .. . .. .......... . .. ... . 181 of Total Available Storage Elevation Surf.Area lnc.Store Cum,Store Wet,Area (feet) (so-ft) (cublc- �t fCUbin-fPPt1 1100 13 0 O 13 5,00 13 52 52 64 TOO 3 15 67 86 Device Routing Invert Outlet Device, #1 Discarded 0.00' 30.000 In/hr Ex0itration over Wetted area L lscarded OutFlow Max=0.04 cfs @^9.'24 hrs HW=0,57' (Free Discharge) I zExtIltration (Exfiltration Controls 0,04 ofs) RECEIVED DOC. DEC 0 2 201' INDEX V CITy Of YAKI PLANNNG DIVI s c Dberge (ofe) UGM 2013L04_20_uqmi E- WA Long R2 24-hr 25 YR - 241- R Ralnfalt= 1, m of Prepared by PL SA Engineering and Surveying Printed 412412013 HLdroCAQ0 10.00 sin 02654. 0 201,2,H �CAD Software Solutions LL C 0-,-- c f us Pond A: Drywell Stage-Area-Storage Surface/HojiZonf-01W."ad Ar.. i—fo QV IVV 11U 140 160 SW826 (cUW0-f",q m 0 Wetted M Storage DOC. 0 2 zM4 MDEX of Y AKIO # 01, , - PLAOING Div 2013J4�_20�_uqm UGM Prepared by PLSA Engineedrig and Surveyingi E-WA Sher! 3-hr 25 YR - 31-1R, ainfall= 1. 0011 Printed 4/2412013 HydroCADO 10.00 s/n 02654 0 2012 H 1drOCAD Software Solutions L LC 0— & Summary for Subcatchment IA: Paving 7,000, SF Runoff = 0.32 efs @ 0.97 hrs, Volume= 461 cf, Depth= 0.79" Runoff by SBUH method, Split Perviouslimperv., Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0,01 hrs E- WA Short 3-hr 25 YR - 3 HR Rainfall=l .001, Area (sf) CN Descri Con 7,000 98 Paved Area 7,000, 98 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description _(min) (cfsl &0 Mec, Entry, Subcatchment 1A: Paving 7,000 SF Rydrograph 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 jo 22 j4' 26"2'8 30 32 34 36 38 4042 44 4Q 48,50 52 54 56 Time (hours) UGM 201 " 20 � E -WA Short 3 hr 25 YR - 3 HR Rainta11 =9.00" Prepared by PLSA Engineering and Surveying Printed 4124/2013 HydroCADO 10.00 On 02654@ 2012 H droCAD Software Solutions LLC Pao 7 Summary for Pond A: ©tyvuell Inflow Area 7 „000 0,100,00% impervious, Inflow Depth = 0,79” for 25 YR - 3 HR event Inflow = 0.32 ofs @ 0.07 hrs, Voiunie= 461 of Outflow = 0.15 ofs @ 1.15 hrs„ Volume= 461 of, Men= 53 %, Lag= 11.1 min Discarded _ 0.15 cfs @ 1.15 hrs, Volume= 461 of Routing by Stor -Ind method, Time Span= 0,00 -72.00 hrs„ dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Say= 6.53'@ 1,15 hrs Surf,Area= 50 sf Storage= 170 of Plug -Flow detention time= 134 rain calculated far 461 of (100°1 of inflow) Center-of-Mass det, time= 13.4 min ( 84.2 - 70.8 ) Volume Invert Av ,il.Stora e Storage NOesori tcon #1 0.00, 114 cf 8.00*D x 7.00'H Drain Rock Envelope 352 of Overall - 67 of Embedded = 285 of x 40.0% Voids #2 1.00' 67 of D eil Conic Listed below f I soak Inside #1 181 cf total Available Storage Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area fleet s -ft (cubic-feet) cubic -feet s -ft 1.00 13 0 0 13 5.00 13 52 52 64 7.00 3 15 67 86 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 0.09 30.000 In/hr Exf"iltration over Wetted area ?Iscarded Out 'low lax =0.15 ofs o@ 1.15 hrs HW =6.53" (Free Discharge) 1 =Exfi1tratlon (Exflltration Controls 0.15 ofs) INDEX •� urmrv�y�w.�.,,.�uwu; r� u a m 1, 1 UG E- WA Short 3 -hr 25 YR - 3 HR Rainfall= 1. oo- ri�n'y�'gy and S gr'�eyin Printed 4/24/2013 Pond A: Drywell Hydrograph fim-0 (hours") Pond A: bell Staae,, -D €sch rno vrscharge (es) _ DOC. 4- LLI- tl�arl D S=dsd' 107 0Jscarded 2013 04�20Luqm rn LU UGM E-WA Short 3-hr 25 YR - 3 HR Rainfall=1.00" Printed 4124/2013 Pond A: Dell Stage-Area. Storage SurfacsiHcftontaurwett,OLJ Area dsq-ftq starage (Cubjc-i�*O — —V ]QU DOC. INDEX 0 w,, W Im kPRIL 25, 2013 108 NO��0a OTHERS "� � � 2'-D' 4' -8" MUMUM 8'•0" MDEX r WILDBRTI PRECAST 500 GALLON DRY WELL SPOKANE COUNTY TYPE A STD PLAN 0-1 S ' I IRING -SURVE ING- ` NIN YAK M i, WAS IIAiGTt N tVt i Wtfk' For Rectangular Grated InI FL; Ok FLEXSTO!RM Introducing F M HD, our HeaW Duty lineup for Concrete Structures State DOTs and Municipalities across the country now have a "Ff universal structural SM P to ad- 5 dress the issue of storm sewer 15 "4 inlet protection. The FLEXSTORM 2 -4, -7'PF system is inexperisNee, configure ble and adjustable and offers more versatility to fit the wide array of drainage structures throughout the United States while offering various levels of filtration. In addition to its standard product line for frame and grate castings, FLEXSTORM now offers a comprehensive lineup for concrete structures. For Round Grated Inlets FLEXSTORM Stainless steel weldments can be Customized to fit various round openings, Heavy Duty Stainless i Steel construction with high flow bypass flanges, �,Ifl, A flexsiotrn's conrgurat)IO systems ate Covered under US Patent No, 7,670,483 FLEXSTOPM offers seven different filter bag options for any of the framing styles. For complete test results visit ;iv%wJn1etfj Iters.co m FILTER, S TEST RESULTS rRATION EPRIVENCY = 82% t T LOVPle, 3r(j parry tostnii AST M D 73S1, Siond45, d tev &%vind toe DeiiamdAMWn Of Reikei now" IM Sh".q flow AppItCaUen 2qng ?'A USDA 5agily roam iTSS=99% TPH1=97%* ILAoft stain iii,111"gai q0 r,,pM Amils US (AWL "'OSS P't) SM 21-40M Tii 31243 i,,V/t used Motor 00 us �nit CPA %J"thad IV,41k FILTER BAG SPECIFICATIONS & CAPASIli Up to 4' curb openings (I rafter and MOuni Hardware) Betvreen "end 8' l2 Itenw!,W Moi Hardware) Between 9' and 12'tj Afters 0,1111 Mounting Hardware) Bowes" 12° and 16 0 f1fters and Mouri Hardware) 62HOWM1 i2HTWZ 62HOIm 62HDWM4 1,l 12 no 11.9 — tit) 155 89 ALL PRODUCTS DISTRIBUTED BY! 2.1 1.8 1.2 1,3 96 1t# 1 89 3.8 12 1.5 1�6 120 209 89 1 IMW 178 42- 36 2.4 2,6 192 370 178 e ftl bad lit WN M" sdSorption t4iiisjcAy •.pft MM(bagatecis ta"atig siod kkCbt, swMimvat 100% ctapat" I Standard bap are = in OWL Shona Afts are E2' In ai reauc ,jti $11,41face tali 89proilmately 50-A, WWWAds-pipe.com Flexstortn's omptete PlOdUct offeHng Is av,111. Total Bypass C00441ii Sypa55 capacity WiII VaFy able nationwide at your local ADS distriOutor, with each Soo ofainage Contact XWjq&jIAXMLW= of oui Inside slfu(turo, flet'storm d1i hiW ray ass sales staffat770-93Z244,3. for additional to m this minimum oesign now or i Product Information Includin 9 CAD drawings, PUCUOUW Arai as r Mfiucture. test"reports, and Informational videos, please visit us, online at 1,l 12 no 11.9 — tit) 155 89 ALL PRODUCTS DISTRIBUTED BY! 2.1 1.8 1.2 1,3 96 1t# 1 89 3.8 12 1.5 1�6 120 209 89 1 IMW 178 42- 36 2.4 2,6 192 370 178 e ftl bad lit WN M" sdSorption t4iiisjcAy •.pft MM(bagatecis ta"atig siod kkCbt, swMimvat 100% ctapat" I Standard bap are = in OWL Shona Afts are E2' In ai reauc ,jti $11,41face tali 89proilmately 50-A, WWWAds-pipe.com ATTACHMENT - C Parking Pole, Light Fixture and Luminaire Schedule For New Parking Area. Y 1 i Note 1. POLES 1 AND 2 ARE 35- FT. 2. POLE 3 IS 28 -FT. 1{S o �2w Fyn O 1 of 1 S2 Note 1. POLES 1 AND 2 ARE 35- FT. 2. POLE 3 IS 28 -FT. 1{S o �2w Fyn O 1 of 1 Receipt Number. CRm14- 3td617 CL2 #019 -14 18131311504 Class 2 Review $365.00 $365.00 $0.00 1300 N 1ST ST Total Paid: $365.00 Tendered Amt: $365.00 Change Due: $0.00 W, IND EX Pared UNION GOSPEL MISSION APP #005 -15 (APP #002 -15 — CL2 #019 -14 & CL2 #004 -15) EX1IIT LIST CHAPTER C Class 2 Review — Health Care Clinic (CL2 #004 -15) ,,,,% ;, C -1 Land Use Application for Type 2 Review 03/03/2015 C -2 ...... ...... ..... . . ....___ Maps: Vicinity, Zoning, Future Land Use, Utilities, Arterial 03/04/2015 C -3 ..____ .............................. Notice of Determination of Completeness 03/16/2015 C -4 .......................................... ............................... DST Review & Agency Comments 03/16/2015 C -4a: DST Request for Comments - dated 03/16/2015 C -4b: Comments from Mike Shane, Water /Irrigation Engineer — dated 03/17/2015 C -4c: Comments from Randy Meloy, Surface Water Engineer — dated 03/23/2015 C -5 Notice ofA licatumm......__._ ..... ............. pp ion _..___.._ 03/17/2015 C -5a: Parties and Agencies Notified C -5b: Affidavit of Mailing m.__._.._.__...._ C -6 Public Comments 04/01/2015 C -6a: Written comments received on April 1, 2015 (Return address: 1602 Speyers) C -6b: Written comments received on April 2, 2015 (no name or return address) C -6c: Written comments received on April 6, 2015 from Law Office of Flower & Andreotti C -7 Notice of Decision 04/17/2015 C -7a: Parties and Agencies Notified ......................... C -7b: Affidavit of Mailing _ .................. . . ......... ............... AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA RE: CL2 #004 -15 Union Gosvel Mission 1300 N 1St St I, Lisa Maxey, as an employee of the City of Yakima Planning Division, have dispatched through the United States Mails, a Notice of Decision (Administrative Official). A true and correct copy of which is enclosed herewith; that said notice was addressed to the applicant and all parties of record, that are individually listed on the mailing list retained by the Planning Division, and that said notices were mailed by me on this 17th day of April, 2015. That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the statements made herein are just and true. Lisa Maxey Department Assistant II I'D IN�DE(X Parties of Record - Union Gospel Mission - CL/_404-15 Current Resident . .......... Attn: Patrick Andreotti Bill Brado 1602 Speyers Rd Flower & Andreotti 201 East Oak Street Selah, WA 98942 303 East D Street Ste I Yakima, WA 98901 . ..... Joc,caruso vakimawaeov Yakima, WA 98901 . ........................ Code Administration . .... ........ .............. PMAreoLti flo�wer--,indreouilaw.com ... . ............................................................................................... Attn: Rick Phillips - - -- . ............. Glenn Denman Code Administration Union Gospel Mission Suzanne DeBusschere . ........... . ............. Code Administration 1300 N I" St Dave 'Br' o w n ......... . ................. — Water/Irrigation Yakima, WA 98901 . ........... ....... . . . .......................... . ........... J .......................... In-House Distribution E-mail List Name Debbie Cook ____ --------- - ------- Dana Kallevig Dan Riddle 7Mark'Kunkler ... . ............... . Jeff Cutter .......... ....... ............ Archie Matthews ..... ............ Mark Soptich Division ....... . . . . Engineering ......... .. . ........ . Wastewater .............................. .............. Engineering Legal Dept ................ Legal Dept ONDS ......... Fire Dept E-mail Address __ Debbie cook(e_4y5j i awa )v M ........... _l ul__. dana ka le a akirnawa, v darn xiddle(a �,)ya k i inawa gjqy ....... ........................... ........................ ................................ Markk Link] erQy'a k i in a"wq.goy jg1Lqi1'tc_r@yA L<imqwago_y ... . ... . . .............. .. arciiie, mat thews@yakimawa.,gov . . . ..... mark, ....5,qp "tch @yakimawq.gpy Chief Rizzi ..................................... Police Department Don iLnicrizzj(& akimpLw ........................ . . . . . . Joe Caruso Code Administration . ..... Joc,caruso vakimawaeov Carolyn Belles . ........................ Code Administration caro�lyp ell, s@)nkim-AAgLoy . . .......... Jerry Robertson .. ..... Code Administration - - - jgrry.ro�bertsonCo),,,yakiina Gov - - -- . ............. Glenn Denman Code Administration gleiiii.deiimaii(avakiniawa.g�LV Suzanne DeBusschere . ........... . ............. Code Administration Suzantie.de bUSSCII, __ --- ----------- 9nQ(41)y 99-V Dave 'Br' o w n ......... . ................. — Water/Irrigation d a v e, b —ro w n(al v a k i j —ii a w a',—L, o__ _v ----------------------------- . ... Mike Shane ....................... . Engineering mike_-..s.hane@yAkimayvA.gpov Randy Meloy . ......................... Wastewater tan d . Lngip y @ igja wa,..gqy .... .... .... . Scott Schafer .......................... Public Works Dept ......................... scott.schafq0q yakimawa.gov. James Dean ............. Utilities Janies,.deat i v !j&4kjj'nawa. ..... ... . ............ . . . James Scott Refuse Division Janics.scott &.y:4hjma.wa...gqy Kevin Futrell - -------------------------- Transit Division kev its. fLitrell(i ...... ..... ... ... Joan Davenport Planning p ort j) akirga . oy . . For the Record/File ......................... Binder Copy __ . .......... Revised 12/2014 . ............ .................................................... ......... Type of Notice: Nk- File Number: DOC. Date of Mailing: 17 /15 INDEX # 0'_ Maxey, Lisa From: Maxey, Lisa Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 9:49 AM To: Belles, Carolyn; Brown, David; Caruso, Joe; Cook, Debbie; Cutter, Jeff; Davenport, Joan; Dean, James; DeBusschere, Suzanne; Denman, Glenn; Futrell, Kevin; Ibarra, Rosalinda; Kallevig, Dana; Kunkler, Mark; Matthews, Archie; Maxey, Lisa; Meloy, Randy; Riddle, Dan; Rizzi, Dominic; Robertson, Jerry; Schafer, Scott; Scott, James; Shane, Mike; Soptich, Mark Cc: Martin, Trevor Subject: NOTICE OF DECISION (APPROVED w/ Conditions) - Union Gospel Mission - CL2 #004 -15 Attachments: NOTICE OF DECISION - Union Gospel Mission - CL2.pdf Attached is a Notice of Decision regarding the above - entitled project. If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact assigned planner Trevor Martin at (509) 575 -6162 or by email at trevor,martin aiLinr awa. oy. Thank you! Vsa.Maxey Department Assistant H (509) 576 -6669 1 zs ,MAK,ey @) " INgm . City of Yakima Planning Division 129 N. 2nd St. Yakima, WA 98901 DOC. INDEX # C " _J 0'_ COMMUNITYDEVEI,OPMEN7'DEPARTMFNT Planntnj,f Division 129 orflk ,'Ve ,ond , 'tre , .end $ o ak , "dshi g to 890 1 "hon e (09 ) 575-6183 - (0 575-410.5 CITY OF YAKIMA FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION for REQUEST FOR TYPE (2) REVIEW Application Number: CL2 #004 -15 APPLICANT: Union Gospel Mission / Rick Phillips, Executive Director APPLICANT ADDRESS: 1300 N. 15t St. PROPERTY OWNER: Union Gospel Mission / Rick Phillips, Executive Director PROJECT LOCATION: 1300 N 1" St. PARCEL NUMBER: 18131311504 DATE OF REQUEST: March 3 d, 2015 DATE OF DECISION: April 17th 2015 STAFF CONTACT: Trevor Martin, Assistant Planner I,.» DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:. The City of Yakima, Planning Division has received a Class (2) land use application from Rick Phillips of the Union Gospel Mission to construct a new 3,585 square foot health care clinic and a 5,688 square foot residential second floor connected to the existing dental clinic. The project will also include connections to the existing second floor walkways and repairs /upgrades to other existing building features for the Union Gospel Mission in the General Commercial (GC) and Light Industrial (M -1) zoning districts. II. SUMMARY OF DECISION: The Administrative Official approves the requested Type (2) application subject to conditions. III. FACTS: A. Environmental Review. The project is exempt from SEPA Environmental Review, per WAC 197- 11- 800(12)(a) because the proposed building expansion is less than the required minimum threshold for SEPA review. yard m ® ®C.� (:'ode A dt t kh°ado (5 09) 575 �6126 - I'lanning ) 575-618.3 m (yfice o Nei���t�sa�y °Ytoo & I���tp��l�,rpatel � wt.(100) 575 -6101 µ B. Zoning. The subject property has two zoning designations, General Commercial (GC) and Light Industrial District (M -1). First, the purpose and intent of the Light Industrial District is intended to: 1. Establish and preserve areas near designated truck routes, freeways, and the railroad for light industrial uses; 2. Direct truck traffic onto designated truck routes and away from residential streets; 3. Minimize conflicts between uses in the light industrial districts and surround uses. The light industrial district provides areas for light manufacturing, processing, research, wholesale trade, storage, and distribution facilities. The purpose of the General Commercial District is to accommodate wholesale and retail activities with some high- density residential development. This district is primarily located near and along the major arterials as designated in the Yakima urban area comprehensive plan. Like the CBD district, a variety of land uses are permitted. However, the intensity of development is intended to be less than in the CBD district. The surrounding properties contain uses and zoning as followed: Direction Zoning Land Use North GC Restaurant South M -1 Mission East GC Mission West M -1 Vacant / Service and Repair C. Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map III -2: The subject property is designated as General Commercial which includes a wide variety of commercial retail and services that are heavily dependent on the convenient vehicle access along major travel routes. General Commercial land uses, and include those uses identified in Neighborhood Commercial or Community Commercial, but do not serve only the adjacent neighborhoods. General Commercial includes uses such as fast food restaurants, auto - oriented services, and other commercial services. D. Statement of Cause: Pursuant to YMC § 15.14.030, the applicant has provided in the application the following statements explaining the compatibility of the proposed Class (2) Use (see Class (2) Narrative): "Yakima Union Gospel Mission (YUGM) within (Land Parcel 181313 - 11504) proposes to build a new building North of and connected to the existing Dental Clinic. The new building will consist of the following program areas. First Floor Level, New (3,585 sf) Health Care Clinic consisting of Reception Office and Administration Area, Waiting Room, Assessment /Vitals Lab, Storage, Exam Rooms, Dispensary CL2 #004 -15 Yakima Union Gospel Mission INDEX 2 Multipurpose, Provider /Staff Work and Toilet Rooms, Shared Meeting Room, and Support Rooms for Electrical, Comm /Data /IT, Mechanical and Fire Riser Rooms. Second Floor Level: This Level is 5,688 sf and will be located above the New Medical Clinic footprint and extended South over the existing Dental Clinic footprint. This floor level will provide Eighteen (18) Dormitory type units, Five (5) Women's units, each housing two residents, as well as Thirteen (13) Men's units Dormitory type units 11 housing two residents each and two (2) units housing three residents. Support Areas will include Apartment type housing for Men's and Women's Managers, Laundry, TV Lounge Janitor / Housekeeping Closet and Elevatorserving both floor levels and intermediate floor level serving and accessing the existing second floor level elevated concrete walkways. Also included as part of the scope of work will be renovation of three existing residential unit into Barrier Free units, Women's Laundry facility, and the demolition and reconstruction of four existing concrete stairs. The proposed development will be served by existing parking approved under prior approvals. No new parking is anticipated to be added with this project due to the fact that the Mission currently has adequate parking to meet requirements for the additional spaces. The Mission property currently includes 159 parking stall (existing plus 34 stalls approved under CL2 #019 -14). The Hearing Examiner decision from 1995 required a minimum of 82 parking stalls for the mission clinic. Existing Stalls 125 Stalls Approved by CL2 #019 -14 34 _._.... .. ..............................._ __.....__....................ww Total Stalls Provided 159 Stalls Required by HE 1995 decision 82 Dental Clinic (2012) 10 New Medical Clinic 20 Residential (1 space per 2 beds) 20 Total Required 132 The Mission operation is an existing use within an area dominated by commercial and light manufacturing uses. The Mission has operated successfully at this location since 1996. The proposed New Medical Clinic and Resident Housing and when completed, it is anticipated to remain consistent and compatible with the surrounding properties. Due to the fact that the Mission already operates a dental clinic on the site, no additional mitigation measures are proposed for the clinic. The proposed new Medical Clinic and Resident housing upgrades area a Class I use within the General Commercial (GC) and Light Industrial (M -1) Zone. The Mission itself is a Class II use within the GC and M -1 zone. Past Mission development was reviewed by the City between 1992 and 1995, and a new Dental Clinic was constructed in 2012. CL2 #004 -15 Yakima Union Gospel Mission OC. INDEN 3 The Mission provides temporary housing services to the community along with a list of commercial services which are consistent with the neighboring properties. Services found at the Mission include: providing meals, job skills classes, dental & medical treatment, addiction recovery programs, catering, recycling, and referrals to other local service providers. All these services require vehicle access (ingress and egress) to supply service and maintain the Yakima Union Gospel Mission. The Mission provides services to countless community members who have found themselves near the end of their resources. Improving the Mission facilities allows them to continue to provide these high quality services which ultimately results in returning struggling individuals to the mainstream population." E. Processing: 1. The existing Mission is classified as a Class (2) use in the M -1 and GC zoning district, and is therefore being reviewed under Type (2) land use review. 2. The application for a Type (2) Review was received on March 3, 2015, and deemed complete for processing on March 16, 2015. 3. The application is being processed under the provisions of YMC § 15.14.040. 4. Pursuant to YMC § 16.05.010, a Notice of Application was sent to adjoining property owners within 300 -feet of the subject property on March 17, 2015. Four comment letters were received during the 20 -day comment period that ended on April 6, 2015. The proposal was reviewed by the City's Development Services Team (DST) on March 24, 2015. Final comments of the DST members may be viewed at the City of Yakima Planning Division within City File No. CL2 #004 -15, and are integrated into this decision. a. Codes b. Engineering c. Surface Water Water /Irrigation L A detailed civil site plan should be provided for review which accurately shows all existing and proposed utilities and improvements. A detailed plumbing fixture count for the existing and proposed buildings will be needed at time of building permit submittal to determine the adequate size of the water service and meter to serve the site. ii. An Approved Reduced Pressure Backflow Assembly is required on all domestic water services just inside the building prior to any other branch or connection. If a fire sprinkler service is installed, an approved Double Check Backflow Assembly is required on fire sprinkler service just inside the building prior to any other branch or connections (7.68.070). iii. Any fire sprinkler service required shall be equipped with an approved double check backflow assembly, installed just inside the building prior to any other branch or connection (7.68.070) e. Wastewater L Wastewater will require the installation of a grease trap and sampling port (manhole) on side -sewer is required in accordance with YMC § 7.65.150. The CL2 #004 -15 Yakima Union Gospel Mission INDEX' 4 exact location and type shall be coordinated with the City Pretreatment Program staff prior to approval. f. Streets and Traffic g. Fire IV. APPLICABLE LAW: A. YMC § 15.03.020 (N) Light Industrial District (M -1): Light Industrial District (M -1). The light industrial district is intended to: 1. Establish and preserve areas near designated truck routes, freeways, and the railroad for light industrial uses; 2. Direct truck traffic onto designated truck routes and away from residential streets; 3, Minimize conflicts between uses in the light industrial districts and surround uses. The light industrial district provides areas for light manufacturing, processing, research, wholesale trade, storage, and distribution facilities. B. YMC § 15.03.020 (K) General Commercial (GC): General Commercial District (GC). The purpose of the general commercial district is to: 1. Accommodate wholesale and retail activities with some high- density residential development. This district is primarily located near and along the major arterials as designated in the Yakima urban area comprehensive plan. Like the CBD district, a variety of land uses are permitted. However, the intensity of development is intended to be less than in the CBD district. C. Class (2) Land Use Defined (YMC § 15.04.020(B)): Class (2) uses are generally permitted in the zoning district. However, the compatibility between a Class (2) use and the surrounding environment cannot be determined in advance, and occasionally a Class (2) use may be incompatible at a particular location. Therefore, a Type (2) land use review is required in orderto promote compatibility with the intent and character of the district and the policies and development criteria of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan. D. Special conditions authorized (YMC § 15.10.030 (A) (2)): In accordance with YMC § 15.10.030 (A) (2), "[the] reviewing official may impose conditions to mitigate an identified specific or general negative impacts of the development, whether environmental or otherwise." E. Compatibility Defined (YMC § 15.02.020): Pursuant to YMC § 15.02.020, "Compatibility means the characteristics of different uses or developments that permit them to be located near each other in harmony, with or without special mitigation measures." F. Site Design and Improvement Standards: CL2 #004 -15 Yakima Union Gospel Mission INDEX 5 The Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance in Chapter 12.05, 15.05, 15.06, and 15.07 establishes basic development requirements as minimum criteria, which must be met to assure land use compatibility and promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. Since the proposed use will occupy an existing multi -use center, the following are specific development standards and considered in the review of the subject proposal: a. YMC § 15.06.090(A) — Landscaping of Parking Areas: The standard for landscaping or parking and vehicle storage lots with five or more spaces shall be ten percent of the total parking area. b. YMC § 15.06.100 — Lighting of Parking Lots: Lighting shall be provided to illuminate any off - street parking or loading space used at night. When provided, lighting shall be directed to reflect away from adjacent and abutting properties. c. YMC § 15.06.065(E) - Internal driveways shall be paved and be a minimum of twelve feet wide for one -way travel and twenty feet wide for two -way travel, or wider if required by the International Fire Code d. YMC § 15.06.065(G) - The construction of new driveway approaches from a public street or a modification of an existing driveway approach requires a construction permit pursuant to YMC Chapter 8.64 for the specifications of the driveway approach. e. YMC § 15.07 — Sitescreening: Sitescreening is required along the property lines in accordance with the provisions of YMC Ch. 15.07. Sitescreening requirements vary depending on the intensity of both the proposed use and its neighbors. f. YMC § 8.64 and YMC § 15.06.065: All new driveways shall conform to the design standards of the City of Yakima Standard Detail R4, driveway approaches. g. YMC § 12.03.010 —All new lot shall be served by a sanitary sewer line located adjacent to the lot or development site. G. Comprehensive Plan The proposal is in conformance with the goals and objectives of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan as the submitted written narrative provides several statements which demonstrate compliance of the proposed use with the Local Business designation, surrounding land sues, and the following Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan: • Goal 3.10 — Provide wide variety of commercial retail and services that are heavily dependent on convenient vehicle access and serve sections of the urban area along major travel routes. • Goal 3.16 — Provide adequate locations for siting essential public facilities. • Policy 3.16.1 — All essential public facilities shall be located and developed to be compatible with adjoining land uses to the greatest possible extent. • Policy 3.16.2 — Essential public facilities shall be located in areas where they are best able to serve the individuals they are intended to serve. V. FINDINGS: 1. The subject property is owned by the Yakima Union Gospel Mission and current serves the clientele with Services such as: providing meals: job skills classes; dental /medical treatment; addiction recovery programs; catering; recycling; and referrals to other local service providers. 2. The subject property is zoned both Light Industrial and General Commercial. 3. YMC § 15.04.030, Table 4 -1 lists Offices /Clinics as a Class 1 use requiring a Type (1) level of review in the M -1 and GC zoning districts. However, the primary use of Parcel 18131311504 is listed as a Mission and therefor, applications to augment the parcel need to go through a Class 2 Review. CL2 #004 -15 R Yakima Union Gospel Mission INDEX 6 4. In the 1992 decision, the Union Gospel Mission was limited to 258 clients. The Union Gospel Mission reports to have an average of 215 clients. This additional housing is intended and allows for better separation of men only from families. 5. A site plan was submitted on March 3, 2015, which was found to be compliant with the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance Chapters 15.05, 15.06, and 15.07. 6. A Development Service Team (DST) meeting was held on March 24, 2015, for technical review of the project. 7. During the public comment period for CL2 #004 -15, on March 27, 2015, it was brought to the attention of the City that previous land use decision, CL2 #019 -14, was inadequately sent out for public notice, but was not appealed. 8. A Certificate of Zoning Review (CZR) for CL2 #019 -14 was issued on February 6, 2015. 9. A Stop - Work -Order was placed on any Union Gospel Mission construction on March 30, 2015, while the mailing error is under review, and the CL2 #004 -15 application was circulated for comments. 10. The City of Yakima Community Development Department held a meeting with Rick Phillips, Executive Director, on April 9, 2015 to clarify the use of the parking lot previously approved in CL2 #019 -14. 11. The parking lot access approved CL2 #019 -14 is strictly enforced, via key code, to be used for delivery, maintenance, and operations of the Union Gospel Mission. No client entrance will be permitted from this location. 12. In response to community concern, to help eliminate activities such as panhandling and loitering, the frontage requirements under YMC Title 12, specifically this includes the sidewalk, pertaining to Oak St. access shall be deferred until the redevelopment of the property at 1300 N. 11t Ave. Until then a six foot fence is recommended to be installed along the entire length of the Union Gospel Mission abutting Oak St. 13. The handicapped stalls proposed in CL2 #019 -14 should be relocated to the next closest parking aisle to better accommodate for delivery vehicles. 14. Pursuant to YMC § 6.88.070, this proposal is categorically exempt from review under the State Environmental Policy Act. VI. CONCLUSIONS: Class (2) Use 1. The proposal to construct a new 3,585 square foot health care clinic and a 5.688 square foot residential second floor connected to the existing dental clinic. The project will also include connections to existing second floor walkways and repairs /upgrades to other existing building features for the Union Gospel Mission in the GC /M -1 zoning district for the Union Gospel Mission, is compatible with the adjoining land uses. 2. The existing site layout is in conformance with all site design and improvement standards of YMC Title 15, Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance. VII. DECISION: The Administrative Official hereby determines that the requested Type (2) application (CI-2 #004- 15), complies with applicable zoning and standards and authorizes the issuance of the building permit based upon the above findings and conclusions and subject to the Building Official's determination of compliance with all building codes. 1. Prior to final inspection(s), the development shall comply with the following conditions:. CL2 #004 -15 Yakima Union Gospel Mission INDEX a. The installation of a sampling port (manhole) on side -sewer is required in accordance with YMC § 7.65.150. b. As stated above, a detailed civil site plan shall be provided for review which accurately shows all existing and proposed utilities and improvements. A detailed plumbing fixture count for the existing and proposed buildings. c. The driveway entrance on Oak St. shall be gated with an automated access and used exclusively for delivery, maintenance, and operations of the Union Gospel Mission. No client access shall be permitted via this access. d. As stated above, an Approved Reduced Pressure Backflow Assembly is required on all domestic water services just inside the building prior to any other branch or connection. e. A final site plan illustrating new fencing and the relocation of accessible parking shall be submitted to the City of Yakima Planning Division. DECISION made this 17th day of April, 2015 Trevor Martin, Assistant P anner for Community Development Director, Joan Davenport, AICP This Decision entitles the applicant to a Certificate of Zoning Review, which is valid for one year from the date of issuance. The Certificate may be extended one time only for up to one additional year by application prior to the termination date, as set forth in YMC § 15.12.060. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL This decision shall be final unless appealed within 14 -days after the date of issuance of this decision, in accordance with YMC § 15.06.030. Appeal forms may be obtained from the Department of Community Development and must be accompanied by the application fee of $580.00 CL2 #004 -15 Yakima Union Gospel Mission I . 8 PATRICK ANDREOTTI vlll lv � ttt!„Rr;Gt I %V co LAW OFFICE OF FLOWER & ANDREOTTI SUITE 1, YAKIMA LEGAL CENTER 303 EAST `D' STREET YAKIMA, WA 98901 TELEPHONE: 509 - 248 -9084 FACSIMILE: 509- 248 -9372 April 6, 2015 Joan Davenport, AICP Punning Iviana :,. City of Yakima Department of Community DevelopmerA 129 North 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 Re: Union Gospel Mission, File No. CL2 #004 -15 Dear Ms. Daver.Y; CHARLES C. FLOWER (Ret.) 01)E N1" NN',�, DN1l100N t D OPAID FYI 1 These comments are submitted in behalf of the Yakima Gateway Organization ( "YGO "), a group of North 1 st Street business owners who have been directly, adversely affected by the operation of the Union Gospel Mission ( "Mission") and will be further directly, adversely impacted by the expansion of Mission operations proposed in the above - numbered application. Decision in CL2 #019 -14 is Void: This application cannot be approved without the addition of parking spaces to accommodate the development requested by this application. The City of Yakima ( "City ") purported to approve the Mission's Application CL2 #019 - 14 authorizing the construction of adequate parking spaces to satisfy the parking requirements of this application. Unfortunately, the decision approving Application CL2 #019 -14 is void because the City failed to give notice required by YMC Section 16.05.010 to surrounding property owners. The City has previously been made aware of this deficiency but has failed to withdraw the prior, void decision and is proceeding to process the present application. In fact, Application CL2 #019 -14 cannot be approved because the street access requested for the new parking is a direct and material breach of the August, 1994 "Settlement Agreement Re: Union Gospel Mission Relocation" ( "Agreement "), copy attached, between the Mission and YGO. All further processing of File No. CL2 #004 -15 must be suspended until the parking lot application has been properly noticed and resolved. ' INDEX Joan Davenport, AICP Plai."ng Manager Page 2 April 6, 2015 2. Application CL2 #0014 -15: Without waiving the above - stated objection, the Yakima Gateway Association submits the following comments on File No. CL2 #004 -15: The application proposes a substantial expansion and intensification of uses on the Mission property. The expansion and intensification of uses will have a further, adverse impact on surrounding businesses and property owners which must be considered and mitigated if the application is to be approved. In 1992, at the time of the initial decision to permit the Mission facility at its present location, the Hearing Examiner noted: "The Red Lion's experts in their judgment concluded that occupancy in the first year would decline 8 %. For many small businesses, if their projection is true, that percentage is the margin between survival and bankruptcy. Many of the other businesses on North 1St Street echo these arguments since they depend to a large extent on spinoff of traffic generated by the motel industry. Restaurants, smaller motels, convenience stores and fast food drive -ins all depend, probably to a large extent, upon business spinoff from the Red Lion related facilities. Thus their concerns are heartfelt and very significant. The wrong call on this could rain their business. 'rhey have every ri ght to be concerned." (Emphasis added) (10/20/1992 Hearing Examiner Decision, UAZO Appeal #3 -92, p. 25) The Hearing Examiner concluded, notwithstanding the validity of these concerns, location of the Mission at its present site was "compatible" with surrounding uses. The YGO disagreed and appealed the Hearing Examiner's Decision. The appeal was resolved prior to a Court decision by the Agreement which was filed with the City August 2, 1994. The Agreement provided restrictions and limitations on Mission operations which YGO members believed would mitigate some of the adverse impacts from the Mission on their businesses and property values, The Agreement specifically provided: "These terms are in addition to those required by the City of Yakima staff and Phil Lamb, the Hearing Examiner." DOC. INDEX w.,w Joan Davenport, AICP Platunng Manager Page 3 April 6, 2015 OR, 0 The terms and conditions of the Agreement MUSt, therefore, be considered as restrictions binding upon both the Mission and the City. The Agreement specifically provided Class 3 review for any expansion of Mission facilities not included within a schematic attached to the Agreement. It appears the present expansion was not contemplated or shown in 1994 and is, therefore, subject to Class 3 rather than Class 2 review. [Agreement, Section 2(b)] Section 3 of the Agreement required the Mission to provide a restroom to the general public 24 -hours per day, 7 days per week. This restroom facility is not presently provided with resulting, anticipated adverse effects on surrounding property. Section 6 of the Agreement provided UGM would provide a reading /day room between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Clients would be allowed to stay on the UGM property as long as they adhere to UGM rules. This facility does not appear to have been maintained, if it was ever provided with the result that Mission residents and clients for other services are out on North 1St Street and surrounding areas most or all of the day. Section 10 of the Agreement provided the Mission would provide two (2) scheduled shuttles per day offering transportation for clients to designated spots in the City for a minimum of one (1) year. The shuttle service was not continued with the result that there is now a steady stream of pedestrians, clients and residents of the Mission, moving up and down North 1St Street on both sides of the street, interfering with businesses in the area and their customers. Section 12 of the Agreement provided a minimum of one (1) uniformed night security guard would be provided by UGM to make hourly patrols of the property and stay in radio communication with the Yakima Police Department. This has not been done. Section 15 of the Agreement limited occupancy of the facility to 260 residents, unless otherwise reduced by the City of Yakima Fire Code provisions. It is unknown what the current number of residents of the facility is or what the total number of residents would be if the proposed expansion is approved. The total number of residents must, however, be limited to 260 consistent with the Agreement. The starting point of any review of an expansion of Mission facilities and operations must be compliance and enforcement with the Settlement Agreement pursuant to which the Mission was established at its present location. In addition, in determining whether a further expansion of the Mission is compatible with surrounding uses, the City must consider the experience of approximately twenty (20) years of Mission operations. An example of the impact of the Mission on property values is the former Red Lion Inn, located on Parcel No. 181313 - 11001. In 2005, the property sold for $3,911,000.00 (Excise Tax Receipt No. 374046). D ®C. INDEX # C -U , Joan Davenport, AICP Plaiunng Manager Page 4 April 6, 2015 RECEIVI CITY YAKIMA use property sold at a Trustee's Sale following foreclosure of a Deed of Trust for $2,000,000.00 (Excise Tax Receipt No. E001954). In 2013, the property sold for $1,500,000.00 (Excise Tax Receipt No. 433294), approximately 38% of its 2005 value. Although it has taken perhaps longer than envisioned by the Hearing Examiner, the specter of bankruptcy and falling property values from the wrong decision appears to have come to pass. Loitering in and around convenience stores by Mission clients and residents has become an increasing problem as has harassment of customers. At least one (1) restaurant must accompany patrons to their vehicles in the parking lot after dark to alleviate patron concerns about their safety from individuals loitering on North 1St Street. Another factor which should be considered in connection with this application is the impact the present Mission operations and proposed expansion of operations will have on the Yakima Gateway Project upon which the City is apparently preparing to spend significant amounts of money. 3. Conclusion: The approval of the parking lot expansion for the Mission in CL2 #09 -14 is void. Consideration of this application cannot proceed until the parking lot application has been reconsidered after proper notice to property owners consistent with the Yakima Municipal Code. Pursuant to the Agreement which resolved the appeal of the initial decision in this matter, the proposed expansion by the Mission is a Class 3, not Class 2, review and must be processed as such. If any proposed expansion is to be given after a Class 3 review, it must be consistent with the Agreement and further conditioned so additional adverse impacts on neighboring businesses and property values does not occur. PA:pk Sincerely, PATRICK ANDREOTTI, WSBA #7243. FLOWER & ANDREOTTI, Attorneys for Yakima Gateway Association. D ®C. IN. # The following terms and conditions were negotiated between representatives of the Union Gospel Mission (UGM) and Yakima Gateway Organization (YGO) with regard to relocation of UGM on North First Street, Yakima, Washington. This document sets forth the agreement of the parties. These terms are in addition to those required by the City of Yakima staff and Phil Lamb, the City Hearing Examiner. 1. 'Withdrawal gf ARReal. YGO will withdraw its appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision allowing UGM to relocate on North First Street. The notice of withdrawal will be transmitted to City of Yakima Planning Department and City Attorney, and shall include a specific recitation that the subject appeal is withdrawn and YGO does not authorize anyone else to pursue such appeal on its behalf. Z. Fu ure Develo me t. With.respect to future development, UGM and YGO agree as follows: (a) Schematic Plan. A schematic plan for future development of UGM is attached hereto as Exhibit A. YGO agrees that ED the new Mission location and future development of such property in substantial accord with the attached schematic plan and designated uses is approved and acceptable to YGO. Any such future development shall be pAVe further subject to such modifications as required by City " of Yakima. (b) Request for Class (3 ) Review. UGM and YGO shall jointly request the City of Yakima (and any other necessary governmental entities) to designate "Mission" as a Class " (3) use within the M -1 zoning district. YGO and UGM agree that such classification and review process shall not be applicable to future develo me n accord with the attached schematic plan. ass (3) review shall . b rl a °d y � s detelopments above and 11- eyondt those contem plated on the schematic y� . � 3. Restrooms. UGM agrees to provide a restroom to the general public, 24 hours per day, seven days a week, subject to SErIlEMEbrr AGREEMENT Jere: \data \zoning\ isalon.as 1 DOC. INDEX # CO C- reasonable restrictions to insure safety and security, such restrictions shall not include locking either restrooms or access to restrooms. 4 , 'Access. Client erccess io the property, current and future, shall be restricted to the southside alley entrance designated by Hearing Examiner. The First Street entrance will be for administrative and staff purposes only. There shall be no access from Oak Street except for delivery of services to the subject property. 5. fl+a o ec . The UGM Board of Directors will provide a half -hour time slot at the beginning of each monthly board meeting for a YGO liaison /representative of their choosing (or additional members) to attend in order to facilitate communication between the two organizations and allow them to work closer together on future development needs of the area. YGO shall notify UGM three (3) days in advance of their interest in attending a board meeting. Break Room. UGM will provide a reading /day room between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Clients will be allowed to stay on the UGM property as long as they adhere to UGM rules_ 7.. oast uction Sign. As a good neighbor effort, UGM will provide a sign easement, for a sign of not more than nine ( 9 ) square feet, on North First Street for R 6 R Construction, subject to approval as to design by UGH. B. Sianage. UGM will place only one major sign on North First Street. The existing sign will be removed and replaced with a smaller sign mounted lower to the ground on a landscaped i4 mound with lighting. The sign will be designed to have an instituticnai appearance and will be approximately three feet '' . high and twelve feet wide. Verbiage on the sign will display "UGM COMMUNffy 11,�.� ,. Ministries" in large letters and "Union Gospel Mission" in smaller (approximately 411) letters along the bottom. The UGM will allow YGO to review the sign design prior to sign installation. 9. Wall. UGM will repair and maintain the six -foot fence indicated on its schematic plan, as well as construct and maintain the 100' wall required by Hearing Examiner in a manner architecturally consistent with facility design. Security booths and fences as indicated on said schematic plan will be constructed and maintained. All clients (except SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 2 jce- e:\d&ta %caning %acsaion.aaa DOC. INDEX # . f.. O'"W)EIVEV T YAKIMA "program" participants) will be prohibited from occupying the facility until said walls are constructed and /or repaired. All futu expansion (see schematic plan) will be enclosed by �a six -foot chain -link or superior fence- The fencing' shall be applicable to areas marked in blue on the attached schematic plan. Any fencing adjoining commercial or residential areas (as marked on the attached schematic plan in yellow) will be site- screened chain-link or superior fence. Fencing marked in pink will be erected at the time the contiguous UGH property is used and developed. All other fencing with respect to future expansion shall be required at the time of such future use and expansion. Existing fencing which may be utilized is marked in green. F� 10. Shuttles- Two scheduled shuttles per day offering transporta- tion for clients to designated spots in Yakima will be provided by UGM. Said shuttle will also be available for individual trips as determined by UGN staff and will be pro- active in offering rides to clients observed along its route. Said shuttle will operate for a minimum of one year. 11. Tai S - UGM will join YGO in a request to the Hearing Examiner and Yakima City Council that the proposed bus turn- out and bus stop planned for the First Street side of the facility be eliminated. �2* Security- A minim of one uniformed night security gu ar d will be provided by UGM to make hourly patrols of the exterior of UGM property and will stay in radio communication with the Yakima Police Department and neighboring properties (with property owner approval). 13. L s C. The exterior of the property along North First and Oak will be beautified and, maintained by UGM. 14. r All exterior exits will be alarmed. UGK will investigate feasibility of alarming individual rooms within facility. gS uoa+3cv. No more than 260 residents may occupy the facility at any given time, unless otherwise reduced by City of Yakima Fire Code provisions, or in the event of public crises or emergency. SE 112MENT AGREEMENT 3R- c= %dnU%ZW1D9\si8 1on -84 3 C- . RECEIVED 17. o g UGM will join YGO in requesting the Yakima City Council. and Mayor of Yakima proclaim North First Street area as a Gateway to Yakima. 18. i_ n s + a meat. This Agreement represents a contrac- tual relationship 'between Union Gospel Mission and member signators of Yakima Gateway Organisation. YGO signators shall execute this Agreement and the original shall be maintained in the offices of their counsel, Jerome R. Aiken of Meyer, Fluegge fi Tenney, P. S . , 230 South 2nd Street, Yakima, Washing- ton, 98901. The signators shall be disclosed only to Janes C. Carmody of Velikanje, Moors 6 Shore, Inc., P.S., 405 East Lincoln Avenue, Yakima, Washington, 98901 (counsel for UGM), and to UGM officers and the Executive Committee of the UQK Board. It is agreed that James C. Carmody and UQ! shall not disclose the names of such signators to third parties except as necessary to proceed with legal enforcement actions hereunder. 19. tto 1 Pees. Should it be necessary for either party to invoke the aid of a court to enforce the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party therein, in addition. to costs allowed by law, shall recover a reasonable sum as attorney's fees, all of which the other party agrees to pay. 30. M o at ion. All signators to this Agreement, for both YGO and UGM covenant and agree to implement and comply with the spirit and intent of this Settlement Agreement in good faith. YAKIMA GATEWAY By: SETTLEMENT A(j'rREEMFNr �cz- e:�das� \soninq \oiaamion.sa ON UNION GOSPEL MISSION F1 By: 0�_IWAF INDEX IN�D CCN11414 TY DE f,7?L0PA1EN7'DE11'AR TMEWT ,129 Ziv(d 11vor Kikhna, 989#1 Phone (50) 575-618'3, * Krx' (5M)) 5 75-61 0'5� DATE: March 17, 2015 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: NOTICE OF APPLICATION Applicant and Adjoining Property Owners Joan Davenport, AICP, Community Development Director & Planning Manager Type (2) Review for the construction of a new 3,585 square foot health care clinic and a 5,688 square foot residential second floor connected to the existing dental clinic. — CL2#004-15 LOCATION: 1300 N 1-11 Street PARCEL NO.: 18131311504 NOTICE OF APPLICATION 'j The City of Yakima Department of Com �Munity Development has received a Type (2) Review application (YMC Title 15) from Rick Phillips to construct a new 3,585 square foot health care clinic and a 5,688 square foot residential second floor connected to the existing dental clinic. The project will also include connections to existing second floor walkways and repairs/upgrades to the other existing building features for the Union Gospel Mission in the General Commercial (GC) and Light Industrial (M-1) zoning districts. The file containing the complete application is available for public review at the City of Yakima Planning Division, 2nd floor City Hall, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, Washington. Your views on the proposal are welcome. All written comments received by April 6`h, 2015, will be considered prior to issuing a decision. Your comments on this proposal may be mailed to: Joan Davenport, AICP, Planning Manager City of Yakima, Department of Community Development 129 North Second Street, Yakima, WA 98901 A Please be certain to reference the file number(s�or,applicant's narne, in your correspondence. (CL2#004-15 — Union Gospel Mission) INDE'X I # jai, "'4X, W Id, Ya Wria Code (509) 5,'U,-6)26 Mann tog (5059 575-6183 Offitv qj'Nlinglsborhood 4, D vleppit 'Sewviom "5019) .575-6 161 60cm INDE'X I # Decisions and future notices will be sent to anyone who submits comments on this application or requests additi6nal notice. -- If you bave'q'uestions regarding this proposal, please call Trevor Martin, Assistant Planner, at (509) 575 -6162, oe a -mail to trevor.martin @yakimawa.gov. Other Permits Required: N/A Enclosed: Narrative, Site Plan, and Vicinity Map �i 11� RECEIVED MAR 0 3 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Supplemental Application For: TYPE (2) REVIEW YAKIMA URBAN AREA TONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 15.14 & 15.15 Zone Classifications. ficatLA D USE n TYPE: existing e Staff, ard Delivery .04, Table 4 -1) New Parking ( ing Lot is a permitted use for GC & Ml Service Vehicles 2. SITE PLAN RE CIRE� lease use the City of Yakima Site Plan Checklist, attached) r� � ���� 7777 �� 3 NARRATIVE: See Part IV 4. TRAFFIC CONCiJRRENCY: if re aired, see YMC Ch. 12.08, Traffic Ca alit Test w 1�NVIRt3NllElIi "AL CHECKLIST: ifr, aired b the 4°asl�irr on State Environmental Policy �Acfi describe rs development, g number its and parking spaces. If h A. e proposal is or a bu ines' des ibe hours operation, days per week and al other relevant information rela related the business. Yakima Union Gospel Mission (YUGM) within (Land Parcel No 181313 11504) proposes to build a new buildling North of and connected to the existing Dental Clinic. The new building will consist of the fallowing program areas. First Floor Level; New (3,585 sf) health Care Clinic consisting of Reception arwal Office Administration Area, Welting Room, Assessment/V[tals, Lob, Storaa,ge, Exam Rooms, Dispensary Multipurpose, Provider/Staff Work and Toilet Rooms, Shared Meeting .Room, and Support Rooms for Electrical, Comm /Data/IT, Mechanical and Fire Riser .Rooms. Second Floor Level.- This Level is 5,1188 sf and will be located above the New Medical Clinic footprint and extend South over the existing Deutsl Clinic footprint. This floor level will provide Eighteen (18) Dormitory type units, Five (5) Women's units, each housing two residents, as well as Thirteen (13) Men's units Dormitory type units 11 housing two residents each and two (2) units housing three residents. Support Areas will include Apartment type housing for Men's and Women's Managers, Laundry, TV Lounge Janitor / Housekeeping Closet and Elevator serving both floor levels and intermediate floor level serving, and accessing the existing second floor level elevated concrete walkways. Also included as part of the scope of work will be renovation of three existing residential unit into Barrier Free Units, Women's Laundry facility, and the demolition and reconstruction of four existing concrete stairs. The proposed development will be served by existing parking approved under prior approvals. No new parking Is anticipated to be added with this project due to the fact that the Mission currently has adequate parking to meet requirements for the additional spaces. The Mission property currently includes 1.59 parking stalls (existing plus 34 stalls approved under C1,211019 -14), The Hearing Examiners decision front 1995 required a minimum of 8 parking stalls for the mission clinic. Existing stalls — 125 Stall' a roved b CI,20'19 -1.4 » 34 'Total Stalls Provided - 159 Stalls required by HE 1995 decision — 82 Dental Clinic (2012) - 10 New Medical Clinic - 20 Residential 1 s ace er 2 bells - 20 Total Required - 132 M�n "1 . 9, r D® INDEX # c - a b, B. How is the proposal compatible to neighboring properties? The Mission operation is an existing use within an area dominated by commercial and light manufacturing uses. The Mission has operated successfully at this location since 1996. The proposed New Medical Clinic and Resident Housing and when completed, it is anticipated to remain consistent and compatible with the surrounding properties. C. What mitigation measures are proposed to promote compatibility? Due to the fact that the Mission already operates a dental and medical clinic on the site, no mitigation measures are proposed. D. How is your proposal consistent with current zoning of your property? The proposed new Medical Clinic and Resident housing upgrades are a Class I use within the General Commercial (GC) and Light Industrial District (M -1) Zone. The Mission itself is a Class II use within the GC & M -1 zone. Past Mission development was reviewed by the city between 1992 and 1995, and a new Dental Clinic was constructed in 2012. E. How is your proposal consistent with uses and zoning of neighboring properties? The Mission provides temporary housing services to the community along with a long list of commercial services which are consistent with the neighboring properties. Services found at the Mission include: providing meals, job skills classes, dental & medical treatment, addiction recovery programs, catering, recycling, and referrals to other local service providers. All these services require vehicle access (ingress and egress) to supply service and maintain the Yakima Union Gospel Mission. F. How is your proposal in the best interest of the community? The Mission provides services to countless community members who have found themselves near the end of their resources. Improving the Mission facilities allows them to continue to provide these high quality services which ultimately results in returning struggling individuals to the mainstream population. Note: if you have any questions about this process, please contact us City of Yakima, Planning Division, 129 N. 2nd St., Yakima, WA or 509 - 575 -6183 Revised 02 -11 mourge.... C1 - - - -- I GENERAL NOTES ■ ` . DUNG NANYCRIEA • TYe.dO 1P1w -T Manna/ NM r1I a/ s ne_ d�+9 NUN :or, or NO com oNm IN meeg ' _— — ._ 0� Aar — EXISTING 1VIM'�L4PE �, lIVY[ , — — — — — — CNN Qrc /M row I.4�Bxa cone. Yen 1MM an er444 were. NINA. eN MG IrAS 4 E. OAK STREET ward wN N w ie M NP:Ptcgrax] iN pippAlwn• wv.e:,,.rwop P .5NN Mang leaYVeL a y ? p • ` • Wallies shown on prinl are underground 5 V • 1 — -- - — — ....'.1."'.T.'"'"".." _ / / ' rr , O , — — • Phone easement on east sWe of Proposed panting i is OD ' NTROL / !- /. jj 22 GATECO GATE OPERATOR � E I f ,, E)OS1N]NF„pR10 > 1 6R GATE OP FENCEI I 6 BLOCK WALL FENCE 1 d ,ET{p OC C IAM H CY•Rt • Utilities easemanllwaletl saute side of Oak SlreN 3¢6 GATES ` - 1 • Parcel NUmMrs q r f ORWELL Mi I �_E%STMIG LAM .. -_ "_ _ •' -•: / `_ _ ( I 18731911501 14 5 aT. S 0. / Zonilg:GC Adjacent PropeRy le IFi. k 1 I Address LIGHT POLE I I / ! r r"'f Yom_ - ,.- y 1 1300N First Street Yakima, WA 98901 PARCEL #11444 • AIDE I / a 1 • Existing SinmIures ADJACENT / / f R Z ONED GC AWS Gospel Mi san Ma Faulty i ',$.., Y. BUSINESS TRUCK 1 LI I. / i b Iliiliii r L L .E, • ' - �A PAacsr� I - a LEGAL DESCRIPTION STORAGE LOT I - SIR10aaPANG a I ! _ / < S•IDIL00iOGVIAAICY -A! f' 1 M TO M OFI I LTAL PLAT 4p VOID W!'D -° P PLATS, ECOR°80F _ ZONEDA4 -1 i 'l I� ,- r :' ' +t_ 1 11 .I-----.' 4' r / / E�T4Y6QtllK1 " * , 1 1 YNONGONNIY, WASIppI°N, ANDTIAT PORTIC410O F BEC THE SOLNHAEST OtAARTEA OF Tii OW0 R U GHIPOLE 1 4EAST MIAMI OFD 4 AS POLL NOUVEAU QUARTER OF ,]. TOONEPOS T11.,11.0011.S I pa r $4 a EAST, IPA. } 1 I PARCEL / :......, ■•IIII F AA/1u g , E P z 1 �� - ��II p ° 80400NOATB(OASEC7gN OE THE 901/E1 U NE aF OAK AM THEVF•S1 LINE 11500 : ■ // / / r i TIOM , NORTFIRST STREET, TIEYSW111381 FEET.TW WEST 400 FEET, THEN NORTH Sit/ PARCEL#11443 TREES I . - ZONED GC MED -'_il - • — 100' FEET,INEN 1oTfi PONT°F BEGOWEKI , 1110.1.101N0 VACATES STREET AND ADJACENT 16'41 SANITARY I�t1 / • 1;, MOO CLOG NMII �" - — e ALLEY.EXCE.T THE EASE 100 FEET 0 TIE FRAM N 120 FEET, iTT1 6,YWfT Q 1St M OXLNAG •5 wa•+. ALSO BUSINESS fi200 WA LFENCE g ! ,i �� LOTS1TIRd DR LeIaoLS RAT OFCENTRAL WASHINGTONADDI ON, ACCOg01NG TO THE a y r - / �' ��L� T Ci EW. RAT THEK -OF RE CASED IN VOLUME'$" OF PLATS, PAGE 33, RECORDS °F YAKIMA STORAGE LOT InnIN�I•rII►M /�R/ils \ I ce Wn,WABwIGra ZONED M-1 0 I EASEMENT E ONE ! g / '= � `� \� E% C�T TUTPOl 1gN LYING EASTERLY OFA LINE e00 FEET WESTERLY °F STATE HIGHWAY 111 , ��a e F— ( LO T S s 31]RIGNT-0F. WAY,AI.S°THE EAST 10 FEET OF VACATED ALLEY IN BLOCK 6 ABUTTING I DOSING GAZEBO �- • �` ,AWNSTRAflpN 11J LOTS T1tl1WlDF1S i PARKNG I ' • i mreo Ex 61. G pARRMb F — 1 WIDER I i / ® N ,ace * At ' WIbTALLE (n AT Emsne0 II A A PREVIOUS I i ! i / ° P mour Z G \ 1 r f— - z � � • / i � - _ ; r1 • f �FAOPD \� � �\ � \ / , , „; x = l�c�y =� �� -� = -� a ss. - 7Y CONNECTION N ``� \ \ \ \\\ � rsjf - p R r _ y. .1__r_1 -�-_I .� , A ING + \ :V l� - - ! - G �I te. — _ N ,-- 7 III 11 SIVB OUT BUILDING p '`} \ /I ///f�� /r J /� f�/� _ I— WEST LOT •, / } % a,. / Z I % v IF ` / 4: d 41' ✓` "`'� � y GENCE 4 pa) -F ' F / 2Y �i ! F _ D • ' r LOT COVERAGE TABLE T -1 R _� �• EXISTING 811Ff/ . LOT SIZE 2.TB ACRES / ��� / � V PARCEL 511004 ZONED M P.V. AREA I F POOL aa. BUILDING AREA: L �� % INNER COURT / IPA61� P: 32,347 5ISF. — 1/ / • SOUTH PARKING YRI II - TOTAL: PROPOSED: 3.2555 F. M CC I I / / (21)STALLS TOTAL: 36.2053 F. 27.4h Man 1 / • I II I PAVED AREA: ■ / EOSINS :FIJR6SJ. 54 2%0F LOT Z // ! .—.1....i PERM EABLE PAVING • • 1 r T �I PROPOSED: 3,250 SF. 2.46%0F LOT 0 EXIST. PAVED LOT r f / ' I WA3 EXISTING: (F) 1 - "~F 1 ,WAL %I • - • ` `[xrpnlrs 1 IXISTING: 21, 0113E 75 9 %OF LOT 4 CI) 'or.; / r• f' /' e - ./ / / // e! S �I 1 PARKING: T >l DIMING Nina % BAD I I TOTAL SPACES: 159 I j'� / --" • / // /_ /. / f ' / . / r/ ,/. 1 P W Z 23 to 15 •-• — — — COMMONl1RIVEPARCELtl11006- ZONEDGC — — — — b j _ OWNER i MC o �� z o §s PARCEL 0110013 ZONED MI I - I YAKIMA UNION GOSPEL MISSION z VOLUNTEER LOT PARCEL0t1007 ZONED GC NEW HOPE ! — RECYCUNGPAPoONG /PP SOVTH PARKNG NEW PARKING E70STDF1 ( (6)515115 M1 GL� (901 s7ALL3 1 [I 1 1300 NORTH FIRST STREET — I YAKIMA, WA 98907 I I I L I I — — __ ' . NEW HOPE ` ° " °' "G E r PH. (503 853 -4304 N )STALLS .. PRQ1. NO. i233 DRAWN 9Y / / /,,,a),„,,, DA TE ar.5 - I I /G (ICI REVIBIQV Br I I ��/ SN68TN0 SCALE' I =50' -0" ` , A001 WAREHOUSE I I flk PARKING B 4 saw, o ® =, El Ia C7 ni 4 Map Proj ect V w � s - c L 2 #0 0 4 _ 1 5 „ ..... „,, • i .� -J: .. .,1 • Related Projects: ' • .. r • • Applicant: UNION GOSPEL MISSION + + + . ��. . ... _ . • • . • / Location: 1300 N 1ST ST �i� �'t� *`� �-` +� +� � W - 03/04/2015 - 12:34:46 *••---,} Contact City of Yakima Planning Division at 509 - 575 -6183 City of Yakima - Geographic Information Sevices l.kd c. `WI F C■teln 7, tm _ Net, x '90 i = , hirh r< „t Yuan t Is A L •• nl f Lho F8 nn nw, r r . •r rocl N� hk trcc + 1 in F M - _ APR a 2 20/5 I. ; - GV gird y O Kl�y y ,Ea ONO I Riy,n Ril� 11!1[1 '1111 b•T11 II rl 4 r.i.vo,. U• 4r il F,�1Jei 1 ■ -.1 . . x . Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, In increment P Corp., 1 \ ` 1 :10.000 ” ' ' GEBCO3 USES, FAQ, NPSa NRCAN, Ged8ase, Kadaster NL, \ Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong}, swisstopo, 1 4 and the GIS User Community Proposal: Proposal to construct a new 3,585 sq ft health care clinic and a 5,688 sq ft residential second floor connected to the existing dental clinic. The project will also include connections to existing second floor walkways an� /upgrades to other existing building features for the Union Gospel Mission in the GC /M -1 zoning districts. . INDEX # C, -C2 Map Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning and illustration purposes only. The City of Yakima assumes no liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided or for any action taken, or action not taken by the user in reliance upon any maps or information provided herein. DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: COMA(VI 1"llanning IM,lision 129 I'Vari 2iml Mtwr Valibna, O'kishinp 9 9 h 1'Vione (509) 52'5--6,(&3 F�tv (50!�)575-61,035 hil NOTICE OF APPLICATION March 17, 2015 Applicant and Adjoining Property Owners 4, -�141114 a. Joan Davenport, AICP, Community Development Director & Planning Manager 0 Type (2) Review for the construction of a new 3,585 square foot health care clinic and a 5,688 square foot residential second floor connected to the existing dental clinic. — CI-2#004-15 1300 N 1s' Street PARCEL NO.: 18131311504 NOTICE OF APPLICATION The City of Yakima Department of Community Development has received 'a Type (2) Review application (YMC Title 15) from Rick Phillips to construct a new 3,585 square foot 4 a:lth care clinic and a 5,688 square foot residential second floor connected to the existing, dental clinic. The roject will also include connections to existing second floor walkways and repairs/upgrades to the other e is,ting building features, for the Union Gospel Mission in the General Commercial (CC) and Light Industrial ( 1) zoning districts. The file containing a Ilh The roj e ist 1 the complete application is available for public review at he City of Ya 'ma Planning Division, 2nd floor City Hall, 129 North 2nd' Street, Yakima, Washington, REg.UEST FOR WRITTEN COMMENT Your views on the proposal are welcome. All written comments received by April 61h, 2015, will be considered prior to issuing a decision. Your comments on this proposal may be mailed to: Joan Davenport, AICIP, Planning Manager City of Yakima, Department of Community Development 129 North Second Street, Yakima, WA 98901 please be certain to reference the, ile number(s) or applicant' ' s non e in your cOrrespOndence. , , (CL2#004-15 — Union Gospel Mission) !SK10 -)9 J" 61"a ze-o J, VZ WDEX MV # deAdminheradon (',509) 575-6126 41'luv;h q (509) 575-d8i, 6yjkv 77"', . rm-- MI %Z' NOTICE OF DECISION Decisions and future notices will be sent to anyone who submits comments on this application or requests additional notice. If you have questions regarding this proposal, please call Trevor Martin, Assistant Planner, at (509) 575 -6162, or e-mail to trevor.martin @yakimawa.gov. Other Permits Required: N/A Enclosed: Narrative, Site Plan, and Vicinity Map RECEIVED MAR 0 3 2015 Supplemental Application For: PLANRIM7 TYPE (2) REVIEW YAIGMA URBAN AREA ZONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 15.14 & 15.15 ...... . . . . . AZOU CATION 1. PROPOSED LAND USE TYPE: (See YMC Ch. 15.04, Table New Parking Lot is a permitted use for GC Zone Classifications. Parkin for existing Staff, and Delivery / Service Vehicles. 2. SITE PLAN REQUI RE D: (Please use the Cq of Yakima Site Plan Cliecklist, attached) 3. NARRATIVE: (See Part I T XF �Lr, H 4A., 49 "IN AM, A. Fully descril7e7hIZ- 'proposed development, including number of dwelling units and parking spaces. If the proposal is for a business, describe hours of operation, days per week and all other relevant information related the business. Yakima Union Gospel Mission (YUGM) within (Land Parcel No 181313 11504) proposes to build a new building North of and connected to the existing Dental Clinic. The new building will consist of the following program areas. First Floor Level; New (3,585 sf) Health (',are Clinic consisting of Reception and Office Administration Area, Waiting Room, AssessluentNitals, Lab, Storage, Exam Rooms, Dispensary Multipurpose, Provider(-Staff Work and Toilet Rooms, Shared Meeting Room,. and Support Rooms for Electrical, Comm/Data/IT, Mechanical and Fire Riser Rooms, Second Floor Level: This Level, is 5,688 st and will be located above the New Medical Clinic footprint and extend South over the existing Dental Clinic footprint. This floor level will provide Eighteen (18) Dormitory type units, Five (5) Women's units, each housing two residents, as well as Thirteen (13) Men's units Dormitory type unit's 11 bousing two residents each and two (2) units housing three residents. Support Areas will include Apartment type housing for Men's and Women's Managers, Laundry, TV Lounge Janitor / Housekeeping Closet and Elevator serving both floor levels and Intermediate floor level serving and accessing tile existing second floor level elevated concrete walkways. Also included as part of the scope of work will be renovation of three existing residential unit into Barrier Free Units, Women's Laundry facility, and the demolition and reconstruction of four existing concrete stairs. The proposed development will be served by existing parking approved tinder prior approvals. No new parking is anticipated to be added with this project due to the fact that the Mission currently has adequate parking to meet requirements for the additional spaces,. The Mission property currently includes 159 parking slalls, (existing plus 34 stalls approved under CL24,019-14). The Hearing Examiners decision from 1995 required a minimum of 82 parking stalls for the mission clinic. Existing stalls — 125 4- 34 Total Stalls Provided 159 Stalls required by HE 1995 decision — 82 Dental Clinic (2012) - 10 New Medical Clinic - 20 Residentigi .I U space per 2 beds) - 20 Total Required - 11 - 132 DOC. INDEX B. How is the proposal compatible to neighboring properties? The Mission operation is an existing use within an area dominated by commercial and light manufacturing uses. The Mission has operated successfully at this location since 1996. The proposed New Medical Clinic and Resident Housing and when completed, it is anticipated to remain consistent and compatible with the surrounding properties. C. What mitigation measures are proposed to promote compatibility? Due to the fact that the Mission already operates a dental and medical clinic on the site, no mitigation measures are proposed. D. How is your proposal consistent with current zoning of your property? The proposed new Medical Clinic and Resident housing upgrades are a Class I use within the General Commercial (GC) and Light Industrial District (M -1) Zone. The Mission itself is a Class II use within the GC & M -1 zone. Past Mission development was reviewed by the city between 1992 and 1995, and a new Dental Clinic was constructed in 2012. E. How is your proposal consistent with uses and zoning of neighboring properties? The Mission provides temporary housing services to the community along with a long list of commercial services which are consistent with the neighboring properties. Services found at the Mission include: providing meals, job skills classes, dental & medical treatment, addiction recovery programs, catering, recycling, and referrals to other local service providers. All these services require vehicle access (ingress and egress) to supply service and maintain the Yakima Union Gospel Mission. F. How is your proposal in the best interest of the community? The Mission provides services to countless community members who have found themselves near the end of their resources. Improving the Mission facilities allows them to continue to provide these high quality services which ultimately results in returning struggling individuals to the mainstream population. Note: if you have any questions about this process, please contact us City of Yakima, Planning Division, 129 N. 2nd St., Yakima, WA or 509 -575 -6183 Revised 02 -11 . _ - P...•r... 1" - .. ... GENERAL NOTES NSTNGIAN4. IES • Nees•g••Prvm•• The f�Ree WORN ea lrw OU•dn4 Hawn ARM and emus. C me 4..3 1- • k al ( — EOSTING IO LANDSCAPE HIl>optl — -- — — — Dw T eun n 44•.ae rs so •K In d• URI0 rlpkgs _ E. OAK STREET I 4•e/ . izI �nJin p a IPo:eeS •e A•N11K Y• bp • ••+•s 1 — — • , YS. / s um., show, on win! we underground • WIE C OIJI7EDL /,'/ a/ / ! / ''III • Phone eesemem on east Side of proposed parking lot ; { iii 1- GATE OPEMTOR '1 1 / b EXISTING BUILDING / I • UIIIIIies easement located south side of Oak Strew B ROO IRON FENCE/ i 66LOTN WALL FENCE I ..,:-..j OCCUPANCY -RI GATES • Parcel Numbers OR I EXISTING LAWN J YWEIL 1 1 J / J /. I 18131311504 Zoning: GC 8 M -1 Adacenl Property lo WWII M.1 2 1 T 1 u1 y _ g s S y I I I • 1300 N, a ' F UGKTPOLE • I / 1.. *IERNO ANPLI..._. '= 1 1300 N. FRAS.ex Yallim0. W A 98901 PARCEL #11444 • I 1 / • Existing Structures ..-__---...• N • / - _ Union Gospel Mission Main Facility JJ,,.. ADJACENT 1 :��+ t 1 / a , > ,, . — ZONED GC BUSIlSS TRUCK 'Z w �re n * sr• j a LEGAL DESCRIPTION STORAGE LOT I 111111111 If y 1 O MO DGWA1c / •/ ]IIOP_[V)NrTCC1vA r „ r I THAT PORTION OF BLOCKS 5 AND 6, PLAT OF CENTRAL WASHINGTON ADDITION, —, ZONED M -1 I !� tyy(( '. _ / L K J F�R>bfa00, [I 1' 6r TO TIIE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF RECORDEDNVOLUME 'B'OF PLATS, PAGE 33,REfAR0.50F , A 1a VANI. COUNTY, WASHN D GTORA THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST OWRTER OF THE Pa j L I y' NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 13 TOWNSHIP 13 NORTH, p IR ! � ,$'^ y. `� y 1S RANGE IB EAST W.M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL # 941 941 Cmil / • • 1 CE a .'� , ': ;i f1 ■I f 5 � I BEGINNING AT INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH UNE OF OAK AVENUE AND THE WEST UNE ' 7 NORTH FIRST STREET, THEN SOUTH 3252 FEET, THEN WEST 400 FEET, THEN NORTH 325.2 80201200100 , ST PIR PARCEL #11443 ZONEDGC `ill ��I` 1`V 1l FEET, THEN EAST 400 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, INCLUDING VACATED STREET AND tpN1ARr . VA IL 5Al ! r- - axsroGCUwc III , !' — � tf / , ALLEY, EXCEPT THE EAST 100 FEET OF THE NORTH 120 FEET. s -t.i • � OCG con0C -6 1' ALSO BUSINESS TRUCK SBL aIxwuL FENCE / � � —^ LOTS 1 THROUGH 5, BLOCK 0, PLAT OF CENTRAL WASHINGTON ADDITION. ACCORDING TO THE • I / /r./ . a a I I OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF RECORDED YAKIMA OF PLATS, PAGE 33, RECORDS OF YAK STORAGE LOT I 555 666iii - Irr1•1111■ \w1M wM� _ IFIM/ I H ry couw.wwRIENGroN, i 6'TELEPHONE / T _ 1A \ ygK•� ! EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING EASTERLY OF A LINE 000 FEET WESTERLY OF STATE HIGHWAY ZONED M -1 Q v' EASEMENT —� , � �, l i 14e0ER T / T� AD TICNf fn` r a Rev ouB I I I J ® P 152200 ' STS II i .` I I /i+ elur , ZONED G \ �r w l a ill \ CONNECONNECTION N I 1. 1.s I F a N I PROPOSED 2 CS e } fII 1 , I 1 III� 1 r 1.6. \ I - 2 E / A TUB OU N \ . ` . f BU 1 1NG I Z I = N same M.111 WEST LOT / / % . I re FENCE GUEST PARKING i:� ' 1 • Q 7 (3Bj ST ALLS 03 , x _ / + • / LOT COVERAGE TABLE • PARCEL #11004 ZONED M -1 —_ E b ' , / � u1 LOT SCE 2T0 ACRES BUILDING AREA: R V AREA ! INNER COURT ST ,4 2 alSTNG: 32,347 S.F. 1.11 / SOUTH PARKING / A LSWM I PROPOSED: 3.BSBGF. • f I y1 DOTAL 36205 SF. PAVED : 27.1 %OF LOT r // / (21( 8TAUS \ % / _ewe11M EXISTING :71,550 SP 542 %OF LOT ` Z PERMEABLE PAVING O PROPOSED:3,250 SF 2A6% OF LOT EMT. PAVED LOT / / 1 LAN EXISTING, 21.0115E 15.9%0F LOT �1 V) / ' Y I ��� IIIII J/ 1 I ^ PARNI TOTAL SPACES: 159 EE�� r 1 I t O IOd5TLN6 MOM EXTer Ef Iv y _ OCORANGY -Rt YIDN �] r / !\ ! 0 ._ _ 1 J L,, — — — D (u15 p r< COM1oNORNEPARCELA11006 -ZONED GC T § I I OWNER G p N � ti � { U O 8a PARCEL P11008 ZONED M1 I — S YAKIMA UNION GOSPEL MISSION r I X RECYCLING PARKING VOLUNTEER LOT PARCEL #11007 ZONED GC I / NEW HOPE I--+ (6)STALLS M1 G SG (30) STALLS 0 L/ CATERING 701 EXISTING 4 1300 NORTH FIRST STREET 1 (509 853 -4304 PH YAKIMA, WA 98907 - !� _ 1 ' . I NEW HOPE OARING E' • ., I BTU _ D RA W NB, 1233 1 I DRAWN BY il ( ' �h7 DATE 3102/15 • i � )J/ // R EVISION T K I 1 r 1j�/[I SHEET NO. 0 I JIG SCALE: 1" =50' -0' WAREHOUSE AO 01 PARKING STAGS . • w Z i 1 i, . . r, �s��� „„,,, �1 Proj ect vicinity Map- , ii., c L2#0 04 -1 5 . • 1, ,� :wit. • I ' • • i,.. • • Related Projects: � •+ •.,� • Applicant: UNION GOSPEL MISSION + 4 1 f • •...,.•• , Location: 1300 N 1ST ST ' �4 , ` c j, y ,,. \ . t ti , Wednesday - 03/04/2015 - 12:34:46 � ',,,. -`' -+ Contact City of Yakima Planning Division at 509 - 575 -6183 City of Yakima - Geographic Information Sevices r .,,.• r },1n _ C.AATR. ^ F ~ r t I Nut - FTahr 'IT,,, •• ..:11..A. i ±�_I Pr a I I: • -I C • 11 3 Lnud 'm P 1r •1 I.alara.l w. T J i'lnihk. Tr-. %l- Ils +t TNJ1'4NI. Aldo! g IAA :1 Lii 1 Ft • hlgvn LI R44e! 1 r 0 s . , - CAM., _ Im t• Forge Lr,udn I - Sour s: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., 1:10,000 GE6CQ; USES , FAO''NPS — , NRCANT GeoBa"se,'IGN, Kadaster NL, 1 Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swtsstopo, `•' and the'GIS User Community Proposal: Proposal to construct a new 3,585 sq ft health care clinic and a 5,688 sq ft residential second floor connected to the existing dental clinic. The project will also include connections to existing second floor walkways and Iry �Cupgrades to other existing building features for the Union Gospel Mission in the GC /M -1 zoning districts. ONDEX ## c_4 n.`._ �. Map Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning and illustration purposes only. The City of Yakima assumes no liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided or for any action taken, or action not taken by the user in reliance upon any maps or information provided herein AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA RE: CL2 #004 -15 Union Gospel Mission 1300 N 1St St I, Lisa Maxey, as an employee of the Yakima City Planning Division, have dispatched through the United States Mails, a Notice of Application. A true and correct copy of which is enclosed herewith; that said notice was addressed to the applicant and all property owners of record within a radius of 300 feet of subject property, that said property owners are individually listed on the mailing list retained by the Planning Division, and that said notices were mailed by me on this 17th day of March, 2015. That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the statements made herein are just and true. Lisa Maxey Department Assistant II INDEz i Maxey, Lisa From: Maxey, Lisa Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 11:25 AM To: Belles, Carolyn; Brown, David; Caruso, Joe; Cook, Debbie; Cutter, Jeff; Davenport, Joan; Dean, James; DeBusschere, Suzanne; Denman, Glenn; Futrell, Kevin; lbarra, Rosalinda; Kallevig, Dana; Kunkler, Mark; Matthews, Archie; Maxey, Lisa; Meloy, Randy; Riddle, Dan; Rizzi, Dominic; Robertson, Jerry; Schafer, Scott; Scott, James; Shane, Mike; Soptich, Mark Cc: Martin, Trevor Subject: NOTICE OF APPLICATION - Union Gospel Mission - CL2 #004 -15 Attachments: NOTICE OF APPLICATION_ Union Gospel Mission - CL2.pdf Attached is a Notice of Application regarding the above - entitled project. If you have any questions about this proposal please contact assigned planner Trevor Martin at (509) 575 -6162 or by e-mail at tevor. art!n y�aki r awa. v. Thank you! Lisa.Maxey E) ,lrartlnt: °ir t Assistant 11 (59) 576- 11669 Lmsisa..Maxe.. b,'! akimawa. acv City of Yakima Planning Division 129 N. 2nd St. Yakima, WA 98901 ®®C.. # INKA-, 0- ...... ..... . ....... ....w. ............ In -House Distr ibution E -mail List Name Debbie Cok.__." "- .' " " "" Kallevi g Division . Wastewa ter E -mail Address o d - Deebbie o. ki aw , � q � ............... wDana w�,...� ildk1l1e )� 0 1 1l ,] Dan Riddle ..�. .......... _ Engineering dai 1':idd] y .mhl�l �1,M.!.1" Mark Kunkler Le g al Dept ... .._... Ma� �-. .c_. a o Jef C utter ..._ ... . ..._. Dept a_klPn...a:w lk tta w 11 . Archie Matthews ONDS :1rdii a�1��A�th S ityAkilll � i < . ..........� Ma tich Fire De t , n, Chief Rizzi ��. ... �. _. . _ Police ���...._... �...� e Department i 11� ylllall m Joe Caruso Code Administration J1 a1"gs �y4l ll11A4 V: Carolyn Belles Code Administration :1�mcll� I�lil�:.wyga_° Jerry Robertson ITmmmmm�ITIT ITITCode Administration .cawclrim llllm lm go Glenn Denman Code Administration j�,,,, : e ial� „ gll� y l��11l�tw up ..........._ ......... Suzanne DeBusschere .. Code Administration .. .... a zat m1 do t lmssch r ykki Dave Brown Water /Irrigation cit"IINIC b �k Rl -( Y.gL�5qia"w gq II Mike Shane Engineering ...._ __._ ...... .w_.............. .......... ... lu�cmmllimyl &l Cl Randy Meloy Wastewater ...... p1 r 11161y ?yaki myA Scott Schafer Public Works Dept scot Sell,.�fier ��y 1;(��lan James Dean Utilities�l:le lcla �1:rl gl.'r James Scott Refuse Division i yl� � ( _;_pa"� a, ummm Wu Kevin Futrell mmWWmmuWm __ . _. m ITITITIT _.... sit viss ion Transit Di yjµl:ltj fl wimara, gcm�J. Joan Davenport Planning�..wt.alu��l�p g1.1 For the Record /File . . ....... .... ............................_.. Binder Copy Revised 12/2014 Type of Notice: We 0 File Number(s): u �� #b q —(,5' Date of Mailing: 3 /11 %5 N. ,t 18131311500 18131312027 f'. 18131311443 2 RIVERS INVESTMENTS LLC COM COLD STOkAGE CO DOUG CHRISTEN HAULING INC PO BOX 3062 PO BOX 27 1313 GORDON RD UNION GAP, WA 98903 YAKIMA, WA 989070027 YAKIMA, WA 98901 18131311450 18131311491 1813"'13',11432 GC II LLC GOLDEN LI LAI LLC GOLDEN Ll "'N A I 2300 RIVER RD #13 612 S 75TH AVE .,mom 612 S 7 �T" AVE YAKIMA, WA 98902 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YI A, WA 98908 • ,. 18131311433 1 18137311434 18131311452 GOLD 'N LL C GOLDEN Ll -L„AI LLC.. „” GP HOSPITALITY LLC 612S 5THI ' ",AVE "' -., 612 ; 5- 544 -AV`f 1405 N 1ST ST Y 1 +1A,, WA 98908 `"` ° °� °- .. ".., YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98901 18131311451 18131311013 18131311419 GP HOSPITALITY LAC '"' AS PROPERTIES LLC MMT LODGING GROUP LLC 1405 1405 N 1 8'I"„ 2300 RIVER RD UNIT 26 PO BOX 4335 9X I i, WA 8901 YAKIMA, WA 989026201 WEST RICHLAND, WA 99353 18131311440 18131312019 18131311448 0 JEAN OWENS REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST SEAWARD PROPERTIES LLC SUNSHINE MOTEL INN LLC 1602 SPEYERS RD 1314 GORDON RD 1223 N 1ST ST SELAH, WA 98942 YAKIMA, WA 98901 YAKIMA, WA 98901 18 31311494 18131311008 ;1.81,37.3 11504 � SUNSHIN �.1�N LLC' MISSION N _. MISSION IBOX� 1223 N 1-8T �� " �',w -� PO 565PEL PO S65R� „ YAKIM4, WA 98901 YAKIMA, WA 98907 YAKIMA,"WA 98907 181313 IQ04 18131311006 UNION GOS"M�SSIOr , .. -- - kt ing YAKIMA CITY PO BOX 5,- 129 N 2ND ST YAI(NMA,'WA989070565 ..,., . ............... . . . YAKIMA, WA 989012613 .. ................ . ................ 18131311422 18°133„311498 18131311493 ALVIN TATGE ALVIN E TAT G&-' � . AMARAT NIJJAR 212 SYCAMORE ST 21 ,$Y AM' FIE ST m •....,• 1223 N 1ST ST YAKIMA, WA 989011718 YAIMA, WA 989011718 YAKIMA, WA 98901 18131311420 18131311426 18131312007 CARINA QUINTANA CHARLES E. FIELDS DOUG & SANDERS TRUST TILTON 204 SYCAMORE ST 211 E OAK ST 1312 GORDON RD YAKIMA, WA 989011718 YAKIMA, WA 989011715 YAKIMA, WA 989011725 18131311444 18131311430 181313-11431 DOUGLAS EDWIN CHRISTEN GARY E & MARJORIE J RUFENER GARY E & M�JQR],E --J- IFENE °R' 1313 GORDON RD 1408 N 1ST ST S T YAKIMA, WA 98901 YAKIMA, WA 98901 YAKIMA, W� A 98901 18131311499 18131311421 Doc. 18131311429 JESUS E RAMIREZ MIGUEL URBINA WILLIAM A & MARY F BRADO 1311 N 1ST ST 709 E ADAMS ST w s Cl� 77162 MAHIEHIE ST YAKIMA, WA 98901 YAKIMA, WA 98901„ KAILLI'AIONA, HI 96740 18 lih"1,42 7 WILLIAM -1 A "" , , ' Rf'rBRADO 77162 MA'91EHIE ST,--,,.,-., KAILUAKONA, HI 96740 3/V05 00C., IN019X DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: Plantring Division 129 lVorthVecondStreet, 2nd Floor Yakima, Washington 98901 Phone (09) .5-618 i - r (09) 575-6105 NOTICE OF APPLICATION March 17, 2015 Applicant and Adjoining Property Owners Joan Davenport, AICP, Community Development Director & Planning Manager Type (2) Review for the construction of a new 3,585 square foot health care clinic and a 5,688 square foot residential second floor connected to the existing dental clinic. — CL2 #004 -15 1300 N 1St Street PARCEL NO.: 18131311504 NOTICE OF APPLICATION The City of Yakima Department of Community Development has received a Type (2) Review application (YMC Title 15) from Rick Phillips to construct a new 3,585 square foot health care clinic and a 5,688 square foot residential second floor connected to the existing dental clinic. The project will also include connections to existing second floor walkways and repairs /upgrades to the other existing building features for the Union Gospel Mission in the General Commercial (GC) and Light Industrial (M -1) zoning districts. The file containing the complete application is available for public review at the City of Yakima Planning Division, 2nd floor City Hall, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, Washington. �� 0j PTA ug &I kyll 4 lI Your views on the proposal are welcome. All written comments received by April 6th, 2015, will be considered prior to issuing a decision. Your comments on this proposal may be mailed to: Joan Davenport, AICP, Planning Manager City of Yakima, Department of Community Development 129 North Second Street, Yakima, WA 98901 Please be certain to reference the file number(s) or applicant's name in your correspondence. (CL2 #004 -15 — Union Gospel Mission) DOC. INDEX Yalkhno # "odeAdininhiration (509) .575 -612 - lllanydpq,m, (509) 5 7„5'-6183 w (� 575.6101 ��� � ������� ��r������ � � �� NOTICE OF DECISION Decisions and future notices will be sent to anyone who submits comments on this application or requests additional notice. If you have questions regarding this proposal, please call Trevor Martin, Assistant Planner, at (509) 575 -6162, or e-mail to trevor.martin @yakimawa.gov. Other Permits Required: N/A Enclosed: Narrative, Site Plan, and Vicinity Map INDEX f - DST COMMENTS 03/23/2015 RMELOY This is a redevelopment project and my "no comment" assumes their drainage for the new clinic will tie into existing drainage on the parcel. If there are new drainage features then they will need to be reviewed by the Surface Water Engineer. A drainage report is not required. 1813131150415 2 #004- DOC. DATE: March 17, 2015 Water / Irrigation Division Working Together Toward Excellence in Service and Quality TO Trevor Martin, Assistant Planner 2301 Fruitvale Blvd. Yakima, WA 98902 FROM: Mike Shane, Water / Irrigation Engineer RE: CL2 #004 -15 —1300 N 1" St. (Parcel # 18131311504) Union Gospel Mission Project Description – Proposal to construct a new 3,585 sq ft health care clinic and a 5,688 sq ft residential second floor connected to the existing dental clinic. The project will also include connections to existing second floor walkways and repairs /upgrades to other existing building features for the Union Gospel Mission in the GC/M -1 zoning districts. The following are general comments for the above referenced project: • There's an existing looped 6" waterline in N. 1St St. and a looped 8" waterline in E. Oak St. • There is a 4" domestic water service and 4" meter to the site. Static pressure range at the site is 58– 73 psi. • There's an existing fire hydrant off of the looped 6" waterline in N. 1" St. just south of the site and one at the corner of N. 1't St. and E. Oak St. • All new fire hydrant and fire sprinkler service requirements to be determined by Codes and Fire Dept. • Maximum available fire flow from looped 6" waterline –1,600 gpm ! Site is not within the City of Yakima's irrigation service area. • A detailed civil site plan should be provided for review which accurately shows all existing and proposed utilities and improvements. A detailed plumbing fixture count for the existing and proposed buildings will be needed at time of building permit submittal to determine the adequate size of the water service and meter to serve the site. • An Approved Reduced Pressure Backflow Assembly is required on all domestic water services just inside the building prior to any other branch or connection. If a fire sprinkler service is installed, an approved Double Check Backflow Assembly is required on fire Mike Shane - Water /Irrigation Engineer (509) 576 -6480 Fax(509)575 -6187 mike. shane@yakimawa.gov DOC. INDEX Water / Irrigation Division Working Together Toward Excellence in Service and Quality 2301 Fruitvale Blvd. Yakima, WA 98902 sprinkler service just inside the building prior to any other branch or connections (7.68.070). Any fire sprinkler service required shall be equipped with an approved double check backflow assembly, installed just inside the building prior to any other branch or connection (7.68.070) Mike Shane - Water /Irrigation Engineer (509) 576 -6480 Fax (509) 575 -6187 mike.shane@yakimawa.gov DOCi. INDIEX # 6 r City of Yakima Development Services Team Request For Comments March 16, 2015 To: City of Yakima Development Services Team From: Trevor Martin, Assistant Planner Subject: Request for comments Applicant: Union Gospel Mission File Number: I CL2 #004 -15 Location: 1300 N 1st St. Parcel Number(s): 18131311504 DST MEETING DATE: 3/24/2015 Proposal To construct a new 3,585 square foot health care clinic and a 5,688 square foot residential second floor connected to the existing dental clinic. The project will also include connections to existing second floor walkways and repairs /upgrades to the other existing building features for the Union Gospel Mission in the General Commercial (GC) and Light Industrial (M -1) zoning districts. Please review the attached application and site plan and prepare any written comments you might have regarding this proposal. This project will come up for discussion at the weekly DST meeting to be held March 2 th a 5 t 0 u„� 1ftw As always, should you have comments, but find you are unable to attend, please submit your comments prior to the meeting. My email address is trevor.martin @yakimawa.gov and the Planning Department's fax number is (509) 575 -6105. Should you have any questions, or require additional information, please call me at (509) 575 -6162. I N DFX ... Applicant: Re: TYDEVELOPMENT Planning Division . North Second Street, 2nd Floor Yakima, Washington ' i' Phone (509) 575-6183 - Fax (509) 575-6-105 ;� x az ", �'i DETERMINATION of COMPLETENESS Union Gospel Mission Type (2) Review Application —CL2 #004 -15 Proposal: To construct a new 3,585 square foot health care clinic and a 5,688 square foot residential second floor connected to the existing dental clinic. The project will also include connections to existing second floor walkways and repairs /upgrades to the other existing building features for the Union Gospel Mission in the General Commercial (GC) and Light Industrial (M -1) zoning districts. Site Address: Parcel: 1300 N 1st St. 18131311504 Pursuant to Yakima Municipal Code Section 16.04.020, the above described application has been reviewed by the Yakima Department of Community Development to determine if all elements of a complete application have been submitted. Based on the submitted information, Application CL2 #002 - 15, Type (2) Review is hereby deemed Ica. Continued processing of your application will include the following: 1. A Development Services Team meeting will be held on March 24th with city departments to determine compliance of the project. A copy of your application, written narrative, preliminary site plan, and other pertinent information will be mailed to you and all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property on March 17th, 2015. This notice provides opportunity for the public to submit comments on the proposal during a 20 -day comment period. A Decision will be made by the Planning Division, and forwarded to the Building Official. DETERMINATION OF COMPLETION made this 16th day of March, 2015. For the City of Yakima: Trevor Martin Assistant Planner Department of Community Development You may contact me at (509) 575 -6162 or trevor.martin @yakimawa.gov if you have any questions regarding this matter. ®®C. INDEX - -1 – , Code Administration (509) 575 -6126 • Planning (509) 575 -6183 -Office of Neighborhood & Development Services (509) 575 -6101 Yakima Vicinit Ma Project 1F1 r + ` � . � • ••. 1 ., • cL2#004_15 0 i • r 1 i• Related Projects: + 4 ' • • Applicant: UNION GOSPEL MISSION � ++ , r Location: 1300 N 1ST ST � + ll . a , r ` �— Wednesday - 03/04/2015 - 12:34:46 ` ` ' `,,*• *- -w Contact City of Yakima Planning Division at 509 - 575 -6183 City of Yakima - Geographic Information Sevices � V U U, N ., :di 11.Y 1.lole gun _ E R 1 1.111y II. - Mole _ a yMy. 4A d Joy F. Ch U F�•l esl u15'�h '1111 E nll I (< 9 r< SI E∎.: SI noubl u Ilcc r I '•1 r dnl Grp - L.:SI ..d .Fr - I l - . sunoime A1sIel - - RirenFtd+1 E ,kxn I � hmr_ n LL11 I•.�n7n Po n 4 0 r.Lu, is it Y31 II ■ .i. - 0 _ h.NUe Lnwln L 151 t J.I Flcln aYary - ScAwl Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., 1:10,000- ',lha..... `'I h51.` GEBCO. USGS, FAO; NPS, NRCAN, GeoSase:'IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, • q and the'GIS User Community Proposal: Proposal to construct a new 3,585 sq ft health care clinic and a 5,688 sq ft residential second floor connected to the existing dental clinic. The project will also include connections to existing second floor walkways otropairs /upgrades to other existing building features for the Union Gospel Mission in the GC /M -1 zoning districts. ��.'aU�� INDEX Map Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning and illustration purposes only. The City of Yakima assumes no liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided or for any action taken, or action not taken by the user in reliance upon any maps or information provided herein. 1 I I ECO L Odg :,K `+ I c, P L ^I U , f!" Z % f S J E N Surk hk 0 Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, 1 rmap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBa GN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri Chi 4iong Kong), swisstopo, 1:2,000 and the GIS User Community CL2 #004 -1 5 Related Projects: Applicant: UNION GOSPEL MISSION Location: 1300 N 1ST ST Proposal: Proposal to construct a new 3,585 sq ft health care clinic and a 5,688 sq ft residential second floor connected to the existing dental clinic. The project will also include connections to existing second floor walkways and repairs /upgrades to other Parcel List: 18131311504 DOC. INDEX --- _.. � =rte •' - 1 i ....: P roject Parcels # C` Vicinity Map i Contact City of Yakima Planning Division at 509 - 575 -6183 % � Wednesday - 03/04/2015 - 12:34:47 City of Yakima - Geographic Information Services WIWI Map Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning and illustration purposes only. The City of Yakima assumes no liability 4 `"`+' - for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided or for any action taken, or action not taken by the user in reliance upon any maps or information provided herein. I N cn ti Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Iritermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, 1:2,000 and the GIS User Community CL2 #004 -15 Related Projects: Applicant: UNION GOSPEL MISSION Location: 1300 N 1ST ST Proposal: Proposal to construct a new 3,585 sq ft health care clinic and a 5,688 sq ft residential second floor connected to the existing dental clinic. The project will also include connections to existing second floor walkways and repairs /upgrades to other Parcel List: 18131311504 Low Density Residential Professional Office - Large Convenience Center Medium Density Residential Regional Commercial Arterial Commercial IRA High Density Residential Neighborhood Commercial - CBD Core Commercial DOC. Industrial tlt4Vp i ' Project Parcels • Future Land Use Map Contact City of Yakima Planning Division at 509 - 575 -6183 .. �� 9 Wednesday - 03/04/2015 - 12:34:47 City of Yakima - Geographic Information Services Y Y f Map Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning and illustration purposes only. The City of Yakima assumes no liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided or for any action taken, or action not taken by the user in reliance upon any maps or information provided herein. f.)AK ST I i •r. ■ i 2 M-1 GC 1 1 F I. II 0 Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Internmap. increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase. ION, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, 1:2,000 and the GIS User Community CL2#004-1 5 Related Projects: Applicant: UNION GOSPEL MISSION Location: 1300 N 1ST ST I Proposal: Proposal to construct a new 3,585 sq ft health care clinic and a 5,688 sq ft residential second floor connected to the existing dental clinic. The project will also include connections to existing second floor walkways and repairs /upgrades to other Parcel List: 1 81 31 311 504 Yakima Urban Area Zoning Outlines DOC e3 Floodway Areas BNDEX i~ ' *• • • Project Parcels .. r .... Zoning Map Contact City of Yakima Planning Division at 509 - 575 -6183 Wednesday - 03/04/2015 - 12:34:47 City of Yakima - Geographic Information Services f Map Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning and illustration purposes only. The City of Yakima assumes no liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided or for any action taken, or action not taken by the user in reliance upon any maps or information provided herein. L co A 8 • • • 0:1 os coy ti E s , S, i Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, Tom om, , p, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, G oBas G , Kadaster NL, 1:2,000 Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Est Chi g Kong), swisstopo, and the GIS User Community C L2 #004 -1 5 Related Projects: Applicant: UNION GOSPEL MISSION Location: 1300 N 1ST ST Proposal: Proposal to construct a new 3,585 sq ft health care clinic and a 5,688 sq ft residential second floor connected to the existing dental clinic. The project will also include connections to existing second floor walkways and repairs /upgrades to other Parcel List: 18131311504 • • Project Parcels INDEX • • Hydrants E X # C - Water Pipes j - -( `'� Utilities Ma rL _ Contact City of Yakima Planning Division at 509 - 575 -6183 �� • t Wednesday - 03/04/2015 - 12:34:47 City of Yakima - Geographic Information Services •4 • Map Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning and illustration purposes only. The City of Yakima assumes no liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided or for any action taken, or action not taken by the user in reliance upon any maps or information provided herein. Y ..... tir�! t iF '1 +� • ... r`'" .. ,s, it 7 'A i". /..,„ 1 " 1.1,. ..... r ..._ i ill .. .++ 1 • • 3111M , �' li. fff _ • ' I . Itil • • r -30 •% t_ F7 1 1 • ~ x • qk r r ..4 F-- I: 7. - - I pi = ii , r . • - ri--7- , •...R.pp f , r r ` = .r 1 1 ` �i111= 1 • r. t z 01 t l iamen„. � r .._._�� . 0 a-- itt Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i- cubed', USDA USGS, AE 1:2,000 Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS,User Gemmunity CL2 #004 -15 Related Projects: Applicant: UNION GOSPEL MISSION Location: 1300 N 1ST ST Proposal: Proposal to construct a new 3,585 sq ft health care clinic and a 5,688 sq ft residential second floor connected to the existing dental clinic. The project will also include connections to existing second floor walkways and repairs /upgrades to other Parcel List: 1 81 31 311 504 DOC, Iy+N, D EX ,, •' . ProjectParcels ' fir $�• Aerial Photo Ma t � l P Contact City of Yakima Planning Division at 509 - 575 -6183 Wednesday - 03/04/2015 - 12:34:47 City of Yakima - Geographic Information Services Map Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning and illustration purposes only The City of Yakima assumes no liability 'for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided or for any action taken, or action not taken by the user in reliance upon any maps or information provided herein, RECEIVED MAR 0 3 2015 ` LAND USE APPLICATION PLANNING D CITY OF YAKIMA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 129 NORTH SECOND STREET, 2ND FLOOR, YAKIMA, WA 98902 . r � VOICE: (509) 575 -6183 FAX: (509) 575 -6105 INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ FIRST Please type or print vour answers clearly,. Answer all questions completely. If you have any questions about this form or the application process, please ask a Planner. Remember to bring all necessary attachments and the required filing fee when the application is submitted. The Planning Division cannot accept an application unless it is complete and the filing fee paid. Filing fees are not refundable. This application consists of four parts. PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION AND PART IV - CERTIFICATION are on this page. PART II and III contain additional information specific to vour proposal and MUST be attached to this page to complete the application. PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Applicant's Name, Address, Name Union Gospel Mission (Rick Phillips, Executive Director) And Phone Number Street ...........1300 N. I" Street ............... City Yakima ST WA Zip 98901 Phone (509) 248 -4510 2 Applicant s Property Interest Check One g chaser ❑ Other . Owner � ❑ � A ent ❑ � Pur . . 3. Property Owner's Name, Name Union Gospel Mission Address, And Phone Number ..... — .� ............................ ............... ........ ...... ........... ..,,,,,,,,. ,,,,,,,,. ..... .......... (If Other Than Applicant) Street 1300 N. I" Street _ - - -- --- City Yakima ST We Zip 98901 Phone 509 -248 4510 4. Subject Property's Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 18131311504 5. Legal Description of Property. (if lengthy, please attach it on a separate document) See attached Legal Description for Parcel No 181313 - 11504, (As Per File No: UAZO Short Plat Exemption # 018 -14, Dated July 21, 2014) 6. Property's Existing .Zoning:..._.........� _ d ❑ SR [-]R-1 ❑ R -2 E-111-3 ❑ B -1 [_113-2 ❑ HB ❑ SCC ❑ LCC ❑ CBD ® GC ❑ AS ❑ RD ® M -1 ❑ M -2 Property Ad. ..........- .............. ......... _......____ ...— .. _ 7 _ dress: 1300 N. I` Street, Yakima, WA 98901 .....m... m ...... ._ ....................... ....... ....................................................................... ......_.............. ... ...-................... ....... .... ... ... . .......... ........... 8. Type Of Application: CheckAllT�t ............. Apply) ❑ Administrative Adjustment ❑ Environmental Checklist (SEPA) ❑ Easement Release ® Type (2) Review ❑ Right -of -Way Vacation ❑ Rezone ❑ Type (3) Review ❑ Transportation Concurrency ❑ Shoreline ❑ Short Plat ❑ Non - Conforming Structure/Use ❑ Critical Areas ❑ Long Plat ❑ Type 3 Modification ❑ Variance ❑ Admin. Modification ❑ Interpretation by Hearing Examiner ❑ Amended Plat ❑ Appeal ❑ Temporary Use Permit ❑ Binding Site Plan ❑ Home Occupation ❑ Comp Plan Amendment ❑ Planned Development ❑ Short Plat Exemption: ❑ Other: PART II - SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION. PART Ill - REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS. & PART IV - NARRATIVE 9. SEE ATTACHED SHEETS PART V - CERTIFICATION y the information" on this aOlrcafion and the re red attachments are true and correct to the best of my know,; ledge_ 10 Ncrtil" that w �". m � 1&001 I'lt0 "El t 1 Y )WNE"R SIGNATURE DATE FNOR A D TRT . ... ..�._ ... _.. — W .. .n - F..I.L...E .. # C - Revised e v _ is e_d .. .- .0... 2 -� 11 otes: L2 6 OL ___________ DATE FEE PAID CEIVED BY Amount Receipt N o. e Hearing Date - DOC. RECEIVED MAR 0 3 2015 1. PROPOSED LAND USE TYPE: (See YMC Ch. 15.04, Table 4 -1) New Parking Lot is a permitted use for GC & M1 Zone Classifications. Parking for existing Staff, and Delivery / Service Vehicles. PART IH - ATTACHMENTS INFORMATION 1 SITE � PLAN REQUIRED: (Please use the City of Yakima Site Plan Checklist, attached) 3. NARRATIVE: (See Part IV) 4. TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY: (if required see YMC Ch. 1--2-.,0--8 T- raffic Capacity Test) .w 5. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: (if required by the Washington State Environmental Policy Act PART" IV - WRITTEN NARRATIVE: JPlease submit a written response to the followiat g u tlon A. Fully describe the proposed development, including number of dwelling units and parking spaces. If the proposal is for a business, describe hours of operation, days per week and all other relevant information related the business. Yakima Union Gospel Mission (YUGM) within (Land Parcel No 181313 11504) proposes to build a new building North of and connected to the existing Dental Clinic. The new building will consist of the following program areas. First Floor Level; New (3,585 sf) Health Care Clinic consisting of Reception and Office Administration Area, Waiting Room, Assessment/Vitals, Lab, Storage, Exam Rooms, Dispensary Multipurpose, Provider /Staff Work and Toilet Rooms, Shared Meeting Room, and Support Rooms for Electrical, Comm /Data /IT, Mechanical and Fire Riser Rooms. Second Floor Level: This Level is 5,688 sf and will be located above the New Medical Clinic footprint and extend South over the existing Dental Clinic footprint. This floor level will provide Eighteen (18) Dormitory type units, Five (5) Women's units, each housing two residents, as well as Thirteen (13) Men's units Dormitory type units 11 housing two residents each and two (2) units housing three residents. Support Areas will include Apartment type housing for Men's and Women's Managers, Laundry, TV Lounge Janitor / Housekeeping Closet and Elevator serving both floor levels and intermediate floor level serving and accessing the existing second floor level elevated concrete walkways. Also included as part of the scope of work will be renovation of three existing residential unit into Barrier Free Units, Women's Laundry facility, and the demolition and reconstruction of four existing concrete stairs. The proposed development will be served by existing parking approved under prior approvals. No new parking is anticipated to be added with this project due to the fact that the Mission currently has adequate parking to meet requirements for the additional spaces. The Mission property currently includes 159 parking stalls (existing plus 34 stalls approved under CL2 #019 -14). The Hearing Examiners decision from 1995 required a minimum of 82 parking stalls for the mission clinic. Existing stalls — 125 Stall approved b CL2 #019 -14 - 34 Total Stalls Provided - 159 Stalls required by HE 1995 decision — 82 Dental Clinic (2012) - 10 New Medical Clinic - 20 Residential I space per 2 beats. - 20 Total Required - 132 i y, ,a B. How is the proposal compatible to neighboring properties? The Mission operation is an existing use within an area dominated by commercial and light manufacturing uses. The Mission has operated successfully at this location since 1996. The proposed New Medical Clinic and Resident Housing and when completed, it is anticipated to remain consistent and compatible with the surrounding properties. C. What mitigation measures are proposed to promote compatibility? Due to the fact that the Mission already operates a dental and medical clinic on the site, no mitigation measures are proposed. D. How is your proposal consistent with current zoning of your property? The proposed new Medical Clinic and Resident housing upgrades are a Class I use within the General Commercial (GC) and Light Industrial District (M -1) Zone. The Mission itself is a Class II use within the GC & M -1 zone. Past Mission development was reviewed by the city between 1992 and 1995, and a new Dental Clinic was constructed in 2012. E. How is your proposal consistent with uses and zoning of neighboring properties? The Mission provides temporary housing services to the community along with a long list of commercial services which are consistent with the neighboring properties. Services found at the Mission include: providing meals, job skills classes, dental & medical treatment, addiction recovery programs, catering, recycling, and referrals to other local service providers. All these services require vehicle access (ingress and egress) to supply service and maintain the Yakima Union Gospel Mission. ... .................. F. How is your proposal in the best interest of the community? The Mission provides services to countless community members who have found themselves near the end of their resources. Improving the Mission facilities allows them to continue to provide these high quality services which ultimately results in returning struggling individuals to the mainstream population. Note: if you have any questions about this process, please contact us City of Yakima, Planning Division, 129 N. 2nd St., Yakima, WA or 509 -575 -6183 Revised 02 -11 a WDEX 4 N vM4� Me SITE PLAN CHECKLIST & INSTRUCTIONS In Order For Application To Be Determined Complete, A Site Plan Must Be Completed And Returned. A Detailed Site Plan Is Required: On August 8, 1996, the City Council passed a resolution (No. R- 96 -91) adopting a requirement that all site plans submitted in conjunction with my building permit application, land use application, and environmental application shall contain certain information and be approved by the appropriate Division Manager. All information that is applicable to your proposal shall be checked off and clearly displayed on the site plan. It is in the applicant's best interest to provide a carefully drawn and scaled site plan with all required information. The decision on whether or not to grant approval of your development proposal is largely based on the information you provide. An application cannot be processed until an adequate site plan is submitted. Please complete this checklist and include it with your site plan. The site plan must contain all pertinent information. Items not applicable to the proposed project shall be noted. 1) Use Ink: Use blue or black permanent ink. It may be helpful to draft the site plan in pencil then trace over in ink. Ink is necessary for adequate duplication. 2) Use A Straight Edge: All lines must be straight and done with the aid of a ruler or other straight edge. Use a compass when delineating circular drawings such as cul -de -sacs. Computer drafted site plans are acceptable. 3) Draw To Scale: Site plans shall be drawn to scale. The site plan template has a suggested map scale of one inch equaling twenty feet (1 " =20'). Distances on the map must be as representative of reality as possible. For example, if the distance from a structure to a property line is 20 feet, the distance on the site plan will be 1 inch. 4) Use Site Plan Checklist: Use the site plan checklist and provide all applicable information on the site plan. 5) Fill In Information On The Site Plan Template Available At The City Of Yakima Or Attach The Information Below To Your Site Plan: Complete all information requested on the bottom of the site plan template. If you use a different medium, provide the requested information on the alternative paper. Note: You may benefit from the aid of a professional in the preparation of a site plan. Cl all boxes as: 4 Included or - Not Applicable i tr Note: Planning Division or reviewing official may require additional information to clarify the proposal, assess its impacts, or determine compliance with the YMC and other laws and regulations. Revised 02 -11 The site plan shall be legibly drawn in ink on paper of sufficient size to contain the required information, but not °ass than 8.5 X 11 for Class 1 " () paro'ccts and 11" X 17" for Class (2) and Class (3) ro'ects. Al site plans shall be drawn to a standard engineering scale and indicated on the site plan. The scale selected all b_estwfit the pacer. Planning staff recommends 1 "=_20'. — W parcel number(s) and zoning designation of subject property. �mmcaddress, I ro . ert boundaries and dimensions. les and dimensions of all existing streets bounding the site. Iniensions, location and use of proposed and existing structures including loading docks. Structure setbacks. w .ry _ ....._ ...... orth Arrow. coveragg plan, with calculations shown on site ,ocation and size of any easements. ...... ocation and type of existing, and proposed landscaping including landscaping within the public right; -of waxy.. Location and size of existing and proposed side sewer and water service lines. _w. djacent land uses and zoning designations,. _m W_W_W W — _._.- .._...... _ _ _ .......... ocation and size of all parking spaces shown on the site plan. Location and dimensions of proposed or existing driveway approaches, .............� ision clearance triangles at street intersections and where driveways and curb cuts intersect with streets,. E 15.05.040 —Vision Clearance attached to Sample Site Plan M ocat "son and size of proposed or existing signs. Location and size of required site drainage facilities including on -site retention. ocation, type, and description of required sitescreening. J�ocation and size of existing or proposed public sidewalks that are within 200 -feet of the subject property. 40�a2ie osed improvements located with within the public right -of- -way, , address, phone number, and signature of the owner or person responsible for the property, i tr Note: Planning Division or reviewing official may require additional information to clarify the proposal, assess its impacts, or determine compliance with the YMC and other laws and regulations. Revised 02 -11 ENSMO TMNSFORNFR GATEWNIPOL GATE o"TOR 8'RODIRONFENCEi GATES GRYWEU ni) LIGHTEZ -� PARCEL #11444 ADJACENT BUSINESS TRUCK STORAGELOT ZONED M -1 I a PARCEL #11443 N ADJACENT BUSINESS TRUCK STORAGELOT ZONED M -1 p PARKIN ' (UNDER PREVIOU APPUCATI 4)STAL _x $S' FENCE f PARCEL #11004 ZONED M�1 R.V. AREA I I SCALE Sl77 I ESi61WG GEL0.X FENCE IXISPNG IO LANO6CAPE pgGFER1VLINE e E. OAK STREET TING BUILD NG I w NEIER OLGtIPANGY R, 6'6LOCKWAILFENCE r --- EXISTING LAWN I {{I MR\ � T fl� M G i i ZONED GC f [ bf', I - _- �3� avasEB �LTIx.3E ^ 9 OCGUPANC B - I� _ 2ND FLOIXi OCCUPANCY 1 m (I UUP' B-T GfAINIC) UGHT POLE ' q 1 PARCELp - �" F VISION 11504 _- �i .TANGLES 1 i �`— EXISTINOTPEES ZONED GC i I - 100 E 18'A'6N8TARY "1YCR� Ek SUNG 0.UNIC - € EASENENT r -- 5 F OCCUPANCW B e- € 6' BLCOKWALLFENCE 9 ( I r x € FTELEPHONE A L� `� W 1 6 w \ n ADMIMSTRATM, a PARKING G EXISTING Iw F S PLANTER (1013TALL3 I S F mc 1_ I € DENTAL PARKING °") ill_ - -- (1oISTAU. "s ZONED GC L Q � �\ v SEWER CONNECTION RRGPCS D (EXISTINGkFliK} A' D r E;IfiTING AT EXISTING y _. BUILDING `W"� F- B - ST OUT EX = 0 N WEST Lor GUEST PARKING N I LOT COVERAGE TABLE Q - (M) STALLS EXi3TIINO p S[pEWA 0 1 LOT SIZE: ZTBACRES I POOL - i I SUI ONG AREA: IXISTINtI 32,34]S.F. INNER COURT °EX[S NG,I SOUTH PARKING LAW E `" ' OTGPOSED: 96,2053.F. 2].4 %OF LOT ln V �f I ' (2113TALL9 i 1 PAVED AREA: M1 ( - I EXISTING : ]1 5 6 SF, 54Z% 01 LOT PERMEABLE PAVING I I s PROPOSEM3,250SF. 2,M% OF LOT O EXIST PAVED LOT [ I , �A S = LANDSCAPING: (n `EXIST[ EXISTING'. 21,011 ST 15.9% OF LOT r I ( fEY.M.i3R iNA.� , pIANIE W I PARKING TOTAI SPACES 159 EXI6TI G IL6WG EX €5 G'" € j I GCCIP r&V Al SIGN V3 Lr) m� �!�'p,, y O P, a COMMON DRIVE PARCEL #11006 -ZONED GC %$I OWNER CITY OF jdA�fF�€ W U � 7Y NEW HOPE �D RECYCLING PARKING I�r f TNTEARKING PARCEL #1100]ZONED DID CATERING PARKING EXISTING i 0 PARCEL #11008 ZONED MI YAKIMA UNION GOSPEL MISSION z '-- (6) STALLS M1 �s (30) STALLS (])STALLS L _ _ 1300 NORTH FIRST STREET t p YAKIMA, WA 98907 I NEW HOPE € LOADING € _ STALLS PH. (509) 853 -4304 � 3 PROD. NO 1233 - .} DRAWN S V 0310215 f DATE F f dz F i l `t REVISION L' L'1j� =/f£' % SHEETNO. WPARK NGSE g A001 2k STALLS [ Original Fein , Amount cation # Parcel Fee Description Amount Paid Sal. CL2 #004 -15 18131311504 Class 2 Review 1300 N 1 ST ST $365.00 $365.00 $0.00 Total Paid: $ _.... 3655.00 0 Tendered Amt: $365.00 Chanae Due: $0.00 .. ,,.__........_ .. lent Reference Tend( od Number Arc CHECK 11324 $ 365.00 Total: $365.00 Previous Payment History teceipt # Receipt Date- Fee Description Amount Paid' Application # Parcel MIII UNION GOSPEL MISSION APP #005 -15 (APP #002 -15 — CL2 #019 -14 & CL2 #004 -15) EXEIIBIT LIST CHAPTER .B Appeal (APP #002 -15) ; D -1 Appeal of Administrative Official's Decision 05/01/2015 D -2 .... .............................._ ......... - ...... Land Use Action Installation Certificate 05/15/2015 D -3 __ .... ........ ..... ... .... �. Notice of Appeal and Public Hearing 05/22/2015 D -3a: Parties and Agencies Notified D -3b: Press Release and Distribution E -mail D -3c: Legal Notice D -3d: Affidavit of Mailing D -4 ....... .............._...._... Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal 05/28/2015 D -4a: Parties and Agencies Notified D -4b: Affidavit of Mailing - D -5 .... Comment letter from the Law Office of Flower & Andreotti ................................ 05/29/2015 .............. D -6 Petition to the Union Gospel Mission and City of Yakima 06/02/2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ........ _ . D -7 Maps: Vicinity, Zoning, Future Land Use, Utilities, Arterial 06/10/2015 D -8 Hearing Examiner Agenda and Packet Distribution List 06/10/2015 _...... ...... _ ... ........... .... ....... D -9 Hearing Examiner Agenda 06/17/2015 ....... ....... ...... _ D -10 . Sign -in Sheet — Hearing Examiner Public Hearing 06/17/2015 I — ET City of Yakima HEARING EXAMINER City Hall Council Chambers Wednesday June 17, 2015 Beginning at 9:00 a.m. Public A. APP #002 -15 UNION GOSPEL MISSION APPEAL 1300 N 1" Street (CL2 #019 -14 & CL2 #004 -15) PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY Indicate agenda item of interest NAME MAILING ADDRESS or E -MAIL ZIP CODE _. _...... _..._ ......... ......... ............ . ..... ...._ _._ ._ ............................ _ - ... __�..`..... _ &CVV o p r � r. w" u �f � Cr a , L- y ................. ... ------ �.� ..__...... . ...... 5) fv,4u to 41IJ-PLW WO C:� . . ..................... -... �Y—1 ..II I (7G1 M rAAA 1 cdJl� ;lA (�'" klm a4v ` h q Ul __.. .......... .... ._.M _ ... ............................... . Page 2 INDEX 06/17/2015 HE Hearing # 0 - -ILA COMM' -17'Y Dl ..LOPMF -,.NT DEP .17' L.NT Joan Davenport, AICP, Director P1an�nin, � Dh si,!,Pn ", .Pilo�°11w,5���°ond Stet µ��� ��'.���� ��'.1'�11:'1. 1 1.5"1m�� :�M 1 � 1� i!�� ni, 1,'Va � h,i,s Phone (509, )", 1 111,33 Fi x (51 75 1.11,1 CITY OF YAKIMA HEARING EXAMINER AGENDA Wednesday June 17, 2015 Yakima City Hall Council Chambers Beginning at 9:00 a.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. INTRODUCTION III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. UNION GOSPEL MISSION - APPEAL (05/01/2015) APP#002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 & CL2 #004 -15) Planner: Trevor Martin Address: 1300 N ls` St Request: Appeal of Administrative Official's Decisions for CL2 #019 -14, approving construction of a parking lot, and CL2 4004 -15, approving the construction of a new health care clinic for the Union Gospel Mission in the GC /M -1 zoning district. IV. ADJOURNMENT If you are unable to attend the hearing, you may submit your comments in writing prior to the hearing. You may also submit written testimony at the hearing. 1 DOC. INDEX #,� Hearing Examiner AGENDA ONLY Phil Lamb 311 North 3,d Street KIT-KATS Radio 4010 Summitview, Suite 200 Distribution List 07/01/2014 Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima, WA 98908 All YPAC maddy, Yakima Assoc. of Realtors KARY Radio keti.ci-ockettr,(i)yakKii�in%v��v — — Gov. Affairs Committee 2707 River Road 1200 Chesterly Dr. #160 inike..b.row ipgwa_ loy ��&L � Yakima, WA 98902-1165 Yakima, WA 98902 bongie .lo zanq i�n awg:, .Zgv .................... .................... Dominic Rizzi KCYU-FOX 68 KIMA TV Police Chief David Okowski 2801 Terrace Heights Drive doiniii,ic.i-i7yi(M,vakiniawg.gov 1205 West Lincoln Ave. Yakima, WA 98902 Yakima, WA 98901 ...................................... . . ............. Bob Stewart Pacific Power KNDOTV Fire Chief Mike Paulson 216 West Yakima Avenue bob,slewart@ firiawa.gov ,,yak ......................................... ........ ... . ... 500 N. Keys Rd. Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima, WA 98902 ----------- Sonya Claar-Tee Office of Rural FWH Yakima Herald-Republic City Clerk Marty Miller P.O. Box 9668 soil ia.claartee akiniwa. 1400 Summitview #203 Yakima, WA 98909 Yakima, WA 98902 ...... . ................................ ....... ...... ...... ... Tony O'Rourke Yakima School Dist. #7 VIVA City Manager Superintendent 1h 104 North 4Street P.O. Box 511 Lou.0mu- "ey*MAA-.g_0_V Yakima, WA 98902 Toppenish, WA 98948 ca_� , Pri CL,( A) I rr?CL(AA D,qO V . . ............ . . ....................... . . . . . . . . . . . .......... Radio KDNA Business Times Patrick D. Spurgin P.O. Box 800 Bruce Smith 411 N. 2nd St. Granger, WA 98932 P.O. Box 2052 Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima, WA 98907 ......... . ................................... ........ KAPP TV Attn: Newsroom Yakima Valley C.O.G. Gary Cuillier PO Box 1749 311 N. 4' Street STE 202 314 N. 2❑d Street Yakima, WA 98907-1749 Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima, WA 98901 Reed C. Pell ..... . . .......... ......... 31 Chicago Avenue #4 Maud Scott Yakima, WA 98902 307 Union Street Codes Bulletin Board reed &)i& !tdqpel j1q, L . . . . Yakima, WA 98901 . .................... J . .......... . ..... DOC. INDEX Hearing Examiner Packet p Jeff Cutter AGENDA, STAFF REPORT, City Legal Department SITE PLAN AND MAPS......... r@ lffic, Ltt(j 07/01/2014 e — Yakima County Planning County Courthouse jtfft�igni-sp Mark Kunkler Legal Department .Ma.]°h ku nk I e r (04 ya k i i na,w �aw y Yakima County Planning Public Services Vern Redifer Vern.redifer@coyakirnama-us Archie Matthews ONDS ArchiematthewsftAkinia Dana Kallevig Engineering Division Dang,�.kallevi �Y@ak�iniaw�a.ov Yakima County Commissioners Commissioners�.we�b@co,�akim�a-wa. us Union Gospel Mission c/o Rick Phillips 1300 N 1" St Yakima, WA 98901 Bjgk�ph i Lih as U m,o r Debbie Cook Engineering Division Debbie.Cook@yakimawa Joan Davenport loa ov. DON'T FORGET TO SEND ONE TO THE APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER........... Binder Copy For the Record/ File Yakima Gateway Organization c/o William Brado 203 Oak Ave Yakima, WA 98901 Law Office of Flower & Andreotti c/o Patrick Andreotti 303 E D St #1 Yakima, WA 98901 paindreotti(a)flower-a,ndreottllaw.com DOC. IN # ' Proj ect VicirntyMa i +�, %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% • Ap p#002_1 5 :�. 0 ..., . : Related Projects: CL2 #004 -15, CL2 #019 -14 + Applicant: UNION GOSPEL MISSION + + + + , •'• ,..••••. •'• = Location: 1300 N 1ST ST + + +, � F r 1)1? ' 1 r 1 , " + Wednesday - 06/10/2015 - 12:03:52 e` 4. , iv.‘„„..--- - +~ Contact City of Yakima Planning Division at 509 - 575 -6183 City of Yakima - Geographic Information Sevices (---- Ai! �I.p i Abut el "' ...16NNN.N...N\IN...---%%..\\ -• _ Not., r N.A., of !o, Chu.ch t 1_ s':, vu 1 Fi . , t L •, al LIIIWIT / e_b avr I Double I rcr Par p NI 2 'yak Se y S it e o. L N 81 - Stpri ne kiLii z.• - fl{ve[.Rd G 1s[n!n U M1�ip ['rl L.. r B,WFnfl Fi • $ LAnIIr, Lu F 1 • n,.. r t l 1 In Im r - - • [IY■ N 0 • 14 - X B.rgeLnmin I •sr r r I6nnwA,uy a[lrxrl Sources. Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, In increment P Corp., 1:10,000 4 [M1�•. -• SI 1 -v.' GEBCO. USG'S., NRCAN, GeoBase,`IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, and the'GIS User Community Proposal: Appeal of Administrative Official's Decisions for CL2 #019 -14, approving construction of a parking lot, and CL2 #004 -15, approving the construction of a new health care clinic for the Union Gospel Mission in the GC /M -1 zoni iilifct. I IINDEX # 1)-- Map Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning and illustration purposes only The City of Yakima assumes no liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided or for any action taken, or action not taken by the user in reliance upon any maps or information provided herein. Econ Lodu OAK ` • N IJ t • ir • 1 1 yufl fvlc 0 Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, I rmap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBas GN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri Chi (Hong Kong), swisstopo, 1:2,000 , and the GIS User Community APP #002 -155' Related Projects: CL2 #004 -15, CL2 #019 -14 Applicant: UNION GOSPEL MISSION Location: 1300 N 1ST ST Proposal: Appeal of Administrative Official's Decisions for CL2 #019 -14, approving construction of a parking lot, and CL2 #004 -15, approving the construction of a new health care clinic for the Union Gospel Mission in the GC /M -1 zoning district. Parcel List: 18131311504 DOC. INDEX ••, u� • t : ���� : Pro Parcels i = r Vicinit Ma Y p Contact City of Yakima Planning Division at 509 - 575 -6183 :7 Wednesday - 06/10/2015 - 12:03:55 City of Yakima - Geographic Information Services • - ••' Map Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning and illustration purposes only. The City of Yakima assumes no liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided or for any action taken, or action not taken by the user in reliance upon any maps or information provided herein. I r . I- Cr,' 1 -- f; Z % 0 Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, 1:2,000 and the GIS User Community APP #002 -15 Related Projects: CL2 #004 -15, CL2 #019 -14 Applicant: UNION GOSPEL MISSION Location: 1300 N 1ST ST Proposal: Appeal of Administrative Official's Decisions for CL2 #019 -14, approving construction of a parking lot, and CL2 #004 -15, approving the construction of a new health care clinic for the Union Gospel Mission in the GC /M -1 zoning district. Parcel List: 1 81 31 311 504 Low Density Residential Professional Office - Large Convenience Center Medium Density Residential Regional Commercial Arterial Commercial ®OC. E t High Density Residential - Neighborhood Commercial - CBD Core Commercial Industrial INDEX l „ l Project Parcels # D-1 'f '� F Land Use Map p Contact City of Yakima Planning Division at 509-575-6183 Wednesday - 06/10/2015 - 12:03:55 City of Yakima - Geographic Information Services Map Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning and illustration purposes only. The City of Yakima assumes no liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided or for any action taken, or action not taken by the user in reliance upon any maps or information provided herein. i. U OAK ST i I • I , ,. Kr' C, i1' r'r M -1 GC F li 0 Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Idler map, increment P Corp GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase. IGN. Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, 1:2,000 and the GIS User Community APP #002 -'15 Related Projects: CL2 #004 -15, CL2 #019 -14 Applicant: UNION GOSPEL MISSION Location: 1300 N 1ST ST Proposal: Appeal of Administrative Official's Decisions for CL2 #019 -14, approving construction of a parking lot, and CL2 #004 -15, approving the construction of a new health care clinic for the Union Gospel Mission in the GC /M -1 zoning district. Parcel List: 18131311504 Yakima Urban Area Zoning Outlines DOC. ez 7l D:7 O et f ' . . : ��.. • ° : Project Parcels '~ � � �} 1 Zoning Ma p - Contact City of Yakima Planning Division at 509 - 575 -6183 ' U , / Wednesday 06/10/2015 12:03:55 City of Yakima Geographic Information Services ,„,.r,;;; c;,; •,, Map Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning and illustration purposes only The City of Yakima assumes no liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided or for any action taken, or action not taken by the user in reliance upon any maps or information provided herein. ..t• .t 8 8- 8 • 8—_,Ii ca + is a 4: , : * , : z ao ti 1 it ��,g .'8 $ 6 i B `-tut~ +l/ h'h: 0 � i I. Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, Tom om, In , r p, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, 0 oBa G , Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Es i Chi . (H g Kong), swisstopo, 1:2,000 and the GIS User Community APP#002-1 5 Related Projects: CL2 #004 -15, CL2 #019 -14 Applicant: UNION GOSPEL MISSION Location: 1300 N 1ST ST Proposal: Appeal of Administrative Official's Decisions for CL2 #019 -14, approving construction of a parking lot, and CL2 #004 -15, approving the construction of a new health care clinic for the Union Gospel Mission in the GC /M -1 zoning district. Parcel List: 18131311504 :Project Parcels DOC. i Hydrants INDEX 2...• 1 - Water Pipes # 1 r Utilities Map 0 Contact City of Yakima Planning Division at 509 - 575 -6183 `y. ' Wednesday - 06/10/2015 - 12:03:55 City of Yakima - Geographic Information Services ' _ '°' Map Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning and illustration purposes only. The City of Yakima assumes no liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided or for any action taken, or action not taken by the user in reliance upon any maps or information provided herein. ( r te - ` , . I i r � ir • :.- • - - ,. ti ." I ~ ... . r ---- 77 - . > . .. . iii .._ , _.... 0. . • ... ... .. - 1 -1 :R. ,...., - . ..... i • 1 - 7 - ... i :6 ' . . i___ 401r .! , ir ommi4 ___ .... ".. -; � - 1 fr •.zAL■ K • ■t It • 1. f VIN ▪ .e. I f 1 ■.;$ ft i ,..4 . _If • , I, ,,,, : 1 , pr t . . 1 I : 4IL I 1 'f+. - u "r_ u _:1. . y ! - ti's•1 . ....a•.• l,,Ali .4.•. ' • .. a= Ill Y 0 = rte it 1f it r _.1 * . I t 4111 + - 1- l Vr !� .. . • au rce..Esr „D i ta Glohe. G i -cu ;1 % S D , U'' S. AE -t4, 1 .2,000 etmopprng Aerogrid ION, loP.sveisstop. , -:.d '-Gl' serCommunity APP #002 -15 Related Projects: CL2 #004 -15, CL2 #019 -14 Applicant: UNION GOSPEL MISSION Location: 1300 N 1ST ST Proposal: Appeal of Administrative Official's Decisions for CL2 #019 -14, approving construction of a parking lot, and CL2 #004 -15, approving the construction of a new health care clinic for the Union Gospel Mission in the GC /M -1 zoning district. 1 Parcel List: 18131311504 DOC. INDEX. .,, ,,. 1 #' _) -°.> > • l � : Project Parcels " ,,,‘ ' • • • • ' Aerial Photo Map Contact City of Yakima Planning Division at 509 - 575 -6183 ' •. 7 Wednesday - 06/10/2015 - 12:03:55 City of Yakima - Geographic Information Services 4 Map Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning and illustration purposes only. The City of Yakima assumes no liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided or for any action taken, or action not taken by the user in reliance upon any maps or information provided herein. 14 Distributed at the Meeting 1 g-- Petition tot the U io os el Mission, and theQjjgfjj&M We the below signed, Business Owners, Property Owners, Employees of Businesses, and Residente of Property in the area of the Union Gospel Mission do here -in request that the Union Gospel Mission abide by that agreement they signed with the Businesses in the area in 1994. That agreement was signed in good faith by the Businesses and it allowed the Union Gospel Mission to end a legal dispute, and further allowed the Mission occupy the premises on North 1 't. We further request that the Mission and the City of Yakima work together to insure that the above listed individuals, their customers, and visitors have a safe clean access to their property. NAIVE BUSINESS ADDRESS Qi.2 N, I.-sr- sr - DOC. JUN INIDEX " Y K 10) w� � , on �i Q 66 ksQs i S+64 l+t�utxon to the U ion os elSSiou an the Cat of a i a VUe the below signed, Business Owners, Property Qwners, Employees of Businesses, and Res en of Property in the area of the Union Gospel Mission do here -in request that the Union Gospel Mission abide by that agreement they signed with the Businesses in the area in 1994. That agreement was signed in good faith by the Businesses and it allowed the Union Gospel Mission to end a legal dispute, and further allowed the Mission occupy the premises on North 1st, We further request that the Mission and the City of Yakima work together to insure that the above listed individuals, their customers, and visitors have a safe clean access to their property. Aho Ih /C't /9/d l'•��H X/ k -) n Q M, At, s IN�DEX "Al PAGE 3 Petition to the Union os ei issioo and the Ci of Yakima NAME BUSINESS 1 k I ADDRESS I NJ # , 1 (910 l') Vl5-2::kE-i:4 'DAW 1? 4--'[ 1 1) 1 li 6 C—L4 3,oc� 6—, A) /V t Q D INDEX 7p pro.. a r ,�j v2 �� i Aw 4? . JlAlq D INDEX i"A"ITY PAGE 5 Petition to the U'nion Gospel Mission, and the CLty of Yakima NAME BUSINESS ADDRESS 0 I /C108' k) l sue . t.,� C-T "Alga kA) /�j t4 0 6 -P DOC. INDEX # z OV Page 6 Petition to the Um*on, Gospel io a t e City,of Yakima . P4, BUSINESS ADDRESS y�5T - &4 ;�5 L,)- . -R,,, .S t tLt I Q ILI N y c Fob (1105 =;Ors I thiv h INDEX 1"N' y P i gpl PAGE 7 Petition to the Union Gospel Mission, and-the, Cl!y of Yakima . . ..... . . .. . ... ... . . . ................ . . . 605 -595y- s 17/6 uut;. INDEX g- rc7a-� Petition to the Unjon,Gosoel Mission and the Ci!y fVakima We the below signed, Business Owners, Property Owners, Employees of Businesses, and Residente of Property in the area of the Union Gospel Mission do here-in request that the Union Gospel Mission abide by that agreement they signed with the Businesses in the area in 1994. That agreement was signed in good faith by the Businesses and it allowed the Union Gospel Mission to end a legal dispute, and further allowed the Mission occupy the premises on North I'. We further request that the Mission and the City of Yakima work together to insure that the above listed individuals, their customers, and visitors have a safe clean access to their property. NAME BUSINESS ADDRESS DOC. INDEX # GAP Y (ji FILM,! (Nt Of, Petition tote Union Gospel Mission. and thefily of a a We the below signed, Business Owners, Property Owners, Employees of Businesses, and Residente of Property in the area of the Union Gospel Mission do here -in request that the Union Gospel Mission abide by that agreement they signed with the Businesses in the area in 1994. That agreement was signed in good faith by the Businesses and it allowed the Union Gospel Mission to end a legal dispute, and further allowed the Mission occupy the premises on North 1'. We further request that the Mission and the City of Yakima work together to insure that the above listed individuals, their customers, and visitors have a safe clean access to their property. L L cj F is r kerc C-A �rq e uer INDEX 0101 Ta a N. l it _5-o ,e 4 �I raG€s Gtkic-�� i sa' 1 t- IZC�v 1 -' ST. 8 1 g N 15f t ycj�AVWC' 00 WIN u „2 Page 2 Petift*o—ntothe'Union i" t s � y WK,%v4 & 7 - IWINA, 0 s 7- m DOC. INP!X JL)N U [y OF PII.. A DIV, PAGE 3 71 NAME BUSINESS ADDRESS r7--e7 eti 'io to thg,,_Union.,Gospe1 ission and the Cftj of Y ' a We the below signed, Business Owners, Property Owners, Employees of Businesses, and Residente of Property in the area of the Union Gospel Mission do here -in request that the Union Gospel Mission abide by that agreement they signed with the Businesses in the area in 1994. That agreement was signed in good faith by the Businesses and it allowed the Union Gospel Mission to end a legal dispute, and further allowed the Mission occupy the premises on North 1 '. We further request that the Mission and the City of Yakima work together to insure that the above listed individuals, their customers, and visitors have a safe clean access to their property. NAME BUSINESS ADDRESS V 2:6Su.1;wor INDEX r_3't� Sk-- /f4- l s-'� S -. I Petition to the Union os )eUMission and the "it of Vakima We the below signed, Business Owners, Property Owners, Employees of Busiesses , and Residente of Property in the area of the Union Gospels Mission do here-in request that the Union Gospel Mission abide by that agreement they signed with the Businesses in the area in 1994. That agreement was signed in good faith by the Businesses and it allowed the Union Gospel Mission to end a legal dispute, and further allowed the Mission occupy the premises on North V. We further request that the Mission and the City of Yakima work together to insure that the above listed individuals, their customers, and visitors have a safe clean access to their property. NAME BUSINESS ADDRESS r7 \ I 11 - t - C, N C fre- flGi H0 t _fd-6k0'vy\. rtot,-, '7 f--r I _ 4 - as io fi saT s i DOC. INDlEX Ur, I Page 2 Petition to the Union 0 v I Missiot]. and the C Aty ot kim IU 4 2 )lr [0 hA I A YA, MA 117)'I'lld ("J11?LO9"f 2-13 FRI F �1, E D DOC. J ;NC I N OV X, Ll �1111 , I" I / , � I � # CR)III OF YA�",,W'A C9 m4 PAGE 3 PetitiOn to the Union Gospel Mlssionand the City of Yakima NAME BUSINESS ADDRESS C U 51-0 M EP, Yo DOC. INDEX # 9� 0 061 Pet s aii�d Y�hki ina "0' C' 1". i'on t'��Ci�"' '1'0" to U ion 'I , Prop We the below M�Md, BMinMss�0MnerN e Owners, Employees of Businesses, and Residente of Property in the area of the Union Gospel Mission do here-in request that the Union Gospel Mission abide by that agreement they signed with the Businesses in the area in 1994. That agreement was signed in good faith by the Businesses and it allowed the Union Gospel Mission to end a legal dispute, and further allowed the Mission occupy the premises on North I't. We further request that the Mission and the City of Yakima work together to insure that the above listed individuals, their customers, and visitors have a safe clean access to their property. NAME BUSINESS ADDRESS &V A 0(,Ue4,r 4,zeir, WA- , 170 46 1 fl-&� .3— fz..D e'04 I DOC. J �J N INDEX t--) N L INDEX rA 2, a„ Petition to the Union Gospel Miq-Ann. and the Ciq_2f Yakima We the below signed, Business Owners, Property Owners, Employees of Businesses, and Residente of Property in the area of the Union Gospel Mission do here-in request that the Union Gospel Mission abide by that agreement they signed with the. Businesses in the area in 1994. That agreement was signed in good faith by the Businesses and it allowed the Union Gospel Mission to end a legal dispute, and further allowed the Mission occupy the premises on North I't. We further request that the Mission and the City of Yakima work together to insure that the above listed individuals, their customers, and visitors have a safe clean access to their property. WFIALS1 BUSINESS ADDRESS I - -S-' -ru T7 4) �zz Z DOC. ONDEX PATRICK ANDREOTTI LAW OFFICE OF FLOWER ANDREOTTI SUITE I, YAKIMA LEGAL CENTER 303 EAST `D' STREET YAKIMA, WA 98901 TELEPHONE: 509 -248 -9084 FACSIMILE: 509- 248 -9372 May 29, 2015 Joan Davenport, AICP Planning Manager Director of Community Development City of Yak:inia 129 North 2...1' Street Yakima, WA 98901 Re: File No. CL2 #019 -14 Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal Dear Ms. Davenport: CHARLES C. FLOWER (Ret.) Without waiving the position of Appellants - William Brado and Yakima Gateway Organization, it is clear the Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal in File No. CL2 4019 -14 does not cure the failure to give notice of the application prior to the administrative decision approving the application. The Yakima Municipal Code, YMC 15.40.040(B), as well as the due process requirements of the Washington State and United States Constitutions, require affected individuals be given notice and opportunity to be heard before the administrative decision is made. Purporting to give affected property owners an opportunity to be heard after the decision is made is clearly inadequate. , x 4f PATRICK ANDREOTTI, WSBA #7243. FLOWER & ANDREOTTI, Attorneys for William Brado and cc: Mark Kunkler Yakima Gateway Organization Jt // V 0 ,, INDEX"� AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA RE: APP #002 -15 (CL2 #004 -15 & CL2 #019 -14) Union Gospel Mission 1300 N 1st I, Lisa Maxey, as an employee of the Yakima City Planning Division, have dispatched through the United States Mails, a Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal. A true and correct copy of which is enclosed herewith; that said notice was addressed to the applicant, appellant, and all property owners of record within a radius of 300 feet of subject property, that said property owners are individually listed on the mailing list retained by the Planning Division, and that said notices were mailed by me on this 28th day of May 2015. That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the statements made herein are just and true. Lisa Maxey Department Assistant II DOD, INDEX # L-W 18131311500 18131312027 18131311443 2 RIVERS INVESTMENTS LLC COM COLD STORAGE CO DOUG CHRISTEN HAULING INC PO BOX 3062 PO BOX 27 1313 GORDON RD UNION GAP, WA 98903 YAKIMA, WA 989070027 YAKIMA, WA 98901 18131311450 GC II LLC 18131311491 GOLDEN LI LAI LLC 18131311 X3"2,, GOLDEN L °^ Lk- 2300 RIVER RD #13 612 S 75TH AVE 6P-S 5& AVE YAKIMA, WA 98902 YAKIMA, WA 98908 ^ WIMA, WA 98908 18131311433 113,31 1434a 18131311452 GOLDSENwL�J"1LC GOLDEN L1'° m I C GP HOSPITALITY LLC 61 °`/iH AVE 612 S,,,,7AVE ",.,,� 1405 N 1ST ST YA IMA, WA 98908 " """'� ,,, WA 989 „�.� , "� 08 � � YAKIMA, WA 98901 11313'1.1.451 18131311013 18131311419 GP 140SPITALITY AS PROPERTIES LLC MMT LODGING GROUP LLC 1405 N 2300 RIVER RD UNIT 26 PO BOX 4335 Y qM " "wWM A 98901 °' ° "' " " "�° YAKIMA, WA 989026201 WEST RICHLAND, WA 99353 18131311440 18131312019 18131311448 0 JEAN OWENS REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST SEAWARD PROPERTIES LLC SUNSHINE MOTEL INN LLC 1602 SPEYERS RD 1314 GORDON RD 1223 N 1ST ST SELAH, WA 98942 YAKIMA, WA 98901 YAKIMA, WA 98901 1813-1311494 18131311008 181313 M N tL SUNSHINE IVOT I N UNION GOSPEL MISSION UNION GO PEI issiON ,23 N 1SQ ST PO BOX 565 PO BOX 565 YAKIMA, WA 98901 YAKIMA, WA 98907 YAKIMA, WA 98907 181311004' "" 18131311007 18131311006 UNION G'S�LSION UNION GOSPEL MISSION YAKIMA CITY PO S ' 1300 N 1ST ST 129 N 2ND ST YOB MA, W 989 070565 YAKIMA, WA 989011702 YAKIMA, WA 989012613 18131311422 181-3311498 18131311420 ALVIN TATGE ALVIN E TATGE CARINA QUINTANA 212 SYCAMORE ST 212 S'YCWORSI " " °" 204 SYCAMORE ST YAKIMA, WA 989011718 YAM'MA, WA 989011718 YAKIMA, WA 989011718 18131311426 18131312007 18131311444 CHARLES E. FIELDS DOUG & SANDERS TRUST TILTON DOUGLAS EDWIN CHRISTEN 211 E OAK ST 1312 GORDON RD 1313 GORDON RD YAKIMA, WA 989011715 YAKIMA, WA 989011725 YAKIMA, WA 98901 18131311430 181• „311431 18131311499 GARY E & MARJORIE J RUFENER GARY E I ME J RUFENER JESUS E RAMIREZ 1408 N 1ST ST � 1ST ST 1311 N 1ST ST YAKIMA, WA 98901 YAKIMA, WA 98901 °' YAKIMA, WA 98901 18131311421 18131311493 Doc. 18131311429 MIGUEL URBINA RAJIV SAUSON INDEX WILLIAM A & MARY F BRADO 709 E ADAMS ST 1223 N 1ST ST �I. I 77162 MAHIEHIE ST YAKIMA, WA 98901 YAKIMA, WA 98901 KAILUAKONA, HI 96740 1813-1-3 -11427 34 Law Office of Flower & Andreott; --'Aw� o c/o Patrick Andreatti WILLIAM A & m .4akD Parcels. - Union Go6pel r�libs�oi - 77162 WM-(�iE ST Total P. 3,03 E D St 41 k� tr �KON'A, HI 96740 ppeal - APP4002-15 ),qklm-a, WA 98901 �,�dU . . . . . . ... . ............. . ........ . . . . . ........... . ..... Yakima Gateway Organizat'lon CQ— of b I'lop t C(kli CWN (x), 4140J c/o William Brado 203 Oa'k Av e CL;1#01 Aj-)(940D,��- 15 (Cta#C)0'4 -1,5 Yakima, WA 989,01 DOC. INDEX # a. In-House Distribution E-mail List Name Division E-mail Address _Debbie Cook - - ---------- - ---- - --- — ----- Engineering - - — ------------------ ---- n a h:ii a wa v Dana Kallevig . ........ . ................... . . ... . Wastewater ................ ...... . ...... d a � I'll � ka I I e, v ig,((y) yqhj i i i a IV a. ggy, Dan Riddle Engineering .. .... . ..................... dan.riddla I ypldi awg, i_ _,&) v Mark Kunkler Legal Dept ........... . .... A4ark,kunkLqiLy4K!jj�t '.gjv, . ... ... . ............ JeffCutter .. —Legal ................... ............. ................... Dept . . . . . ....... . qv Archie Matthews ONDS archic.tnattl I Mark Soptich Fire Dept jj'jq�Nq&y Chief Rizzi Police Department inlawa. Jo.___ oe Caruso . . ........... ------------------------- Code Administration . . . . . . . . .. ..................... gqy Carolyn Belles Code Administration .. . ........... . ar imawanggy c olyn.befle -1, k Jerry Robertson Code Administration 3LrPLtLm (V Wikta " —a Glenn Denman Code Administration I Aienm�a@,"Y,�Ahi ........... Suzanne DeBusschere . . .... ............................... Code Administration .......... . . ....... Dave Brown Water/Irrigation davc,bro%vu, 'k 19 Mike Shane Engineering In L) qjy,� Randy Meloy Wastewater ................ ratul yj Scott Schafer Public Works Dept soott chaf James Dean . . . ..... .. ..... Utilities . ..... . a"IDes, dA1E1jAq,,,,y jplawa.. ')v .......................................... __....1... James Scott .... . ..... Refuse Division Kevin Futrell ...... . ..... .... Transit Division k i ii,. fu tKOR N4khkIPL, LAY-4 Joan Davenport Planning V For the Record/File Binder Copy . ............ ._ . ......... .... ............... Revised 12/2014 .......... 1, Type of Notice "N �� o' W,c 0 f 1 pp File Number(s): "C' Date of Mailing: DOC. INDEX L) CC�_ # "-, A .1 I Maxev, Lisa From: Maxey, Lisa Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 3:24 PM To: Belles, Carolyn; Brown, David; Caruso, Joe; Cook, Debbie; Cutter, Jeff; Davenport, Joan; Dean, James; DeBusschere, Suzanne; Denman, Glenn; Futrell, Kevin; Ibarra, Rosalinda; Kallevig, Dana; Kunkler, Mark; Matthews, Archie; Maxey, Lisa; Meloy, Randy; Riddle, Dan; Rizzi, Dominic; Robertson, Jerry; Schafer, Scott; Scott, James; Shane, Mike; Soptich, Mark Cc: Martin, Trevor; Peters, Jeff Subject: SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OF APPLICATION & APPEAL - Union Gospel Mission - APP# 002 -15 (CL2 #004 -15 & CL2 #019 -14) Attachments: SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OF APPLICATION & APPEAL - Union Gospel Mission - APPEAL. pdf Attached is a Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal regarding the above - entitled project. If you have any questions about this proposal please contact assigned planner Trevor Martin at (509) 575 -6162 or by e-mail at tevor maartiriCo)y kimawa.eov. Thank you! Lisa Maxey Departn'uent Assistant It (509) 576 -6669 Lisa iA xg y�q,�yakrrri :...,.gL)v City of Yakima Planning Division 129 N. 2nd St. Yakima, WA 98901 ®®C. INDEX � OL Planning Dill"kion, SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND APPEAL DATE: May 28, 2015 TO: Adjoining property owners, Applicant, and Appellant FROM: Joan Davenport, AICP; Community Development Director SUBJECT: Class (2) Application submitted by Union Gospel Mission to pave 13,000 square foot parking lot, with 32 parking spaces and 2 handicapped parking spaces, with access from Oak Street File Number(s): CL2 #019 -14; combined with CL2 #004 -15; and consolidated under APP #002 -15 Tax Parcel Number(s): 181313 -11504 Location: 1300 North 1st Street, Yakima, Washington NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND APPEAL The City of Yakima received a Class (2) application from Union Gospel Mission on December 2, 2014 (CL2 #019 -14) to construct a parking lot on its property. The parking lot is to be located on Union Gospel Mission property and will accommodate 32 regular parking spaces and 2 handicapped parking spaces. On January 20, 2015, the City of Yakima issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Decision approving the application with conditions. However, it was discovered after the decision was issued that the City had failed to send notice of the application to owners of property within 300 feet of the proposed work as required by YMC 15.14.040(B). In the meantime, Union Gospel Mission submitted another Class (2) application for construction of a health care clinic (3,585 square feet) and residential second floor (5,688 square feet) on its property at 1300 North 1 st Street (CL2 #004 -15). The City of Yakima issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Decision on April 17, 2015, approving the application with conditions. Notice of this decision was properly served on all owners of property within 300 feet of the proposed site. After issuance of the second decision, the City was advised that no notice of application.and decision was given regarding the first application. Because the construction of the parking lot DOC. yau hna 11 KAX INDEX "III improvement was related to the construction of the clinic and residential second floor, the two applications were consolidated. An appeal of both Class (2) decisions was filed on May 1, 2015, (APP #002 -15) and the consolidated decisions are set for appeal hearing before the Hearing Examiner on Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. in the Yakima City Council Chambers, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, Washington. REQUEST FOR WRITTEN COMMENT This Supplemental Notice of Application is intended by the City of Yakima to cure the failure to provide notice of application and decision in the first application (CL2 #019 -14). Your views on the application concerning the Union Gospel Mission parking lot are welcome. All written comments received by 5:00 p.m. on June 16, 2015 will be presented to the Hearing Examiner at the appeal hearing on June 17, 2015. Additionally, you may attend the appeal hearing and present comments at that time. The parking lot decision (CL2 #019 -14) has already been appealed and has been consolidated with an appeal of the health care clinic decision (CL2 #004 -15). Your Comments may be submitted in writing to the address below or by email to: ask, tannin akimawa. o. Please include the file number or project name in the email subject line. Joan Davenport, AICP Planning Manager, Director of Community Development City of Yakima 129 North 2nd Street Yakima, Washington 98901 Please be certain to reference the file number(s) (CL2 #019 -14) or the project name (Union Gospel Mission — Parking Lot) in your correspondence. NOTICE OF DECISION Decisions and future notices will be sent to anyone who submits comments on this application or requests additional notice. The files containing the complete applications for the above mentioned projects and appeal are available for public review at the City of Yakima Planning Division, 2nd floor City Hall, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, Washington. Additional information may be found on the City of Yakima Planning website under Quick Links: htt // akimawa. ov /services / la�0g DOC. INDEX .m AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA RE: APP #002 -15 (CL2 #004 -15, CL2 #019 -14) Union Gospel Mission 1300 N 1st St I, Lisa Maxey, as an employee of the City of Yakima, Planning Division, have dispatched through the United States Mails, a Notice of Appeal and Public Hearing. A true and correct copy of which is enclosed herewith; that said notice was addressed to the applicant, appellant, and adverse parties of record; that said are individually listed on the mailing list retained by the Planning Division, and that said notices were mailed by me on the 22nd day of May, 2015. That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the statements made herein are just and true. Lisa Maxey Department Assistant II !` INDEX_, YAKIMA MRA, LD- , , a ,, ,' �;� , N PU"BLI'C A daily part of your life yakima- herald.com -Ad Proof- This is the proof of your ad scheduled to run on the dates indicated below. Please confirm placement prior to deadline, by contacting your account rep at (509) 577 -7740. Account #: 110358 Company Name: CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING Contact: ROSALINDA IBARRA Address: DEPT OF COMMERCIAL ECONOMICAL DEVELOPEME 129 N 2ND STREET YAKIMA, WA 98901 -2720 Telephone: (509) 575 -6164 Ad IDS 546089 Start: 05/22/15 Stop; 05/22/15 Total Cost: $77.55 Agate Lines: 42 # of Inserts: 2 Ad Class: 6021 Account Rep: Simon Sizer Phone # (509) 577 -7740 Email: ssizer @yakimaherald.com Yakima Herald- Republic 05/22/15 YakimaHerald.com 05/22/15 CITY OF YAKIMA. NOTICE OF APPEAL AND PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 22, 2015 TO: Appellant & Parties of Record FROM: Joan Davenport, Com- munity Development Director SUBJECT: Notice of Appeal of . L)qpjWoft, File Number(s): APP #002 -15 Tax Parcel Numbeil 18131311504 Location: 1300 N. 1st St., Yakima, WA. An appeal of the Class (2) Land Use Applica- tion Decision for the Yakima Union Gospel Mission (File CL2 #004 -15 & CL2 #019 -14) was received on May 1, 2015. In accordance with Yakima Municipal Code 15.16.030, a public hearing regarding this appeal will be held before the Hearing Examiner on Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. in the Yakima City Council Chambers, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, WA. Any person desiring to express their views on this matter is invited to attend the public hearing or to submit written comments. Following the public hearing, the Hearing Examiner will issue a written decision within ten business days of the public hearing. If you have any ques- tions on this proposal, please contact Trevor Martin, Assis- tant Planner at (509) 575 -6162 or by e-mail at trevor.martin yakimawa.gov. (546089) May 22, 2015 Ad Proof CITY OF YAKIMA NOTICE OF APPEAL AND PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 22, 2015 TO: Appellant & Parties of Record FROM: Joan Davenport, Com- munity Development Director SUBJECT: Notice of Appeal of Class (;,Lanc1 UseA¢a)��0,,. Decision. File Number(s): APP #002 -15 Tax Parcel Number(s): 18131311504 Location: 1300 N. 1st St., Yakima, WA. An appeal of the Class (2) Land Use Applica- tion Decision forthe Yakima Union Gospel Mission (File CL2 #004 -15 & CL2 #019 -14) was received on May 1, 2015. In accordance with Yakima Municipal Code 15.16.030, a public hearing regarding this appeal will be held before the Hearing Examiner on Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. in the Yakima City Council Chambers, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, WA. Any person desiring to express their views on this matter is invited to attend the public hearing or to submit written comments. Following the public hearing, the Hearing Examiner will issue a written decision within ten business days of the public hearing. If you have any ques- tions on this proposal, please contact Trevor Martin, Assis- tant Planner at (509) 575 -6162 or by e-mail at trevo r. martin yakimawa.gov. (546089) May 22, 2015 ® ®C. Maxey, Lisa From: Maxey, Lisa Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 9:44 AM To: Belles, Carolyn; Brown, David; Caruso, Joe; Cook, Debbie; Cutter, Jeff; Davenport, Joan; Dean, James; DeBusschere, Suzanne; Denman, Glenn; Futrell, Kevin; Ibarra, Rosalinda; Kallevig, Dana; Kunkler, Mark; Matthews, Archie; Maxey, Lisa; Meloy, Randy; Riddle, Dan; Rizzi, Dominic; Robertson, Jerry; Schafer, Scott; Scott, James; Shane, Mike; Soptich, Mark; Brown, Michael; Crockett, Ken; Daily Sun News - Bob Story; KAPP TV News; KBBO -KRSE Radio - manager; KCJT TV News; KDNA Radio; KEPR TV News; KIMA TV News; KIMA TV News - Crystal Bui; KIT /KATS /DMVW /KFFM - Lance Tormey; KNDO TV News; KUNS -TV Univision; KVEW TV News; Lozano, Bonnie; NWCN News; NWPR - Anna King; Randy Luvaas - Yakima Business Times; Reed C. Pell; Tu Decides - Albert Torres; Yakima Herald Republic - Craig Troianello; Yakima Herald Republic - Erin Snelgrove; Yakima Herald Republic - Mai Hoang; Yakima Herald Republic - Mark Morey; Yakima Herald Republic Newspaper; Yakima Valley Business Times; Yakima Valley Business Times - George Finch; Beehler, Randy Cc: Martin, Trevor; Kevin (kevin @house314.com); Pat Spurgin (pds @spurginlawoffice.com); tcbec @aol.com Subject: NOTICE OF APPEAL & PUBLIC HEARING - Union Gospel Mission - APP #002 -15 (CL2# 004 -15, CL2 #019 -14) Attachments: NTC OF APPEAL & PUBLIC HEARING - Union Gospel Mission - CL2 APP.pdf Attached is a Notice of Appeal and Public Hearing regarding the above - entitled project. If you have any questions about this proposal please contact assigned planner Trevor Martin at (509) 575 -6162 or by e-mail at trevor.martln akimawa. ov. Thank you! Lisa Maxey De] arlirnent Assktant 11. (509) 576 6669 1Li§a,M,ax i,yAk -i l—a -wa.6,-o—v. City of Yakima Planning Division 129 N. 2nd St. Yakima, WA 98901 DOC. Parties of Record - Union Gospel Mission - APP #002 -1 D (CL2 #004 -15) Current Resident Attn: Patrick Andreotti William Brado 1602 Speyers Rd Flower & Andreotti 203 Oak Ave Selah, WA 98942 303 East D Street Ste 1 Yakima, WA 98901 Dan Riddle �. Yakima, WA 98901 dan r1d i u . lcmi a a y _..._ ................w Legal Dept - . Mark.ktaliklca ci yaslq awa. Attn: Rick Phillips Legal Dept111tt �rylwnlw>v ITITITITITIT ITITITIT Union Gospel Mission ONDS at ai t1 e, y g l all.. y 1300 N I" St Fire Dept . ... .�m � � r_ <a cv Yakima, WA 98901 Po ._i�.c....e ... D���..e p a....rt �.m. ent Domm> c. rizzyaaa gov akw m In -House Distribution E -mail List Name Division E -mail Address e Cook .... Debbie En ........................... .............. -------------- Debbie. cook(a akimawa. oy Dana Kallevig Wastewater � � „m 111 yig @ya�kllai�'r�u y Dan Riddle �. Engineeringw_... dan r1d i u . lcmi a a y Mark Kunkler Legal Dept - . Mark.ktaliklca ci yaslq awa. Jeff Cutter W Legal Dept111tt �rylwnlw>v ITITITITITIT ITITITIT Archie Matthews ONDS at ai t1 e, y g l all.. y Mar k SS— opti- c....h __- . Fire Dept . ... .�m � � r_ <a cv Chief Rizzi Po ._i�.c....e ... D���..e p a....rt �.m. ent Domm> c. rizzyaaa gov akw Joe Caruso Code Administration car use a akatraawa eo Carolyn BellesITITITITITITITIT ....... Code Administration carol n bc�lla�� ��y��k'ij a w4 'Q, Jerry Robertson ... ............ . . ....................... Code Administration jprry. ftertson(a) akiLpawa.gov Glenn Denman Code Administration g1+1L.aI1a1x cry alt�aa ar Suzanne DeBusschere Code Administration a1zaiin . debii schere(i ")y�ikilin wa ov ................ Dave Brown _._........ Water /Irrigation .......... .._ . _ ...._ davc.larown )ygkjpjLqmia.gov Mike Shane Engineering nick .shane akimar a. lov Randy Meloy Wastewater rand pgjpy ya Jr la tmmg rY Scott Schafer Public Works Dept c ca) akirnaaava gy James Dean Utilities James.deanayakimawa gov James Scott Refuse Division Ja,mes.sc t akinria' °a.g v �rm_ .... Kevin Futrell ... . . _ ........................... Transit Division k V1,11.1ITutre l t vain it �j a g, y ....... ... ......w_w Joan Davenport Planning ......... __ ----------------------------- -- --� t ca- �akaxl .., ........................... Ioatt.davc��� wa, 6tav; _------------------------------------------ For the Record /File _ . Binder Copy ------------------ . .... ....... ...... Revised 12/2014 Type of .... Notice: 1, AV � File Number: (�P �� ` 15 DOC. Date of Mailing: 5 X 15 INWX yl' a" Planning Divivion 1210 Norlh Second,Sireet, 2nd Floor Yakima, Vl`ashinghm 98901 NOTICE OF APPEAL AND PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 22, 2015 TO: Appellant & Parties of Record FROM: Joan Davenport, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Notice of Appeal of Class (2) Land Use Application Decision. File Number(s): APP #002 -15 Tax Parcel Number(s): 18131311504 Location: 1300 N. 1St St., Yakima, WA An appeal of the Class (2) Land Use Application Decision for the Yakima Union Gospel Mission (File CL2 #004 -15 & CL2 #019 -14) was received on May 1, 2015. In accordance with Yakima Municipal Code 15.16.030, a public hearing regarding this appeal will be held before the Hearing Examiner on Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. in the Yakima City Council Chambers, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, WA. Any person desiring to express their views on this matter is invited to attend the public hearing or to submit written comments. Following the public hearing, the Hearing Examiner will issue a written decision within ten business days of the public hearing. If you have any questions on this proposal, please contact Trevor Martin, Assistant Planner at (509) 575- 6162 or by e-mail at tevor.marttin (@y. kirnavq a oy DOC, 1Ya Iu"Iaa INDEX 1111M INS �o� syf CITY OF YAKIMA LAND USE ACTION INSTALLATION CERTIFICATE File Number: App-+-09 —6_ le", ...2 OO r Date of Posting: Location of Installation (Check One): V Land Use Action Sign is installed per standards described in YMC § 15.11.090(C). Land Use Action Sign is installed in an alternate location on the site. Note: this alternate location (if not pre- approved by the Planning Manager) may not be acceptable by the Planning Division and is subject to relocation (at the owner's expense) to a more visible site on the property. The alternative location is: The required comment period will begin when the Planning Division has received the Land Use Action Installation Certification. The date of installation certificate receipt will begin the notice period. Failure to post a Land Use Action sign and return this form signed in a timely manner will cause a delay in the application review. I hereby testify that the sign installed fully complies with the Land Use Action sign layout specifications and installation standards, and that the sign will be maintained until a decision has Pbed e..... . ..... . . .... X (-4, Signature Date Applicant's Name (Please Print) Applicant's Telephone Number Please remit the above certification and deliver to the City of Yakima Planning Division via fax at (509) 575 -6105; in person or by mail to: City of Yakima, Planning Division, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901. DOC. INDEX Revision 002 06/17/2014 ry MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR POSTING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR LAND USE ACTION CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING DIVISION 129 NORTH 2ND STREET, YAKIMA, WA 98901 Main Phone: (509) 575 -6183 — Call for assistance or more information. The Land Use Action posted signage shall be a sign to provide the public notification that a land use application has been submitted to the City for a proposed change to the property. The following information describes the details of the Land Use Action sign. Posting of at least one sign and in some cases more than one sign on the site or in a location immediately adjacent to the site that provides visibility to motorists using adjacent streets. The Planning Manager has established standards for size, color, layout, design, wording, placement, and timing of installation and removal of the sign(s) to provide clarification to YMC § 15.11.090(C). I. GENERAL INFORMATION ❑ The Land Use Action sign shall be known in this section as the "sign" and as stated in YMC § 15.11.090(C) as the official sign for application for the following land use matters: • Class 3 Public Hearings; • Preliminary Long Subdivisions; • Rezones; • Right -of -Way Vacations; • Appeals; • Comprehensive Plan Amendments as indicated in YMC Ch. 16.10; • Environmental Review, except for a categorically exempt application; and, • Annexation of property by the City. II. SIGN DESCRIPTION & CONTENT ❑ The City will have the appropriate information printed on a four (4) foot by four (4) foot board with the following specifications: • Letter Style: Helvetica or similar standard typeface. • Letter Size: 41/4 inch bold capital letters for the title: LAND USE ACTION PROPOSED FOR THIS SITE ■ 4'/4 inch bold capital letters for the footer: CONTACT THE CITY OF YAKIMA (PHONE NUMBER) • Letter Color: Black letters for the title block and the footer; and, City logo placed on each side of center of the sign. • Type of Land Use Action Designation: The type of Land Use Action shall be placed in the center of the sign. • Sign Background shall be a highly visible yellow color. } PLANNING PROCEDURE 03 -15.11 Revision 002 June 2014 I. SICNACE INSTALLATION ❑ The applicant shall install the Land Use Action signs. These signs shall be located: • At the midpoint on the street frontage from which the site is addressed or as otherwise directed by the Planning staff, • At a location ten (10) feet back from the property line; • Signs structurally attached to an existing building shall be exempt from the setback requirement, provided that no sign is located further than ten (10) feet from the property line without written approval from Planning staff, • The top of the sign shall be positioned between five (5) to six (6) feet above grade; • The sign can be easily read from the adjacent street and/or sidewalk; and, • The sign is easily accessible, able to read, and can be seen from the property line. IV. INSTALLATION CERTIFICATE ❑ To certify that the Land Use Action sign has been installed, the applicant shall complete the Land Use Action Installation Certification with the applicant's signature and return it to the Planning Division in person or general mail or fax. • The Land Use Action Installation Certification will be placed into the application file record; • This date of the Land Use Action sign installation will be at least twenty (20) days before the public meeting. V. MAINTENANCE & 4 M'OVAL ❑ The Land Use Action sign shall be maintained in good condition until the final decision on the application. ❑ The sign shall be removed after the final City decision is made on the application within fifteen (15) days of the decision or withdrawn or cancelled. DATE: FILE #: PROJECT NAME: DOC. INDEX Revision 002 06/17/2014 PATRICK ANDREOTTI Irtta°d h Lld,r,6,11O)N or_n t tIf cgIihiw q!r LAW OFFICE OF FLOWER & ANDREOTTI SUITE 1, YAKIMA LEGAL CENTER 303 EAST `D' STREET YAKIMA, WA 98901 TELEPHONE: 509- 248 -9084 FACSIMILE: 509- 248 -9372 May 1, 2015 .loan Davenport, AICP Planning Manager City of Yakima Department of Community Development 129 North 2" a Street Yakima, WA 98901 Re: Union Gospel Mission, File No. CL2 #004 -15 Dear Ms. Davenport: CHARLES C. FLOWER (Ret.) Enclosed for filing with your office is an "appeal" of the Decision entered in the above - numbered application by William Brado and the Yakima Gateway Organization. Also, enclosed is a $580.00 check in payment of the appeal filing fee. Please let me know if you have questions. PA:pk Enclosures Sincerelyy, PATRICK ANDREOTTI DOC. INDEX # ") I.M.Z6, RECEIVED Y1A "(0 -7015 CITY Oh YAKIiVIA PLANNING DIV LAND USE APPLICATION RECEIVED MAII 4i CITY OF YAKIMA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 129 NORTH SECOND STREET, 2ND FLOORS AKIMA, WA 98902 VOICE: (509) 575 -6183 FAX: (509) 575-6105 INSTRUCTIONS —PLEASE READ FIRST Please t e or rint our answers clear) Answer all questions completely. If you have any questions about this form or the application process, please ask a Planner. Rementber to bring all necessary attachments and the required filing fee when the application is submitted. The Planning Division cannot accept an application unless it is complete and the filing fee paid. Filing fees are not refundable. This application consists of four parts. PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION AND PART IV — CERTIFICATION are on this page. PART I1 and III contain additional information s ecific, to our ro osal and MUST be attached to this Page to complete the application. PART I — +GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Applicant's Name: William Brado & Yakima Gatewa O� ani at Information: Mailing Address: �,. 2 0 � Oak avenue City: Yakima t: WA ip: E -Mail: 2. Applicant's Interest in Property: Check One: Owner ❑ Agent ❑ Purchaser ❑ Other Name:... 3. Property Owner's - - — Information (If other Mailing Address: than Applicant): City: "t: Vim honer ) E -Mail: — 4. Subject Property's Assessor's Parcel Numbcr(s), i)1 3l —11429 acid tther -- N. 1st St. Legal Description of Property. (it" lengthy, please attach it on a separate document) 1 t7 Off`° Lots 12,, 13,tand 14 Block 3 Central Addition 6. Property Address: 7. Property's Existing.. Zoning: ❑ SR ❑ R -I ❑ R -2 ❑ R -3 ❑ B -1 [3 B -2 ❑ HB ❑ SCC ❑ LCC ❑ CBD ❑ GC ❑ AS ❑ RD K] M -1 ❑ M -2 8. Type Ol Application: (Ghee): All That Apply) ❑ Administrative Adjustment ❑ Environmental Checklist (SEPA Review) ❑ Easement Release ❑ Type (1) Review ❑ Right -of -Way Vacation ❑ Rezone ❑ Type (2) Review ❑ Transportation Concurrency ❑ Shoreline ❑ Type (3) Review ❑ Non-Conforming Use /Structure ❑ Critical Areas Review ❑ Preliminary Short Plat ]EX Appeal to HE / City Council ❑ Variance ❑ Final Short Plat ❑ Interpretation by Hearing Examiner ❑ Temporary Use Permit ❑ Short Plat Amendment ❑ Modification ❑ Overlay District ❑ Preliminary Long Plat ❑ Home Occupation ❑ Binding Site Plan ❑ Final Lon Plat Long ❑ Comprehensive Plan Text or Map Amendment ❑ Planned Development ❑ Plat Alteration Long Plat ❑ Short Plat Exemption; ❑ Outer: PART II — SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION PART III — L UIRED AWACHMENTS & PART- IV — NARRATIVE 9. SEE ATTACHED SHEETS PART V — CERTIFICATION ............ 10. I certify that the information on this application and the required attachments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. �yr ture Date r ert t �gna e 0/'i� Applicant's Si attire Date S RECEIVED 11rrVV( 1) 15 Supplemental Application for: APPEAL CITY YAK IMA Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance Chapter 15.16 Of Administrative Official's Decision - ❑ Of Hearing Examiner's Decision ❑ Of Subdivision Administrator's Decision ❑ Of SEPA Determination ❑ Other Appeal of File Number: CL2 # 004 -15 Date Action Taken: 4/17/2015 CL2 #01 9-14 1. Description of Action Being Appealed: Approval of Union Gospel Mission Application to construct a new 3,5135 square -foot health care clinic and 5,588 square -foot residential second floor with reIated. i43 � ..associated a2prqval of marking l of for which notice to adjomminu property owners was given. 2. Reason for Appeal: Describe the specific error(s) or issues(s) upon which the appeal is based, including an explanation of why the decision is not consistent with the Yakima Urban Area Plan, The Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, or other provisions of law. (Reference the section, paragraph, and page of the provision(s) cited.) (Attach if lengthy) See Attachment. Revised 07/2014 INDEX Page 14 RECEIVED ATTACHMENT ( a ) App] ications L2 4004 -15 and C1�2 #01.9 -14 are required to be reviewed as Cia` ".11 ` .ii'M Use Applications: In 1992, the City Hearing Examiner approved a Union Gospel Mission ( "UGM ") application to locate its facility at its present location, 1300 North 1St Street. The Hearing Examiner's Decision was appealed to the Yakima City Council by the Yakima Gateway Organization ( "YGO "). To resolve the YGO appeal, UGN and YGO entered into a "Settlement Agreement Re: Union Gospel Mission Relocation" ( "Settlement Agreement ") pursuant to which, in exchange for withdrawal of the YGO appeal, UGM agreed to substantial conditions and restrictions beyond those imposed in the Hearing Examiner's Decision. The Settlement Agreement was filed with the City August 2, 1994. Section 2 of the Settlement Agreement specifically dealt with future development at the Mission site. Pursuant to Section 2(a), YGO specifically agreed to development as shown on a schematic plan attached to the Agreement. Section 2(b) specifically required future development in excess of that which was shown on the schematic plan attached to the Settlement Agreement would be subject to Class 3 review which would be requested by both UGM and YGO at the time of application for such future development. Neither the parking lot subject to Application CL2 #019 -14 or the present application CL2 #004 -15 are improvements which were contemplated in the Settlement Agreement and are, therefore, subject to Class 3 review. UGM breached the Settlement Agreement by filing the above - numbered applications as Class 2 land use applications. The City abetted that breach of the Agreement by processing and entering decisions on the two (2) applications as Class 2 applications. The Settlement Agreement and its Class 3 review provisions are specifically enforceable as between the members of YGO and the UGM. Although the City itself was not a party to the Settlement Agreement, the permits the City issued for location and construction of Mission facilities were possible only because of the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The City is required to review the above - numbered applications as Class 3 land use applications. The Decisions in both CL2 #004 -15 and CL2 #019 -14 must be reversed and the applications remanded for processing and reviewed as Class 3 land use applications. (b) The Decision on Application CL2 #019 -14 is void: The UGM expansion contemplated by Application CL2 #004 -15 required additional on- site parking. 14. UGM sought approval for this additional on -site parking through Application CL2 #019 - µyy�9,�pyyq "�nNM1 �m MVe��iNh As noted above, the City improperly reviewed this application as a Class 2 land use application rather than a Class 3 application. In addition, the City failed to comply with its own requirements for Class 2 land use review. YMC 15.14.040(B), governing the notice requirements for Class 2 review, provides: "Notification of adjacent property owners. When the administrative official's preliminary decision is to approve the application, or approve with conditions, the administrative official shall, within 5 days, forward a notice of application to all landowners within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the development site...." The 4/17/2015 Decision on this application, Finding 7, acknowledges the City failed to give adequate notice of the parking lot application but finds the Decision "was not appealed ". The fact that Decision was not appealed is not surprising since the adversely affected property owners had no notice of either the application or the Decision. In Prekeges vs. King County, 98 Wn.App. 275, 281, 990 P.2d 405 (1999), the Court specifically held: "One purpose of specific statutory requirements for public notice of an impending land use decision is to insure that the decision makers receive enough information from those who may be affected by the action to make an intelligent decision." In Prosser 1iR1 Coalition vs. Sppkane Count , 176 Wn.App. 280, 291, 309 P.3d 1202 11 (2013), the Court recognized defective notice undermines the information gathering process and further recognized and held the proper remedy for effective notice was a remand to the decision maker for hearing after appropriate notice. Limitations of RCW Chap. 36.70C are inapplicable in this situation. Because affected property owners had no notice of the application or Decision, they could not and were not required to file a LUPA appeal within the time permitted by statute. The Decision on the parking lot application, CL2 #019 -14, is void for failure to provide notice required by the City's own code. The matter must be remanded for processing after appropriate notice. Because the UGM expansion contemplated by Application CL2 #004 -15 cannot be approved without adequate parking, that Decision must also be reversed and remanded to the Planning Department. INDEX E ILi,)'W3 1XV, (c) Compatibility: Whether the present application is properly reviewed as a Class 2 or a Class 3 application, compatibility review is required. YMC 15.04.020(B) and (C). The City's Decision on this application notes the compatibility requirement for a Class 2 review but does not address compatibility issues in the Decision or findings. Compatibility was a hotly contested issue at the initial hearings on location of the UGM on North 1St Street. Some of the compatibility issues were addressed in the Settlement Agreement with the imposition of additional conditions to mitigate some impacts of the Mission on surrounding businesses. Those conditions include: Section 3 of the Agreement required the Mission to provide a restroom to the general public 24 -hours per day, 7 days per week. This restroom facility is not presently provided with resulting, anticipated adverse effects on surrounding property. Section 6 of the Agreement provided UGM would provide a reading/day room between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Clients would be allowed to stay on the UGM property as long as they adhere to UGM rules. This facility does not appear to have been maintained, if it was ever provided with the result that Mission residents and clients for other services are out on North 1St Street and surrounding areas most or all of the day. Section 10 of the Agreement provided the Mission would provide two (2) scheduled shuttles per day offering transportation for clients to designated spots in the City for a minimum of one (1) year. The shuttle service was not continued with the result that there is now a steady stream of pedestrians, clients and residents of the Mission, moving up and down North 1St Street on both sides of the street, interfering with businesses in the area and their customers. Section 12 of the Agreement provided a minimwn of one (1) uniformed night security guard would be provided by UGM to make hourly patrols of the property and stay in radio communication with the Yakima Police Department. This has not been done. Section 15 of the Agreement limited occupancy of the facility to 260 residents, unless otherwise reduced by the City of Yakima Fire Code provisions. It is unknown what the current number of residents of the facility is or what the total number of residents would be if the proposed expansion is approved. The total number of residents must, however, be limited to 260 consistent with the Agreement. The starting point of any compatibility review for expansion of UGM facilities and operations must be a determination of whether or not UGM has complied with the conditions pursuant to which it began operations on North 1 st Street, and whether or not those conditions were, in fact, adequate to render the Mission and its operations compatible with surrounding land uses. INDEX MiA'(` 0 01:I QTY YAKNA PLANNING DI V. The compatibility of expanded facilities and operations of UGM must also be viewed in light of the effect the current operations have had on property values in the neighborhood. An example of the impact on values is the former Red Lion Inn property, Parcel No. 181313 - 11001. At the 1992 hearing, substantial testimony and evidence was submitted in behalf of Red Lion that the location of the Mission would have a devastating impact on their business and property values. In 2005, the property sold for $3,911,000.00 (Excise Tax Receipt No. 374046). In 2012, the property sold at a trustee's sale following foreclosure of a Deed of Trust for $2,000,000.00 (Excise Tax Receipt No. E001954). In 2013, the property sold for $1,500,000.00 (Excise Tax Receipt No. 433294), approximately 38% of its 2005 value. The 4/17/2015 Decision must be reversed and remanded to the Planning Department for determination about UGM's compliance with the original conditions imposed as well as a specific evaluation of or if additional conditions are required to insure the compatibility of current and expanded Mission operations with the existing businesses on North 1St Street. (d) Specific defects in the 4/17/2015 Decision: Without waiving any of the foregoing objections to the validity of the 4/17/2015 Decision, the following- described Findings, Conclusions and portion of the Decision are erroneous and require reversal of the Decision: Finding 3: The finding the application is subject to Class 2 is erroneous as noted above. Class 3 review is required. Fitading : The 1990 Decision and the Settlement Agreement limit the total number of residents at the facility to 260. This includes not merely UGM clients, but also UGM staff residing on the premises. There must be specific evidence and a specific finding the increased residential facilities will not increase the capacity of the UGM facility to house more than 260 residents. F indin , 7 11.: As noted above, the Decision authorizing expanded parking facilities is void for failure to give required notice. In addition, Finding 11 permitting use of the Oak Street access for "delivery, maintenance and operations of the Union Gospel Mission" is contrary to the Settlement Agreement. Settlement Agreement, Section 4, provides: "Access to the property, current and future, shall be restricted to the south side alley entrance designated by the Hearing Examiner. The 1St Street entrance will be for administrative and staff only, access for delivery or services to the subject property." DOC. INDEX Iffiloom MM" 0 2015 CIT YAKfiVIA P,WNG DI.. The Agreement as written contains a typographical error. The phrase "delivery or services" was intended to be "delivery of services" and it was understood and agreed by all parties to the Agreement the only access to the UGM facility from Oak Street would be for delivery of utility services such as sewer, water and electricity. No vehicular or pedestrian access from Oak Street was to be permitted. Any approval of the additional parking must specifically preclude any access from Oak Street. Finding 1.2: The recommendation that a 6 -foot fence be installed along the entire length of the Union Gospel Mission abutting Oak Street should be a requirement, not a recommendation. Conclusion 1: The Conclusion the proposed expansion of facilities and services is "compatible with adjoining land uses" is unsupported by evidence in the record or Findings in the Decision and must be reversed. Decisions Section C: For the reasons stated above, the Decision must be reversed in its entirety. (e) Requested Relief- Appellants request: 1. The Decision in Application CL2 #019 -14 be determined to be void for lack of adequate notice. 2. Applications CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15 be reversed and remanded to the City Planning Department for processing as Class 3 land use applications as required by the Settlement Agreement pursuant to which the UGM was permitted to locate at its present site. 3. The Decision on Application CL2 #004 -15 be reversed and remanded with specific directions to the Planning Department any Decision approving the application specifically include the conditions contained in the Settlement Agreement, and access to the facility from Oak Street be specifically prohibited in addition to any other conditions imposed to insure compatibility. C:\ Users\ Pat\ Documents \PAK \pat\Pat\miscellaneous \brado attachment.docx INDEX RECEIVED OTY . � 'W LNii HIV. Mar2� 1512:04p Bill Brado 8083224359 p.1 m i �up A R ryj�u. TO: Joan ,Davenport Community Development Dept 129 :forth 2 Street � PH. 509- 575 -6183 Fax 575 -6105 March 30, 2015 Hill Brado 201 East Oak Street Yakima, WA 98 11 P 509 -%1 -5154 Regarding: Parking approval for Mission Dear Joan, In accordance with your request for a written narrative on how to handle the problem of the City Staff failure to notify the adjoining neighbors of the intent to approve the parking area with access off Oak Street. I'm sure that if a Judicial decision was obtained on the legality of the City approval with out that notification, the court would decide the rights of the property owner have been violated and that the approval of the parking area should be with drawn. The City by approving the Mission parking lot has become complicit along With the Mission, in knowingly violating the settlement agreement item #4. DOC. INDEX Mar 2S1512:05p Bill Brado PAGE 2 8083224359 p.2 The approval of the . issio parking should be withdrawn. I would think it should be start over time. I would recommend that the Mission should cease work on the site until this issue is resolved. Thanks for the opportunity to address this matter. Sincerely Bill Brado, DOC. UNION GOSPEL MISSION APP #005 -15 (APP #002 -15 — CL2 #019 -14 & CL2 #004 -15) EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER E Exhibits Submitted for HE Public Hearing , , � ; E -1 Hearing Examiner's Decision for UAZO Interp. #1 -92 02/27/1992 E -2 Administrative Official's Decision on UAZO CL2 #10 -92 --- . ... .......... -- .......... 07/10/1992 E -3 .......... Hearing Examiner's Decision for UAZO Appeal #3 -92 .......... ...... _ _ _ — ........ 10/20/1992 E -4 ... _ �. ....... .... . ......................... Hearing Examiner's Decision for UAZO Interp. #2 -95 ....... _........ 06/09/1995 E -5 _____ ............... __ ............................................................... ._.— .._.._. —._. _..M ........ ................ .._.._.._.___._.._.._.._._... Comment Letter from Bruce Smith 05/30/2015 E -6 ITLetter from Patrick Andreotti to Rick Phillips 06/10/2015 E -7 Letter from Mark Kunkler, Senior Assistant City Attorney; 06/16/2015 addressed to Gary Cullier, Hearing Examiner; and to Patrick Andreotti, Attorney for Appellant; and James C. Carmody, Attorney for Applicant E -8 Comment Letter from Dennis O'Brill 06/16/2015 ........ WW ........................................ ............................... E -9 ..... �....___..____ .................. Comment Letter from Angel Gonzalez ............_.............. .................. 06/16/2015 _._...... . __- . --------- E-10 m -------- .._.......___.. ..... m...... ._ ........... _ ..... .............. . -------------------------- _ --------- __ ------- ------- ---- Comment Letter from Tracie Erie - - - - - -- 06/16/2015 _ -E -11 ITITITITIT Appellant's Hearing MemorandumITITITITITITITITITITITITITITITITITITITITITITITITITITITITITITITITITITIT 06/17/2015 E -12 "Exhibit B" — Table 4 -1 Permitted Land Uses 06/17/2015 E -13 ........... ................................................................................. _...... . ............._................................................................................................................ . ............................... Petition to the Union Gospel Mission, and the City of Yakima 06/17/2015 E -14 ......... � . .............................. -- ....................................... ........ . ........._ .............................................. .........._.............................................................................. ...... Legal Brief from James Carmody 06/24/2015 *Submitted after public hearing per the request of the Hearing Examiner E -15 Legal Brief from Patrick Andreotti 06/24/2015 *Submitted after nublic hearin! Der the reauest of the Hearin! Examiner Maxey, Lisa From: Ibarra, Rosalinda Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 8:30 AM To: Maxey, Lisa Subject: FW: Yakima Gateway Association -Union Gospel Mission Appeal #002 -15 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged 1t.w:sal iinda II baw: ~ra. ,diininistrati e Assistant i�os lindii.ibitrra kiinswa. ov (509) 575-6183 This email is a public record of the City of Yakima and is subject to public disclosure unless exempt under the Washington Public Records Act. This email is subject to the State Retention Schedule. From: Martin, Trevor Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 5:00 PM To: Ibarra, Rosalinda Subject: FW: Yakima Gateway Association -Union Gospel Mission Appeal #002 -15 From: Patrick Andreotti [P ai t: anrff pt i flower- and(eottil tsar , Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 3:45 PM To: Martin, Trevor Cc: Kunkler, Mark; carmodv @inrtlaw.co Subject: Yakima Gateway Association -Union Gospel Mission Appeal #002 -15 Mr. Martin: Please forward the following citations to Hearing Examiner Cuillier. Requirement notice of decision emailed to parties entitled to notice of the application in a Class 2 review: YMC 15.14.050. Providing for de novo review in appeals of Class 2 applications to Hearing Examiner: YMC 15.16.030F. Thank you for your assistance. Patrick Andreotti Flower & Andreotti 303 E. D St. Suite 1 Yakima, WA 98901 Phone: 509 - 248 -9084 Fax: 509 - 248 -9372 Email: pandreotti @flower- andreottilaw.com DOC. INDEX �J75 The information contained in this a -i. i message, including any attachments, is I ate and may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you think you received this message in error, please delete the message and e-mail the sender at pAndreotti flower- andreottilaw.com. MDEX DENNIS L. FLUEGGE* ROBERT C. TENNEY MARK D. WATSON* JEROME R. AIKEN* JOHN A. MAXWELL, JR. *Also admitted in Oregon June 24, 2015 Gary Cuillier THE LAW OFFICES OF MEYER, FLUEGGE & TENNEY, P.S. 230 South Second Street P.O. Box 22680 Yakima, Washington 98907 -2680 City of Yakima, Hearing Examiner 129 N. 2nd Street, 2nd Floor Yakima, WA 98901 Re: William Brado - Union Gospel Mission Appeal # 002 -15 Dear Mr. Examiner: * *PETER M. RITCHIE ERIN E. MOORE JAMES C. CARMODY ** *GARY E. LOFLAND * *Also admitted in Virginia * ** Of Counsel carmodvOwmftlaw.com At the conclusion of the public hearing on the appeal filed by William Brado, he requested that Union Gospel Mission (UGM) provide referenced case authority and citations with respect to the issue of timely filing of an administrative appeal. The cases referenced in our argument included the following: Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 155 Wash.2d 397 (2005). In Habitat Watch, a citizens group filed an action against the county seeking revocation of a special use permit for construction of a golf course on the grounds that two permit extensions had been granted without compliance with public notice or hearing requirements. The court held that the challenge was barred by the strict time limits of the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA). Even though the county failed to provide required notice and public hearing, the court found that the petition was time barred under RCW 36.70C.040(2). The principal enunciated in Habitat Watch would require dismissal of the present administrative appeal. • Asche v. Bloomquist, 132 Wash.App. 784 (2006). In Asche, homeowners filed a nuisance action against neighbors and the county to stop neighbors from building a house that impeded their view. The court held that the action was barred because of petitioners failure to file a land use petition within 21 days of the issuance of a building permit as required by RCW 36.70C.040. The court followed Habitat Watch and stated: The Supreme Court's decision Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 155 Wash.2d 397, 120 P.3d 56 (2005) is determinative. There, the court determined that even illegal decisions under local land use codes must be challenged under LUPA in a timely, appropriate manner. Habitat Watch, 155 Wash.2d at 407, 12 P.3d 56. This includes defects in land use determinations that would have made the decision void under DOC. INDEX' 1 Telephone 509 -575 -8500 . Fax 509 -575 -4676 • www.mftlaw.com # E— �� Gary Cuillier June 24, 2015 lRecevim JUN 1 Page 2 OOMMIN)' llFilpl _NT pre -LUPA cases. Habitat Watch, 155 Wash.2d at 407, 120 P.3d 56. Accordingly, the court held that LUPA's 21 -day limitation on challenges applied. Habitat Watch, 155 Wash.2d at 409, 120 P.3d 56. In Asche, the court also rejected a constitutional due process argument and held as follows: None the less the Asche's due process argument fails. Our Supreme Court has established a bright -line rule in Habitat Watch; LUPA applies even when the litigant complains of lack of notice under the procedural due process clause ... the court held that despite the lack of notice, LUPA barred Habitat Watch's challenges. Habitat Watch, 155 Wash.2d at 401, 120 P.3d 56. Asche v. Bloomquist, 132 Wash.App. at 798.. Prekeges v. King County, 98 Wash.App. 275 (1999). In Prekeges, a neighbor petitioned for judicial review of a county's approval of conditional use permit for telecommunications monopole. Appellant had failed to file a timely administrative appeal to the hearing examiner. It was argued that required public notice was defective. The court held that Prekeges had actual notice of the decision and failed to file the required administrative appeal. The court stated: The appellant petitioned for judicial review of on a land use decision after missing the deadline for appealing to a hearing examiner. Because he actually saw notice of the project application, the defects and public notice of the application do not excuse him from the duty to exhaust administrative remedies... the trial court correctly dismissed his petition. Prekeges v. King County, 98 Wash.App. at 277. Brado had notice of the decision and provided specific comment to City of Yakima, Planning Department. Despite this knowledge, he failed to file a timely administrative appeal of the parking lot decision (CL2 #019 -15). Prosser Hill Coalition v. County of Spokane, 176 Wash.App. 280 (2013). Coalition of neighbors filed a Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) petition for review of approval of a conditional use permit for a private air strip. The court held that a neighboring land owner should be heard and that a posted sign did not meet ordinance requirements. The court then proceeded to determine that there had not been "substantial compliance" with the ordinance provisions. The court recognized the applicability of the "substantial compliance standard" in the context of notice determinations. Nickum v. City of Bainbridge Island, 153 Wash.App. 366 (2009). Neighboring land owners challenged city's decision to allow construction of a wireless communication facility on adjoining property. While the local jurisdiction was not required to give specific notice to neighboring land DOC. INDEX Gary Cuillier June 24, 2015 Page 3 owners the adjacent property owners observed work and were aware of the permit application. They failed to file an administrative appeal within the ordinance time period and subsequently filed a LUP action in Superior Court. The court held that the petition was properly dismissed because the land owner failed to file the administrative appeal in a timely manner. We have attached copies of each of the decisions for ease in review of this issue. Please let us know if you need any further discussion or supplementation on this issue. Very truly yours, J I -s C. Carmod as�r AN 4 21' CITY OF YAKU'l DPAII DOC• i DEX # -1 Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 1,,,, Wash.2d 397 (2005) 120 P.3d 56 Scope 1 55 Wash.2d 397 In reviewing an administrative decision, an Supreme Court of Washington, appellate court stands in the same position as the En Banc. superior court. E'CCINE>� HABITAT WATCH, a Washington 8 Cases that cite this headnote N JUN non -profit corporation, Petitioner, 015 V. [2] Zoning and Planning CQMM °� KIMA SKAGIT COUNTY, a municipal Time for Proceedings EVE/ opMFAlT • corporation, Respondent, The Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) establishes Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, a federally recognized a uniform 21 —day deadline for appealing the Indian tribe, and Port Gardner Timber Co., final decisions of local land use authorities and Inc., a Washington corporation, Defendants. is intended to prevent parties from delaying judicial review at the conclusion of the local No. 74 - 9. I Argued Feb. 24, administrative process; once a party has had a 2004. I Decided Sept. 22, 2005. chance to challenge a land use decision and exhaust all appropriate administrative remedies, Synopsis a land use decision becomes unreviewable Background: A citizens group filed action against county by the courts if not appealed to superior seeking revocation of a special use permit for construction court within LUPA's specified timeline. West's of a golf course on the ground two permit extensions had RCWA 36.70C.010. been granted without public notice or hearings. The Superior Court, Snohomish County, No. 02 -2- 08357 -5, Thomas J. 32 Cases that cite this headnote Wynne, J., entered judgment for county. Group petitioned for review. [3] Zoning and Planning Statutory proceeding A challenge to a special land use permit decision Holdings: The Supreme Court, Fairhurst, J., held that lies within the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), even where the decision is allegedly void. West's [1] challenge was barred by the strict time limits of the Land RCWA 36.70C.010. Use Petition Act (LUPA); 23 Cases that cite this headnote [2] challenge to grading permit was also barred; and [4] Zoning and Planning [3] attorney fee statute did not violate equal protection. Effect of delay Challenges to extensions of permits to construct Affirmed. a golf course that were not filed within the 21 -day time limit of the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) Chambers, J., filed concurring opinion in which Owens, J., for challenging land use decisions, were time - joined. barred even though the last two extensions were granted without public notice or hearing. West's Sanders, J., filed concurring and dissenting opinion. RCWA 36.70C.010. 14 Cases that cite this headnote West Headnotes (10) DOC. [5] Zoning and Planning Effect of delay INDEX [1] Administrative Law and Procedure # E- © 2.015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, Wash.2d 397 (2005) 120 P.3d 56 Challenge to issuance of grading permits relating to construction of a golf course was time- 2 Cases that cite this headnote barred where challenge was a collateral attack on extensions of permits for the construction, which [9] Constitutional Law were time - barred under the Land Use Petition Differing levels set forth or compared Act (LUPA). West's RCWA 36.70C.010. In order to determine whether the equal 4 Cases that cite this headnote protection clause has been violated, one of three tests is employed: (1) strict scrutiny is applied when a classification affects a fundamental right [6] Zoning and Planning or a suspect class, (2) intermediate scrutiny Construction by board or agency is applied when a classification affects both Local jurisdictions with expertise in land use a liberty right and a semi - suspect class not decisions are afforded an appropriate level of accountable for its status, (3) under the rational deference in interpretations of law under the basis test, the legislative classification is upheld Land Use Petition Act (LUPA). West's RCWA unless the classification rests on grounds wholly 36.70C.130. irrelevant to the achievement of legitimate state objectives. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. 5 Cases that cite this headnote 2 Cases that cite this headnote [7] Constitutional Law Proceedings [10] Appeal and Error Zoning and Planning Defects, objections, and amendments Validity of statutes Supreme court will not review issues for which Statute providing that parties are entitled to inadequate argument has been briefed or only attorney fees only if a county, city, or town's passing treatment has been made. land -use decision is rendered in their favor and �' � at least two courts affirm that decision, does 8 Cases that cite this headnote V�� not violate equal protection by allegedly making 1 � right to fees depend not on the merits of claims, JUN 4 2Q j but whether claimant's positions are aligned with �j�y the government. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14; Attorneys and Law Firms COmmea►T �YAIi /� A E� f.GP/ ENT West's RCWA 4.84.370. * *57 Jeffrey Murdock Eustis, Seattle, for Petitioner. 13 Cases that cite this headnote John William Hicks, Paul Hewson Reilly, Skagit County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, Mount Vernon, Le Anne [8] Constitutional Law Marie Bremer, Miller Nash LLP, Vancouver, for Respondent. Presumptions and Construction as to Constitutionality John Maurice Groen, Groen Stephens & Klinge LLP, Bellevue, Timothy M. Harris, Building Industry Association Constitutional Law Proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Washington State, for Amicus Curiae Building Industry Association of Washington. Constitutional Law Burden of Proof Opinion A statute is presumed to be constitutional, and the party challenging its constitutionality bears FAIRHURST, J. the burden of proving its unconstitutionality *400 if 1 In 1993, Skagit County granted a special use beyond a reasonable doubt. permit, valid for two years, for the construction of a golf course. The project languished in the hands of its first two nbc. ' ,Next'' © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. INDEX 2 Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 1, , Wash.2d 397 (2005) 120 P.3d 56 owners, and by the time the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe bought void. "); see, e.g., SCC 14.16.900(2)(d), (d)(ii) ( "All special the project and finally began construction in 2002, the special uses ... shall require a development project be commenced use permit had been extended three times. for the entire parcel within 2 years of the permit approval." Failure to meet the deadline results in "automatic permit if 2 Habitat Watch, a citizens group comprised of property reversion. "). owners neighboring the proposed golf course site, opposed the project. Habitat Watch was a party in public hearings that If 6 The project did not meet the deadline established by were held prior to the issuance of the initial permit and prior to the special use permit. Still interested in the project, Moore the first permit extension. Although notice and a hearing were requested that the hearing examiner "extend" the permit for provided for the initial permit decision and the first extension, two additional years. Pursuant to the Skagit County Code, the county mistakenly failed to provide notice or a public the same procedures required for the initial grant of a special hearing for the second and third permit extensions. As a result, use permit were required to grant an extension of a permit. Habitat Watch did not learn of the continued existence of the Former SCC 14.04.150(3)(f), (4); former SCC 14.04.240(9) golf course project until construction began in 2002, seven (1993). Extensions, like initial permit grants, required the years after the last public hearing on the project. hearing examiner to provide notice and "conduct *402 public hearings, prepare a record thereof and enter findings if 3 Habitat Watch argues that because notice and an of fact and conclusions based upon those facts." Former opportunity to be heard were not provided with respect to SCC 14.04.240(9)(a). In the words of the county permit the last two permit extensions, those extensions are void and office, "[t]he proper procedures were outlined in former susceptible to challenge at any time. The county and the SCC 14.04.150(3)(0 I and required the Hearing Examiner to tribe concede that the second and third permit extensions conduct a public hearing before amending [e.g., to extend] a were * *58 granted without notice or public hearings. They Special Use Permit." Ex. 203. argue, nevertheless, that the extensions are valid under the *401 Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), chapter 36.70C RCW, ¶ 7 Accordingly, notice was provided and a public hearing because Habitat Watch failed to appeal the extensions, was held to consider Moore's extension request. See Ex. 104.i. despite lack of notice, within 21 days of issuance, and because Habitat Watch participated in the proceedings and presented Habitat Watch failed to exhaust available administrative the hearing examiner with evidence in opposition to the remedies. We hold that Habitat Watch's challenges are project. After weighing the evidence presented, the hearing barred by LUPA and affirm the judgments of the trial court. examiner decided to extend the permit two additional years and provided, "[t]he project must be started by June 14, 1997 or the Special Use Permit will become void." Clerk's Papers I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE (CP) at 1083. Habitat Watch did not request reconsideration of or appeal this decision as provided for in former SCC ¶ 4 In 1993, the Skagit County hearing examiner granted 14.04.240(15) -(16). a special use permit to David Moore for the construction of a golf course. Notice and a public hearing on Moore's 118 Moore subsequently sold the land and golf course project application were properly provided pursuant to former to the Port Gardner Timber Company. Port Gardner failed to Skagit County Code (SCC) 14.04.150(4) (1993). In the meet the project commencement deadline for the extended hearing, Habitat Watch raised the concerns of surrounding special use permit and requested that another extension permit landowners, including that the golf course would negatively be issued. Unlike the initial grant of the permit and first impact water quality and substantially impact local water extension, the hearing examiner failed to provide notice of supplies. Port Gardner's extension request and failed to conduct a public hearing. Compare Ex. 104.j (making no mention of ¶ 5 Despite Habitat Watch's objections, the special use notice given in the second extension), with Ex. 104.i (first permit was granted for a two year period to expire June 14, extension stating "notice having been given to all property 1995, after which the grant of approval for the golf course owners within 300 feet of said property"). Nevertheless, would automatically expire. Ex. 104.h (findings of fact, entry the hearing examiner granted the request for a new two of order) ( "The project must be started within two (2) years of year special use permit extension, pushing the deadline for the date of this order or the Special Use Permit will become commencement of the golf course project to June 14, 1999. DOC. 'k;':•siJawNext` © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. INDEX 3 # —\ } Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 1,,,, Wash.2d 397 (2005) 120 P.3d 56 No notice of the decision was provided to parties other than grading permit and the validity of the last two special use Port Gardner. permit extensions. * *59 *403 ¶ 9 Anticipating its failure to meet the June ¶ 14 On November 7, 2002, the superior court dismissed 1999 deadline, Port Gardner made an oral request for an Habitat Watch's challenge to the 1997 and 1998 special use additional extension in November 1998. In response to this permit extensions because the appeal was not filed within oral request, the hearing examiner again granted an extension 21 days of the issuance of the extensions and for failure without holding a public hearing or providing notice of the to exhaust administrative remedies. As a result, the court request or of the decision. 2 The deadline for commencement declined to address the merits of the appeal because it did not was pushed back until June 14, 2002. Id. have jurisdiction under LUPA to do so. 3 The court stayed the portion of the LUPA challenge related to the grading permits ¶ 10 In 2000, the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe purchased the to allow the proceeding on the petition for revocation of the property from Port Gardner and actively pursued the golf special use permit to conclude. course project. The tribe requested and received a letter from Skagit County confirming that the special use permit was ¶ 15 The hearing examiner denied Habitat Watch's valid and would expire on June 14, 2002. petition for revocation on September 30, 2002, and denied reconsideration of that decision on October 8, 2002. The ¶ 11 In May 2002, a Habitat Watch member noticed logging board of county commissioners denied Habitat Watch's activity near the proposed golf course site. This activity came appeal of that decision in a resolution dated December nearly five years after the last properly granted permit expired 9, 2002. On December 20, 2002, Habitat Watch filed a and seven years after the last public hearing on the project. supplemental LUPA action appealing the denial of its petition By June 5, 2002, Habitat Watch became aware that a golf for revocation of the special use permit. course project was still proceeding at the site despite the long delay since the last public hearing. * *60 *405 ¶ 16 In a summary judgment hearing, the superior court considered together the remaining challenge ¶ 12 On June 7, 2002, Habitat Watch submitted a public to the grading permit from the original LUPA action and the disclosure request to Skagit County to determine the authority new challenge to the denial of the petition for revocation of for the golf course project and learned that the project the special use permit from the supplemental LUPA action. was going forward based on extensions of the 1993 permit On May 13, 2003, the trial court granted summary judgment originally granted to Moore. The county did not make against Habitat Watch, ordered that the grading permit was applicable records available to Habitat Watch until June valid, and affirmed the decision denying Habitat Watch's 24, 2002. Habitat Watch previously believed that Moore's petition for revocation. In contrast to its earlier dismissal permit, which was subsequently sold to Port Gardner and then on November 7, 2002, the trial court did not find that the the tribe, had expired in 1997 after the *404 first properly challenges to the grading permit or the denial of the petition granted permit extension had lapsed. The records made for revocation were time barred under LUPA. Rather, the trial available to Habitat Watch through its public disclosure court reviewed these decisions pursuant to LUPA and found request showed that the permit had been extended two more against Habitat Watch as a matter of law. times, until June 14, 2002. On July 11, 2002, Habitat Watch filed with the county a petition to revoke the special use ¶ 17 We granted Habitat Watch's petition for direct review. permit because the project had not timely commenced. ¶ 13 After the petition for revocation was filed, the county issued a grading permit for the project on July 26, 2002. II. QUESTIONS PRESENTED The grading permit was contingent on the underlying validity A. Were Habitat Watch's challenges to the 1997 and 1998 of the special use permit extensions challenged in Habitat extensions to the special use permit time barred under Watch's petition for revocation. In response to the county's I PA? issuance of the grading permit, on July 31, 2002, Habitat Watch filed a LUPA petition and a complaint for declaratory B. Was the grading permit lawfully approved? and injunctive relief in superior court to challenge both the DOC., We£4gl' ,,Next © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works INDEX 4 # E -IL\ Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 1..4 Wash.2d 397 (2005) 120 P.3d 56 _ (2002), once a party has had a chance to challenge *407 a t C. Was the petition for revocation properly denied? land use decision and exhaust all appropriate administrative LLI o �o D. Does RCW 4.84.370, the statute awarding attorney * *61 remedies, a land use decision becomes unreviewable ' u fees and costs to the prevailing party at all levels, by the courts if not appealed to superior court within LUPA's .�. LLI specified timeline. See, e.g., Wenatchee Sportsmen, 141 c , v equa protection? Wash.2d at 181, 4 P.3d 123 ( "Because [LUPA] prevents a 2 3 - court from reviewing a petition that is untimely, approval of 6 III. ANALYSIS the rezone became valid once the opportunity to challenge it c., passed. "); Nykreim, 146 Wash.2d at 925, 940, 52 P.3d 1. [ 1] [ 7 ¶ 18 "In reviewing an administrative decision, an appellate court stands in the same position as the superior 22 LUPA embodies the same idea expressed by this court *406 court." Wenatchee Sportsmen Assn v. Chelan County, in pre -LUPA decisions —that even illegal decisions must be 141 Wash.2d 169, 176, 4 P.3d 123 (2000). Conclusions of law challenged in a timely, appropriate manner. See Pierce v. are reviewed de novo. Id. King County, 62 Wash.2d 324, 334, 382 P.2d 628 (1963) (holding that even though a county resolution constituted A. Challenges to the validity of the 1997 and 1998 illegal spot zoning and was therefore void ab initio, the extensions applicable limitations period "begins with acquisition of ¶ 19 The trial court dismissed Habitat Watch's challenges knowledge or with the occurrence of events from which to the validity of the 1997 and 1998 special use permit notice ought to be inferred as a matter of law. "). Under extensions because the land use petition was not filed within LUPA, relief may be granted where "[t]he body or officer that 21 days of the issuance of those extensions and because made the land use decision engaged in unlawful procedure Habitat Watch did not have standing because of its failure or failed to follow a prescribed process" and where "[t]he to exhaust administrative remedies. land use decision is outside the authority or jurisdiction of the body or officer making the decision." RCW 36.70C.130(1) ¶ 20 Habitat Watch argues that the last two permit extensions (a), (e). Thus, defects in land use determinations that could are void because the hearing examiner did not provide notice have resulted in decisions that were void ab initio under or a public hearing and that LUPA cannot ever bar judicial pre LUPA cases fall within LUPA, with its express 21–day review of such decisions. The county argues that LUPA does limitation period. Moreover, the act quite clearly declares not distinguish between decisions issued with proper notice legislative intent that chapter 36.70C RCW is to be "the and decisions issued without proper notice and asserts that, exclusive means of judicial review of land use decisions." regardless, the 21–day limitation period runs from the date RCW 36.70C.030(1). of decision. The tribe focuses its argument for affirming the trial court's dismissal on the exhaustion of remedies ground. [3] ¶ 23 LUPA specifically applies to the particular type With respect to the debate over whether Habitat Watch's of decision at issue here. This court held that a challenge challenges are time barred under LUPA, the tribe urges the to a special use permit decision made before enactment of court to adopt an analysis under which, in the absence of LUPA was appropriately brought by way of a petition for proper statutorily or constitutionally required notice, the 21– writ of certiorari under chapter 7.16 RCW. Dev. Servs. of day period begins to run upon actual or constructive notice of Am., Inc. v. City of Seattle, 138 Wash.2d 107, 115, 979 P.2d the land use decision. 387 (1999); Sunderland Family Treatment Servs. v. City of Pasco, 127 Wash.2d 782, 788, 903 P.2d 986 (1995). When [2] ¶ 21 LUPA's stated purpose is "timely judicial review." enacting LUPA, the legislature expressly provided that the RCW 36.70C.010. It establishes a uniform 21–day deadline *408 act "replaces the writ of certiorari for appeal of land for appealing the final decisions of local land use authorities use decisions." RCW 36.700.030(1). There should be no and is intended to prevent parties from delaying judicial question that a challenge to a special use permit decision lies review at the conclusion of the local administrative process. within LUPA -even where the decision is allegedly void. As we have recently interpreted LUPA in Wenatchee Sportsmen, Chelan County v. Nykreim, 146 Wash.2d 904, 52 ¶ 24 LUPA's statute of limitations begins to run on the P.3d 1 (2002), and Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. Department date a land use decision is issued. RCW 36.70C.040(2)-(4). of Ecology, 147 Wash.2d 440, 54 P.3d 1194, 63 P.3d 764 The statute designates the exact date a land use decision DOC. © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. INDEX 5 r Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, , Wash.2d 397 (2005) 120 P.3d 56 is "issued," based on whether the decision is written, made the State Environmental Policy Act and is therefore valid." by ordinance or resolution, or in some other fashion. RCW CP at 39. 36.70C.040(4)(a). When a land use decision is written, it is issued either three days after it is mailed or on ¶ 28 Habitat Watch appeals the dismissal of its challenge to the date that the local jurisdiction provides notice that the grading permit on the sole ground that it was issued for an the decision is publicly available. Id. The statute does impermissible use. Habitat Watch argues that because there not indicate to whom the decision should be mailed (or was no lawful establishment of golf course use, the approval other notice provided), and appears to presume that this of the grading permit for golf course construction was specification is indicated elsewhere. When a decision is made precluded. Our decision in Wenatchee Sportsmen precludes by ordinance or resolution, the decision is issued on the consideration of this challenge. date the legislative body passes such ordinance or resolution. RCW 36.70C.040(4)(b). Finally, the statute provides that if [5] ¶ 29 In Wenatchee Sportsmen, this court held that a neither of the above categories apply, a land use decision is petitioner could not collaterally * *63 challenge a rezone issued on the date it is entered into the public record. RCW decision by way of its LUPA petition that challenged a plat 36.70C.040(4)(c). approval when the period for challenging the initial rezone decision had already passed. 141 Wash.2d at 181, 4 P.3d ¶ 25 Here, it is not clear from the record or the briefing 123. The rule applied in Wenatchee Sportsmen controls the when the final two permit extensions were issued within the present issue. In challenging the grading permit, Habitat meaning of RCW 36.70C.040(4). There is nothing in the Watch actually (and exclusively) challenges the validity of record that shows the extension decisions were mailed to the special use permit and its extensions. Because appeal of all parties of record, or otherwise made publicly known, or the special use permit and its extensions are time barred under passed by ordinance or resolution. It is also unclear if and LUPA, Habitat *411 Watch cannot collaterally attack them when the decisions were "entered" into the public record. 5 through its challenge to the grading permit. The trial court correctly found the grading permit was valid. * *62 [4] *409 if 26 At the very latest, the written decisions were issued when the county made them available C. The petition for revocation on June 24, 2002, in response to Habitat Watch's public disclosure request. By the date of the county's response to ¶ 30 After learning of the last two extensions to the special use Habitat Watch's public disclosure request, the county had permit, Habitat Watch administratively sought revocation of the special use permit pursuant to SCC 14.16.900(2)(b) provided "notice that a written decision is publicly available" (iii). Habitat Watch argued that the permit should be revoked pursuant to RCW 36.70C.040(4)(a). 6 After seeing the permit because the project was not commenced by the applicable extensions, but before commencing a LUPA action, Habitat deadline. First, Habitat Watch asserted that the deadline Watch filed a petition for revocation with the county pursuant for commencement was never lawfully extended to June 14, to former SCC 14.04.150(3)(f). Habitat Watch did not file 2002, and that rather, assuming the third permit extension was a LUPA petition directly challenging the permit extensions valid, the third permit extension should be interpreted to set a until August 1, 2002 —well over 21 days after the permit deadline of June 14, 2001. Second, Habitat Watch claimed extensions were made available to Habitat Watch on June that, regardless of the date when the project had to begin, the 24, 2002. As such, the petition was time barred under project did not in fact commence by the later date of June RCW 36.70C.040(2) and the superior court was correct to 14, 2002. The hearing examiner denied the petition to revoke. *410 dismiss Habitat Watch's challenges to the permit After Habitat Watch was unsuccessful in its appeal before extensions. 8 the board, it supplemented its LUPA petition with appeals of the hearing examiner and board denials. B. The grading permit ¶ 31 The superior court affirmed the administrative decisions ¶ 27 Habitat Watch also sought to vacate the grading permit to deny Habitat Watch's petition for revocation, concluding in its LUPA petition. In granting summary judgment to the that "[t]he 1997 and 1998 extensions of the special use tribe and the county on the grading permit issue, the trial court permit were validly granted," the project was commenced found that the grading permit was "granted in accordance with within the established time limit and was, therefore, valid, DOC. A'- `5tta.. ='Next © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works INDEX 6 # a-'`� Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 'i_., Wash.2d 397 (2005) 120 P.3d 56 and the procedures used to deny Habitat Watch's petition for revocation were in compliance with county code and state law. CP at 39. ¶ 32 Despite the inconsistency found in the hearing examiner's written decision granting the third permit extension (between the text "two (2) additional years," which would establish a deadline of June 14, 2001, and "until *412 June 14, 2002 "), the outcome was that condition number 15 of the special use permit was modified to read "[t]he project must be started by June 14, 2002 or the Special Use permit will become void." Ex. 1041. To the extent that Habitat Watch challenges the proper deadline established in the modification of the special use permit, it is actually challenging the third permit extension. As previously noted several times, any challenge to the third permit extension is barred by LUPA. [6] ¶ 33 Assuming the deadline for commencement was June 14, 2002, Habitat Watch argues that the planning and preparation that had taken place to date — including the harvesting of trees and the filing of an application for a grade and fill permit —was insufficient to start the project. However, it fails to adequately support this claim. While Habitat Watch argues the hearing examiner anticipated more than mere planning and design work would be required to start the project, this does not mean that tree harvesting or applying for a grading permit are insufficient. In denying Habitat Watch's petition for revocation, the hearing examiner found that the tribe had submitted an extensive application for a grading permit, retained a surveyor to work on the property, obtained a forest practice conversion permit, put into place an excavator, chain saws, and logging equipment, and removed trees from the property, all prior to June 14, 2002. CP at 806. Habitat Watch has not challenged these findings of fact. The hearing examiner determined that the project commenced when the tribe applied for the grading permit. Local jurisdictions with expertise in land use decisions are afforded an appropriate * *64 level of deference in interpretations of law under LUPA. RCW 36.70C.130. Habitat Watch provides us with no reason to depart from the hearing examiner's determination that the project had started by June 14, 2002, and we decline to do so. D. Attorney fees [7] ¶ 34 As the prevailing parties at all levels of administrative and judicial review, the tribe and the county assert *413 they are entitled to attorney fees pursuant to RCW 4.84.370, which provides in full: (1) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs shall be awarded to the prevailing party or substantially prevailing party on appeal before the court of appeals or the supreme court of a decision by a county, city, or town to issue, condition, or deny a development permit involving a site - specific rezone, zoning, plat, conditional use, variance, shoreline permit, building permit, site plan, or similar land use approval or decision. The court shall award and determine the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under this section if. (a) The prevailing party on appeal was the prevailing or substantially prevailing party before the county, city, or town, or in a decision involving a substantial development permit under chapter 90.58 RCW, the prevailing party on appeal was the prevailing party or the substantially prevailing party before the shoreline [s] hearing board; and (b) The prevailing party on appeal was the prevailing party or substantially prevailing party in all prior judicial proceedings. (2) In addition to the prevailing party under subsection (1) of this section, the county, city, or town whose decision is on appeal is considered a prevailing party if its decision is upheld at superior court and on appeal. Under this statute, parties are entitled to attorney fees only if a county, city, or town's decision is rendered in their favor and at least two courts affirm that decision. The possibility of attorney fees does not arise until a land use decision has been appealed at least twice: before the superior court and before the Court of Appeals and/or the Supreme Court. RCW 4.84.370(1). Thus, parties challenging a land use decision get one opportunity to do so free of the risk of having to pay other parties' attorney fees and costs if they are unsuccessful before the superior court. See Baker v. Tri– Mountain Res., Inc., 94 Wash.App. 849, 8545 973 P.2d 1078 (1999). Unless we accept Habitat Watch's argument *414 that RCW 4.84.370 is unconstitutional, the county and the tribe are entitled to attorney fees. [8] [9] ¶ 35 Habitat Watch asks this court to find that RCW 4.84.370 is unconstitutional because it "denies equal protection by discriminating among parties in the exercise of fundamental, First Amendment petitioning rights based not on the merits of their claims but upon whether their positions are aligned with the government." Reply Br. of Habitat Watch at 33. "A statute is presumed to be constitutional, and ® ®C. ��� E i u��� a, Auiw a Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 1,._ Wash.2d 397 (2005) the party challenging its constitutionality bears the burden of proving its unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt." Slate v. Thorne, 129 Wash.2d 736, 769 -70, 921 P.2d 514 (1996). State v. Harner, 153 Wash.2d 228, 235 -36, ¶ 12,103 P.3d 738 (2004) (citing State v. Thorne, 129 Wash.2d at 770 -71, 921 P.2d 514). We first determine whether RCW 4.84.370 creates a class distinction requiring an equal protection analysis. * *65 ¶ 36 Habitat Watch argues that a "party's risk of paying attorney fees under RCW 4.84.370 is tethered directly to its success at the administrative level. Accordingly, a private party challenging a government decision will never have been the substantially prevailing party at the administrative level." Reply Br. of Habitat Watch at 34. The county responds by arguing that RCW 4.84.370 does not create a discernible distinction between classes of litigants. Rather, "the `class' of land use litigants which end[s] up aligned *415 with the government is not pre- ordained. It is ever - changing" depending on the local government's final determination under applicable law. Skagit County's Sur – Reply Br. at 3. determination. This may be demonstrated by a short example. If a landowner's permit application is first denied by a land use planner, the landowner can appeal that decision to a hearing examiner, city council, county board, or other administrative body — depending on the administrative review process the county, city, or town has in place. Another private party, although not the permit applicant, might have an interest in the outcome of the permit decision and argue before the reviewing body that the initial permit decision should be affirmed. If the landowner is successful in getting the denial reversed, and that becomes the "land use decision" within the meaning of LUPA (because there is no further opportunity for review within the local government), then the landowner has prevailed before the "county, city, or town" despite the fact that it disagreed with the local government's initial determination. RCW 36.70C.020(1); RCW 4.84.370(1)(a). This landowner will never be subject to paying attorney fees. The party opposing the permit, on the other hand, might bring a LUPA petition seeking reversal of the local government's final determination. It will not be considered a prevailing party before the county, city, or town, and might be subject to attorney fees if it appeals the decision to the Court of Appeals and is unsuccessful at each level. ¶ 38 The situation would be reversed if the land use planner's decision to deny the permit was affirmed through any and all levels of administrative review. In that case, the landowner would be the land use petitioner and the private party opposing the permit is the prevailing party before the *416 local government. The private party would be eligible for attorney fees against the landowner if the landowner continually appealed the land use decision to the Court of Appeals or higher and was unsuccessful at each level of judicial review. A party's eligibility for attorney fees is certainly tied to whether that party prevailed before the county, city, or town, but because any private party has the opportunity to prevail before the county, city, or town, RCW 4.84.370 does not create a discernible, predetermined classification between private litigants. Therefore, Habitat Watch's argument that RCW 4.84.370 discriminates between private parties challenging local government decisions and those aligned with local governments fails. tivl li .5y Hanougn unclear, it appears tnat naoaat watcu ¶ 37 Whether a private party is initially aligned with the also argues that RCW 4.84.370 distinguishes between private local government does not determine whether the private land use litigants and the counties, cities, and towns whose party will have prevailed before the county, city, or town, decisions are on appeal. Habitat Watch fails to expand upon as one or more levels of administrative review may reverse this claim, concluding without support that "the government or significantly alter the local government's initial permit will never be a losing party because it will always prevail ® ®C. n x ©2015 Thomson Reuters No dim to original U.S. Government Works. # q 8 The right to equal protection guarantees that persons similarly situated with respect to a legitimate purpose of the law receive like treatment. In order to determine whether the equal protection clause has been violated, one of three tests is employed. First, strict scrutiny is applied when a classification affects t a fundamental right or a suspect t –1, class. Second, intermediate scrutiny is applied w hen a classification affects both a liberty right and a semi - suspect �; class not accountable for its status. The third test is rational basis. Under this inquiry, the legislative classification is upheld unless the classification rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of legitimate state objectives. State v. Harner, 153 Wash.2d 228, 235 -36, ¶ 12,103 P.3d 738 (2004) (citing State v. Thorne, 129 Wash.2d at 770 -71, 921 P.2d 514). We first determine whether RCW 4.84.370 creates a class distinction requiring an equal protection analysis. * *65 ¶ 36 Habitat Watch argues that a "party's risk of paying attorney fees under RCW 4.84.370 is tethered directly to its success at the administrative level. Accordingly, a private party challenging a government decision will never have been the substantially prevailing party at the administrative level." Reply Br. of Habitat Watch at 34. The county responds by arguing that RCW 4.84.370 does not create a discernible distinction between classes of litigants. Rather, "the `class' of land use litigants which end[s] up aligned *415 with the government is not pre- ordained. It is ever - changing" depending on the local government's final determination under applicable law. Skagit County's Sur – Reply Br. at 3. determination. This may be demonstrated by a short example. If a landowner's permit application is first denied by a land use planner, the landowner can appeal that decision to a hearing examiner, city council, county board, or other administrative body — depending on the administrative review process the county, city, or town has in place. Another private party, although not the permit applicant, might have an interest in the outcome of the permit decision and argue before the reviewing body that the initial permit decision should be affirmed. If the landowner is successful in getting the denial reversed, and that becomes the "land use decision" within the meaning of LUPA (because there is no further opportunity for review within the local government), then the landowner has prevailed before the "county, city, or town" despite the fact that it disagreed with the local government's initial determination. RCW 36.70C.020(1); RCW 4.84.370(1)(a). This landowner will never be subject to paying attorney fees. The party opposing the permit, on the other hand, might bring a LUPA petition seeking reversal of the local government's final determination. It will not be considered a prevailing party before the county, city, or town, and might be subject to attorney fees if it appeals the decision to the Court of Appeals and is unsuccessful at each level. ¶ 38 The situation would be reversed if the land use planner's decision to deny the permit was affirmed through any and all levels of administrative review. In that case, the landowner would be the land use petitioner and the private party opposing the permit is the prevailing party before the *416 local government. The private party would be eligible for attorney fees against the landowner if the landowner continually appealed the land use decision to the Court of Appeals or higher and was unsuccessful at each level of judicial review. A party's eligibility for attorney fees is certainly tied to whether that party prevailed before the county, city, or town, but because any private party has the opportunity to prevail before the county, city, or town, RCW 4.84.370 does not create a discernible, predetermined classification between private litigants. Therefore, Habitat Watch's argument that RCW 4.84.370 discriminates between private parties challenging local government decisions and those aligned with local governments fails. tivl li .5y Hanougn unclear, it appears tnat naoaat watcu ¶ 37 Whether a private party is initially aligned with the also argues that RCW 4.84.370 distinguishes between private local government does not determine whether the private land use litigants and the counties, cities, and towns whose party will have prevailed before the county, city, or town, decisions are on appeal. Habitat Watch fails to expand upon as one or more levels of administrative review may reverse this claim, concluding without support that "the government or significantly alter the local government's initial permit will never be a losing party because it will always prevail ® ®C. n x ©2015 Thomson Reuters No dim to original U.S. Government Works. # q 8 I IaIlolta 1s atch rr '5I10u It (, r:Mu nt M..,... Wasllii lad 397 `&, 6 before itself at the administrative level. Consequently, the law shifts awards only one way: from a private party to the government and those aligned with the government." Reply Br. of Habitat Watch at 34. "[ T]his court will not review issues for which inadequate argument has been briefed or only passing treatment has been made." State v. Thomas, 150 Wash.2d 821, 868 -69, 83 P.3d 970 (2004) (citing State v. Johnson, 119 Wash.2d 167, 171, 829 P.2d 1082 (1992); State v. Olson, 126 Wash.2d 315, 321, 893 P.2d 629 (1995)). Habitat Watch has failed to adequately brief its conclusion that local governments may never be liable to pay attorney * *66 fees and, therefore, we decline to address it. 10 ¶ 40 Accordingly, we decline to decide on the briefing we received whether RCW 4.84.370 is unconstitutional. ¶ 41 We affirm the judgments of the trial court dismissing Habitat Watch's LUPA petition and supplemental LUPA petition in their entirety. We award attorney fees and costs under RCW 4.84.370 and in accordance with RAP 18.1. WE CONCUR: ALEXANDER, C.J., C. JOHNSON, MADSEN, BRIDGE, OWENS, and IRELAND, J. Pro Tem. CHAMBERS, J. (concurring). 142 I feel like a little boy painting a floor only to discover he has painted himself into a corner. I fear now, only the legislature can rescue me from this corner. Changing analogies, we can go methodically from tree to tree and just get lost deeper in the forest. In this analogy, the trees are precedents and the forest is the legislative purpose in adopting the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), chapter 36.70C RCW. ¶ 43 Getting lost was easy. Cases and controversies are often argued only by parties who simply want to win their case; they are interested only in the next tree (the immediate result) and have little concern for the forest. It has also been easy because we have often interpreted the plain meaning of the statute section by section, without appropriate consideration for the legislature's overall plan contained within the four corners of the act. Contra Dept of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, L.L.C., 146 Wash.2d 1, 11 -12, 43 P.3d 4 (2002). I signed some of the precedents I now lament. ¶ 44 I am now of the view that we have interpreted "land use decision" and "aggrieved party" far too broadly. In so doing we have lost the fundamental principle that LUPA overlays and, read correctly, is in accord with basic due process protections. ¶ 45 The legislative purpose in enacting LUPA was to "establish[ ] uniform, expedited appeal procedures and uniform criteria for reviewing such decisions, in order to *418 provide consistent, predictable, and timely judicial review." RCW 36.70C.010. The legislature did not intend that parties had to pursue an administrative and judicial review of every ministerial decision. It is my view now that the 21– day limit for seeking review was intended to apply to quasi - judicial decisions made by those with the highest and final authority. Contra Chelan County v. Nykreim, 146 Wash.2d 904, 927, 52 P.3d 1 (2002). ¶ 46 First, the act states, " `Land use decision' means a final determination by a local jurisdiction's body or officer with the highest level of authority to make the determination, including those with authority to hear appeals." RCW 36.70C.020(1). This language set the stage for quasi-judicial review, not review of mere ministerial actions. See Nykreim, 146 Wash.2d at 943, 52 P.3d 1 (Alexander, C.J., dissenting). However, I recognize that unless review is sought, the most minor decision made by the person with the least authority is a "land use decision." ¶ 47 Second, the legislature stated that LUPA was to replace writs of certiorari—the common law writ of certiorari is now codified in chapter 7.16 RCW as the writ of review. RCW 36.70C.030(1). Writs of review are generally limited to quasi-judicial determinations and do not apply to review of ministerial decisions. See, e. g., State ex rel. New Wash. Oyster Co. v. Meakim, 34 Wash.2d 131, 134, 208 P.2d 628 (1949). ¶ 48 Subsequent to our conclusion that LUPA may apply even to a ministerial decision in Nykreim, we held in Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. Department of Ecology, 147 Wash.2d 440, 450, 54 P.3d 1194 (2002), that the Department of Ecology was barred from asserting that a shoreline building permit was required before a project could go forward * *67 because the Department of Ecology had failed to seek review of various ministerial decisions, including a decision to issue a fill and grade permit, to issue a building permit, and to rescind a stop work order. Samuel's Furniture, 147 Wash.2d at 472, 54 P.3d 1194 (Owens, J., dissenting). But requiring parties to seek ®'V. E _ .. X 'r) t� Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, I,.., Wash.2d 397 (2005) 120 P.3d 56 review of ministerial acts is often a *419 waste of time and 146 Wash.2d at 938, 52 P.3d 1. In Samuel's Furniture, 147 judicial resources and may lead to absurd results. Cf. Nykreim, 146 Wash.2d at 943, 52 P.3d 1 (Alexander, C.J. dissenting); see also James v. Kitsap County, 154 Wash.2d 574, 115 P.3d 286 (2005). ¶ 49 Third, it is my view we have interpreted "aggrieved party" too broadly. Again, read in context, I now conclude that the legislature intended to limit those to whom the 21— day limit would apply by limiting LUPA to those who had "standing." This includes: (1) The applicant and the owner of property to which the land use decision is directed; (2) Another person aggrieved or adversely affected by the land use decision, or who would be aggrieved or adversely affected by a reversal or modification of the land use decision. A person is aggrieved or adversely affected within the meaning of this section only when all of the following conditions are present: (a) The land use decision has prejudiced or is likely to prejudice that person; (b) That person's asserted interests are among those that the local jurisdiction was required to consider when it made the land use decision; (c) A judgment in favor of that person would substantially eliminate or redress the prejudice to that person caused or likely to be caused by the land use decision; and (d) The petitioner has exhausted his or her administrative remedies to the extent required by law. RCW 36.70C.060 (emphasis added), ¶ 50 Under the statutory scheme, in order to seek review of a final determination from those with the highest authority to make the determination, one must, by necessity, be an owner, applicant, or specifically defined aggrieved party. If you are not an owner or applicant you must satisfy all of the criteria of RCW 36.70C.060(2)(a) -(d). While the criteria are somewhat broad, it further evidences the legislature's intent to limit the application to a certain set of people. ¶ 51 But in Nykreim, we effectively held that even those who were not "aggrieved or adversely affected" as typically *420 understood, and who therefore would not have had standing under LUPA, were still bound by LUPA. Nykreim, Wash.2d 440, 54 P.3d 1194, we effectively approved the practice of giving no notice, even to those entitled to it by law, by nonetheless finding LUPA barred an appeal of a land use decision. ¶ 52 We should revisit our precedents with the forest in mind. LUPA is a legislatively crafted compromise that values efficiency, certainty, and notice. See generally ch. 36.70C RCW; ch. 51.04 RCW. But we should not apply LUPA to bar the courthouse door to those who had no notice, especially when the decisions at issue were decisions made by lower level staffers. ¶ 53 In this case, I concur with the majority in result. I am of the view that the issuance of the grading permit was not a land use decision from which a LUPA challenge of the underlying project was appropriate. I agree with the majority that Habitat Watch should have filed a LUPA appeal within 21 days of June 21, 2002, when it received a response to its public disclosure request documenting that the permit had been twice extended. However, it is not my view that the 21— day limit to appeal a land use decision applies as a statute of limitation to those who did not have any notice of a land use action. The 21 —day limitation is a reasonable time limit for filing a notice of appeal of a decision when the challenger has actual notice. But an appeal assumes that the appealing party has meaningful notice of the action, the issues are already framed, an opportunity to consider and arrange for representation has been afforded, some preliminary hearing or action has occurred, and the parties have had time to anticipate and consider appropriate responses to an adverse determination. The * *68 21 —day LUPA time limit is wholly inadequate for one whose first notice of a land use action is actual notice of work on the property and must discover what government action has been taken, arrange for representation, and determine the appropriate course of action to follow. Generally, if challengers can demonstrate that they were entitled *421 to notice and did not receive it, I would not allow the 21 —day LUPA shield to apply. But here, Habitat Watch had initial notice and contested an earlier permit extension and should have been prepared to respond when it got notice of the permit extensions, albeit years late. 154 Further, the overwhelming purpose of LUPA was to unburden land use decisions from protracted litigation. Once construction of a land development has clearly irrevocably begun, those aggrieved by but not given notice of land use decisions must be limited to claims of equity. 1 DOC. m. _.... >O � E Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 1 Wash.2d 397 (2005) 126'P.3d 56 ¶ 55 Accordingly, I concur in result. RECEIVED JUN 2 4 2015 OWENS, J., concurs. CITY OF YAWMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SANDERS, J. (concurring in part/dissenting in part;),. ¶ 56 I concur with the majority's dismissal of llabitat Watch's Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) petitions, though I believe the land use decision was "issued" when it was placed in the public record. But the majority errs when it chooses not to address the constitutionality of RCW 4.84.370, which allows local governments to recover attorney fees from private litigants but never pay them. While the briefing is admittedly imperfect, focusing on the standard of review and the inapplicable right to petition the government for redress of grievances rather than the pertinent question of whether there is a rational basis for preferring local governments over other litigants, Habitat Watch did raise the issue: [T]he government will never be a losing party because it will always prevail before itself at the administrative level. Consequently, the law shifts fee awards only one way: from a private party to the government and those aligned with the government. Reply Br. of Habitat Watch at 34. *422 $ 57 Because the lack of any rational basis for preferring the government over private litigants is stark and because failing to address the issue will result in application of a clearly unconstitutional statute against Habitat Watch, I would address the issue and hold the statute violates the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution's fourteenth amendment. I. Entered in the public record ¶ 58 The majority notes that LUPA's statute of limitations begins to run on the date a land use decision is issued. RCW 36.70C.040(3); majority at 61. "Issued" is defined in the next subsection: (4) For the purposes of this section, the date on which a land use decision is issued is: (a) Three days after a written decision is mailed by the local jurisdiction or, if not mailed, the date on which the local jurisdiction provides notice that a written decision is publicly available; (b) It the land use decision is made by ordinance or resolution by a legislative bandy sitting, in a quasi- judicial capacity, the date the body passes the ordinance or resolution; or (c) If neither (a) nor (b) of this subsection applies, the date the decision is entered into the public record. RCW 36.700.040(4) (emphasis added). ¶ 59 The majority states: Here, it is not clear from the record or the briefing when the final two permit extensions were issued within the meaning of RCW 36.700.040(4). There is nothing in the record that shows the extension decisions were mailed to all parties of record, or otherwise made publicly known, or passed by ordinance or resolution. It is * *69 also unclear if and when the decisions were "entered" into the public record. Majority at 61 (emphasis added). ¶ 60 As the majority noted, Habitat Watch "submitted a public disclosure request to Skagit County to determine the authority for the golf course project and learned that the *423 project was going forward based on extensions of the 1993 permit." Majority at 59. Thus, it was through accessing public records containing the decision granting the extension that Habitat Watch learned of the extensions. It is axiomatic the decision must have been previously entered into such records for it to be discoverable under the public disclosure act (PDA), thus meeting the definition of "issued" under RCW 36.70C.040(4)(c). ¶ 61 The phrase "entered into the public record" is not defined in LUPA. "An undefined term in a statute will be given its usual and ordinary meaning, and the court may use a dictionary definition to determine the usual and ordinary meaning of the term." Scoccolo Consir., Inc. v. City ofRenton, 125 Wash.App. 150, 157, 103 P.3d 1249 (2005) (citing Doc. n,: �1 ©2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to onginal U.S. Government "Next t VVorl<s, ��X— 11 �Ialt.uliitat: Watch v. Skraglit County, t, »,P Wash 2d 39 7 (2005) tOtt IFS tdi 5-6. Shoreline Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. 7 v. Employment Sec. Dept, 120 Wash.2d 394, 842 P.2d 938 (1992)). ¶ 62 Webster's Third New International Dictionary 756-57 (2002)defines "enter" as "to cause to go into or be received into something" and "enter into" as "to form a constituent part or element of; become a part of." "[P]ublic record" is defined as "a record filed in a public office and open to public inspection." Id. at 1836. 163 The PDA requires that all public records 1 "shall [be made] available for public inspection and copying." RCW 42.17.260; .270. Thus, under the common definition of the statutory terms, Skagit County's decision to grant the permit extensions was at some point "entered into the public record" pursuant to RCW 36.70C.040(4)(c). $ 64 There is no indication in the record extensions were not filed in a public office open to public inspection. Indeed, while Habitat Watch obtained the records through a public *424 records request, that request was sent by mail. Z Ex. 315; Ex. 111, Attach. 1. Habitat Watch does not claim it visited the Skagit County Planning Department and was denied the opportunity to inspect or copy the records regarding the permit extensions. ¶ 65 Since the permit extensions were "entered into the public record" under RCW 36.70C.040(4)(c), they were "issued" as of the date they were entered. Even if the record before this court doesn't disclose that precise date, if it differed at all from the date the decisions were made, the date certainly preceded the date the county responded to Habitat Watch's public disclosure request. Thus, while I concur that the 21— day statute of limitations ran before Habitat Watch filed its land use petition, I would follow the plain language of the statute to determine the date from which the statute of limitations ran. H. Favoring local governments in awarding attorney fees violates equal protection $ 66 I would find the LUPA attorney fees statute, RCW 4.84.370, unconstitutional because there is no rational basis to favor local governments and those aligned with them over other parties to a LUPA petition when determining an award of attorney fees. ¶ 67 The statute provides: * *70 (1) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs shall be awarded to the prevailing party or substantially prevailing party on appeal before the court of appeals or the supreme court of a decision by a county, city, or town to issue, condition, or deny a development permit involving a site - specific rezone, zoning, plat, conditional use, variance, shoreline permit, building permit, *425 site plan, or similar land use approval or decision. The court shall award and determine the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under this section if: (a) The prevailing party on appeal was the prevailing or substantially prevailing party before the county, city, or town, or in a decision involving a substantial development permit under chapter 90.58 RCW, the prevailing party on appeal was the prevailing party or the substantially prevailing party before the shoreline[s] hearings board; and (b) The prevailing party on appeal was the prevailing party or substantially prevailing party in all prior judicial proceedings. (2) In addition to the prevailing party under subsection (1) of this section, the county, city, or town whose decision is on appeal is considered a prevailing party if its decision is upheld at superior court and on appeal. RCW 4.84.370. $ 68 The statute creates two classes with respect to the payment of attorney fees: private litigants, who pay attorney fees if they oppose the local government decision and lose again at the superior court and Court of Appeals, and local governments, who never pay attorney fees under the statute. ¶ 69 Under the plain language of the statute, if the final administrative decision of the government disfavors one party, that party can never recover its attorney fees under the statute. However, the local government whose decision is upheld at the superior court and the appellate court is eligible for attorney fees under the statute, but local governments never pay attorney fees under the statute. Since the local government is both decision maker and party at the highest level of administrative review available under its ordinances, and since that final decision constitutes the "land use decision" under review, the local government cannot ever be required to pay reasonable attorney fees nor can a party not aligned with the government ever recover them. D0% CO a ? 01� Ili,i�'i �;I_ilri, �� a,iee �'�. a, ✓r,iiur, r�: 1� rl r �� p A Mai r.. Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 1 Wash.2d 397 (2005) 120 R d'56 _ *426 ¶ 70 Given the statutory interpretation required by the language of the attorney fees and LUPA's definition of a land use decision, the classification under the statute is clear. The government can never be required to pay attorney fees, unlike parties that challenge local government land use decisions. ¶ 71 Habitat Watch contends that this classification must be reviewed under strict scrutiny because the "fundamental libert[y]" of petitioning the government for redress of grievances is "at stake." 3 Reply Br. of Habitat Watch at 35. However, Habitat Watch does not explain how the prospect of paying attorney fees at the appellate level implicates the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. The Court of Appeals previously rejected this argument under a challenge to RCW 4.84.370 brought directly under the First Amendment, Gig Harbor Marina, Inc. v. City of Gig Harbor, 94 Wash.App. 789, 799, 973 P.2d 1081 (1999), and I find the reasoning of that opinion persuasive on this point. 4 ¶ 72 But this does not end the inquiry. Philippides v. Bernard, 151 Wash.2d 376, 391, 88 P.3d 939 (2004) (citation omitted). 173 Put another way, "[u]nder the rational basis test, the law must be rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” Des Moines Marina Assn v. City of Des Moines, 124 *427 Wash.App. 282, 288, 100 P.3d 310 (2004). The "reasonable grounds" prong of the Philippides formulation is analogous to the "legitimate state interest" in the Des Moines Marina formulation. What is the "legitimate state interest" served by the LUPA attorney fees statute? ¶ 74 Skagit County claims that the intent of the statute "is to discourage repetitive meritless land use appeals, to compensate appellees for the tangible and intangible costs of litigation and to conserve judicial resources." Skagit County's Sur —Reply Br. at 4. See also Gig Harbor Marina, 94 Wash.App. at 800, 973 P.2d 1081. Of course, the purpose isn't to discourage all appeals of land use decisions, but appeals of land use decisions to either the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, since nongovernmental parties get one opportunity to appeal a land use decision free of the risk of having to pay the other party's fees and costs if they are unsuccessful before the superior court. See Baker- v. Tri— Mountain Res., Inc., 94 Wash.App. 849, 854, 973 P.2d 1078 (1999). ¶ 75 Given that local governments never have to pay attorney fees under RCW 4.84.370, the purpose cannot have been to generally discourage "meritless" land use appeals, to compensate all appellees for litigation costs or to conserve judicial resources in all land use cases. Rather, the statute was clearly designed to discourage land use appeals from those who oppose local government decisions and compensate local governments and those who side with them. This is simply a naked preference for local governments over private litigants opposing local government land use decisions. ¶ 76 A statute the rationale of which is simply to favor the government is not rational. In Hunter v. North Mason High School, 85 Wash.2d 810, 818 -19, 539 P.2d 845 (1975), this court held the only possible rationale for a statute favoring the government (by setting a shorter statute of limitations for parties suing the government) was protecting the public treasury. This court held such nonclaim statutes violate equal protection: *428 In light of these considerations, the only function the special treatment given governmental bodies seems to perform is the simple protection of the government from liability for its wrongdoing. Our State has clearly and unequivocally abjured any desire to so insulate itself from liability, however, in its absolute waiver of sovereign immunity, which places the government on an equal footing with private parties defendant. Any policy of placing roadblocks in the way of potential claimants against the state having been abandoned, we cannot uphold nonclaim statutes simply because they serve to protect the public treasury. Absent that justification, ®®C. `t l rl © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works The standard of review in a case that does not employ suspect classification or fundamental right is rational basis, also called minimal scrutiny. Under rWE2 the rational basis test, the court „,,,°� ai:] determines (1)whether the legislation . ° ��� applies alike to all members of the designated class, (2) whether there are reasonable grounds to distinguish between those within and those .5 without the class, and (3) whether the classification * *71 has a rational relationship to the purpose of the legislation. Philippides v. Bernard, 151 Wash.2d 376, 391, 88 P.3d 939 (2004) (citation omitted). 173 Put another way, "[u]nder the rational basis test, the law must be rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” Des Moines Marina Assn v. City of Des Moines, 124 *427 Wash.App. 282, 288, 100 P.3d 310 (2004). The "reasonable grounds" prong of the Philippides formulation is analogous to the "legitimate state interest" in the Des Moines Marina formulation. What is the "legitimate state interest" served by the LUPA attorney fees statute? ¶ 74 Skagit County claims that the intent of the statute "is to discourage repetitive meritless land use appeals, to compensate appellees for the tangible and intangible costs of litigation and to conserve judicial resources." Skagit County's Sur —Reply Br. at 4. See also Gig Harbor Marina, 94 Wash.App. at 800, 973 P.2d 1081. Of course, the purpose isn't to discourage all appeals of land use decisions, but appeals of land use decisions to either the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, since nongovernmental parties get one opportunity to appeal a land use decision free of the risk of having to pay the other party's fees and costs if they are unsuccessful before the superior court. See Baker- v. Tri— Mountain Res., Inc., 94 Wash.App. 849, 854, 973 P.2d 1078 (1999). ¶ 75 Given that local governments never have to pay attorney fees under RCW 4.84.370, the purpose cannot have been to generally discourage "meritless" land use appeals, to compensate all appellees for litigation costs or to conserve judicial resources in all land use cases. Rather, the statute was clearly designed to discourage land use appeals from those who oppose local government decisions and compensate local governments and those who side with them. This is simply a naked preference for local governments over private litigants opposing local government land use decisions. ¶ 76 A statute the rationale of which is simply to favor the government is not rational. In Hunter v. North Mason High School, 85 Wash.2d 810, 818 -19, 539 P.2d 845 (1975), this court held the only possible rationale for a statute favoring the government (by setting a shorter statute of limitations for parties suing the government) was protecting the public treasury. This court held such nonclaim statutes violate equal protection: *428 In light of these considerations, the only function the special treatment given governmental bodies seems to perform is the simple protection of the government from liability for its wrongdoing. Our State has clearly and unequivocally abjured any desire to so insulate itself from liability, however, in its absolute waiver of sovereign immunity, which places the government on an equal footing with private parties defendant. Any policy of placing roadblocks in the way of potential claimants against the state having been abandoned, we cannot uphold nonclaim statutes simply because they serve to protect the public treasury. Absent that justification, ®®C. `t l rl © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 1�.,. Wash.2d 397 (2005) there is no basis, substantial or even rational, on which their discrimination between governmental plaintiffs and others can be supported. They thus cannot stand under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Const. art. 1, § 12. Hunter v. North Mason High School, 85 Wash.2d 810, 817- 19, 539 P.2d 845 (1975). 1 77 The lesson of Hunter is clear. A statute the purpose of which is to favor the government in litigation lacks rational basis. 178 Further, accepting solely for the sake of argument that deterring "meritless" land use appeals to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court is a legitimate state purpose, is the statute rationally related to that purpose? 1 79 As noted, the statute does not deter "meritless" appeals from all parties, only from private parties not aligned with the government. Local government, which under the definition of a land use decision never "loses" at the administrative level, is undeterred by the statute. Local governments can lose at the superior court, the Court of Appeals, and the State Supreme Court and still never pay attorney fees. Even under rational basis review "[t]he State may not * *72 rely on a classification whose relationship to an asserted goal is so attenuated as to render the distinction arbitrary or irrational." City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Or., 473 U.S. 432, 446, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985). 1 80 The statute is so woefully underinclusive, and thus so attenuated from the asserted goal of deterring *429 " meritless" land use appeals to the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, that the distinction is arbitrary and irrational. Indeed, since the local government is always a party to such land use appeals, and never pays attorney fees, the statute by definition is underinclusive in every land use appeal to the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. I recognize that this court has rarely held underinclusive statutes to violate rational basis equal protection review, however my survey of the case law has found no classification scheme that by definition was so underinclusive that it failed to include one party in every case in which it was designed to apply. 1 81 Further, it is hard to conclude the statute is rationally related to its alleged goal of discouraging "meritless" appeals of land use decisions to the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, rather than just a pretext for pure favoritism of local governments, when the identical deterrent effect could be achieved with a statute that simply awarded attorney fees to a party that prevailed in the superior court and the Court of Appeals. 5 Such a statute would still deter "meritless" land use appeals to the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court just as effectively. A party would still get one "free" appellate review to the superior court. The only difference would be that removal of the requirement to "prevail or substantially prevail" in front of the local government would make the local government susceptible to an award of attorney fees and would place local governments on equal footing with any private party. 1 82 Given this is a comprehensively underinclusive statute, and a virtually identical statute (absent the requirement that the party prevail before the county, city, or town) could serve the same purpose without the invidious classification, I conclude that the statute is not rationally related to its purpose of deterring "meritless" appeals to the Court *430 of Appeals and Supreme Court. Thus, I dissent from the majority's decision to award attorney fees under RCW 4.84.370. REcEIVED Parallel Citations JUN 015 120 P.3d 56 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Footnotes Former SCC 14.04.150(3)(f) states, among other things, that public hearings for extensions are to be granted "in the same manner as provided in Section 14.04.150(4)," the section governing initial permit requests. 2 In addition to failing to provide notice and a public hearing prior to rendering a decision, the hearing examiner's decision contained either a typographical or mathematical error. The final permit extension stated that the commencement deadline was extended "for two (2) additional years until June 14, 2002." CP at 1094. Since the preceding extension purportedly expired on June 14, 1999, an additional two year extension would expire in 2001, not 2002. However, condition number 15 was specifically modified to require "[t]he project must be started by June 14, 2002 or the Special Use Permit will become void." Ex. 104.k. Although Habitat Watch argues that the permit extension should be interpreted to only last until 2001, the relevant language requires the extension to last until June 14, 2002. �+ DOC. _`; ;-,Next © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S Government Works. # � 14 Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 1�. Wash.2d 397 (2005) 3 Habitat Watch also claimed that the superior court had jurisdiction to hear its appeal under article IV, section 6 of our state constitution. Habitat Watch has not pursued this argument on appeal to this court. Therefore, we do not address it. 4 The trial court also ordered that "[t]he 1997 and 1998 extensions of the special use permit were validly granted," but the validity of the special use permit extensions was no longer on the table due to the earlier dismissal order signed on November 7, 2002. CP at 39, 818. This conclusion, along with two additional determinations —that the project was commenced within the required time limit and that the Skagit County Commissioner used the proper procedure in denying Habitat Watch's petition for revocation —all supported the trial court's ultimate decision to affirm the denial of the petition for revocation. 5 Further, it may not have been possible for the decisions in this case to have been issued via entrance into the public record, depending upon the legislature's intent in designating the three types of issuance in RCW 36.70C.040(4). There are two possible interpretations of the language in RCW 36.70C.040(4)(c) ( "If neither (a) nor (b) of this subsection applies, the date the decision is entered into the public record." (emphasis added)). First, subsection (c) could mean that if a decision is not mailed, if notice is not given that a decision is publicly available, and if a decision is not made by ordinance or resolution, then any land use decision is issued once it is entered into the public record. Under this interpretation, subsection (c) is a catch -all provision that applies whenever the requirements for issuance under subsections (a) and (b) are not fulfilled. The second, and more likely, interpretation is that if a decision is neither written (as provided for in subsection (a)) nor made by ordinance or resolution (subsection (b)), then it is issued on the date it is entered into the public record. Subsection (c), then, does not include decisions covered under subsections (a) and (b), but would include other types, such as decisions made orally at a city council meeting. These decisions would be issued when the minutes from the meeting are made open to the public or the decision is otherwise memorialized such that it is publicly accessible. Under this scenario, subsection (c) would not apply to this case because the decisions at issue were written, and thus could be issued only under subsection (a), when they were either mailed or notice was given that the decisions were publicly available. 6 We need not determine when the decisions were issued because even under the last possible date, Habitat Watch failed to file a LUPA petition within 21 days. 7 Upon viewing the permit extensions, it should have been clear to Habitat Watch that the extensions were final decisions subject to LUPA's procedural requirements —they were decided roughly five years prior and any opportunity to appeal those modifications within the county code had long expired. Had Habitat Watch filed a LUPA petition before or in consort with filing the petition for revocation with the county, things might have been different. Instead, Habitat Watch chose to first file a petition for revocation in which it necessarily collaterally challenged the validity of the final two permit extensions. But this does not excuse Habitat Watch from the need to appeal the extensions directly within 21 days of issuance. Under former SCC 14.04.150(3)(f), the only basis upon which a permit could be revoked would be failure to satisfy a condition. Thus, any challenge to the validity of the extensions within a petition for revocation is collateral rather than direct. Because the opportunity for direct administrative appeal of the extensions had passed with Habitat Watch having no notice of the decisions, its next step would be an appeal to the superior court via LUPA. See Wenatchee Sportsmen, 141 Wash.2d at 181, 4 P.3d 123. 8 The superior court also found that Habitat Watch did not exhaust its administrative remedies prior to bringing its LUPA action and, therefore, it did not have standing. See RCW 36.70C.060(2)(d). Because we affirm the superior court's dismissal on the limitation period ground, we need not address the exhaustion of remedies argument. Habitat Watch asserts that the LUPA statute of limitation should not apply to bar its claim because it was deprived of due process when the county failed to provide notice of its land use decision. We do not address this claim because on the same last possible date we found that the land use decisions were issued, Habitat Watch also had actual notice of the decisions. Thus, even if Habitat Watch was entitled to notice under constitutional due process, see Barrie v. Kitsap County, 84 Wash.2d 579, 585, 527 P.2d 1377 (1974), it would be barred under the statute of limitations for failing to appeal within 21 days of such notice. 9 Habitat Watch also argued in its petition for revocation that the final two permit extensions were invalid so the last legally established deadline was June 14, 1997. For reasons explained throughout this opinion, and more specifically in note 4, supra, we do not address these collateral arguments. 10 Habitat Watch seemed to be cognizant of its inadequate briefing on the attorney fee issue, including in its reply brief a footnote stating "[i]n the event that the court reaches this issue, Habitat Watch will request the opportunity to submit additional briefing on the constitutionality of RCW 4.84.370, due to the space limitations of this reply brief." Reply Br. of Habitat Watch at 36 n. 41. However, this statement of intent to make a request is insufficient. ®®C. m w # E— 1� 1 ", Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, I;— Wash.2d 397 (2005) 120 P.3d 56 1 also agree that the challengers have not established that the attorney fees provision is unconstitutional. The PDA defines a "public record" as "any writing containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency, regardless of physical form or characteristics." RCW 42.17.020(36). The PDA long predates LUPA, and Skagit County's land use decisions clearly meet this definition. While the plain meaning of "public record" is clear, if the term were considered ambiguous we could look to the related "public record" definition under the PDA. Dept of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, L.L.C., 146 Wash.2d 1, 43 P.3d 4 (2002). 2 These letters were mailed June 7, 2002 and were not received by the Skagit County Planning Department until June 10, 2002. Ex. 315. While Habitat Watch complains of the 14 —day response time, Habitat Watch requested far more than merely the documents relating to the permit extension. Habitat Watch's public disclosure request requested virtually every document relating to the grading permit, the forest practices conversion application, an access permit, along with a copy of the 1993 decision on the special use permit and "any attachments or accompanying decisions." Ex. 111, Attach. 1. 3 See U.S. Const. amend. I; Wash. Const. art. 1, § 4. 4 Further, such a holding would cast doubt on any attorney fees statute, and perhaps judicial enforcement of attorney fees clauses in private contracts, since all such statutes and clauses could "chill" a party's willingness to petition the court. 5 And the Supreme Court, if a party sought review of a Court of Appeals decision. End of Document © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. JUN 2 4 p ctry Or. OEVI D ®C INDEX `1= . N xt © 2015 Thomson Reuters, No claim to original U.S. Governrrient Works, 16 Asche v. Bloomquist, 132 Wash.A,..d. 784 (2006) 133 P.3d 475 Dismissal of an action is only appropriate if it 132 Wash.App. 784 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove Court of Appeals of Washington, no set of facts consistent with the complaint Division 2. which would entitle the plaintiff to relief. CR 12(b)(6). Richard and Helen ASCHE, individually and as a marital community, Appellants, Cases that cite this headnote v. Melany BLOOMQUIST, and Steven Chobot, [2] Appeal and Error individually and as a marital community; Kitsap Cases Triable in Appellate Court County, a political subdivision of the State of Court of Appeals reviews questions of statutory Washington; and Cindy Baker in her official construction de novo, looking to the statute's capacity as Director of Kitsap County Department plain language in order to give effect to legislative intent. of Community Development, Respondents. Cases that cite this headnote No. 32942 -5 —II. I March 14, 2006. I As Amended April 4, 2006. I Publication Ordered May 2, 2006. [3] Statutes i • Plain language; plain, ordinary, common, Synopsis or literal meaning Background: Homeowners filed nuisance action against When faced with an unambiguous statute, courts neighbors and county to stop neighbors from building a derive the legislature's intent from the plain house that impeded their view. The Superior Court of Kitsap language alone. County, M. Karlynn Haberly, J., dismissed their claim and homeowners appealed. Cases that cite this headnote ECEIVEY [4] Zoning and Planning JUN 2 4 2015 Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Bridgewater, J., held that: i — Statutory proceeding Zoning Planning C�M and Plannin CITY OF Y4 W [1] action was time - barred under Land Use Petition Act ; . Effect of delay Mlli�irY DEVELO (LUPA); Homeowners' failure to comply with time requirements under the Land Use Petition Act [2] LUPA applies to interpretation of a zoning ordinance; (LUPA) for challenging building permits barred their nuisance action against neighbors and [3] lack of notice does not preclude application of LUPA; and county to stop neighbors from building a house that impeded their view; LUPA is the exclusive [4] LUPA preempts a public nuisance action. means of judicial review of land use decisions, it applied to homeowners action since county Affirmed. was obligated to consider their interest in issuing permit under zoning ordinance, and LUPA could provide redress similar to injunctive relief. RCW 36.70C.030. West Headnotes (19) 3 Cases that cite this headnote [1] Pretrial Procedure Availability of relief under any state of facts [5] Zoning and Planning DOD• provable Statutory proceeding INDEX 1 "e'er =t :+ ='Net © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. Asche v. Bloomquist, 132 Wash.,,, ,i. 784 (2006) 133 P.3d 475 The Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), which is the exclusive means of judicial review of land [9] Municipal Corporations use decisions, applies to interpretative decisions � Construction and operation regarding application of zoning ordinances to Court of Appeals gives considerable deference to specific property, as well as to the validity of the the agency charged with enforcing an ordinance permit. West's RCWA 36.70C.020(b). where the ordinance is ambiguous, but court is not bound by its interpretation. 8 Cases that cite this headnote Cases that cite this headnote [6] Zoning and Planning Right of Review; Standing [10] Constitutional Law Standing requirements under the Land Use Source of right or interest Petition Act (LUPA), which is the exclusive A property right is protected by the United States means of judicial review of land use decisions, Constitution when an individual has a reasonable are similar to the Administrative Procedures expectation of entitlement deriving from existing Act standing provisions, which require an injury rules that stem from an independent source such in fact and apply a zone of interest test that as state law. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. focuses on whether the ordinance intended that agency to protect the party's interest; it is not Cases that cite this headnote intended to be especially demanding. West's RCWA 36.70C.060(2)(b). 1111 Constitutional Law RECEIVED °' �;— Zoning and Land Use Cases that cite this headnote A zoning ordinance can create a property right. U N 2 4 2,015 [7] Zoning and Planning 2 Cases that cite this headnote wr— Statutory proceeding ITY )(w YAKIMA Zoning and Planning („ I!M[] fl Y DEVELOPMENT [12] Constitutional Law Time for Proceedings i _ Particular issues and applications Even illegal decisions under local land use codes Constitutional Law must be challenged in a timely, appropriate i�-- Proceedings and review manner under the Land Use Petition Act Homeowners had a property right, created (LUPA), which is the exclusive means of judicial by a zoning ordinance, in preventing their review of land use decisions; this includes neighbors from building a structure over a defects in land use determinations that would certain height that impeded their view, and have made the decision void under pre -LUPA therefore procedural due process applied to cases. West's RCWA 36.70C.030. their challenge to the building permit under the 12 Cases that cite this headnote Land Use Petition Act (LUPA). West's RCWA 36.70C.020(b). [8] Adjoining Landowners Right to and Obstruction of Light, Air, or View Property owners do not have a common law property right in the view across their neighbor's property. Cases that cite this headnote 6 Cases that cite this headnote [13] Zoning and Planning Statutory proceeding The Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), which is the exclusive means of judicial review of land use decisions, applies even when the litigant complains of lack of notice under the procedural No claim to original 2015 Thomson Reuters. U.S. Government Work . 1 s. DOC. J 2 At E " 1 Asche v. Bloomquist, 132 Wash.Ar.,,. 784 (2006) due process clause. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14; West's RCWA 36.70C.030. 3 Cases that cite this headnote [14] Nuisance Nature and elements of public nuisance in general Zoning and Planning Statutory proceeding The Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), which is the exclusive means of judicial review of land use decisions, pre - empted a public nuisance action by homeowners alleging a building permit violated a zoning ordinance height limit even if action included a claim for damages. West's RCWA 36.70C.030. 1 Cases that cite this headnote [15] Nuisance � Nature and elements of private nuisance in general Nuisance ;— Nature of remedy Nuisance Nature and form of remedy An actionable nuisance is as an act or omission that injures the plaintiffs' property or unreasonably interferes with their enjoyment of the property; relief for a nuisance may be either damages or injunction. 1 Cases that cite this headnote [16] Nuisance Nature of remedy Nuisance Nature and form of remedy Nuisance � Nature and elements of public nuisance in general 8 Cases that cite this headnote [17] Nuisance Acts authorized or prohibited by public authority The fact a governmental authority tolerates a nuisance is not a defense if the nuisance injures adjoining property. Cases that cite this headnote [18] Nuisance What Constitutes Nuisance in General The general rule is that a structure is not a private nuisance merely because it obstructs the view of neighboring property. Cases that cite this headnote [19] Zoning and Planning Costs; attorney fees Under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), attorney fees are available if a county's decision is rendered in a party's favor and at least two courts affirm that decision. West's RCWA 36.70C.030. 1 Cases that cite this headnote Attorneys and Law Firms p mm� Yk4dy" ry, W1YWqq, JUN C11T OF NJI'ar rte/ * *476 Jennifer Anne Irvine Forbes, McGavick Graves PS, Tacoma, WA, Charles Kenneth Wiggins, Wiggins & Masters PLLC, Bainbridge Island, WA, for Respondents. David P. Horton, Law Office of David P. Horton Inc. PS, Silverdale, WA, for Appellants. Opinion BRIDGEWATER, J. Nuisance claims that do not depend on the *788 ¶ 1 Richard and Helen Asche appeal the dismissal validity of a land use decision are not barred by of their nuisance and mandamus actions for failure to state Land Use Petition Act (LUPA). West's RCWA a claim. But at oral argument, the Asches confirmed they 36.70C.040. have abandoned their mandamus claim. We hold that their failure to file a land use petition within 21 days of the issuance DOC. y x, st'Pv.iN xt' O 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. INDEX 3 #r -1 Asche v. Bloomquist, 132 Wash.A,_;j. 784 (2006) 1, 3 .3d,475 of the building permit as required by RCW 36.70C.040 is determinative. Thus, their claims for nuisance, either public or private, * *477 fail, and their due process actions fail because they did not properly file under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA). We affirm. ¶ 2 On February 3, 2005, Richard and Helen Asche ( Asches) filed a complaint for injunctive relief based on public nuisance and a writ of mandamus against Melany Bloomquist and Steven Chobot (Bloomquists), Cindy Baker as director of the Kitsap County Department of Community Development, and Kitsap County (County). On February 8, 2005, the Asches amended the complaint, to include a private nuisance claim. They wished to stop the Bloomquists from building a house on the Bloomquists' property and to compel the County to issue a stop work order. In the alternative, they sought damages losing their Mt. Rainier view. ¶ 3 The amended complaint alleged that the Bloomquists owned adjoining property to the Asches and had been granted a building permit on September 9, 2004. It further alleged that the Asches did not have notice of the building permit or that the new building would adversely impact *789 their view until after they contacted the builder who had just completed the garage portion of the building on December 6, 2004. The complaint further alleged that when they contacted the County, the County told them not to hire an attorney and that the County would "handle it" without an attorney. Thus, the Asches did not file an action until February, two months after learning their view would be impacted and roughly five months after the building permit issued. ¶ 4 The Bloomquists' lot is rectangular with a 40— foot —wide neck of land extending up a hill. The County calculates the maximum allowable height under the applicable zoning ordinance as the midslope of the property's buildable area. Kitsap County Code (KCC) 17.3210.040. In this case, although no building could be built on the 40 —foot neck, the County included that portion in its calculation. The result was that the maximum ridgeline was 221 feet. ¶ 5 The Asches argued that the building permit was erroneous because the County misapplied the zoning ordinance and miscalculated the maximum allowable height of the structure. Excluding that neck, the Asches contend that the allowable building height is nine feet lower than the County approved. ¶ 6 On February 18, 2005, the trial court heard the Bloomquists' and County's CR 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss the Asches' claims as barred by the LUPA's 21—day statute of limitations for judicial review. RCW 36.70C.040. The court agreed with the defendants and dismissed all of the Asches' claims. The Asches appealed, but have abandoned their claim for mandamus against Kitsap County. [1] ¶ 7 We review CR 12(b)(6) dismissals de novo. Reid v. Pierce County, 136 Wash.2d 195, 200 -01, 961 P.2d 333 (1998). Dismissal is only appropriate if " `it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts, consistent with the complaint, which would entitle the plaintiff to relief.' " *790 Haberman v. Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys., 109 Wash.2d 107, 120, 744 P.2d 1032, 750 P.2d 254 (1987) (quoting Bowman v. John Doe Two, 104 Wash.2d 181, 183, 704 P.2d 140 (1'985)). We must also accept the allegations in the complaint and any reasonable inferences as true. Reid, 136 Wash.2d at 201, 961 P.2d 333. I. LUPA's Applicability to the Bloomquists' Permit. ¶ 8 The Asches argue on appeal that LUPA does not apply to their suit because they lack standing under it. Specifically, they argue that they are not "aggrieved" parties under the statute and therefore cannot invoke the statute's remedy provisions. Br. of Appellant at 10. They also argue that the exceptions in LUPA for a suit for monetary damages apply. [2] [3] ¶ 9 We review questions of statutory construction de novo. City of'Pasco v. Pub. Employment Relations Comm'n, 119 Wash.2d 504, 507, 833 P.2d 381 (1992). We look to the statute's plain language in order to fulfill our obligation and to give effect to legislative intent. Lacey Nursing Cir., Inc. v. Dept of Revenue, 128 Wash.2d 40, 53, 905 P.2d 338 (1995). When faced with an unambiguous * *478 statute, we derive the legislature's intent from the plain language alone. Waste Mgmt. of Seattle, Inc., v. Utils. Transp. Comm'n, 123 Wash.2d 621, 629, 869 P.2d 1034 (1994). [4] ¶ 10 Initially, we note that LUPA applies to the issuance of this building permit because the building permit was a land use decision. LUPA is the exclusive means of judicial review of land use decisions. RCW 36.70C.030. Land use decisions are defined in the statute to be a "final determination by a local jurisdiction's body or officer with the highest level of authority to make the determination" on: (a) An application for a project permit or other governmental approval required by law before real DOC. Next O 2015 Thom Uters. No claim to original U.S. Government �- 1 l son Re nt Worl<s �� � � � w Asche v. Bloomquist, 132 Wash.A, p. 784 (2006) 133 P.3d 475 property may be improved, developed, modified, sold, transferred, or used.... (b) An interpretative or declaratory decision regarding the application to a specific property of zoning or other ordinances *791 or rules regulating the improvement, development, modification, maintenance, or use of real property; and (c) The enforcement by a local jurisdiction of ordinances regulating the improvement, development, modification, maintenance, or use of real property.... RCW 36.70C.020(1)(a) -(c). In Samuel's Furniture v. Department of Ecology, the Washington Supreme Court noted that a grading building permit was a final determination for purposes of LUPA. Samuel's Furniture, 147 Wash.2d 440, 453, 54 P.3d 1194 (2002). The court has also specifically noted that "[b ] uilding permits are subject to judicial review under LUPA." Chelan County v. Nykreim, 146 Wash.2d 904, 929, 52 P.3d 1 (2002). [5] ¶ 11 Here, the KCC provides that the director of Kitsap County Community Development is the authority for issuing building permits. KCC 21.04.120(A), KCC 21.04.030.2 The building permit is not in our record but, presumably, it was issued by the director and therefore represents the local jurisdiction's final determination regarding this piece of property.3 Given that LUPA applies to interpretative decisions regarding application of zoning ordinances to specific property, RCW 36.70C.020(b), it does not matter whether the Asches are challenging the validity of the permit or the interpretation of the County zoning ordinance as applied to this piece of property. LUPA covers both. ¶ 12 Nonetheless, the Asches argue that LUPA does not apply because they do not have standing under that statute. With some exceptions, LUPA is the exclusive means of obtaining judicial review of land use decisions. RCW 36.70C.030(1). Specifically, LUPA does not apply to state agency decisions, to writs of mandamus or prohibition, or to *792 actions for monetary damages. RCW 36.70C.030 (1)(a) -(c). LUPA's stated purpose is to "provide consistent, predictable, and timely judicial review" of land use decisions. RCW 36.70C.010. defines that person as aggrieved when all of these conditions are met: (a) The land use decision has prejudiced or is likely to prejudice that person; (b) That person's asserted interests are among those that the local jurisdiction was required to consider when it made the land use decision; (c) A judgment in favor of that person would substantially eliminate or redress the prejudice to that person caused or likely to be caused by the land use decision; and (d) The petitioner has exhausted his or her administrative remedies to the extent required by law. * *479 RCW 36.70C.060(2)(a) -(d). Our Supreme Court has interpreted these requirements to be similar to the Administrative Procedures Act standing provisions, which require an injury in fact and apply a zone of interest test. Nykreim, 146 Wash.2d at 937, 52 P.3d 1. The zone of interest test focuses on whether the ordinance intended that agency to protect the party's interest and is not intended to be especially demanding. Nykreim, 146 Wash.2d at 937, 52 P.3d 1. ¶ 14 Here, the first element, that the land use decision prejudiced the Asches, is met. They lost their view of Mt. Rainier when the Bloomquists began building their house under the permit's authority. The last element is also met. The KCC provisions do not specify an appeal process for building permits. KCC 21.04.030. The closest analogous code provisions indicate that an applicant can appeal ministerial decisions, but it does not provide for appeals by neighbors. KCC 21.040.060. Accordingly, there was no administrative process for the Asches to exhaust. *793 ¶ 15 The Asches contend, however, that the LUPA can provide no judgment in their favor that would redress their loss of view because LUPA does not provide injunctive relief. The County responds that LUPA allows a stay of the action pending review and that a reversal still provides the same relief as an injunction via a nuisance claim. The County's position is correct. q 16 The statute requires that the Asches be able to substantially eliminate or redress their prejudice. RCW [6] ¶ 13 LUPA's standing provisions allow a "person 36.70C.060(2)(c). As the County points out, however, LUPA aggrieved or adversely affected by the land use decision" does allow a court to issue a stay pending the outcome of to bring a petition. RCW 36.70C.060 (2). The statute then the proceedings. RCW 36.70C.100. And if the superior court reverses the decision, LUPA allows the court the power to ., .....,e _. ®C. b Asche v. Bloomquist, 132 Wash.AF.p. 784 (2006) 133 P.3d 475 "make such an order as it finds necessary to preserve the interests of the parties and the public." RCW 36.70C.140. 3. It can be explicitly shown that the structure will not cause With this authority, the trial court could have redressed the the blockage of * *480 existing views from any of the Asches' injury. Moreover, had the permit been reversed, the adjacent properties. County would have the power to impose penalties or bring KCC 17.321 C.040. The Asches are alleging that the County an injunction action to enforce its zoning ordinances. KCC miscalculated the height of the building and that, if measured 17.530.020, .030. Accordingly, had the Asches' properly filed correctly, the building is over 28 feet high. Accordingly, a petition under LUPA, they would have been able to redress the Asches are contending that the Bloomquists' house falls the injury to their view by stopping construction. within the statutory provisions requiring that their view not be impacted. Accordingly, the director was obligated to consider ¶ 17 The heart of the Asches' argument, however, is that their interests. the County did not consider their interests in issuing the building permit. According to LUPA, a person's interests 20 This result is in line with LUPA's purposes. The court must be "among those that the local jurisdiction was required indicated in Nykreim that LUPA's language requiring the local to consider when it made the land use decision." RCW authority to consider a petitioner's interests was not intended 36.70C.060(b). The Bloomquists and County, on the other to be "especially demanding." Nykreim 146 Wash.2d at 937, hand, argue that the zoning ordinance requires a consideration 52 P.3d 1 (quoting Seattle Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council of existing views from adjacent properties and therefore the v. State Apprenticeship & Training Council, 129 Wash.2d County did have to consider the Asches' interests before it 787, 797, 920 P.2d 581 (1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1210, issued the permit. 117 S.Ct. 1693, 137 L.Ed.2d 820 (1997)). In Nykreim, the court indicated that the appropriate inquiry was whether the ¶ 18 The plain meaning of the LUPA standing provision is that ordinance was intended *795 to protect the petitioner's to have standing, the local jurisdiction, here, the director of interests. Nykreim, 146 Wash.2d at 937, 52 P.3d 1. Kitsap County Community Development, must be obligated to consider the Asches' interests for them to have standing ¶ 21 Here, the zoning ordinance was intended to protect under LUPA. RCW 36.70C.060(2)(b). Webster's Dictionary the views of Manchester Village residents by "restricting defines the term "require[d]" to "impose *794 a compulsion the height of new residential construction." Manchester or command ... to do something." WEBSTER' S THIRD INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1929 (1969). The court's Community Plan at 12 -13 (Br. of Appellant, appendix C). To adopt the Asches' interpretation would be to rob Manchester inquiry, then, is not whether the director actually considered Village residents of the ability to challenge the issuance of the Asches' interests, but whether she was under an obligation any building permit for houses over 28 feet tall other than to do so. by a nuisance action and would not advance LUPA's goal of providing predictable, consistent, and timely review of land IT 19 The County concedes, and we agree, that the County use decisions. RCW 36.70C.010. Therefore, we hold that the had to consider the Asches' interests. This ordinance requires zoning ordinance was specifically passed to protect the views that buildings between 28 and 35 feet in height can only be of property owners within this particular zone and that is approved if the views of adjacent properties, such as that sufficient to grant standing to the Asches. of the Asches, are considered. KCC 17.321C.040. The code provides: Properties within the View Protection Overlay Zone may II. LUPA's Statute of Limitations build as high as 35 feet under the following circumstances: if 22 To serve the purpose of timely review, LUPA provides 1. There is no existing view of downtown Seattle, the stringent deadlines, requiring that a petitioner file a petition Cascade Mountains, Mt. Rainier or the Puget Sound from for review within 21 days of the date of the land use the subject property or any adjacent property; or decision. RCW 36.70C.040(3). The date on which a land use decision is issued is defined in the statute as three days 2. The owners of all adjacent properties approve the after a written decision is mailed, the date on which the building height prior to building permit issuance; or County provides notice that written decision is available, the date of an ordinance or resolution, or, if none of these DOC. a s`taN ex't © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. INDEX 6 Asche v. Bloomquist, 132 Wash.App. 784 (2006) 133'P.3&475 475 apply, on the date the decision is entered into the public record. RCW 36.70C.040(4). As the Asches concede, their petition was filed more than 21 days after the building permit was issued. If their suit falls within LUPA, the trial court properly determined that the Asches were time - barred from challenging the validity of the permit. [7] ¶ 23 The Supreme Court's decision in Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 155 Wash.2d 397, 120 P.3d 56 (2005), is determinative. There, the court determined that even illegal decisions under local land use codes must be challenged under LUPA in a timely, appropriate manner. Habitat Watch, 155 Wash.2d at 407, 120 P.3d 56. This includes defects in land *796 use determinations that would have made the decision void under pre -LUPA cases. Habitat Watch, 155 Wash.2d at 407, 120 P.3d 56. Accordingly, the court held that LUPA's 21 —day limitation on challenges applied. Habitat Watch, 155 Wash.2d at 409, 120 P.3d 56. ¶ 24 The court next addressed when the 21 —day period began running. Habitat Watch, 155 Wash.2d at 408, 120 P.3d 56. The statute begins running on the date that a land use decision is issued. RCW 36.70C.040(2) -(4). The court determined that the land use decision was "issued" on the day the decision was mailed or notice was given that the decisions were publicly available. Habitat Watch, 155 Wash.2d at 408 n. 5, 120 P.3d 56. ¶ 25 There is no dispute in the instant case as to when the land use decision was issued, it was September 9, 2004; the Asches' complaint was filed February 2, 2005. That was well beyond the 21—day limit provided by statute. 4 To the extent that the Asches' * *481 claim depends on challenging the validity of a land use decision, the trial court did not err in granting the CR 12(b)(6) motion; the Asches were barred because they failed to file their action within 21 days after the land use decision was issued. III. Due Process ¶ 26 The Asches next assert that if LUPA bars their challenge to the Bloomquists' building permit, then LUPA, as applied here, violated their procedural due process rights because they had no notice of the building permit's issuance. Neither LUPA nor the KCC zoning ordinance require the County to provide notice of a building permit to neighbors. ¶ 27 Before we can address the Asches' due process argument, we must determine what right the Asches are asserting is harmed. The Asches' amended complaint alleges that the Bloomquists' house blocks their view of Mt. *797 Rainier and that it violates the Manchester Village height regulations. KCC 17.321C.040. [8] ¶ 28 Initially, the Asches do not have a common law property right in the view across their neighbor's property. Collinson v. John L. Scott, Inc., 55 Wash.App. 481, 485, 778 P.2d 534 (1989). The Collinson court rejected the nuisance claims of a property owner who had bought property on Capitol Hill in Seattle because of its view and denied an injunction against a multi -story apartment building. Collinson 55 Wash.App. at 488, 778 P.2d 534. [9] ¶ 29 The Asches may, however, have a property right under the applicable zoning ordinance. This conclusion requires us to interpret the KCC zoning ordinance covering Manchester Village. We review questions of law, including statutory construction, de novo. City of Pasco, 119 Wash.2d at 507, 833 P.2d 381. We give considerable deference to the agency charged with enforcing an ordinance where the ordinance is ambiguous, but we are not bound by its interpretation. Hoberg v. City of Bellevue, 76 Wash.App. 357, 359 -60, 884 P.2d 1339 (1994). [10] [11] 130 A property right is protected by the United States Constitution when an individual has a reasonable expectation of entitlement deriving from existing rules that stem from an independent source such as state law. Wedges/ Ledges of CA v. City of Phoenix, 24 F.3d 56, 62 (9th Cir.1994). In determining that there was no common law right to a view, the Collinson court relied on a 1908 Washington State Supreme Court case that held that a person may build a structure as high as he wants on his own property without liability for nuisance to a neighbor even if the structure completely blocked the neighbor's light and air. Karasek v. Peier, 22 Wash. 419, 427, 61 P. 33 (1900). But where the neighbor had rights conferred by statute, a neighbor could enforce those rights in a nuisance action. Karasek, 22 Wash. at 428, 61 P. 3 3. 5 And a zoning ordinance can create *798 a property right. Veradale Valley Citizens' Planning Comm'n v. Bd. of Commis of Spokane County, 22 Wash.App. 229, 232, 588 P.2d 750 (1978) (reasoning that a favorable zoning decision creates a property right that triggers procedural due process " C� RECEIVED INDEX # J'U'N 2 4 2015 xi © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government ", "f ..n! DEVELOPMENT 7 Asche v. Bloomquist, 132 Wash.A 784 (2006) 133 P.3d 475 [12] ¶ 31 Under the County's zoning ordinance at issue here, the KCC that provides that any structure in violation of the the Bloomquists may build up to 28 feet without objection zoning ordinance is a public nuisance. KCC 17.530.030. In from the Asches. An applicant is entitled to a building permit addition, the code provides that a permit issued violation of as a matter of right once the relevant ordinance provisions the zoning ordinance is null and void. KCC 17.530.040. The are met; issuance of a permit is a purely ministerial act. Bloomquists argue that a valid building permit makes their Mission Springs, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 134 Wash.2d 947, structure lawful and therefore avoids these provisions of the 960, 954 P.2d 250 (1998). The applicable zoning ordinance KCC. The Bloomquists are correct. here provides that a building inside the "View Protection Overlay Zone" may be built up to 28 feet and provides [14] ¶ 34 The Asches' argument raises a preliminary issue as no other prerequisites. KCC 17.321C.040. Accordingly, the to whether LUPA pre -empts public nuisance actions. Because Asches have no right to prevent the erection of a 28 foot or their particular claim depends on whether the building permit shorter building under the zoning ordinance. But the plain violated the zoning ordinance, we hold that LUPA precludes language of this ordinance requires that buildings more than this public nuisance claim. 28 feet and less than 35 feet can only be approved if the views of adjacent properties, such as that of the Asches, [15] if 35 A nuisance is defined by statute as: are not impaired. Thus, the Asches have a property right, created by the * *482 zoning ordinance, in preventing the [U]nlawfully doing an act, or omitting Bloomquists from building a structure over 28 feet in height. to perform a duty, which act or And, therefore, procedural due process applies. omission either annoys, injures o endangers the comfort, repose, health G 0 [13] ¶ 32 Nonetheless, the Asches' due process argument or safety of others, offends decency, or A tit unlawfully interferes with, obstructs or 2 fails. Our Supreme Court has established a bright -line rule ,� P` fit tends to obstruct, or render dangerous t"' �' N la in Habitat Watch; LUPA applies even when the litigant complains of lack of notice under the procedural due process for passage, any lake or navigable o 1-% clause. We note that Habitat Watch had been given notice river, bay, stream, canal or basin, and had participated in proceedings to oppose the special use or any public park, square, street or permit. Habitat Watch, 155 Wash.2d at 402, 120 P.3d 56. highway; or in any way renders other Then, in two instances, Habitat Watch was not given notice persons insecure in life, or in the use required by the local ordinance and therefore did not have the of property. opportunity to challenge the special use permit's extension. RCW 7.48.120. A public nuisance is one that affects the Habitat Watch, 155 Wash.2d at 403, 120 P.3d 56. The court entire community and a private nuisance is any other held that despite the lack of notice, LUPA barred Habitat *800 nuisance. RCW 7.48.130, .150. Our Supreme Court Watch's challenges. Habitat Watch, 155 Wash.2d at 401, 120 has explained that an actionable nuisance is as an act or P.3d 56. The court stressed that *799 LUPA's "statute of omission that injures the plaintiffs' property or unreasonably limitations begins to run on the date a land use decision is interferes with their enjoyment of the property. Tiegs v. issued," Habitat Watch, 155 Wash.2d at 408,120 P.3d 56, and Watts, 135 Wash.2d 1, 13, 954 P.2d 877 (1998). The relief that "even illegal decisions must be challenged in a timely, for a nuisance may be either damages or injunction. RCW appropriate manner." Habitat Watch, 155 Wash.2d at 407, 7.48.010 (indicating that a nuisance is "the subject of an 120 P.3d 56. Given that position, we are constrained to hold action for damages and other and further relief'); WILLIAM that the Asches' due process challenge fails. Having failed to B. STOEBUCK & JOHN WEAVER, 17 WASHINGTON file a land use petition within 21 days of the building permit's PRACTICE REAL ESTATE: PROPERTY LAW § 10.3 issuance, they have lost the right to challenge its validity. at 664 (2004) (describing the two forms of remedies for nuisance as "damages and some kind of injunctive relief"). IV. Public Nuisance [16] [17] 1136 The Asches are correct to argue that LUPA does not bar all nuisance claims. Claims that do not depend on ¶ 33 The Asches next argue that even if LUPA does bar their the validity of a land use decision are not barred. That LUPA challenge to the building permit, it would not bar their public allows such nuisance claims is confirmed by the Washington nuisance or nuisance per se suit. They point to a provision in Supreme Court's recent decision in Grundy. There, the Court DOC. V'; tiaviNext © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. INDEX" 8 Asche v. Bloomquist, 132 Wash.App. 784 (2006) 133 P.3d 475 determined that whether a land owner had a valid permit was irrelevant to the landowner's private nuisance action. Grundy v. Thurston County, 155 Wash.2d 1, 8, 10, 117 P.3d 1089 (2005). The Court also * *483 noted that public nuisance claims are not foreclosed by possessing a permit to engage in an activity. Grundy, 155 Wash.2d at 7 n. 5, 117 P.3d 1089. As the court noted in Tiegs v. Watts, "[t]he fact a governmental authority tolerates a nuisance is not a defense if the nuisance injures adjoining property." Tiegs, 135 Wash.2d at 15, 954 P.2d 877. ¶ 37 Moreover, LUPA specifically exempts from its coverage "[c]laims provided by any law for monetary damages or compensation." RCW 36.70C.030(1)(c). To the extent a nuisance claim may be construed as a claim for damages, LUPA would not seem to bar suit. And Washington recognizes that a plaintiff may elect to bring a land use petition to challenge a land use decision and a claim for damages. Phillips v. King County, 87 Wash.App. 468, 477, 943 P.2d 306 (1997), affd, 136 Wash.2d 946, 968 P.2d 871 (1998). When that occurs, the court will consider the claims separately. Phillips, 87 Wash.App. at 477, 943 P.2d 306. *801 ¶ 38 While the Asches included a claim for damages in their private nuisance complaint, LUPA still precludes their public nuisance action. The Asches' public nuisance claim depends entirely upon finding the building permit violates the zoning ordinance. Specifically, they argue, "[b]ecause the project violates the zoning code, the project constitutes a public nuisance." Clerk's Papers at 10. ¶ 39 To find that the permit was invalid under this theory, we would have to find that the County's method for calculating the maximum allowable height for this building was incorrect. The County interpreted its statute to allow the 28 foot height to be calculated by averaging the height of all of the property except access easements. The permit issued complied with this interpretation. The Asches argue that the County erroneously included a 40 —foot swath of land in its calculation and therefore the calculated height actually does violate the zoning ordinance. But this is precisely the kind of challenge LUPA envisions: modification, maintenance, or use of real property. RCW 36.70C.020(1)(b). If we accept that the County's application of its zoning ordinance for this specific property was correct, the building permit is valid and not in contravention of the zoning ordinance. Therefore, under the Asches' public nuisance theory, it not a nuisance. ¶ 40 Their public nuisance claims on this ground are barred by LUPA's 21 —day statute of limitations because the Asches would need to have an interpretive decision regarding the application of a zoning ordinance to a specific property declared improper to prevail. V. Private Nuisance 141 The Asches also contend that a CR 12(b)(6) dismissal was inappropriate because their private nuisance claim should be allowed to continue. LUPA, even if applicable, *802 does not bar private nuisance claims. Grandy, 155 Wash.2d at 8, 10, 117 P.3d 1089. [18] ¶ 42 The Asches' private nuisance claim must, however, fail as a matter of law. The only injury alleged in the complaint is that the Bloomquists' house blocked their view of Mt. Rainier. In Washington, however, a person has no property right in the view across their neighbor's land. Collinson, 55 Wash.App. at 485, 778 P.2d 534. The Collinson court noted that the general rule is that a structure is not a nuisance merely because it obstructs the view of neighboring property. Collinson, 55 Wash.App. at 485, 778 P.2d 534. Therefore, in this case, because the Asches complain only that the structure blocks their view, their private nuisance claim must fail. VI. Attorney Fees [19] ¶ 43 Habitat Watch is also dispositive of the Bloomquists' claims for attorney fees under RCW 4.84.370(1). The court indicated that attorney fees are ,. An interpretative or declaratory available if a county's decision is rendered in a party's favor a,a "� decision regarding arding pp application to the a and at least two courts affirm that decision. Habitat Watch, a specific property of zoning or 155 Wash.2d at 413, 120 P.3d 56. Here, the Bloomquists did other ordinances or rules regulating not receive a county decision in their favor because issuing 3 the improvement, development, a building permit is ministerial. * *484 The Asches' first challenge was at the superior court level. Accordingly, RCW ® ®C. � � _ . INDEX �. �. n ...... . ` d © 2015 Thomson Reuters._,.. No claim to rn original U.S. Government bVorks. F # -1� Asche v. Bloomquist, 132 Wash.App. 784 (2006) 33 P.3d 475 4.84.370(1) does not apply to give the Bloomquists attorney fees. ¶ 44 In conclusion, although there may be some nuisances, either private or public, which may be brought outside LUPA's framework, in this case the claims directly related to the invalidity or the misapplication of the zoning ordinance. Because the action was not brought within 21 days of the date when the land use decision was issued, the action is barred; and dismissal under CR 12(b)(6) was appropriate because the action failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. ¶ 45 Affirmed. We concur: QUINN— BRINTNALL, C.J., and VAN DEREN, J. Parallel Citations 133 P.3d 475 Footnotes 1 This is presumably 221 feet in elevation as measured from the water. 2 The code provides that the director reviews Type I decisions as the final authority and the parties agree that building permits appear to be Type I decisions. This statute actually exempts building permits from Type classifications, so it is unclear what procedure actually does apply. The statute does indicate that, in any case, the director is the reviewing authority. And KCC 17.455.010 seems to give the director the authority to interpret and apply provisions of the zoning code. 3 In any case, the Asches do not argue that the building permit was not a final determination. 4 In Habitat Watch, the record was unclear as to when the decision was entered into the public record, Habitat Watch, 155 Wash.2d at 409, 120 P.3d 56. We do not have that dilemma; the parties agree that the decision was issued on September 9, 2004. 5 Although we recognize that Karasek is a pre -LUPA case, the Asches could enforce their right with a timely land use petition. Therefore, Karasek's reasoning remains compelling. End of Document © 2015 Thomson Reuters, No claim to original U Government Works, DO C, INDEX 2015 Thomson Reuters ®No claim to original U.S. Gov [ ernment Works - . 10 Prekeges v. King County, 98 Wash. .pp. 275 (1999) 990 " _6, ... ®M.. ._ .................. _ ................ ......... _ ���� _ z P.2�� d 405 a . ._ .... ,....... _ 98 Wash.App. 275 Court of Appeals of Washington, Division i. James PREKEGES and Citizens for a Happy Valley, Appellants, Jr. KING COUNTY, U.S. West Wireless, and Gene Lindemoen, Respondents. No. 41974 -9 —I. 1 Aug. 30, 1999• I As Amended on Denial of Reconsideration Dec. 13, 1999 Opponent petitioned for judicial review of county's approval of conditional use permit for telecommunications monopole. The Superior Court, King County, James W. Bates, Jr., J., dismissed the petition. Opponent appealed. The Court of Appeals, Becker, J., held that: (1) defects in public notice of the application for the permit did not excuse opponent's failure to exhaust administrative remedies by filing timely administrative appeal; (2) opponent's voice mail message to county official did not give opponent a statutory right to notice of county's land use decision; and (3) permit applicant was the prevailing party, with statutory right to attorney fees and costs on appeal. Affirmed. RECEIVED 6 "` I West Headnotes (20) CITY OF YAMMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT [1] Zoning and Planning Exhaustion of administrative remedies; primary jurisdiction Defects in public notice of application for conditional use permit for telecommunications monopole, which was published in only one newspaper instead of the two called for in county code and which was posted on -site a week late, did not excuse opponent's failure to exhaust administrative remedies by filing timely administrative appeal of county's permit approval, where opponent had actual notice of the application because he saw the on -site notice before the end of the comment period and where there were no defects in the public notice of the decision itself. West's RCWA 36.70C.060(2)(d). Cases that cite this headnote [2] Administrative Law and Procedure ®.— Time for Proceedings Where notice of an administrative decision is integral to the process of invoking appellate jurisdiction, the appeal period does not begin to run until the statutory notice is given. Cases that cite this headnote [3] Statutes Procedural Statutes The key to achieving substantial compliance with a procedural statute is the satisfaction of the substance essential to the purpose of the statute. 1 Cases that cite this headnote [4] Zoning and Planning -, Notice, appearance and pleading One purpose of specific statutory requirements for public notice of an impending land use decision is to ensure that the decision makers receive enough information from those who may be affected by the action to make an intelligent decision. 1 Cases that cite this headnote [5] Zoning and Planning %= Notice, appearance and pleading Where a legislative body has set minimum public notice requirements consisting of publication in two newspapers and posting for three weeks in order to ensure that decision makers receive enough information from those who may be affected by the pending land use decision to make an intelligent decision, a court does not have the discretion to decide that some lesser quantum of notice, such as publication in one newspaper or posting for only two weeks, substantially complies. 1 Cases that cite this headnote m iNDEN 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U-S. Government Works, Prekeges v. King County, 98 Wasp,,,-tpp. 275 (1999) 990 P.2d 405 [6] [7] Zoning and Planning Time for Proceedings The consequences of incomplete public notice [11] of a land use application do not necessarily include a general extension of the deadline for appealing a permit decision made later on in the administrative process. Cases that cite this headnote Zoning and Planning w Notice Opponent of application for conditional use permit for telecommunications monopole had not "submitted comments" on the application, within meaning of statute requiring local government to give notice of land use decision to any person who had submitted substantive comments on the application, by leaving a voice mail message with a county official. West's RCWA 36.7013.130. Cases that cite this headnote [8] Statutes Absence of Ambiguity; Application of Clear or Unambiguous Statute or Language In interpreting a statute, court does not construe unambiguous language. Cases that cite this headnote [12] [13] I. -M 2 4 P015 Cases that cite this headnote Administrative Law and Procedure Plain, literal, or clear meaning; ambiguity Great weight is placed upon the interpretation given by the administrative agency charged with the administration and enforcement of the ambiguous statute. Cases that cite this headnote Zoning and Planning t� Notice For purposes of obtaining a right to personal notice as one who has "submitted comments" on a land use application, a person must submit the comments in writing. West's RCWA 36.7013.130. Cases that cite this headnote Zoning and Planning Notice County code, which provided for mailed notice of a proposed project to be sent to "any agency or community group which the department [of development and environmental services] may identify as having an interest in the proposal," made identification of interested groups discretionary with the department and did not create an enforceable right to notice sent by mail. [9] Statutes r' " OF YAKIMA Cases that cite this headnote . What constitutes ambiguity, hoe, " ANVAP Y 0FvE:[4]p ���7 determined An "ambiguity" exists in a statute if the language at issue is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation. [14] Zoning and Planning Exhaustion of administrative remedies; primary jurisdiction 2 Cases that cite this headnote Assuming failure to exhaust administrative remedies could be cured through equity, failure of opponent of application for conditional use [10] Statutes permit for telecommunications monopole to Unintended or unreasonable results; file timely administrative appeal of county's absurdity permit approval could not be excused on In construing ambiguous statutory language, the equitable grounds, where opponent could have court must strive to avoid unlikely, absurd, or assured himself of individual notice of permit strained consequences. decision simply by requesting it and where DOC. -,s0-.,,,Next- © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works, 2 Prekeges v. King County, 98 Wasl. .pp. 275 (1999) 990 P.2d 405 »� county official's expression of willingness to A constitutional writ of certiorari is not available consider comments submitted after end of when the petitioner's own delay causes the loss official comment period as long as the official of the opportunity for a direct appeal. was continuing to work on the file evinced no intent to mislead opponent into thinking that Cases that cite this headnote belated submission of comments would legally entitle opponent to receive personal notice of the [19] Zoning and Planning decision. West's RCWA 36.70C.060(2)(d). Costs; attorney fees 5 Cases that cite this headnote Applicant for conditional use permit for telecommunications monopole was "prevailing party" as to county's approval of the application, [15] Equity as element for determining applicant's statutory Grounds of jurisdiction in general right to attorney fees and costs as prevailing Equity cannot be invoked in the absence of bad party after judicial review of county's decision, faith on the part of the defendant and reasonable where hearing examiner had rejected opponent's diligence on the part of the plaintiff administrative appeal because it was untimely. West's RCWA 4.84.370(1)(a, b). 1 Cases that cite this headnote 6 Cases that cite this headnote [16] Zoning and Planning Exhaustion of administrative remedies; [20] Zoning and Planning primary jurisdiction Costs; attorney fees Where opponent of application for conditional Statute authorizing award of attorney fees and use permit for telecommunications monopole did costs to the prevailing party on appeal from a not exhaust administrative remedies by filing a land use approval or decision does not require timely administrative appeal, there was no land that the party must have prevailed on the merits use decision subject to review in a Land Use in an adversarial proceeding. West's RCWA Petition Act (LUPA) petition. West's RCWA 4.84.370(1)(a, b). 36.70C.060(2)(d). + f RECE" 7 Cases that cite this headnote Cases that cite this headnote [17] Zoni Certior a Planning ai l 0 v E�1 �P ttbi•neys and Law Firms Opponent of application for ca i�unal use * *407 *277 Barry G. hiker, Amy C. Hevly, Eric D. • permit for telecommunications monopole was Lowney, Seattle, WA, for Appellants. not entitled to constitutional writ of certiorari regarding county's permit approval, where Anne F. Ackenhusen, Peter G. Ramels, Seattle, WA, for opponent's own delay caused the loss of the Respondents. opportunity for a direct appeal under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA). West's RCWA Opinion 36.70C.060(2)(d). BECKER, J. Cases, that cite this headnote The appellant petitioned for judicial review of a King County land use decision after missing the deadline for appealing [18] Certiorari to a hearing examiner. Because he actually saw notice of Existence of Remedy by Appeal or Writ of the project application, the defects in public notice of the Error application do not excuse him from the duty to exhaust DOC. W .sa £. N xl 0 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. INDEX 3 Prekeges v. King County, 98 Wasi,..,pp. 275 (1999) 990 P.2d 405 administrative remedies. And he did not become entitled he was "probably three weeks away" from reviewing the to mailed notice of the decision by leaving a voice mail U.S. West application file and that Prekeges was welcome to message with the county. The trial court correctly dismissed get his comments in "any time during the permit processing his petition. time." U.S. West Wireless applied to King County for a Prekeges went back to the office to review the file on conditional use permit to construct a 123 foot tall September 3. On September 12, he submitted written telecommunications monopole in Redmond. King County's comments *279 objecting to the tower. Meanwhile, Department of Development and Environmental Services unknown to Prekeges, Wozniak had already finished his own (DDES) determined the application to be complete on July review. On September 9, based on Wozniak's report, DDES 23, 1997. The King County Code (KCC) required mailing issued a Determination of Nonsignificance for the project and of a notice of the application to all property owners located a Report and Decision approving a Use Permit. Public notice within 500 feet of the project site; publication of the notice of this decision through publication and posting was in full in two newspapers; and public posting of the notice on the compliance with code requirements. The decision triggered a site within 14 days of the determination of completion. KCC 14 -day period for appeal to a hearing examiner. The appeal *278 20.20.060. In this case, publication and posting of U.S. deadline was September 23. Prekeges did not learn of the West's application notice fell short of the code requirements. decision until September 30, when he happened to see a Legal notices of the proposed monopole project appeared in notice of decision posted at the site. The notice included the only one newspaper and the on -site posting was a week late. procedures and deadline for appeal. James Prekeges did not receive mailed notice of the Although the deadline for appeal had passed, Prekeges filed application because he lived further than 500 feet from a notice of appeal to the hearing examiner on October 7, with the project site. He found out about the project on August supporting documents. The County sent the materials back 19, when he drove by the site and saw the posted notice. to Prekeges upon determining that his appeal was untimely. The notice referred to a 21—day comment period, ending KCC 20.24.090 provides that an appellant's failure to timely August 27. Prekeges immediately called King County and file a notice of appeal deprives the hearing examiner of had a conversation with Paul Wozniak, a planner assigned jurisdiction to consider the appeal. to write a State Environmental Policy Act report for the project. Wozniak had previously received written comments On October 20, Prekeges brought a petition for judicial submitted by Prekeges, on behalf of Citizens for a Happy review under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), RCW Valley, in opposition to an earlier tower application in 36.70C. A LUPA petitioner has standing to bring a land Happy Valley. Wozniak told Prekeges he could come by any use petition only if the petitioner "has exhausted his or morning to review U.S. West's application. her administrative remedies to the extent required by law." RCW 36.70C.060(2)(d). The court dismissed the action Prekeges came to Wozniak's office on the afternoon of upon concluding that Prekeges had inexcusably failed to August 26. He found Wozniak had left the office, and the exhaust his administrative remedy of an appeal to the hearing application file was unavailable. The office manager told examiner. Prekeges appeals from the order of dismissal. Prekeges he could make an appointment to review the file on September 3. Prekeges * *408 accepted the appointment and left a voice mail message for Wozniak. In the message DEFICIENCY IN PUBLIC NOTICE Prekeges expressed his concern about not having access to the file and asked to have the comment period extended. Prekeges contends that U.S. West's permit must be set He said if Wozniak could not extend the comment deadline aside due to the lack of strict compliance with the code or give him immediate access to the file, he was willing requirements for publication and posting of the notice of "to submit timely comments" that would be substantially application for a permit. He relies on Stritzel v. Smith, 20 identical to his comments on the previous tower application. Wash.App. 218, 220 -21, 579 P.2d 404 (1978), an action Wozniak returned the call later that day. He left a voice mail brought by a landowner whose land had been sold at a tax message for Prekeges stating that by law, the comment period sale. This court ordered the tax foreclosure deeds set aside could not be extended. Wozniak mentioned, however, that *280 because there had been only nine days' posting of DOC• \f :sti =.,'wP ext © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. INDEX 4 Prekeges v. King County, 98 Wash.App. 275 (1999) 990 P.2d 405 public notice of the tax sale, not ten days as required by the tax has set minimum public notice requirements consisting of sale statute. We held in Stritzel that strict compliance with the publication in two newspapers and posting for three weeks posting requirement was necessary to protect the landowner's in order to achieve that purpose, a court does not have the interest in having as many bidders at the sale as possible, discretion to decide that some lesser quantum of notice —like and to guarantee him a fixed number of days to redeem the publication in one newspaper or posting for only two weeks property before the sale. Stritzel, 20 Wash.App. at 221, 579 — substantially complies. P.2d 404. [6] But the consequences of incomplete public notice of Because of the different context in which it arose, Stritzel does an application do not necessarily include a general extension not govern the present action. Prekeges is a citizen seeking to of the deadline for appealing a permit decision made later set aside a land use decision, not a landowner seeking to set on in the administrative process. The failure to file a timely aside a tax sale. Under LUPA, Prekeges cannot ask a court appeal of a land use decision has been excused where the to set aside the land use decision because he did not exhaust lack of public notice deprived a neighboring landowner of a his administrative remedies. fair opportunity to participate in the administrative process. Gardner v. Pierce County Board of Commissioners, 27 [1] [2] In some situations, notice defects will excuse the Wash.App. 241, 243 -44, 617 P.2d 743 (1980). In contrast duty to exhaust administrative remedies. Where notice of an to the situation in Gardner, Prekeges had actual notice of administrative decision is "integral to the process of invoking the application, and there was no flaw in public notice of the appellate jurisdiction," the appeal period does not begin to decision itself Because Prekeges had a fair opportunity to run until the statutory notice is given. Leson v. Department participate in the administrative process, the defects in public of Ecology, 59 Wash.App. 407, 410, 799 P.2d 268 (1990); notice of the application do not excuse his failure to file a Felida Neighborhood Assn. v. Clark County, 81 Wash.App. timely administrative appeal. 155, 161, 913 P.2d 823, review denied, 129 Wash.2d 1028, 922 P.2d 98 (1996). Prekeges argues this principle should be applied to toll the period for appealing * *409 the permit SUBMISSION OF COMMENTS AS A decision to the hearing examiner until the county publishes and posts public notice of the application in strict compliance CONDITION FOR PERSONAL NOTICE with the code. [7] Prekeges also contends he is not bound by the September 23 appeal deadline because the County did U.S. West and the County argue that public notice of the not mail him individual notice of the permit decision. He application was in substantial compliance with the code contends he was entitled to mailed notice as a person as demonstrated by the fact that notice actually reached who submitted comments prior to the September 9 DDES Prekeges. Despite a week's delay in posting, and the decision. appearance of the notice in only one newspaper, Prekeges knew about the pending application and comment period A local government "shall" give notice of a land use decision when he saw the posted notice on August 19. *282 to the applicant and to any person who, before the rendering of the decision, requested notice of the decision or [3] [4] [5] The key to achieving substantial compliance "submitted substantive comments on the application." RCW with a procedural statute is the satisfaction of the substance 36.70B.130. King County "shall" give notice of a land use essential to the purpose of the statute. Crosby v. County decision to any person who, before the decision, requested of Spokane, 137 Wash.2d 296, 301, 971 P.2d 32 (1999); notice of it or "submitted comments." KCC 20.20.090. Allen v. *281 Public Utility Dist. No. 1 of Thurston County, Prekeges did not request notice of the county's decision on 55 Wash.2d 226, 233, 347 P.2d 539 (1959). One purpose U.S. West's application and he did not submit his written of specific statutory requirements for public notice of an comments until after the decision was rendered. He contends impending land use decision is to ensure that the decision he "submitted comments" when he left the voice mail makers receive enough information from those who may message prior to the decision. be affected by the action to make an intelligent decision. See Glaspey & Sons, Inc. v. Conrad, 83 Wash.2d 707, [8] [9] In interpreting a statute, we do not construe 711 -12, 521 P.2d 1173 (1974). Where a legislative body unambiguous language. Whatcom County v. Bellingham, 128 DOC. © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government WorkF !INDEX- 5 1°11, elllragaa v. Killing County, 98 Was ...,lIpp 2 '15 (1999) b . tJi r1 - .... � .. g9 1�.2 49g Wash.2d 537, 546, 909 P.2d 1303 (1996). An ambiguity exists if the language at issue is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation. State ex rel. Royal v. Board of Yakima County Commissioners, 123 Wash.2d 451, 459, 869 P.2d 56 (1994). Because the plain meaning of the statutory phrase, "submitted comments ", does not necessarily include leaving a voice mail message, the phrase is ambiguous. See, e.g., Baker v. Tri— Mountain Resources, Inc., 94 Wash.App. 849, 973 P.2d 1078, 1081 (1999). [10] In construing ambiguous statutory language, we must strive to avoid unlikely, absurd or strained consequences. See * *410 Whatcom County v. Bellingham, 128 Wash.2d at 546, 909 P.2d 1303. A duty to mail notice of a decision to any person who comments orally on an application would be virtually unmanageable, and would generate incessant litigation. Any telephone conversation or informal over -the- counter remark to an employee of the County could be a comment triggering the duty to give personal notice. It is unlikely that a legislative body would intend to create such an open -ended rule for defining entitlement to personal notice. [11] Also, great weight is placed upon the interpretation given by the administrative agency charged with the administration and enforcement of the ambiguous statute. Hama Hama Co. v. Shorelines Hearings Board, 85 Wash.2d 441, 448, 536 P.2d 157 (1975). The Department of Development and *283 Environmental Services, the agency charged with administering land use appeals in King County, construes the ordinance at issue as requiring written comments. Their "Notice of Application" form states, "Written comments on this application must be submitted to DDES at the address below." [12] We hold that for purposes of obtaining a right to personal notice as one who has "submitted comments," a person must submit the comments in writing. Prekeges' voice mail message did not obligate the County to mail him a notice of the decision. [13] The King County code also provides for mailed notice of a proposed project to be sent to "any agency or community group which the department may identify as having an interest in the proposal ". KCC 20.20.060(G)(5). According to Prekeges, this provision obligated the County to send individual notice of the application to Citizens for a Happy Valley because Wozniak knew it was a group interested in communications towers. But the provision makes identification of interested groups discretionary with the Department. It does not create an enforceable right to notice sent by mail. [14] [15] Prekeges asked the superior court to hold that the appeal period should be equitably tolled by the office manager's alleged refusal to give him access to the application file the day before the comment deadline, and by Wozniak's message inviting him to submit comments after the comment deadline. Assuming that a failure to exhaust administrative remedies can be cured through the application of equity, equity cannot be invoked in the absence of bad faith on the part of the defendant and reasonable diligence on the part of the plaintiff. See Douchette v. Bethel School Dist., 117 Wash.2d 805, 811, 818 P.2d 1362 (1991). Here, neither is present. Prekeges did not try to see the file until the last day of the comment period. Even then, he could have assured himself of individual notice of the project decision simply by requesting it. KCC 20.20.090. Wozniak expressed his willingness to consider comments submitted *284 after the end of the official comment period as long as he was continuing to work on the file, but his message evinced no intent to mislead Prekeges into thinking that a belated submission of comments would legally entitle him to receive personal notice of the decision. [16] In summary, Prekeges received all the notice of the permit process he was personally entitled to receive. Because he did not file a timely administrative appeal, there is no land use decision subject to review in a LUPA petition. See Ward v. Board of Commissioners of Skagit County, 86 Wash.App. 266, 272, 936 P.2d 42 (1997). His lack of standing under LUPA precludes judicial review of the department's decision to grant the permit. The trial court correctly dismissed his LUPA petition. [17] [18] The trial court also correctly dismissed Prekeges' petition for a constitutional writ. A constitutional writ is not available when the petitioner's own delay causes the loss of the opportunity for a direct appeal. San Juan Fidalgo Holding Co. v. Skagit County, 87 Wash.App. 703, 943 P.2d 341 (1997), review denied, 135 Wash.2d 1008, 959 P.2d 127 (1998). U.S. West has requested an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as the prevailing party on appeal as mandated by RCW 4.84.370 for a party in a land use matter who has prevailed in all prior judicial proceedings. That request is granted. In pertinent part, the statute provides: 1. O 20I5 1 put rs l'lo yi to girw -1 1111t;iJ" Wnil s Prekeges v. King County, 98 Was —App. 275 (1999) * *411 (1) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs shall be awarded to the prevailing party or substantially prevailing party on appeal before the court of appeals or the supreme court of a decision by a county, city, or town to issue, condition, or deny a development permit involving a site - specific rezone, zoning, plat, conditional use, variance, shoreline permit, building permit, site plan, or similar land use approval or decision. The court shall award and determine the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under this section if- (a) The prevailing party on appeal was the prevailing or substantially prevailing party before the county, city, or town, or in a decision involving a substantial development permit *285 under chapter 90.58 RCW, the prevailing party on appeal was the prevailing party or the substantially prevailing party before the shoreline [s] hearings board; and (b) The prevailing party on appeal was the prevailing party or substantially prevailing party in all prior judicial proceedings. All of the necessary elements are met. First, U.S. West is a "prevailing party on appeal before the court of appeals." Second, the case on appeal must be an appeal of a local land use decision. This requirement is satisfied because in his appeal to this court, Prekeges sought to invalidate the DDES decision to issue the conditional use permit. The statute does not require that the local land use decision referred to in subsection (1) be a decision made by an appellate tribunal. [19] [20] Third, U.S. West must show that it was the "prevailing party before the county". Prekeges argues that U.S. West did not prevail before King County because the End of Document hearing examiner rejected his attempted appeal on timeliness grounds without adjudicating it. Prekeges contends that a party cannot be a prevailing party under the statute unless it has defended its position on the merits against an opponent in an adversarial proceeding, citing Overhulse Neighborhood Assn v. Thurston County, 94 Wash.App. 593, 601, 972 P.2d 470 (1999). We disagree. The statute does not require that the party must have prevailed on the merits. See San Juan Fidalgo v. Skagit County, 87 Wash.App. 703, 943 P.2d 341 (1997), review denied, 135 Wash.2d 1008, 959 P.2d 127 (199 8) (party prevailed in superior court when court dismissed opponent's LUPA petition for failure to achieve timely service). Because U.S. West benefited from the hearing examiner's decision rejecting Prekeges' appeal, and has incurred attorney fees defending that decision in this court against Prekeges' efforts to reinstate his appeal, we hold U.S. West prevailed before King County. Fourth, U.S. West must show that it was the prevailing *286 party in "all prior judicial proceedings." The only prior judicial proceeding resulted in the superior court's decision to dismiss Prekeges' petition for judicial review and writ for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. This decision too was made on procedural grounds rather than on the merits, and Prekeges again argues that there is no prevailing party where a decision has not been rendered on the merits. As discussed above, we reject this argument and follow the result reached in San Juan Fidalgo. Affirmed. l GROSSE, J., and ELLINGTON, J., concur. ; 0�N µ. Parallel Citations "u 990 P.2d 405 © 2015 Thomson Reuters, No claim to original US, Government Works, ® ®C. INDEX 2015 Thomson Reuters No claim to original U.S Government Works.,µ ,f, Prosser Hill Coalition v. County o. Spokane, 176 Wash.App. 280 (2013) 309 P.3d 1202 176 Wash.App. 280 Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3. PROSSER HILL COALITION, Lisa Watts — McKee, Daniel Spisak, Jacquelyn Olson, Jack Wilcox, Tom Witfield, Janice, Whitfield, Robert Heinemann, Melanie Zimmerman, Roy Wilson, Steve Bird, Randy Sunderland, Rick Olson, and Cindy Phillips, Respondents, Cross — Appellants, V. COUNTY OF SPOKANE, Silverbird LLC, and Dennis P. Reed, Dennis E. and Dawna Reed, husband and wife, Appellants. No-302415—III. I Aug. 22, 2013, Synopsis Background: Coalition of neighbors filed a Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) petition for review of approval of a conditional use permit for a private airstrip. The Spokane Superior Court, Jerome J. Leveque, J., remanded for a new hearing. County and permit applicants appealed, and neighbors cross - appealed. Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Brown, J., held that: [ 1 ] failure to include property owners' names in caption in petition did not divest superior court of jurisdiction; [2] Land Use Petition Act did not require that a summons accompany filing of LUPA petition; [Z] [3] [4) [3] notice of application for conditional use permit for airstrip was insufficient; and [Sl [4] neighbors were not entitled to costs. Affirmed. 201") i;— Petition, complaint or application Failure to include property owners' names in caption in petition under Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) to review grant of conditional use permit did not divest superior court of jurisdiction over appeal from grant of conditional use permit for a private airstrip, where owners were notified of LUPA petition and participated in the county proceedings. West's RCWA 36.70C.005 et seq. Cases that cite this headnote Appeal and Error Dismissal or nonsuit before trial Court of Appeals reviews an order regarding a motion to dismiss for manifest abuse of discretion. Cases that cite this headnote Appeal and Error Amended and Supplemental Pleadings Court of Appeals reviews denial of a motion to amend a pleading for abuse of discretion. 1 Cases that cite this headnote Courts Abuse of discretion in general "Abuse of discretion" occurs when ruling is manifestly unreasonable or discretion was exercised on untenable grounds. Cases that cite this headnote Zoning and Planning Appeal Zoning and Planning Jurisdiction A superior court hearing a Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) petition acts in an appellate capacity with the jurisdiction conferred by law. West's RCWA 36.70C.005 et seq. West Headnotes (26) () YAMO ( �) 1 rr Cases that cite this headnote [1] Zoning and Planning [6] Zoning and Planning e �. _ ... ��_ ... ,,... �..... �_..... INDEX,, �.. „ Next' © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works, # r_ Prosser Hill Coalition v. County o, ,pokane, 176 Wash.App. 280 (2013) 309 P.3d 1202 w- Jurisdiction Before a superior court may exercise its appellate jurisdiction in action under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), statutory procedural requirements must be satisfied. West's RCWA 36.70C.005 et seq. Cases that cite this headnote [7] Zoning and Planning - Dismissal A court lacking jurisdiction over appeal under Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) must enter an order of dismissal. West's RCWA 36.70C.005 et seq. Cases that cite this headnote [8] Zoning and Planning Time for Proceedings Amendment of caption in Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) petition to review grant of conditional use permit related back to date of original pleading and, thus, did not render petition untimely. West's RCWA 36.70C.005 et seq., 36.700.040(3); CR 15(c). Cases that cite this headnote [9] Zoning and Planning s- Process or notice and appearance Zoning and Planning Petition, complaint or application Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) did not require that a summons accompany filing of a LUPA petition. West's RCWA 36.70C.040, r Cases that cite this headnote° ,41 01!i [10] Statutes Cf ].V )p Intent t[[() ] ) In interpreting a statute, it is court's t utdaiuental duty to ascertain and implement the legislature's intent. Cases that cite this headnote [I1] Statutes Constriction as written Statutes Statute as a Whole; Relation of Parts to Whole and to One Another In interpreting a statute, a court must give meaning to every word and interpret the statute as written. 1 Cases that cite this headnote [12] Statutes General and specific statutes If two provisions conflict, courts must give preference to the most specific statute. Cases that cite this headnote [13] Zoning and Planning Review in general Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) alone governs judicial review of land use decisions. West's RCWA 36.70C.005 et seq. Cases that cite this headnote [14] Zoning and Planning Process or notice and appearance Filing of Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) petition with county auditor's office and first -class mailing to neighbors surrounding property that was subject of conditional use permit application was sufficient to invoke court's jurisdiction under the LUPA. West's RCWA 36.70C.005 et seq. Cases that cite this headnote [15] Zoning and Planning v -- Review of local authority or lower court When reviewing a superior court's decision on a land use petition, appellate court stands in shoes of superior court. Cases that cite this headnote [16] Zoning and Planning i. flext © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works ® ®C. INDEX .... lT l , :. Prosser Hill Coalition v. County oi - .pokane, 176 Wash.App. 280 (2013) 309 P.3d 1202 �— Review of local authority or lower court One purpose of specific statutory requirements In context of administrative review of land for public notice of an impending land use use decision, Court of Appeals reviews decision is to ensure that decision makers receive administrative agency action, not the superior enough information from those who may be court record, and this standard applies with equal affected by the action to make an intelligent force in context of a Land Use Petition Act decision. (LUPA) decision. West's RCWA 36.70C.005 et requirement and providing notice with Cases that cite this headnote seq. '11"V of language at issue, context of statute in which , Cases that cite this headnote [21] Zoning and Planning KN mKII& Hearings in general i�)')� m i Vtl OPIOT [17] Appeal and Error A landowner neighboring land that is the subJect � Cases Triable in Appellate Court of a land use decision should be afforded a fair Court of Appeals reviews statutory interpretation opportunity to be heard. questions de novo. Cases that cite this headnote Cases that cite this headnote Zoning and Planning D®Co. a =E © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. INDEX 3 [22] Zoning and Planning [18] Statutes ,�— Notice Plain Language; Plain, Ordinary, or Posting a sign regarding proposed land Common Meaning use contrary to municipalities' placement In interpreting a statute, Court of Appeals requirement and providing notice with discerns plain meaning from ordinary meaning wrong property description does not meet of language at issue, context of statute in which requirement of substantial compliance with that provision is found, related provisions, and notice requirements. the statutory scheme as a whole. Cases that cite this headnote Cases that cite this headnote [23] Zoning and Planning [19] Zoning and Planning ,� Costs; attorney fees Notice Neighbors who objected to grant of conditional Notice of application for conditional use permit use permit for airstrip were not entitled to costs for airstrip was insufficient, where county code when proceeding was remanded, where superior stated that notice had to be posted along the court remanded on a procedural defect, and most heavily traveled street, proposed airstrip remand did not provide neighbors with any was not adjacent to a road, two nearest roads affirmative relief. West's RCWA 4.84.030. were a dirt road leading to a private residence and a paved thoroughfare in the area, applicant Cases that cite this headnote only posted notice on the dirt road leading to the private residence, and notice gave an erroneous [24] Appeal and Error description of where the airstrip site would be � Costs and Allowances located. Court of Appeals reviews a decision to award or deny costs for an abuse of discretion. Cases that cite this headnote Cases that cite this headnote [20] Zoning and Planning Notice [25] Appeal and Error D®Co. a =E © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. INDEX 3 Prosser Hill Coalition v. County o. opokane, 176 Wash.App. 280 (2013) 309 P.3d 1202 � Costs and Allowances Costs m� Discretion of court Discretion in award of costs is abused when it is exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons. Cases that cite this headnote [26] Costs -- Prevailing party Determination of who is a prevailing party entitled to costs depends upon who is the substantially prevailing party, and this question depends upon the extent of the relief afforded the parties. m Cases that cite this headnote error. We disagree, and additionally reject Silverbird's other contentions that we dismiss because the Coalition failed to properly name the property owners as parties and failed to issue a summons with their land use petition. We reject the Coalition's cross appeal that the superior court erred in denying its cost bill request. Accordingly, we affirm. FACTS ¶ 2 On November 24, 2009, Silverbird submitted a CUP application to the County to construct a private airstrip with a 2,500 —foot long by 250 —foot wide runway area. The airstrip would extend across the southern portion of two parcels owned by Dennis E. and Dawna Reed. Silverbird proposed the development of a series of high -end houses and the permanent occupancy of the site by 15 aircraft. The site and the neighboring lands are designated Rural Traditional in the County's comprehensive plan. ¶ 3 On October 12, 2010, Silverbird mailed hearing notices CITY OF YAKIMA to property owners within 400 feet of the site. Silverbird Attorneys and Law Firms COMMUNITY EVE1 OP, ENT was required to post a notice of hearing sign "on the site * *1204 David W. Hubert, Attorney at Law, Spokane, Stacy along the most heavily traveled street lying adjacent to the A. Bjordahl, Parsons /BumettBjordahl/Hume, LLP, WA, for site." Spokane County Code (SCC) 13.700.106(2)(b). The Appellants. site, however, does not abut a street. The two nearest public roads are Cheney— Spokane and Jensen. The site is closest to Michael D. Whipple, Whipple Law Group, PLLC, Richard Cheney— Spokane, which is paved and a major thoroughfare. Kirk Eichstaedt, Center for Justice, Spokane, WA, for Silverbird, however, posted its notice sign on Jensen Road, Respondent/Cross— Appellants, which is a dirt road that leads to Dennis E. and Dawna Reed's property. Additionally, the hearing notices erroneously state Opinion the site is located "north and west of Jensen *285 Road." BROWN, J. Board Record (BR) at 205 -06. The site is actually north and west of Cheney— Spokane Road. The hearing examiner denied *283 ¶ 1 After a public hearing before a county examiner, Spokane County approved a conditional use permit (CUP) for a private airstrip requested by Silverbird LLC, Dennis P. Reed, Dennis E. Reed and Dawna Reed (collectively Silverbird). But based on insufficient public notice under the Spokane County * *1205 Code (SCC), the superior court, reviewing under chapter 36.70C RCW, the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), remanded for a new hearing. *284 Petitioners are a coalition of neighbors: Prosser Hill Coalition, Lisa Watts— McKee, Daniel Spisak, Jacquelyn Olson, Jack Wilcox, Tom Whitfield, Janice Whitefield, Robert Heinemann, Melanie Zimmerman, Roy Wilson, Steve Baird, Randy Sunderland, Rick Olson, and Cindy Phillips (collectively the Coalition). The County and Silverbird jointly appeal, contending the superior court's remand decision was the neighbors request for a continuance to correct the notice deficiencies and ruled the notice requirements were met. I 14 During the CUP application hearing, several neighbors testified to their concerns over noise, elevated accident potential, threats to safety, and degraded property values. The hearing examiner granted the CUP on December 17, 2010, with conditions. ¶ 5 The Coalition then filed a LUPA petition in the superior court, challenging the hearing examiner's decision. The petition identified in its header the respondents as Spokane County, Silverbird LLC, and Dennis P. Reed. The body of the LUPA petition identified Dennis P. Reed's parents, Dennis E. and Dawna Reed, as owners of the property as well. Copies of ®®C. (: ;vNext © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original lJ S. Government Works. ® 4 Prosser Hill Coalition v. County o, Spokane, 176 Wash.App. 280 (2013) 309 P.3d 1202 the LUPA petition were served on Spokane County, Dennis P. Reed, Dennis E. and Dawna Reed; but, the petition was not accompanied by a summons. ¶ 6 Recognizing its error, the Coalition moved to amend the caption on January 19, 2011. Silverbird countered by filing a motion to dismiss the LUPA petition. The court granted the motion to amend the caption and denied the motion to dismiss. ¶ 7 Following a LUPA hearing, the trial court found that Silverbird erroneously placed the notice sign on Jensen Road rather than the Cheney— Spokane Road, and listed an inaccurate description of the property subject to the CUP application on the notices. The court found these errors did not amount to harmless error. The court ordered the matter remanded for a new hearing with appropriate public notice. *286 The court declined to rule on any of the substantive issues. The court denied the Coalition's cost bill, ruling the Coalition was not a prevailing * *1206 party because the court remanded versus ruling on the merits of the matter. ¶ 8 Silverbird appealed the court's orders denying the motion to dismiss, granting the motion to amend the caption, and the remand order. The Coalition cross appealed the court's cost bill denial. Arlo, 04 It A.1SAI: VSI � A. LUPA Petition Sufficiency [1] ¶ 9 The issue is whether the trial court erred in denying Silverbird's motion to dismiss the Coalition's LUPA petition and allowing the Coalition to amend its caption. Silverbird contends the amendment rendered the petition untimely. Silverbird contends the matter should have been dismissed [5] [6] [7] ¶ 11 A superior court hearing a LUPA petition acts in an appellate capacity with the jurisdiction conferred by law. Conom v. Snohomish County, 155 Wash.2d 154, 157, 118 P.3d 344 (2005). "[B]efore a superior court may exercise its appellate jurisdiction, statutory procedural requirements must be satisfied. A court lacking jurisdiction must enter an order of dismissal." Id. RCW 36.70C.040(2)(b)(ii) states, "a land use petition is barred, and the court may not grant review, unless the petition is timely filed ... and timely *287 served on the following persons who shall be parties to the review of the land use petition ... [e]ach person identified by name and address in the local jurisdiction's written decision as an owner of the property at issue." ¶ 12 In Quality Rock Prods., Inc. v. Thurston County, 126 Wash.App. 250, 265 -66, 108 P.3d 805 (2005), Division Two of this court held that where service is otherwise proper under the civil rules, a party's failure to include the name of a necessary party in the caption does not divest the superior court of jurisdiction absent demonstrated prejudice. In Quality Rock, other than omitting the necessary party in the petition's caption, the party complied with the procedural requirements necessary to invoke the superior court's appellate jurisdiction. Id. at 271 -72, 108 P.3d 805. ¶ 13 Quality Rock is persuasive. The Coalition's petition listed in its caption the respondents as Spokane County, Silverbird LLC, and Dennis P. Reed. The body of the LUPA petition, however, identified Dennis P. Reed's parents, Dennis E. and Dawna Reed, as owners of the property in question. Copies of the LUPA petition were served on Spokane County, Dennis P. Reed, Dennis E. and Dawna Reed; however, the petition was not accompanied by a summons. Because Dennis E. Reed and Dawna Reed were notified of the LUPA petition and they participated in the County proceedings, Silverbird cannot establish prejudice resulting from the caption amendment. Following Quality Rock, the Coalition's failure to include Dennis P, Reed's parents' names in the caption does not divest because service was deficient because a summons did not the superior court of jurisdiction. The Coalition complied accompany the petition. with the procedural requirements necessary to invoke the superior court's appellate jurisdiction. Id. at 271 -72, 108 P.3d [2] [3] [4] ¶ 10 We review an order regarding a motion 805. to dismiss for manifest abuse of discretion. Escude v. King County Public Hosp. Dist. No. 2, 117 Wash.App. 183, 190, 69 P.3d 895 (2003). Likewise, we review the denial of a motion to amend for abuse of discretion. Karlberg v. Otten, 167 Wash.App. 522, 529, 280 P.3d 1123 (2012). Abuse occurs when the ruling is manifestly unreasonable or discretion was exercised on untenable grounds. Id. [8] ¶ 14 Silverbird contends the petition should be dismissed because the date of the amendment was over 21 days from the date of the land use decision. See RCW 36.70C.040(3) (a petition is timely if filed and served within 21 days of the land use decision). But, CR 15(c) provides that an, "amendment . relates back to the date of the original *288 pleading." ® ®C. INDEX ' %,vflext © 2015 Thomson Reuters No claim to original U.C. Government Works. # Imo_ I i I 5 Prosser Hill Coalition v. County of „aokane, 176 Wash.App. 280 (2013) 309 P.3d 1202 Accordingly, the Coalition's subsequent amendment did not render the petition untimely. [9] ¶ 15 Silverbird next urges us to adopt a requirement that a summons must accompany the filing of a LUPA petition. Specifically, Silverbird contends LUPA and the civil rules require a summons be filed to grant the * *1207 court jurisdiction and that the failure to file a summons is grounds for dismissal. ¶ 16 As discussed above, RCW 36.70C.040 sets forth the procedure for commencing review under LUPA, stating in part, "A land use petition is barred, and the court may not grant review, unless the petition is timely filed with the court and timely served on the [listed] persons." Regarding service, the statute states, "Service on the local jurisdiction must be by delivery of a copy of the petition to the persons identified by or pursuant to RCW 4.28.080 to receive service of process. Service on other parties must be in accordance with the superior court civil rules or by first -class mail." RCW 36.700.040(5). [10] [111 [12] ¶ 17 In interpreting a statute, it is fundamental duty to ascertain and implement the legislature's intent. United States Tobacco Sales & Mktg. Co. v. Dept of Revenue, 96 Wash.App. 932, 938, 982 P.2d 652 (1999). A court must give meaning to every word and interpret the statute as written. Enter. Leasing, Inc. v. City of Tacoma Fin. Dept, 139 Wash.2d 546, 552, 988 P.2d 961 (1999). If two provisions conflict, courts must give preference to the most specific statute. Bowles v. Wash. Dept of'Ret. Sys., 121 Wash.2d 52, 78, 847 P.2d 440 (1993). LUPA proceeding. Id at 271, 108 P.3d 805. While courts have strictly construed the timing and parties that must be served in a LUPA proceeding, the courts have not elevated other procedural requirements to a "jurisdictional threshold." Id. [14] ¶ 19 Here, the LUPA petition was filed with the county's auditor's office and surrounding neighbors by first class mail as prescribed by RCW 36.70C.040(5). This sufficiently invoked the court's jurisdiction. Silverbird's argument that a summons must accompany the petition is not supported by law. We are not persuaded to extend the summons requirement here. Me fa 4 B. Improper Notice )) ]t ¶ 20 The issue is whether the trial court erred in rem a g ol) the matter to the hearing examiner based on improper notice. Silverbird contends notice was sufficient to provide the neighboring property owners an opportunity to be heard. )ur [15] [16] ¶ 21 RCW 36.70C.140 outlines three possible responses for a reviewing court when considering a hearing examiner's decision: "The court may affirm or reverse the land use decision under review or remand it for modification or further proceedings." "When reviewing a superior court's decision on a land use petition, the appellate court stands in the shoes of the superior court." Citizens to Pres. Pioneer Park, LLC v. City of'Mercer Island, 106 Wash.App. 461, 470, 24 P.3d 1079 (2001). In the context of administrative review, the court of appeals reviews the administrative *290 agency action, not the superior court record. J.L Storedahl & Sons, [13] 118 LUPA alone governs judicial review of land use decisions. Benchmark Land Co. v. City of Battle Ground, 146 Wash.2d 685, 693, 49 P.3d 860 (2002). "[T]he plain language of the ... LUPA provisions governs." Mellish v. Frog Mountain Pet Care, 154 Wash.App. 395, 405, 225 P.3d 439 (2010). Nothing in LUPA requires the filing of a summons. Indeed, the purpose of a summons is to give notice and provide an opportunity to answer. Sprincin King *289 St. Partners v. Sound Conditioning Club, Inc., 84 Wash.App. 56, 60, 925 P.2d 217 (1996). As discussed in Quality Rock, "CR 4(b)'s directive that the summons provide notice and warn of potential default can be inapplicable in the LUPA context." 126 Wash.App. at 265, 108 P.3d 805. The court further noted that although the timing and service requirements are jurisdictional, the failure to strictly comply with the procedures of the civil rules will not invalidate a Inc. v. Cowlitz County, 125 Wash.App. 1, 6, 103 P.3d 802 (2004). This standard applies with equal force in the context of a LUPA decision. Wellington River Hollow, LLC v. King County, 121 Wash.App. 224, 230, 54 P.3d 213 (2002). ¶ 22 The SCC sets the procedure for review of project permits in Spokane County. Regarding notice, SCC 13.700.106(2) (b) requires an applicant to post a notice of hearing sign "on the site along the most heavily traveled street lying adjacent to the site." Additionally, SCC 13.700.106(2)(x) and (c) requires * *1208 neighboring property owners to receive written notice and for notice to be published in the newspaper. This notice must contain the, "project location, vicinity and address and parcel number, if applicable." SCC 13.70.104(5). W0�,v• Government -INDEX , 2015 Thomson Reuters. No caim to original U. S. Vorks .... .m.. � �� �� 6 Prosser Hill Coalition v. County o. opokane, 176 Wash.App. 280 (2013) 309 P.3d 1202 [17] [18] if 23 We review statutory interpretation questions de novo. Estate of Haselwood v. Bremerton Ice Arena, Inc., [21] [22] ¶ 27 A neighboring landowner should be 166 Wash.2d 489, 497, 210 P.3d 308 (2009). We discern plain afforded a fair opportunity to be heard. See Gardner v. meaning from the ordinary meaning of the language at issue, Pierce County Board of Commissioners, 27 Wash.App. the context of the statute in which that provision is found, 241, 243 -44, 617 P.2d 743 (1980) (court tolled the time related provisions, and the statutory scheme as a "whole." period to appeal a land use decision when the lack of State v. Engel, 166 Wash.2d 572, 578, 210 P.3d 1007 (2009). public notice deprived a neighboring landowner of a fair opportunity to be heard). Even applying the lesser standard [19] ¶ 24 Here, the proposed airstrip is not adjacent to a of substantial compliance, "[t]he key to achieving substantial road; however, the two nearest roads are Spokane - Cheney, a compliance with a procedural statute is the satisfaction of the paved, thoroughfare in the area; and Jensen, a dirt road that substance essential to the purpose of the statute." Prekeges, leads to a long driveway that services Dennis E. and Dawna 98 Wash.App. at 280, 990 P.2d 405. *292 Posting a sign Reed's property. SCC 13.700.106(2)(b) states that notice contrary to the municipalities' placement requirement and to must be posted "along the most heavily traveled street." We provide notice with the wrong property description is not give effect to a statute's plain meaning. Dep't of Ecology v. within the substantial compliance standard. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wash.2d 1, 9 -10, 43 P.3d 4 (2002). The plain meaning of most heavily traveled would ¶ 28 In sum, because the notice sign was not posted near be a paved, thoroughfare instead of a dirt road leading to a the required street and notice did not contain the correct private residence. Moreover, SCC 13.700.106(2)(a) and (c) property description, as required by the clear language of SCC requires neighbors to receive written notice and the public to 13.70.104(5) and SCC 13.700.106(2)(b), the trial court did receive notice via the newspaper. Both of these methods of not err in remanding the matter to the hearing examiner. notice erroneously state that the *291 site is located "north and west of Jensen Road." BR at 205 -06. The site is actually north and west of Cheney- Spokane Road. C. Conditional Use Permit [20] ¶ 25 While the hearing examiner ruled the ¶ 29 Silverbird contends the CUP was properly granted while notice requirements were met because nothing indicated the Coalition contends the hearing examiner failed to consider neighboring property owners were confused or did not receive noise, safety risks, and impacts to property value when notice, it is difficult to measure the impact the faulty notice granting the CUP. The trial * *1209 court did not reach these had on concerned individuals. In other words, it is difficult issues, and neither do we. Based on the disposition above to prove a negative. "One purpose of specific statutory (affirming the court's remand for proper notice and hearing), requirements for public notice of an impending land use any discussion by this court regarding the substantive issues decision is to ensure that the decision makers receive enough would amount to an advisory opinion, which is disfavored information from those who may be affected by the action by courts. State v. Norby, 122 Wash.2d 258, 269, 858 P.2d to make an intelligent decision." Prekeges v. King County, 210 (1993). Moreover, the trial court did not rule on the 98 Wash.App. 275, 281, 990 P.2d 405 (1999). The defective substantive issues. Under RCW 36.70C.040(1), the LUPA notice undermines the information- gathering process. appellate process requires review first by the superior court. Thus, it would be premature for us to rule on the sub ¶ 26 By comparison, in Stritzel v. Smith, 20 Wash.App. 218, issues. tiIft 220 -21, 579 P.2d 404 (1978), a landowner brought an action JUN to reclaim land that had been sold at a tax sale. The court ordered the tax foreclosure deeds set aside because there had 2 2015 been only 9 days' posting of public notice of the tax sale, not �• Costs and Attorney Fces CO tij UNT D0A KIMA 10 days as required by the tax sale statute. The court held in FLOP [23] 1130 On cross review, the Coalition contends it was the R 6 70 Stritzel that strict compliance with the posting requirement prevailing party below and should have been awarded costs was necessary to protect the landowner's interest in having as under RCW 4.84.030. many bidders at the sale as possible, and to guarantee him a fixed number of days to redeem the property before the sale. [24] [25] [26] ¶ 31 We review a decision to award Stritzel, 20 Wash.App. at 221, 579 P.2d 404. or deny costs for an abuse of discretion. Highland Sch. (r. © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. - 7 -w Prosser Hill Coalition v. County of — pokane, 176 Wash.App. 280 (2013) 309 P.3d 9202 Dist. No. 203 v. Racy, 149 Wash.App. 307, 312, 202 P.3d 1024 (2009). "Discretion is abused when it is exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons." Id. Under RCW 4.84.030, "[i]n any action in the superior court of Washington the prevailing *293 party shall be entitled to his or her costs and disbursements." "[T]he determination of who is a prevailing party depends upon who is the substantially prevailing party, and this question depends upon the extent of the relief afforded the parties." Riss v. Angel, 131 Wash.2d 612, 634, 934 P.2d 669 (1997). 132 The superior court remanded on a procedural defect. While the Coalition pointed out the deficiency in its LUPA petition, the remand did not provide its affirmative relief. Because the Coalition is not the substantially prevailing party, the superior court properly denied its request for costs. Footnotes ¶ 33 Both Silverbird and the Coalition request attorney fees on appeal in their reply briefs. Under RAP 18.1(b), a party requesting attorney fees, "must devote a section of its opening brief to the request." Since neither party complied with this rule, their requests should be denied. $ 34 Affirmed. WE CONCUR: SIDDOWAY, A.C.J. and KULIK, J, . Parallel Citations 309 P.3d 1202 The parties dispute whether the notice sign posted on Jensen Road contained an incorrect property description. At this court's request, the parties supplemented the record to address this contention. Based on RAP 9.10, we accept the parties' supplemental materials and deny Silverbird's post -oral argument motion to strike but note that we are not permitted, and do not, engage in improper fact finding to the extent contemplated by Silverbird. End of Document © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4 CITY OF ® ®C• MDEX " �Fi=1.���,Mext © 2015 Thomson Reuters No claim to original U.S, Government Works. Nickum v. City of Bainbridge Islay 153 Wash.App. 366 (2009) 153 Wash.App. 366 Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2. George C. NICKUM, Jr. and Margaret D. Nickum, Husband and Wife, David M. Snedeker and Bonnie Snedeker, Husband and Wife, Appellants, V. CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, a Washington Municipal Corporation, Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Seattle SMSA Limited Partnership, a Delaware Limited Partnership, Jeffry E. Powers and Deborah Haase, Husband and Wife, and Puget Sound Energy, Inc., a Washington Corporation, Respondents. No. 38217-2—IL I Nov. 24, 2009. 1 As Amended Dec. 8, 2009. Synopsis Background: Landowners brought a Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) action challenging city's decision to allow construction of a wireless communication facility on neighbor's property. The Kitsap Superior Court, Craddock Davis Verser, J., dismissed for lack of standing and lack of jurisdiction, and landowners appealed. Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Van Deren, C.J., held that: [ 1 ] city's grant of exemption from State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review was not subject to administrative review; [2] city municipal code section requiring appeal within 14 days following decision to issue permit was a statute of limitations, and not jurisdictional, for purposes of equitable tolling; [3] mere allegation by landowners that city incorrectly applied SEPA was insufficient to toll administrative limitations period for filing appeal of decision to issue permit; [4] landowners were required to file LUPA action within 21 days of city's original grant of permit; and [5] requirement that landowners bring LUPA action with 21 days of land use decision was jurisdictional, rather than a statute of limitations, for purposes of equitable tolling. Affirmed. West Headnotes (14) [1] Zoning and Planning Decisions of boards or officers in general In matters involving undisputed facts in Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) actions, the Court of Appeals independently review the agency record. West's RCWA 36.70C.050 et seq. Cases that cite this headnote [2] Environmental Law Periods applicable Zoning and Planning Time for Proceedings City's grant of exemption from State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review of construction of a wireless communications building and antennas was not subject to administrative review pursuant to city ordinance which stated that a determination that a proposal was exempt from SEPA was final and not subject to administrative review, and thus, because the determination was a land use decision, landowners were required to appeal decision directly to the superior court with a Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) action within 21 days of the grant of the SEPA exemption. WAC 197 -11- 680(2); West's RCWA 36.70C.040(3); West's RCWA 36.70C.020(1)(b) (2009). Cases that cite this headnote [3] Zoning and Planning Exhaustion of administrative remedies; primary jurisdiction Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite to obtaining a decision that qualifies ® ®C. ANDEX t © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works t # -i Nickum v. City of Bainbridge Islam.., 153 Wash.App. 366 (2009) 2230.3d 1172 as a decision reviewable under Land Use Petition Act (LUPA). West's RCWA 36.70C.050 et seq. 1 Cases that cite this headnote [4] Zoning and Planning Exhaustion of administrative remedies; primary jurisdiction The requirement that exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite to obtaining a decision that qualifies as a decision reviewable under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) includes complying with administrative time -of- filing requirements. West's RCWA 36.70C.050 et seq. Cases that cite this headnote [5] Zoning and Planning � - Administrative review rules did not indicate time limit for appeals was jurisdictional, and time limit provision was separate from jurisdictional section of rules. 2 Cases that cite this headnote [8] Limitation of Actions Suspension or stay in general; equitable tolling A court may toll the statute of limitations when justice requires such tolling but it must use the doctrine sparingly. [91 The failure to file a timely appeal of a land use decision has been excused where the lack of public notice deprived a neighboring landowner of a fair opportunity to participate in the [10] administrative process. Cases that cite this headnote [6] Limitation of Actions �_— Suspension or stay in general; equitable tolling The doctrine of equitable tolling applies to statutes of limitations and not to jurisdictional time limits. 4 Cases that cite this headnote [7] Zoning and Planning Procedure in general; timeliness City municipal code section which required appeal to the hearing examiner within 14 days following city's decision to issue a permit was a statute of limitations, and not jurisdictional, as required to allow equitable tolling of the time to appeal a land use decision in the event lack of notice deprived a neighboring landowner of a fair opportunity to participate in the administrative process; hearing examiner [11] 4 Cases that cite this headnote Limitation of Actions Burden of proof in general The party asserting that equitable tolling of a statute of limitations should apply bears the burden of proof. 3 Cases that cite this headnote Limitation of Actions Suspension or stay in general; equitable tolling The predicates for equitable tolling of a statute of limitations are bad faith, deception, or false assurances by the defendant and the exercise of diligence by the plaintiff. 5 Cases that cite this, headnote 41t Zoning and Pa'lnning, � V <� . Procedure in general -, timeliness Zoning and Planning Exhaustion ai" «di inistattive retedies; W primary ' jurisdiction A mere allegation by landowners that city incorrectly applied State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) when it granted exception from SEPA review and issued permit for construction of wireless communications replacement antenna on neighbor's parcel, was insufficient to toll the administrative statute of limitations for filing an administrative appeal of city's decision to issue permit, and DOC. N1 O 2015 Thomson Reuters, No claim to� original U.S. Government Works, 2 C- `i Nickum v. City of Bainbridge Mai—, 153 Wash.App. 366 (2009) thus, because landowners failed to timely appeal the administrative decision, they failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, and lacked standing to bring a subsequent Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) action. West's RCWA 3 6.70C. 060(2)(d), 43.210.0384. Attorneys and Law Firms * *1174 George Cunningham Nickum, Jr., Attorney at Law, Bainbridge Island, WA, for Appellant(s). Michael Charles Walter, Keating Bucklin McCormack Inc., 1 Cases that cite this headnote PS, Charles Edward Maduell, Nigel P. Avilez, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Seattle, WA, Rod Paul Kaseguma, [12] Zoning and Planning Rosemary Anne Larson, Attorneys at Law, Bellevue, for �#P Time for Proceedings Respondent(s).,w Landowners were required to file Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) action within 21 days of city's original grant of permit to construct wireless communications facility, rather than within 21 days of city's denial of landowner's untimely administrative appeal; hearing examiner's denial of untimely administrative appeal was not a land use decision for purposes of 21 day time limit. West's RCWA 36.700.040(3). 1 Cases that cite this headnote [13] Administrative Law and Procedure Effect of delay If an agency decision is not timely appealed, then the agency's initial decision is final. Cases that cite this headnote [14] Zoning and Planning Time for Proceedings Requirement that landowners bring a Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) action within 21 days of a land use decision in which city granted permit for construction of wireless communications facility was jurisdictional, rather than a statute of limitations, and thus not subject to application of the equitable tolling doctrine, even though statute did not use the word jurisdiction; legislature's use of phrases "is barred" and "may not grant review" demonstrated its intent to prevent a court from considering untimely filings. West's RCWA 36.70C.040(2). 1 Cases that cite this headnote Opinion JUN 2 4 2015 VAN DEREN, C.J. ("""Y ) l(tlA *371 ¶ 1 George C. Nickum, Jr., Marg[a e�toDl Ni ((i a� [�"���w [r David M. Snedeker, and Bonnie Snedeker (collectively, the Nickums) filed a Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) I action on January 22, 2008, challenging a City of Bainbridge Island (City) decision to allow Verizon Wireless LLC ( Verizon) to "construct a wireless communication facility on a Puget Sound Energy pole" on a neighbor's parcel. Before their LUPA action, the Nickums had filed an administrative appeal with a City hearing examiner in January 2008. The hearing examiner rejected their appeal on jurisdictional grounds because it was not filed within 14 days of the City's initial September 2007 decision to allow the construction. The trial court dismissed the Nickums' LUPA action for lack of standing and lack of jurisdiction. ¶ 2 We affirm the dismissal. By filing a late administrative appeal, the landowners failed to exhaust administrative remedies —a requirement for LUPA standing —and the record does not support extending the administrative time limits under the doctrine of equitable tolling. The failure to correctly exhaust administrative remedies, in turn, means that the Nickums failed to meet the requirements that allow them to avail themselves of the superior court's LUPA jurisdiction when an action is filed within 21 days of the final land use decision, here, the City's September 2007 decision to allow the construction. FACTS ¶ 3 The Nickums own property on Bainbridge Island, Washington. Jeffry Powers and Debra Haase also own property on Bainbridge Island and leased a parcel to Verizon a =;Nx1` © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works ® ®C■ WDEX !� 3 Nickum v. City of Bainbridge Islan.., 153 Wash.App. 366 (2009) 223 P.3d 1172 for the purpose of installing a utility pole with antennas and an equipment building. The inability of the [ Nickums] to file an appeal within 14 *372 ¶ 4 In December 2006, Verizon applied to the days of the issuance of the building permit in this case City for a building permit to install the utility pole and was a result of the City of Bainbridge Island and Verizon building at issue in this appeal. The application stated that Wireless claiming categorical exempt status under SEPA the permit was exempt from State Environmental Policy and therefore failing to give the notice required to the Act (SEPA) 3 review under RCW 43.21C.0384 because [ Nickums] under SEPA. CP at 9. The trial court, ruling on Verizon's CR 12(b)(6) Verizon would attach the antennas to an existing structure. 4 motion, dismissed the matter with prejudice for la of RCW 43.21C.0384(1)(a)(i). The City approved the SEPA standing and lack of jurisdiction. ` exemption and issued the permit on September 14, 2007. ¶ 8 The Nickums appeal, li '/t Neither the City nor Verizon issued notice to the Nickums of J(fA 4.1 the application, the SEPA exemption approval, or the permit �U approval. ANALYSIS CO///4" 61/1 71/ 0 4/49.4 �5 ¶ 5 On October 30, 2007, David Snedeker noticed work being �� j0p 1. Standing and Access to the Superior Court's LUPA ��/� done on the Powers and Haase parcel and learned about the Jurisdiction permit. Nine days later, on November 8, 2007, the Nickums 9 The Nickums argue that the trial court erred when it filed an appeal with the City hearing examiner, challenging dismissed their LUPA action for lack of standing and lack of the City's issuance of the building permit and challenging the jurisdiction. We disagree. SEPA exemption. ¶ 6 Verizon moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely. A. Standard of Review On January 3, 2008, the hearing examiner granted the [1] ¶ 10 Where the facts are not at issue, we review de novo dismissal motion, reasoning that the City of Bainbridge Island rulings to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under *374 CR * *1175 Municipal Code (BIMC) requires an appeal of 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under CR 12(b)(6). an administrative land use decision to be " `filed with the Wells v. Olsten Corp., 104 Wash.App. 135, 139, 15 P.3d 652 City Clerk 14 days after the date of the decision or 21 (2001). Moreover, in matters involving undisputed facts in days if the land use decision requires a SEPA threshold LUPA actions, we independently review the agency record. comment period.' " Clerk's Papers (CP) at 15 (quoting BIMC Twin Bridge Marine Park, LLC v. Dept of Ecology, 162 § 2.16.130). The hearing examiner found that the parties Wash.2d 825, 834, 175 P.3d 1050 (2008). filed the appeal against Verizon "more than 50 days after the issuance of the subject permit." CP at 15. The examiner affirmed this ruling on reconsideration on January *373 14, B. LUPA Summary and Relevant Dates 2008, stating, "In order for the Hearing Examiner to have ¶ 11 LUPA "provides the `exclusive means of judicial review' jurisdiction to hear and decide an appeal, it must be timely of land use decisions." Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. Dep't filed.... [T]his appeal was not timely filed and it was correctly of Ecology, 147 Wash.2d 440, 449, 54 P.3d 1194 (2002) dismissed." CP at 16. (quoting RCW 36.70C.030(1)). A " `[1]and use decision' " is a "final determination by a local jurisdiction's body ¶ 7 The Nickums filed a LUPA action in superior court or officer with the highest level of authority to make on January 22, 2008, 19 days after the hearing examiner the determination, including those with authority to hear dismissed their appeal. The LUPA petition alleged that: (1) appeals." RCW 36.70C.020(1). the City erred in concluding that Verizon was categorically exempt from SEPA regulation; (2) the permit violated if 12 LUPA requires that, in order to create standing to the BIMC because it did not include height and set- challenge a land use action, a petitioner must first exhaust back restrictions, Federal Communications Act 5 compliance available administrative remedies. RCW 36.70C.060(2) requirements, or screen or camouflage requirements; and (3) (d). BIMC section 2.16.130(B)(1) requires parties to the lack of notice violated due process. With respect to notice, administratively appeal a land use decision within 14 days. the Nickums alleged: Further, RCW 36.70C.040 requires a petitioner to file a DOC. © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. INDEX 4 Nickum v. City of Bainbridge Wan-, 153 Wash.App. 366 (2009) 223 P.3d 1172 LUPA action within 21 days of a land use decision. RCW 202, 209 -10, 114 P.3d 1233 (2005). It is undisputed that 36.70C.040(3). "A land use petition is barred, and the court the Nickums failed to comply with the 14 day deadline for may not grant review, unless the petition is timely filed appealing a land use decision in the administrative context. with the court and timely served on the following persons who shall be parties to the review of the land use petition: [listing parties]." RCW 36.70C.040(2)(a), (b), (c), (d). It is 1. SEPA Exemption Decision undisputed that the Nickums filed an appeal with the hearing examiner 50 days after the September 14, 2007, land use [2] ¶ 15 As a preliminary matter, we consider Verizon's decision. The hearing examiner rejected the appeal for lack argument that the City's SEPA decision was not subject to of timely filing on January 3, 3008. The Nickums then filed administrative review by the hearing examiner. 6 Verizon the LUPA action on January 22, 2008. argues that "[u]nlike the building permit decision, the SEPA exemption decision was not appealable to the Hearing * *1176 If 13 The Nickums argue that the principle of Examiner" because the SEPA rules dictate that the City "may equitable tolling applies, extending their filing period. They only allow administrative appeals of two types of *376 maintain that, because "there was nothing to alert [them]" agency decisions: (1) a final threshold determination ... and that Verizon was contemplating the addition, the time for (2) a final environmental impact statement." Br. of Resp't appeal should not begin to run until the date they first realized at 7 n. 3 chin 3 a iii We agree the *375 permit was approved, on October 30, 2007. Br. 3 ( citing WAC 197 -11 -680 ()( )( )) g with Verizon that the SEPA decision was not subject to of Appellants at 6. They add that the City's "intentional[ ]" administrative appeal, but we base our decision on a different decision to exempt Verizon from SEPA requirements— section of the Washington Administrative Code. which, if applied, would have required notice —contrary to the content of Verizon's building permit application further ¶ 16 Subsection 2 of WAC 197 -11 -680 states that "RCW counsels in favor of tolling their appeal period. 43.21C.060 allows an appeal to a local legislative body of any decision by a local nonelected official conditioning or C. Administrative Appeal: Exhaustion and Standing denying a proposal under authority of SEPA. Agencies may ¶ 14 LUPA petitioners must first exhaust administrative establish procedures for such an appeal, or may eliminate remedies to have standing to maintain a LUPA action in such appeals altogether, by rule, ordinance or resolution. " superior court. RCW 36.70C.060(2)(d). WAC 197 -11- 680(2); see also 24 Timothy Butler & Matthew King, Washington Practice: Environmental Law The [exhaustion] doctrine is founded and Practice § 17.52, at 219 -20 (2007). Here, the City on the principle that the judiciary has chosen to eliminate such appeals. BIMC section should give proper deference to that 16.04.080(A) specifically states, "The [C]ity's determination body possessing expertise in areas that a proposal is exempt [from SEPA] shall be final and not outside the conventional experience subject to administrative review." of judges, so that the administrative process will not be interrupted ¶ 17 Because the City's determination that Verizon's permit prematurely, so that the agency was exempt from SEPA is "not subject to administrative can develop the necessary factual review" and because the determination was a land use background on which to reach its decision as defined under RCW 36.70C.020(1), the Nickums decision, so that the agency will were required to appeal directly to the superior court through have the opportunity to exercise its a LUPA action within 21 days of the SEPA exemption. expertise and to correct its own errors, RCW 36.70C.020(1)(b), .040(3). Therefore, the remainder • and so as not to encourage individuals of this subsection — explaining exhaustion of administrative to ignore administrative procedures by * *1177 remedies — applies only to the Nickums' non -SEPA resorting to the courts prematurely. claims. Phillips v. King County, 87 Wash.App. 468, 479 -80, 943 P.2d RECEIVED 306 (1997), affd, 136 Wash.2d 946, 968 P.2d 871 (1998); JUN 2 4 2015 DOC. see also Harrington v. Spokane County, 128 Wash.App. INDEX CM OF YAK MA E -+ COMMUNITY DEYELtiRME IT .... bties`[ w'Next 192015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5 Nickum v. City of Bainbridge Islas,.., 153 Wash.App. 366 (2009) 223 P.3d 1172 [7] ¶ 22 Here, BIMC section 2.16.130(B)(1) requires appeal 2. Non — SEPA Claims to the hearing examiner within 14 days following the City's decision to issue a permit. The City's hearing examiner rules [3] [4] ¶ 18 "Exhaustion of administrative remedies is add that "No be considered timely filed, an appeal must be a prerequisite to obtaining a decision that qualifies as a received ... no later than the last day of the appeal period." CP decision reviewable under LUPA." Stanzel v. Pierce County, at 15 (quoting City of Bainbridge Island, Rules of Procedure *377 150 Wash.App. 835, 841, 209 P.3d 534 (2009). This for Proceedings before the Hearing Examiner ch. III, § 3, requirement includes complying with administrative time - rule 3.2). The hearing examiner rules do not indicate that the of- filing requirements. See Ward v. Bd. of Skagit County time limit for appeals to the hearing examiner is jurisdictional. Comm's, 86 Wash.App. 266, 271 -72, 936 P.2d 42 (1997). And, the time limit provision in BIMC section 2.16.130(B) In Ward, "[t]he Wards failed to file a timely appeal with the (1) is separate from any jurisdictional section of the rules. Board and did not obtain a final determination of the Board Because the 14 day time limit is a statute of limitations and not on their applications. Consequently, they failed to exhaust jurisdictional, 8 we must determine whether equitable tolling their administrative remedies and failed to obtain a `land use is warranted with regard to the Nickums' non -SEPA issues. decision' subject to judicial review under LUPA." Ward, 86 Wash.App. at 272, 936 P.2d 42. ¶ 23 In a case such as this, with undisputed facts, we conduct an independent review of the agency record. Twin [5] ¶ 19 But a limited exception to the administrative time- Bridge Marine Park, 162 Wash.2d at 834, 175 P.3d 1050. of- filing requirement exists. "The failure to file a timely We have the ability to independently determine whether to appeal of a land use decision has been excused where the excuse a land use petitioner's failure to exhaust administrative lack of public notice deprived a neighboring landowner of a remedies due to insufficient notice or another recognized fair opportunity to participate in the administrative process." exception. See Gardner v. Pierce County Bd. of Comm'rs, Prekeges v. King County, 98 Wash.App. 275, 281, 990 P.2d 27 Wash.App. 241, 243 -44, 617 P.2d 743 (1980); see also 405 (1999). This exception mirrors the equitable tolling Citizens for Clean Air v. City of Spokane, 114 Wash.2d 20, argument presented by the Nickums that lack of any required 28 -29, 785 P.2d 447 (1990); South Hollywood Hills Citizens notice made it impossible for them to participate earlier in the Ass'n for Pres. of Neighborhood Safety & Env't v. * *1178 administrative process. King County, 101 Wash.2d 68, 74, 677 P.2d 114 (1984). [6] ¶ 20 Verizon responds that jurisdictional time limits are [8] [9] [10] ¶ 24 A court may toll the statute of limitations not subject to tolling and that the hearing examiner correctly when justice requires such tolling but it must use the doctrine ruled that the BIMC's 14 day limit was jurisdictional and sparingly. State v. Duvall, 86 Wash.App. 871, 875, 940 P.2d deprived the administrative body of the ability to hear the 671 (1997); Finkelstein v. Sec. Props., Inc., 76 Wash.App. Nickums' appeal. Verizon is correct that the doctrine of 733, 739 -40, 888 P.2d 161 (1995). Narrow application *379 equitable tolling applies to statutes of limitations and not to of the equitable tolling doctrine is consistent with LUPA's jurisdictional time limits. But to determine whether a time overall purpose, which seeks to create "uniform, expedited limit is jurisdictional, we must examine the legislative intent appeal procedures and uniform criteria" for handling land as expressed in the statutory language. In re Pers. Restraint use challenges. RCW 36.70C.010. The party asserting that of Hoisington, 99 Wash.App. 423, 431, 993 P.2d 296 (2000). equitable tolling should apply bears the burden of proof. See Benyaminov v. City of Bellevue, 144 Wash.App. 755, 767, ¶ 21 For example, Hoisington found the lack of the term 183 P.3d 1127 (2008), review denied, 165 Wash.2d 1020, "jurisdiction" in controlling statutes relevant in concluding 203 P.3d 378 (2009). "The predicates for equitable tolling that the time limitation was a statute of limitations and are bad faith, deception, or false assurances by the defendant not jurisdictional. It also noted that, because "the statute and the exercise of diligence by the plaintiff" Millay v. Cam, affirmatively separated the time limitation provision from a 135 Wash.2d 193, 206, 955 P.2d 791 (1998). "Assuming that section that dealt with jurisdiction," the legislature's intent a failure to exhaust administrative remedies can be cured *378 was for the time limit to serve as a statute of limitations through the application of equity, equity cannot be invoked and not a jurisdictional limit. Hoisington, 99 Wash.App. at in the absence of bad faith on the part of the defendant and 431, 993 P.2d 296. reasonable diligence on the part of the plaintiff" Prekeges, RECEIVED 98 Wash.App. at 283, 990 P.2d 405. JUN 2 4 2015 DOC. 'Nest l rtNext U 2015 Thomson Reatterg.ait to original U.S. Government Works. 114DEX 6 CITY U commUNITY DEVELOPMENT . Nickum v. City of Bainbridge Islas ., 1 53 Wash.App. 366 (2009) 223 P.3d 1172 ¶ 30 Verizon argues that the Nickums failed to file their LUPA ¶ 25 The Nickums do not allege that Verizon engaged in action challenging * *1179 the permit issuance and the deception in gaining permit approval. In fact, their complaint SEPA exemption determination within 21 days of the permit makes clear that Verizon's application correctly stated it issuance date, thus the trial court did not have jurisdiction to would "install antennas on a new 45 foot high pole, which hear the matter. The Nickums again argue that, even if the would replace an existing 30 foot utility pole." CP at 5. 21 day filing period started to run when the permit issued, on September 14, 2007, the period should be equitably tolled due [11] ¶ 26 We hold that a mere allegation that the to lack of notice. City incorrectly applied SEPA is insufficient to toll the administrative statute of limitations. Millay, 135 Wash.2d at [13] ¶ 31 RCW 36.70C.040(3) requires a petitioner to file 206, 955 P.2d 791. To allow tolling of the administrative a LUPA action within 21 days of a "land use decision." deadline in this case would open to challenge all previous It adds that "the court may not grant review, unless the permit determinations made by the City or similar localities *381 petition is timely filed with the court and timely with "no notice" permit statutes. This would ensure that the served." RCW 36.70C.040(2). A "land use decision" is doctrine would no longer be used "sparingly." Duvall, 86 defined as "a final determination by a local jurisdiction's Wash.App. at 875, 940 P.2d 671. body or officer with the highest level of authority to make the determination, including those with authority to hear ¶ 27 The cases on which the Nickums rely are inapposite. appeals." RCW 36.70C.020(1). If a decision is not timely In both Felida Neighborhood Ass'n v. Clark County, 81 appealed, then the agency's initial decision is final. Twin Wash.App. 155, 913 P.2d 823 (1996) and Leson v. Dept Bridge Marine Park, 162 Wash.2d at 854 -55, 175 P.3d of Ecology, 59 Wash.App. 407, 799 P.2d 268 (1990) 1050. Therefore, a hearing examiner's denial of an untimely the bodies issuing the disputed permits failed to comply administrative appeal is not a land use decision for purposes with clearly applicable statutory notice requirements. Felida of the LUPA 21 day time limit and the Nickums were required NeighborhoodAss'n, 81 Wash.App. at 157, 160 -61, 913 P.2d to file their LUPA appeal within 21 days of the only final 823; Leson, 59 Wash.App. at 408 -10, 799 P.2d 268. Here, determination: the issuance of the original permit. 10 See the Nickums argue that the City failed to *380 comply with Twin Bridge Marine Park, 162 Wash.2d at 853 -55, 175 P.3d statutory notice requirements applicable to the type of permit 1050; Ward, 86 Wash.App. at 272, 936 P.2d 42. the landowners contend the City should have issued, i.e., that SEPA did apply to Verizon's request. [14] ¶ 32 The Nickums argue that the LUPA deadline may be equitably tolled and that the facts of their case warrant ¶ 28 Consequently, the Nickums failed to satisfy the standing application of the equitable tolling doctrine. The LUPA requirement of RCW 36.70C.060(2)(d) because we should deadline controls access to the trial court's jurisdiction over not excuse their failure to exhaust administrative remedies. LUPA appeals, unlike the 14 day administrative statute of Thus, the trial court correctly concluded that their LUPA limitations previously discussed with respect to standing, and, action could not continue based on equitable tolling of thus, cannot be equitably tolled. Hoisington, 99 Wash.App. the time limit for an administrative appeal to the hearing at 431, 993 P.2d 296. RCW 36.70C.040(2) clearly states that examiner. "[a] land use petition is barred, and the court may not grant review, unless the petition is timely filed with the court and D. LUPA Filing: Access to the Court's LUPA timely served." Although the statute does not use the word "jurisdiction," the legislature's use of the phrases "is barred" Jurisdiction 9 and Timeliness and "may not grant review" demonstrate the legislature's [12] ¶ 29 We separately address LUPA filing timelines intent to prevent a court from considering untimely filings. since they fall under different statutory sections, i.e., RCW 36.70C.060(2)(d) and RCW 36.70C.040(2). See Twin Bridge ¶ 33 This view is also consistent with LUPA's stated purpose: Marine Park, 162 Wash.2d at 854 n. 36, 175 P.3d 1050; Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 155 Wash.2d 397, 410 n. 8, The purpose of this chapter is to 120 P.3d 56 (2005). reform the process for judicial review RE CE IVED of land use decisions made by local jurisdictions, by establishing uniform, JUN 2 4 2015 DOG. © 2015 Thomson ear U.S. Government Works. 1 - 7 am's Nickum v. City of Bainbridge Islana, 153 Wash.App. 366 (2009) expedited appeal procedures and uniform *382 criteria for reviewing such decisions, in order to provide consistent, predictable, and timely judicial review. RCW 36.70C.010. Numerous opinions confirm that the 21 day LUPA deadline is absolute. See Habitat Watch, 155 Wash.2d at 406 -07, 120 P.3d 56; Chelan County v. Nykreim, 146 Wash.2d 904, 932 -33, 52 P.3d 1 (2002); Spice v. Pierce County, 149 Wash.App. 461, 467, 204 P.3d 254 (2009); Keep Watson Cutoff Rural v. Kittitas County, 145 Wash.App. 31, 37 -38, 184 P.3d 1278 (2008), review denied, 165 Wash.2d 1013, 199 P.3d 410 (2009). Habitat Watch, for example, states: 155 Wash.2d at 406 - 07,120 P.3d 56 (citations omitted). Keep Watson Cutoff Rural adds that LUPA "filing deadlines and service on the proper parties are jurisdictional requirements." 145 Wash.App. at 38, 184 P.3d 1278. ¶ 34 The LUPA time -of- filing requirements control access to the superior court's substantive review of any LUPA decision and the failure to timely file an appeal prevents * *1180 court access for such review; thus, the Nickums' arguments urging equitable tolling cannot be considered. Consequently, the trial court did not err in concluding that the Nickums could not avail themselves of the court's jurisdiction over LUPA actions. I t *383 E. Due Process ¶ 35 The Nickums also argue that failing to allow them to proceed with the LUPA action deprives them of due process. But LUPA time limits also apply to due process claims. Asche v. Blooinquist, 132 Wash.App. 784, 798, 133 P.3d 475 (2006), review denied, 159 Wash.2d 1005, 153 P.3d 195 (2007). Consequently, the trial court properly dismissed the action. II. ATTORNEY FEES ¶ 36 Verizon and the City both request fees under RCW 4.84.370, which provides in part: (1) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs shall be awarded to the prevailing party or substantially prevailing party on appeal before the court of appeals or the supreme court of a decision by a county, city, or town to issue, condition, or deny a ... building permit.... The court shall award and determine the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under this section if: (a) The prevailing party on appeal was the prevailing or substantially prevailing party before the county, city, or town ...; and (b) The prevailing party on appeal was the prevailing party or substantially prevailing party in all prior judicial proceedings. (2) In addition to the prevailing party under subsection (1) of this section, the county, city, or town whose decision is on appeal is considered a prevailing party if its decision is upheld at superior court and on appeal. If a party receives a building permit and the decision is affirmed by two courts, they are entitled to fees under this statute. Habitat Watch, 155 Wash.2d at 413, 120 P.3d 56. "[P]revailing party" under the statute includes circumstances in which courts dismiss a LUPA action on jurisdictional grounds. San Juan Fidalgo Holding Co. v. Skagit County, 87 Wash.App. 703, 709, 713 -15, 943 P.2d 341 (1997). Both Verizon and the City qualify as prevailing parties. Hence they are entitled to fees under RCW 4.84.370. *384 ¶ 37 We affirm the trial court's decision dismissing the Nickums' claims and award attorney fees and costs to Verizon and the City as prevailing parties in an amount to be determined by our commissioner. We concur: HOUGHTON and BRIDGEWATER, JJ. DOC. A�wal" :.i(� =� Next' © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government ie'�h:jrk 4 8 LUPA's stated purpose is "timely judicial review." It establishes a uniform 21—day deadline for appealing the final decisions of local land use authorities and is intended to prevent parties from delaying judicial review at the conclusion of the local administrative process.... [O]nce 52: L&I a party has had a chance to i5 C challenge a land use decision and CM 5 t: : exhaust all appropriate administrative ^m remedies, a land use decision becomes unreviewable by the courts if not appealed to superior court within LUPA's specified timeline. 155 Wash.2d at 406 - 07,120 P.3d 56 (citations omitted). Keep Watson Cutoff Rural adds that LUPA "filing deadlines and service on the proper parties are jurisdictional requirements." 145 Wash.App. at 38, 184 P.3d 1278. ¶ 34 The LUPA time -of- filing requirements control access to the superior court's substantive review of any LUPA decision and the failure to timely file an appeal prevents * *1180 court access for such review; thus, the Nickums' arguments urging equitable tolling cannot be considered. Consequently, the trial court did not err in concluding that the Nickums could not avail themselves of the court's jurisdiction over LUPA actions. I t *383 E. Due Process ¶ 35 The Nickums also argue that failing to allow them to proceed with the LUPA action deprives them of due process. But LUPA time limits also apply to due process claims. Asche v. Blooinquist, 132 Wash.App. 784, 798, 133 P.3d 475 (2006), review denied, 159 Wash.2d 1005, 153 P.3d 195 (2007). Consequently, the trial court properly dismissed the action. II. ATTORNEY FEES ¶ 36 Verizon and the City both request fees under RCW 4.84.370, which provides in part: (1) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs shall be awarded to the prevailing party or substantially prevailing party on appeal before the court of appeals or the supreme court of a decision by a county, city, or town to issue, condition, or deny a ... building permit.... The court shall award and determine the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under this section if: (a) The prevailing party on appeal was the prevailing or substantially prevailing party before the county, city, or town ...; and (b) The prevailing party on appeal was the prevailing party or substantially prevailing party in all prior judicial proceedings. (2) In addition to the prevailing party under subsection (1) of this section, the county, city, or town whose decision is on appeal is considered a prevailing party if its decision is upheld at superior court and on appeal. If a party receives a building permit and the decision is affirmed by two courts, they are entitled to fees under this statute. Habitat Watch, 155 Wash.2d at 413, 120 P.3d 56. "[P]revailing party" under the statute includes circumstances in which courts dismiss a LUPA action on jurisdictional grounds. San Juan Fidalgo Holding Co. v. Skagit County, 87 Wash.App. 703, 709, 713 -15, 943 P.2d 341 (1997). Both Verizon and the City qualify as prevailing parties. Hence they are entitled to fees under RCW 4.84.370. *384 ¶ 37 We affirm the trial court's decision dismissing the Nickums' claims and award attorney fees and costs to Verizon and the City as prevailing parties in an amount to be determined by our commissioner. We concur: HOUGHTON and BRIDGEWATER, JJ. DOC. A�wal" :.i(� =� Next' © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government ie'�h:jrk 4 8 Nickum v. City of Bainbridge Islaria, 153 Wash.App. 366 (2009) 223 P.3d 1172 E E Parallel Citations J' N 2011 223 P.3d 1172 arry ()t, YAKIMA c0 (Jt j 'h' OEVEI.Opmm " Footnotes 1 Chapter 36.70C RCW. 2 The parties agree the facts are not in dispute. Consequently, because this is an appeal of the trial court's grant of a motion to dismiss under CR 12(b)(6), we take the facts from the appellants' complaint and statement of the case. 3 Chapter 43.21 C RCW. 4 The landowners argue that Verizon's permit stated that it would attach the antennas to a new structure and that the City's SEPA decision was, therefore, incorrect. Under the City of Bainbridge Island Municipal Code, building and construction permits are exempt from public notice. § 2.16.085(G)(1). If SEPA applies, it requires that a "detailed statement" of the proposed action "be made available to ... the public." RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(d). But the City's determination that SEPA did not apply to Verizon's proposal exempted Verizon from the SEPA notice requirements. 5 47 U.S.C. §§ 151 -161. 6 The Nickums do not address this assertion in their reply. 7 RCW 43.21 C.060 states, in relevant part, "Except for permits and variances issued pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW, ... the decision shall be appealable to the legislative authority of the acting local governmental agency unless that legislative authority formally eliminates such appeals." 8 The standing requirement in LUPA that refers to exhaustion also requires only that the petitioner exhaust remedies "to the extent required by law." RCW 36.70C.060(2)(d). This further indicates that absolute exhaustion without excuse is not a jurisdictional requirement. Q Some Washington cases speak to the trial court lacking jurisdiction to hear untimely LUPA appeals. See, e.g., Lakeside Indus. v. Thurston County, 119 Wash.App. 886, 900, 83 P.3d 433 (2004); Overhulse Neighborhood Assn v. Thurston County, 94 Wash.App. 593, 596 -97, 599, 972 P.2d 470 (1999). Because superior courts are granted broad general jurisdiction over disputes under the Washington Constitution, article IV, section 6, a superior court has jurisdiction to determine whether a LUPA petition may go forward. See CR 1, 81; Dougherty v. Dept of Labor & Indus., 150 Wash.2d 310, 315, 76 P.3d 1183 (2003). The proper phraseology is that parties who fail to timely file a LUPA petition may not avail themselves of the superior court's jurisdiction to hear the petition and may not maintain a LUPA action in superior court. 10 We note that even had the Nickums filed their LUPA action in superior court within 21 days of the issuance of the permit, their non -SEPA related claims still would have been barred due to their failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 11 Our Supreme Court has suggested that a LUPA appeal filed within 21 days of actual notice of certain land use decisions, such as a SEPA exemption determination not requiring notice, may be timely. See Habitat Watch, 155 Wash.2d at 409 & n. 7, 120 P.3d 56. But, here, the Nickums failed to file their LUPA petition within 21 days of their actual notice of the permit; thus, we need not address this possibility. End of Document © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S Government Works, D®V. M EX # '�',",stliv,,vNext © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. �r oTJ'1 u r Petition to the Union Gospel Mission, and the Oi of Yakima We the below signed, Business Owners, Property Owners, Employees of Businesses, and Residente of Property in the area of the Union Gospel Mission do here -in request that the Union Gospel Mission abide by that agreement they signed with the Businesses in the area in 1994. That agreement was signed in good faith by the Businesses and it allowed the Union Gospel Mission to end a legal dispute, and further allowed the Mission occupy the premises on North I". We further request that the Mission and the City of Yakima work together to insure that the above listed individuals, their customers, and visitors have a safe clean access to their property. NAME BUSINESS ADDRESS �5S D Y C. 1 "` , -. lil"N Page 2 Petition to the Union 9"s el Mission, and the GO of Yakima NAME BUSINESS ADDRESS 14 to fi, rcT,..s;x; 9. t "I OOC. MDEX EXHIBIT "B" (Table 4-1, Y C 15.04.030 — Changers shown in legislative format) Table 4-1 permitted Land Uses ( "Health and Social Service Facility" Component) HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICE FACILITY _ _.._....._. ._...W_.. _m. Group Homes (six or fewer), 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adult Family Home ( *) Treatment Centers For Drug 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 and Alcohol Rehabilitation Boarding House ( *) 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 Halfway House ( *) 2 3 3 Group Homes (more than six), 3 2 2 2 3 3 Convalescent and Nursing Homes ( *) Mission �� � o� ��,� � �� �� � 2 2 2 NOTES: * Refers to definition in YMC Chapter 15.02 1 = Type (1) Permitted Home Occupation 2 = Type (2) Review and Approval by the Administrative Official Required 3 = Type (3) Review Public Hearing and Approval by the Hearing Examiner Required [ ] = Not Permitted �wr��C I t 4. y R- R- R- B- B- M- M- SR 1 2 3 1 2 HB SCC LCC AS GC CBD RD 1 2 HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICE FACILITY _ _.._....._. ._...W_.. _m. Group Homes (six or fewer), 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adult Family Home ( *) Treatment Centers For Drug 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 and Alcohol Rehabilitation Boarding House ( *) 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 Halfway House ( *) 2 3 3 Group Homes (more than six), 3 2 2 2 3 3 Convalescent and Nursing Homes ( *) Mission �� � o� ��,� � �� �� � 2 2 2 NOTES: * Refers to definition in YMC Chapter 15.02 1 = Type (1) Permitted Home Occupation 2 = Type (2) Review and Approval by the Administrative Official Required 3 = Type (3) Review Public Hearing and Approval by the Hearing Examiner Required [ ] = Not Permitted �wr��C I t 4. y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE CITY OF YAKIMA HEARING EXAMINER In Re: ) NO. APPEAL #002 -15 ) YAKIMA UNION GOSPEL MISSION ) APPELLANT'S HEARING (CL2 #004 -15, CL2 #019 -14) ) MEMORANDUM 1. Procedural Back ground: On 12/02/14, the Union Gospel Mission ( "UGM ") submitted Application CL2 #019 -14 for a proposal to pave the new parking lot of 34 parking spaces and 2 handicap parking spaces with new access off of Oak Street ( "parking lot application "). On 12/18/14, the City issued a Notice of Application but failed to comply with the notice requirements of the City Code and did not provide notice to property owners and residents within a 300 -foot radius of the subject property. Notwithstanding the failure to give appropriate notice, the City on 1/20/15 issued a Decision approving the UGM parking lot application. On 3/03/15, UGM submitted Application CL2 #004 -15 to construct a new 3,585 square foot health care clinic and a 5,688 square foot residential second floor. Notice of the application was given 3/17/15, and on 4/17/15, the City issued a Decision approving the expansion application. On 5101115, William Brado and the Yakima Gateway Organization ( "YGO ") filed an appeal of both CL2 #004 -15 and CL2 #019 -14. On 5/22/15, the City issued a Notice of Appeal and Public Hearing. On 5/28/15, the City issued a Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal purporting :o give notice o:l "Application CL2 #019 -14, establishing a comment period on the application Law Office of FLOWER & ANDREOTTI 303 East "D" Street #1 kPPELLANT'S HEARING MEMORANDUM - 1 Yakima, WA 98901 ':\ Users \Pat\Documents \PAK \pat\Pat \pleadings \brado hearing memorandum.docx Telephone: 509 - 248 -9084 �jjpp � mgr m 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ip �, terminating 16 hours before the scheduled appeal hearing on a Decision the City had Ma c ro, p 9� (4) months before giving notice of the application. 2. The Decision in File No. C1,2#0119 -14 w (parking! tea cisio � is void: The City acknowledges it failed to give notice of the UGM parking lot application as required by YMC 15.40.040(B). In Prosser Ilill Coalition ys, Spokane County, 176 Wn.App. 280, 291 -292, 309 P.3d 1 (2013), the Court held: "While the hearing examiner ruled the notice requirements were met because nothing indicated neighboring property owners were confused or did not receive notice, it is difficult to measure the impact that the faulty notice had on concerned individuals. In other words, it is difficult to prove a negative. `One purpose of specific statutory requirements for public notice of an impending land use decision is to insure that the decision makers receive enough information from those who may be affected by the action to make an intelligent decision.' Preke s vs JK in Count, 98 Wn.App. 275, 281, 990 P.2d 405 (1999). The defective notice undermines the information gathering process. "A neighboring land owner should be afforded a fair opportunity to be heard.. See, Gardner gas, fierce Cou -j1t :Bd. of Comm -Cr , 27 Wn.App. 241, 243 -244, 617 P.2d 743 (1980) (Court tolled the time period to appeal a land use decision when the lack of public notice deprived a neighboring land owner of a fair opportunity to be heard). Even applying the lesser standard of substantial compliance, `[t]he key to achieving substantial compliance with a procedural statute is satisfaction of the substance essential to the purpose of "the statute.' Fre ak, 98 Wn.App. at 280. Posting a sign contrary to the county's placement requirement and providing Notice wttli the wrong property description is not within the substantial compliance standard. "In sum, because the notice was not posted near the required street and the notice did not contain the correct property description, as required by the clear language of [the municipal code], the trial court did not err in remanding the matter to the hearing examiner." * ** INDEX Law Office of FLOWER & AMREOTTI 303 East "D" Street #1 APPELLANT'S HEARING MEMORANDUM - 2 Yakima, WA 98901 C: \Users\Pat\ Documents \PAK \pat\ Pat\ pleadings \bradohearing memorandum.docx Telephone: 509 - 248 -9084 d� ei In this case, it appears the notice given by the City of the parking lot expansion 1 2 application was given only to City departments. 3 This being the case, there was a complete failure to comply with the public notice requirements, the purpose of giving public notice was completely thwarted, and the Decision 4 approving the parking lot expansion is void. The purpose of notice requirements is to provide 5 decision makers with information rior to a decision being made 6 The City cannot bootstrap itself into compliance with the notice requirements of its own 7 Municipal Code by giving notice and an opportunity to comment four (4) months after the 8 Decision has been made. 9 The Decision in CL2 #019 -14 must be remanded to City Planning staff for processing 10 after proper notice and in compliance with the Class 3 review requirements governing UGM 11 expansion. 12 3, The Decision in CL2 #004 -15 buildin ex ansion must be reversed: 13 On 10/20/1992, the Yakima Hearing Examiner issued the Decision the appeal of the Yakima Gateway Organization of administrative approval of the Union Gospel Mission 14 application to locate at its present location on North 1St Street. 15 Substantial evidence was presented before the Hearing Examiner about the 16 incompatibility of the UGM facility with North 1 st Street businesses. In his Decision, the 17 Hearing Examiner noted: 18 "The Red Lion's experts in their judgment concluded that occupancy in the first year would decline 8 %. For many small 19 businesses, if their projection is true, that percentage is the margin 20 between survival and bankruptcy. Many of the other businesses on North 1St Street echo these arguments since they depend to a large 21 extent on spinoff of traffic generated by the motel industry. Restaurants, smaller motels, convenience stores and fast food 22 drive -ins all depend, probably to a large extent, upon business 23 spinoff from the Red Lion related facilities. Thus their concerns are heartfelt and very significant. The ti I °ors call can this could. 24 ruin their business. The have ey r ri ltt tc� be ct�n erned." (Emphasis added) (10/20/1992 Hearing Examiner Decision, INDEX 25 UAZO Appeal #3 -92, p. 25) # .- 26 27 The Hearing Examiner concluded, notwithstanding the validity of these concerns, location of the Mission at its present site was "compatible" with surrounding uses. 7_8 Law Office of FLOWER & ANDREOTTI 303 East "D" Street #1 APPELLANT'S HEARING MEMORANDUM - 3 Yakima, WA 98901 C:\ Users \Pat\Documents \PAK \pat \Pat \pleadings \brado hearing memorandum.docx Telephone: 509 - 248 -9084 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e gip i Fry °8?O i, The YGO disagreed and appealed the Hearing Examiners Decision. ),�f The appeal was resolved prior to a Court decision by the Agreement which was filed wit;l. the City August 2, 1994. The Agreement provided restrictions and limitations on Mission operations which YGO members believed would mitigate some of the adverse impacts from the Mission on their businesses and property values. The Agreement specifically provided: "These terms are in addition to those required by the City of Yakima staff and Phil Lamb, the Hearing Examiner." The terms and conditions of the Agreement must, therefore, be considered as restrictions I I binding upon both the Mission and the City. The Agreement specifically provided Class 3 review for any expansion of Mission facilities not included within a schematic attached to the Agreement. It appears the present parking lot and building expansion was not contemplated or shown in 1994 and is, therefore, subject to Class 3 rather than Class 2 review. [Agreement, Section 2(b)] Section 3 of the Agreement required the Mission to provide a restroom to the general public 24 -hours per day, 7 days per week. This restroom facility is not presently provided with resulting, anticipated adverse effects on surrounding property. Section 6 of the Agreement provided UGM would provide a reading /day room between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Clients would be allowed to stay on the UGM property as long as they adhere to UGM rules. This facility does not appear to have been maintained, if it was ever provided with the result that Mission residents and clients for other services are out on North 1St Street and surrounding areas most or all of the day. Section 10 of the Agreement provided the Mission would provide two (2) scheduled shuttles per day offering transportation for clients to designated spots in the City for a minimum of one (1) year. The shuttle service was not continued with the result that there is now a steady stream of pedestrians, clients and residents of the Mission, moving up and down North 1 st Street on both sides of the street, interfering with businesses in the area and their customers. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1.2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 12 of the Agreement provided a minimum of one (1) uniformed night securiiy guard would be provided by UGM to make hourly patrols of the property and stay in radio communication with the Yakima Police Department. This has not been done. Section 15 of the Agreement limited occupancy of the facility to 260 residents, unless otherwise reduced by the City of Yakima Fire Code provisions. It is unknown what the current number of residents of the facility is or what the total number of residents would be if the proposed expansion is approved. The total number of residents must, however, be limited to consistent with the Agreement. The result of the Settlement Agreement was withdrawal of the YGO appeal and the Hearing Examiner's 1992 Decision becoming final. Subsequently on 6/09/1995, the Hearing Examiner entered a second Decision relating to the UGM North 1St Street location for property west and south of the primary motel facility which was, at the time, zoned M1 and not considered in the 1992 Decision. The Hearing Examiner's 1995 Decision recognized and implemented the YGO — UGM Settlement Agreement by eliminating the requirement of a North 1St Street bus stop which had been included in the 1994 Decision. By acknowledging and implementing the Settlement Agreement in the 1995 Decision, Hearing Examiner recognized the Agreement as a development agreement governing future operation and expansion of UGM. The starting point of a review of an expansion of UGM facilities and operations must be compliance with the Settlement Agreement pursuant to which UGM was established at its present location. In addition, in determining whether further expansion of the UGM is compatible with surrounding uses, the experience of approximately 20 years of UGM operations must be considered. An example of the impact of UGM on property values is the former Red Lion Inn, located on Parcel No. 181313 - 11001. In 2005, the property sold for $3,911,000.00 (Excise Tax Receipt No. 374046). In 2012, the property sold at a trustee's sale following foreclosure of a Deed of Trust for $2,000,000.00 (Excise Tax Receipt No. E001954). In 2013, the property sold for $1,500,000.00 (Excise Tax Receipt No. 433294), approximately 38% of its 2005 value. Law Office of FLOWER & AMREOTTI 303 East "D" Street #1 APPELLANT'S HEARING MEMORANDUM - 5 Yakima, WA 98901 C:\ Users\ Pat\ Documents \PAK \pat\ Pat\ pleadings \bradohearing memorandum.doex Telephone: 509 - 248 -9084 am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1..2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 tl /Q'y f� Although it has taken perhaps longer than envisioned by the Hearing Examiner in 1992, r" " iv the specter of bankruptcy and falling property values from a wrong decision on compatibility appears to have come to pass. The 1994 Settlement Agreement was specifically intended to address and mitigate the compatibility problems left unresolved by the Hearing Examiner's 1992 Decision. A sLibstanti if not the majority, of problems caused by UGM's present operations for neighboring property owners is a direct result of failure by UGM to comply with the terms of the 1994 Settlement Agreement. The following- described Findings, Conclusions and portion of the Decision are erroneou and require reversal of the Decision: 1 *ink: The finding the application is subject to Class 2 is erroneous as noted above. Class 3 review is required. Fines: The 1992 Decision and the Settlement Agreement limit the total number of residents at the facility to 260. This includes not merely UGM clients, but also UGM staff residing on the premises. There must be specific evidence and a specific finding the increased residential facilities will not increase the capacity of the UGM facility to house more than 260 I residents. Findings 7 — 11: As noted above, the Decision authorizing expanded parking facilities is 'void for failure to give required notice. In addition, Finding 11 permitting use of the Oak Street access for "delivery, maintenance and operations of the Union Gospel Mission" is contrary to the Settlement Agreement. Settlement Agreement, Section 4, provides: "Access to the property, current and future, shall be restricted to the south side alley entrance designated by the Hearing Examiner. The 1St Street entrance will be for administrative and staff only, access for delivery or services to the subject property." The Agreement as written contains a typographical error. The phrase "delivery or services" was intended to be "delivery of services" and it was understood and agreed by all parties to the Agreement the only access to the UGM facility from Oak Street would be for delivery of utility services such as sewer, water and electricity. No vehicular or pedestrian access from Oak Street was to be permitted. Law Office of FLOWER & ANDREOTTI 303 East "D" Street #1 APPELLANT'S HEARING MEMORANDUM - 6 Yakima, WA 98901 C:\ Users\ Pat\ Documents \PAK \pat \Pat \pleadings \brado hearing memorandum.docx Telephone: 509 - 248 -9084 lj 01 Any approval of the additional parking must specifically prohibit any access from Oak Street. 2 L'hI 2: The recommendation that a 6-foot fence be installed along the entire length 3 of the Union Gospel Mission abutting Oak Street should be a requirement, not a 4 recommendation. 5 Conclusion : The Conclusion the proposed expansion of facilities and services is 6 "compatible with adjoining land uses" is unsupported by evidence in the record or Findings in 7 the Decision and must be reversed. 8 De L.cision Section C: For the reasons stated above, the Decision must be reversed in its 9 entirety. 10 The appropriate way to address the deficient Findings and Conclusions is to reverse and 11 remand the Decision approving the UGM expansion to Planning staff with direction that the 12 terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement governing UGM operations and expansion be 13 incorporated as specific conditions of approval of any current expansion or change in UGM facilities or operations. 14 4• Conclusion: 15 The Decision in CL2#0 19-14, the parking lot expansion, is void for lack of notice. 16 Because Application CL2#004-15 is dependent on the increased parking capacity to 17 satisfy Code requirements, any expansion of UGM facilities cannot be approved until there is a 18 valid approval of additional parking. 19 Because UGM has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the Settlement 20 Agreement, the current operations of UGM are incompatible with neighboring uses. Any 21 approval of expansion of UGM facilities and operations must be conditioned specifically on 22 compliance with all applicable terms of the Settlement Agreement. 23 DATED: June G, 2015 24 25 PATRICK ANDRE6-TTI, W§BA #7243, 26 FLOWER & ANDREOTTI, Attorney for William Brado and 27 Yakima Gateway Organization 28 DOC. INDEX Law Office of # C-- FLOWER & ANDREOTTI 303 East "D" Street #1 APPELLANT'S HEARING MEMORANDUM 7 Yakima, WA 98901 'C:\Users\Pat\Documents\PAK\pat\Pat\pleadings\brado hearing rnernorandunI Telephone: 509-248-9084 yw Po o �5 5 t, dA e 4P A CA 'ICY 'A'v D CiTy DOQ� ��. fir,. k C,\ t :q ()o CA .w A.) .o- y A cl� 7 do VY l .�o SUN 1 7 2015 DIV. DOC. INDEX —Lt —4� Ato s IC stowb 1.) 9 —09 VON) •M1,,, '7� �" ii y� y. , wwC"P yy f� Fu 5 a dew ^^y�:r4 pp v w XA , Z1,11— g �"w a J Yll Wt t A-o 01 ru � as DEPARTME 200 South Third Street Yakima, Wwhmgbm 95901 June 16, 2015 TO: Gary M. Cullier, Hearing Examiner AND TO: Patrick Andreotti, Attorney for Appellant James C. Carmody, Attorney for Applicant FROM: Mark Kunkler, Senior Assistant City Attorney a .Ir1 ,JUN 7 r OiM, SUBJECT: Appeal of CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15 — Issues Pertaining to Notice of Application and Notice of Decision Introduction. June 17, 2015 has been set for the appeal hearing of the two Class (2) land use decisions referenced above. CL2 #019 -14 (hereafter "Parking Lot ") was an application and decision concerning Union Gospel Mission's proposed construction and paving of a new parking lot on the campus of Union Gospel Mission. The Parking Lot is 13,000 square feet in area and will accommodate 34 standard parking stalls and 2 handicapped parking stalls. CL2 #004 -15 (hereafter "Clinic- Residential Second Floor ") was a separate application submitted by Union Gospel Mission seeking approval of a proposed 3,585 square foot healthcare clinic and a 5,688 square foot residential second floor on the existing campus. • " IM�r • - 0* M As described in the City's Staff Report, a Notice of Application for the Parking Lot was mailed by the City on December 18, 2014. One comment was received in response to the Notice of Application. On January 20, 2015, the City issued its decision approving the Parking Lot with conditions. On February 6, 2015, the City issued a Certificate of Zoning Review (CZR). DOCO INDEX AN, TO HEARING EXAMINER �� f ht June 17, 2015 Page 2 On March 27, 2015, the City was advised that the mailing of Notice of Application and the Decision was defective. Upon examination, the City learned that the City's automated mailing system did not generate an address for every owner of property within 300 feet of the Union Gospel Mission, although some notices were sent. Clinic - Residential Second Floor Application and Decision. Union Gospel Mission submitted this application on March 3, 2015. On March 17, 2015, the City mailed Notice of Application to owners of properties within 300 feet of Union Gospel Mission. The, Notice of Application was properly sent, and the City received four (4) comments concerning the proposal. As noted above, the City was advised on March 27, 2015 that the Notice of Application for the Parking Lot was not delivered to all owners of property within 300 feet of Union Gospel Mission. On March 30, 2015, the City issued a Stop Work Order on the Parking Lot project, which remains in effect. On April 17, 2015, the City issued its decision approving the Clinic - Residential Second Floor project. City staff decided that, because of the notice problems revealed with regard to the Parking Lot application and decision, it would maintain the Stop Work Order for the Parking Lot in effect and would consolidate the Parking Lot decision with the Clinic- Second Residential Floor decision to accommodate any appeal filed concerning either or both of the decisions. Appeals Filed. On May 1, 2015, the City received an appeal on both the Parking Lot and Clinic- Second Residential Floor decisions. The appeal contends generally that (a) the Parking Lot permit was issued without compliance with applicable notice requirements, and (b) that both permits were issued in contravention of a private Settlement Agreement executed in or about August 1994 by and between Union Gospel Mission and the "Gateway Organization," an association of neighboring property owners. On May 28, 2015, the City mailed a "Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal" to the parties of record and landowners within 300 feet of the Union Gospel Mission ( "Supplemental Notice "). The stated purpose of the Supplemental Notice was to cure the defective notice of the Parking Lot application and decision, to advise that the Parking Lot and Clinic- Second Residential Floor decisions have been consolidated for review and appeal, and that an appeal has been received regarding both applications and decisions. Persons receiving the Supplemental Notice were invited to submit comments and concerns and to attend the appeal hearing set for these consolidated matters scheduled for June 17, 2015. DOC. INDEX MEMORANDUM TO HEARING EXAMINER June 17, 2015 Page 3 �1 Discussion. A. Substantial Compliance. The City understands and respects the importance of providing notice of pending land use actions. As noted by the court in Prekeges v. King County, 98 Wash. App. 275, 280 -81, 990 P.2d 405 (1999): The key to achieving substantial compliance with a procedural statute is the satisfaction of the substance essential to the purpose of the statute. Crosby v. County of Spokane, 137 Wash.2d 296, 301, 971 P.2d 32 (1999); Allen v. Public Utility Dist. No. 1 of Thurston County, 55 Wash.2d 226, 233, 347 P.2d 539 (1959). One purpose of specific statutory requirements for public notice of an impending land use decision is to ensure that the decision makers receive enough information from those who may be affected by the action to make an intelligent decision. See Glaspey & Sons, Inc. v. Conrad, 83 Wash.2d 707, 711 -12, 521 P.2d 1173 (1974) In Gardner v. Pierce County Board of Commissioners, 27 Wash. App. 241, 243 -44, 617 P.2d 743 (1980), the court held that a neighboring landowner should be afforded a fair opportunity to be heard, and tolled the time period to appeal a land use decision when the lack of public notice deprived a neighboring landowner of a fair opportunity to be heard. See, Prosser Hill Coalition v. County of Spokane, 176 Wash. App. 280, 309 P.3d 1202 (2013). In the present appeal, the City has taken regard to the Parking Lot application landowners with an opportunity to pro% appeal. In purpose and effect, the City decision in order to provide an opportur pending appeal. action to correct the lack of proper notice with and decision so as to provide neighboring de comment and participate in the pending as itself tolled the time period to appeal such ity to provide comment and participate in the In this regard, the City has achieved substantial compliance with the procedural requirement by "satisfying the substance essential" to the purpose of the notice requirements. Crosby v. County of Spokane, 137 Wash.2d 296, 301, 971 P.2d 32 (1999); Allen v. Public Utility Dist. No. 1 of Thurston County, 55 Wash.2d 226, 233, 347 P.2d 539 (1959). The decision makers and the hearing examiner thereby will "receive enough information from those who may be affected by the action to make an intelligent decision." Prekeges v. King County, 98 Wash. App. 275, 281, 990 P.2d 405 (1999); see, Glaspey & Sons, Inc. v. Conrad, 83 Wash.2d 707, 711 -12, 521 P.2d 1173 (1974). In Prosser Hill Coalition v. County of Spokane, 176 Wash. App. 280, 291, 309 P.3d 1202 (2013), the "notice" issues included posting a notice sign in the wrong location and failing to provide a correct property description in the written notice. The court ruled that failure of the county to provide correct placement and description did not meet substantial compliance with the notice requirements: D ®C. INDEX �- `7 MEMORANDUM TO HEARING EXAMINER _ June 17, 2015 Page 4 p °y' R��ygS While the hearing examiner ruled the notice requirements were met because nothing indicated neighboring property owners were confused or did not receive notice, it is difficult to measure the impact the faulty notice had on concerned individuals. In other words, it is difficult to prove a negative. "One purpose of specific statutory requirements for public notice of an impending land use decision is to ensure that the decision makers receive enough information from those who may be affected by the action to make an intelligent decision." Prekeges v. King County, 98 Wash.App. 275, 281, 990 P.2d 405 (1999). The defective notice undermines the information - gathering process. Prosser Hill Coalition involved "defective notice" because of mistaken placement of a notice sign and an incorrect property description. This must be distinguished from the present Union Gospel Mission Parking Lot case — where the "defect" in the original notice concerns the sending of a "correct" notice to an "improper number of adjoining landowners." The City remedied the defect by (a) issuing a Stop Work Order on the Parking Lot, (b) consolidating the Parking Lot permit with the Clinic - Residential Second Floor permit for review and appeal, and (c) issuing a Supplemental Notice (to all owners within 300 feet) of the opportunity to comment and to participate in the appeal hearing. B. Consideration of LUPA. Part of the reason the City took the steps to consolidate the two permits and issue a Supplemental Notice was to address a concern under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), Chapter 36.70C RCW. In Chelan County v. Nykreim, 146 Wash.2d 904, 52 P.3d 1 (2002), the supreme court held that Chelan County was subject to the procedures and timelines of LUPA — even in a case where the County had made an error in a mistaken issuance of a land use permit. Thus, failure of a municipality to timely file a LUPA Petition — to correct its own mistake — was barred if the 21 -day filing deadline was missed. The LUPA provisions also apply to procedural mistakes and defects (including improper notice). See, Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 155 Wash.2d 397, 120 P.3d 56 (2005); Asche v. Bloomquist, 132 Wash. App. 784, 133 P.3d 475 (2006). In the Parking Lot permit, the City issued its decision on January 20, 2015 and issued the CZR on February 6, 2015. The City was not advised until March 27, 2015 that an error regarding notice had occurred. This was well after expiration of a 21 -day filing period for any LUPA Petition. When the decision and CZR were issued, the applicant acquired some right to proceed under the permit — which it voluntarily modified in order to accommodate the consolidation of the Parking Lot and Clinic - Residential Second Floor permits. I am not convinced that a municipality has an automatic right to "revoke" an issued permit if it discovers a defect in its own notice or procedure. Under Nykreim, the available "remedy" may likely, in fact, be to file a LUPA Petition. DOC. INDEX a MEMORANDUM TO HEARING EXAMINER June 17, 2015 Page 5 Conclusion. The City of Yakima has taken additional steps, with the cooperation of the Union Gospel Mission, to consolidate the two applications and permits to allow an opportunity for public comment and appeal. It has issued Supplemental Notice to invite such comment and participation. In these circumstances, we ask that the hearing examiner rule that these efforts constitute substantial compliance with the notice requirements. With regard to the challenges to the merits of the decisions as raised by Appellant, it remains the position of the City that such allegations are based on a private settlement agreement — to which the City is not a party. The City of Yakima, in these circumstances, has a duty to apply its codified development standards and is under no obligation to "enforce" the elements of a private settlement agreement. INDEX i � n u JOV � ff June 10, 2015 Rick Phillips, Executive Director Union Gospel Mission 1300 North 1St Street Yakima, WA 98901 Re. Union Gospel Mission City of Yakima Applications CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15 Dear Mr. Phillips: I am writing in behalf of the Yakima Gateway Association ( "YGO ") and its members to see if it is possible to come to an agreement that will address the concerns of YGO's members and permit Union Gospel Mission's ( "UGM ") expansion applications to proceed before the City. The YGO's concerns can be addressed by compliance with the 1994 "Settlement Agreement Re: Union Gospel Mission Relocation" ( "Agreement "). In particular: 1. Consistent with Section 2(B) of the Agreement, the current application be resubmitted to the City as Class 3 review applications, 2. Pursuant to Section 3 of the Agreement, a restroom available to the general public, 24 -hours per day, seven (7) days per week be provided at the UGM location. 3. The request for access to the UGM site from Oak Street be eliminated from the application consistent with Section 4 of the Agreement. 4. UGM provide a reading /day room consistent with Section 6 of the Agreement. 5. Consistent with Section 12 of the Agreement, a minimum of one (1) uniformed night security guard be provided by UGM to make hourly patrols and stay in radio communication with the Yakima Police Department and neighboring properties. 6. As a condition of approval of the UGM expansion application, the above items will be included in a development agreement between UGM and the City which would be enforceable by the City in the future. 30C. WDEX Rick Phillips, Executive Director Page 2 June 10, 2015 Because the City takes the position the Agreement has no effect on the City or its proceedings but is merely a private agreement between private parties (a position with which I disagree), if we are unable to come to an agreed upon resolution of the issues related to UGM's operations and its expansion, the YGO members feel they will have no alternative but to seek specific enforcement of the Agreement in an appropriate Court proceeding. If you are interested in discussing the above items as a basis for resolution of the present appeal prior to hearing, please contact me. PA:pk Sincerely, PATRICK ANDREOTTI INDEX J May 30, 2015 To whom it may concern: In 1994, I was a marketing and public relations consultant hired by the Yakima Gateway Organization (Yakima GO). As such I participated in the negotiations with the Union Gospel Mission regarding its relocation from Front Street to its current site on North First Street. I attended every official negotiation session and participated in several private and small group discussions between Yakima GO members and representatives of the mission. One of the most - important issues to Yakima GO was limiting access to the site. As a result, that topic became a major point of discussion during the negotiations. The end result was a clear agreement that access would be limited in various ways, including a stipulation that Oak Street would not become a point of ingress or egress. At the mission's request, though, it was agreed that utility easements could be accessed through Oak Street In return for the mission's agreement to this and several other conditions, Yakima GO withdrew its opposition to the relocation. Y .. Smith PO Box 2052 Yakima, WA 98907 509 - 457 -4886 IN P'EX FAX: (SM 2WOygr June go 1905 Ion lta: VASO -TXTZRPRXI! #2-95 - UNION GOSPEL KIBBION HXAMMMR - X95-5-27 Dear Chris: MY Examiner's decision is enclosed. The hearing We June 8, 199,5, s hold on Best personal regardst H-tl-- Philip A. 1,em PAL/pj I Enclosure cc: Xr. Steven Erickson w/encl. Board of County COMmissioners w/encl. OV, ouc. WDEX RECEIVED JUN 0 9 MS IBB Dr qVNR 9, 1995 W, OF ) KAMM mV. The Examiner conducted a public hearing on June 8, 1995. In addition to Mission representatives, Calvin Clark, owner of R i R Construction, and Clarence Marshall, neighborhood property owner, attended. The staff report presented by Joan Davenport recommended approval of this three pronged application. The Examiner inspected the property prior to the hearing and again after the hearing with respect to the curb cut on North 1st Street. (1) "Mission" is defined as a Class 2 use in the Light Industrial (M -1) zone; (2) This current proposal for extension of mission activities into the M -1 zone is approved, subject to several conditions; (3) This Examiner's prior decision authorizing location of the Mission on North 1st Street is modified, deleting the bus stop requirement and modifying the fencing requirement, which previously required that mission activities be confined to CBDS with the M -1 land owned by the applicant fenced from mission activities. From the view of the site, the matters contained in the official record including the staff report, a review of both the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan and the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, and from evidence received at the hearing, the Examiner makes the following: !14 Ie EXAMINER'S DECISION - F. 'X HEARING EXAM04 R FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF %WIMA POST OFFICE 60Kt YAKMA WMNK4GTOIW W907 CiOD! 2480706 !� s 6. Zr,9JJ19t VXA2XL2ttU- The staff report from the planning division provides a good historical perspective. "Mission" was established by interpretation as a Class 2 use in the CBD and CBDS zones. after that original interpretation request was submitted, it became apparent that some of the property involved was bisected by a zoning boundary with part of at least one parcel lying in the light industrial (K -1) zone. If that had been realized early on, the original interpretation request would have undoubtedly asked for similar treatment of the M -1 property. The current interpretation request is an effort to correct that original apparent oversight. If the interpretation requested is granted, the Mission has submitted a Class 2 application foF expansion of their EXAMINER'S DECISION - 2 �r ke d Pal . HEMMJG' EXAKNE C J FMO THE E= re, 6� /4 sera C OX4 YAK W, WAWNGTON 90907 (Sa ,o, 7 activities in the M -1 zone. Although Class 2 applications typically do not generate a public hearing, the planning division has forwarded it to the Examiner, as permitted under the ordinance, for a public hearing. The proceedings have been consolidated in order to provide an expedited and economical review process. A third factor deals with the original Class 2 decision authorizing mission activity at this site. The Yakima Gateway _Organization appealed the Examiner's decision to the City Council. Prior to Council action, the appeal was withdrawn as a result of a settlement agreement entered into privately between the Mission and the various members of the Gateway organization. The Class 2 decision required the fission to install a transit stop on North First Street. This was an item of concern to the opposition group. In their agreement the Mission and the Gateway organization agreed to delete the requirement for a bus stop. Their mutual conoarn was that such a stop not become a gathering place for loiterers. Furthermore, the city transit service already has a bus stop on Oak Street, adjacent this property, which provides safe and effective transit access. Since the City of Yakima is not a party to the private settlement agreement, but through its Examiner has imposed this requirement of a bus stop, both the Mission and Yakima Gateway jointly request deletion of the bus stop requirement. On a further housekeeping matter, if the Mission is allowed to expand into M -1 property, the fence required in the original decision between the CBDS and M -1 property should be deleted. 7. 'Kission" is hereby classified as a Class 2 use in the M -1 zone. The definition of Mission is as set forth in the prior Interpretation, City No. UAZO Interp #1 -92, Examiner No. I91 -5 -2, dated February 27, 1992. A review of Table 4 -1 of the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance indicates that a variety of nontraditional industrial land uses are permitted in the M -1 zone with either Class 2 or Class 2 review. This includes facilities such as churches, community centers, day care centers, half -way houses, hospitals, correction facilities, EXAMINER'S DECISION -� HEARNG EXAM{94ER D '/Q' r FOR THE . V �P CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKt"AA ��ryry� 4N E " y POST OFFICE SOX A YAKSIA. WASHM7004 48907 L5041248-07M w' /Z libraries, and schools. A mission is consistent with these types of uses. In addition, the February 27, 1992 interpretation Jr. adopted and incorporated herein by reference. • . SWO 2 .1 This proposal includes relocation of 25 parking spaces from the area south of main building complex to the M -1 zone west of the complex, approval of _a loading dock and automotive shop west of the main complex; installation of six parking spaces for other oversized vehicles, with water and sewer connections; and approval of future basketball court, open space and other play field areas in the M -1 portion of the property. A warehouse has recently been constructed in part of the K -1 property. To the extent that that facility needs Class 2 review and approval, it is clearly consistent with Mission activities, compatible with the area, and is hereby approved. It was built pursuant to a simple building permit because warehouse activities are permitted as a matter of right in the M -1 gone, regardless of the characterization of the warehouse's owner. For instance, a hotel or retail facility could build a warehouse in the X -1 zone. . The warehouse will be serviced by a loading dock, and will be adjacent to a shop which is planned to be used for maintenance and repair of Mission equipment and vehicles. No client vehicle repair is requested, and none is authorized by this decision. The shop and loading dock meet all zoning ordinance . standards for building height and setback. Six recreational vehicle parking spaces are proposed west of the southwest corner of the existing complex. These will be immediately west of the new paved parking spaces relocated from the south side of the alley. These spaces are requested in order to accommodate volunteers who volunteer their services at the Mission. Limited recreational vehicle parking, for Mission volunteers, is consistent with the scope of activities typically experienced by a mission. The Mission is not requesting, and will EXAMINER'S DECISION - 4 � MEARM EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKMA POST OPP= BOX 4 YAKMA. WASHINGTON 86807 435091246-0706 not receive, approval for a large or commercial recreational vehicle park. These parking facilities are ancillary to the mission and its activities. They will be provided with water and sewer connections, installed prir to paving the new parking lot Jumdiately east of these six spaces. The city has recommended that the RV spaces be paved. The applicant requests gravel. The zoning ordinance requires _pavement or other approved surfacing. In this instancIe, the volume of vehicle movement is expected to be very low. Gravel, and perhaps seal coating as necessary, is expected to be sufficient to control dust, and provides better accommodation for on -site storm drainage control. The RV parking area will be fenced, but need not be view obscuring. A related issue is treatment of the alley terminus, which currently ends at the west property line of R & R Construction. City recommendations suggest extension of the alley and creation of a hammerhead turnaround to accommodate emergency vehicle movements. A practical alternative is to require a turnaround area at the and of the alley to be included in the fenced area, and gravel consistent with the RV spaces. This is an industrial area. Turning movements of heavy vehicles, including fire trucks, need to be accommodated, but graveled surfaces, seal coated as necessary, should be adequate to accommodate the relatively low volume of traffic expected at this alley terminus. Resurfacing of the alley is already required pursuant to the original Class 2 decision. The other alley, on the west side of the property, running north to Oak Street, is not intended to be utilized by the mission and therefore need not be improved by the mission. 1"ae mission activities on their m -1 property will be need s the property is developed to accommodate those activities. At some point a basketball court may be developed adacent to the west alley. At that time, that portion of the mission property will be fenced with six foot high non -view ng fencing. At that time also there" stinq masonry block EXAMINER' S DECISION - ��� C. ` U/V WDEX 0 1� HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA PG6T OFFICE BOX A YAKMA. WASHINGTON 99907 15091249 -0706 �l parallel to ak Street Will be extended to the alley. Similarly, when play fields are developed on the x -1 property,, they will be appropriately fenced. Until such development occurs there (wallno fencing requirement. The- 1previously required fence to be cated on the f- 1 /CBDS zoning boundary at the rear (west side) of e existing complex is no longer required. The existing masonry on the west side is sufficient. 8.3 220 ItRa. The bus stop, Condition 3(D) of the original Class 2 decision, is hereby deleted. The existing curb cut and approach apron, located between the curb and the existing sidewalk, shall be removed and replaced with standard barrier curbing consistent with the rest of the street. 9' . This project is exempt from SEPA review under the flexible threshold for categorical exemptions established in YNC §6.88.070. Previous SEPA review was conducted on the structure and parking areas approved under the prior 1992 site plan. lo. U2 KRUM. public notice of the hearing was provided in accordance with the ordinance. From the foregoing Findings, the Examiner makes the following: 1. The Examiner has jurisdiction. 2. fission, as defined by previous interpretation, is Classified as a Class 2 use in the Light Industrial (f -1) zoning district. 3. The Class 2 application is approved subject to the following conditions: A. A total of 82 parking spaces are required, some of which may be located within the M -1 zoning district as reflected on the site plan. All 82 spaces shall be hard surfaced, with appropriate storm drainage designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EXAMINER'S DECISION - PFIVED w HEARNG EZOMWER DOC. JUN �° �, "� CRY AND COUNTY GF YAKIMA POST CFfK]E BOX � ° p N �; YAKIMA.ASHNNGION 90907 INDEX a �c " " �R 9. Six oversized parking spaces, as reflected on the site plan, shall be created for temporary recreational vehicle parking. All six spaces shall be serviced with water, sever, and electrical connections. The spaces may be graveled, and seal coated as necessary. These spaces shall-be fenced, with the fencing designed to include a turnaround at the west terminus of the east /west alley. This terminus area shall also be graveled and serve in lieu of a formal cul -de -sac or hamerhead turnaround. C. The perimeter of the Mission site under actual use shall be fenced. Future development of play fields or basketball courts will be permitted without subsequent review, all as indicated on the site plan, provided the areas are fenced with appropriate gates. D. The shop, loading dock, and warehouse are approved as shown on the site plan subject to the condition that no client vehicle maintenance or repair shall be permitted, except on an emergency basis. E. The prior Class 2 decision, dated October 19, 1992, is hereby amended to delete Condition 3(D), page 32 of that decision. The existing curb out and approach apron between the curb and existing sidewalk shall be replaced with standard barrier curb consistent with existing curbing. F. The fencing condition contained in the original Class 2 decision, Condition 3(E), is also deleted. This condition prohibited Mission use of M -1 property, and required all M -1 property to be fenced, prohibiting access from the CHDS property. Class 2 approval of proposed Mission activities on M -1 property negates the need for this prior condition. 4, A final site plan, which includes the items shown on the original site plan, the additions or modifications required by this decision, and demonstrating compliance with the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to issuance of a certificate of zoning review or building permit, pursuant to YMC 15.12.050. EXAMINER'S DECISION - 7 WDEX 13t HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POSTOFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 99907 1309) 2484706 S. This decision entities the applicant to a Certificate of Zoning Reviev, which is valid for one year from the date of issuance of the Certificate. The Certificate may be extended one time only for up to one addition; year by application prior to the termination date, all as not forth in YKC 15.12.060. DATED this _� day of June, 1995. IMP _.... Rear Examiner EXAMINER'S DECISION 8 a +� HEARING EXAMINER ° ., CITY AND CFOOUUNTYOF YAK09A �y �q POST OFFICE BOX ,9 Q & YAKW. WASHINGICN 98907 1509) 248 -0706 ���� ,mwww,eummmxuww CITY OF YAKIMA Ca-... 7, Code a dministramn .—. sus -6121 m,r......... -,_ 7.6113 DEPARTMENT OF COMMVNI'T ' & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 129 NORTH SECOND STREET CITE' HALL, YAE'IUA, 'WASHINGTON 98901 (50) 575 -6113 SCAN 2784113 FAX 575.6105 NOTIFICATION OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION copy of . Any part of the Findings o ed Hearing appeal shall be filed within, fourteen (14) 4M ecision may be appealed. mailing, of' this notice and shall be in writing, days following the date of the Planning Division. on provided by For further information or assistance you may contact Don Skone, Planning Manager, City of Yakima Planning Division located on the 2nd floor of "Yakima City Hall, (129 North Second Street), 575 -6113. Don S. Skone Planning Manager Date of mailing: 10/23/92 D00., DEX r In Re Appeal by YAKIMA GATEWAY ) ORGANIZATION OF ) ADMINISTRATI`iE APPROVAL ) OF UNION GOSPEL MISSION ) APPLICATION ) EXAMINER'S DECISION City No. UAZO CL(2)- 110 -92 UAZO APPEAL No. 3 -92 Examiner No. I91 -1 -35 This Summary of the Nearing Examiner's decision provides coMiete deteiIt of the sctusi conlciuusiom e decision, but does not include ell of the findings or reasoning, involved. You soy obtain) 6 twPtete Ems" of the decision, free of charge. M calling the City Manning oepart nt at 5?5.611 . at 575.024. Applicant: Union Gospel Mission. Type of Application: Class 2. Location: 1300 North First Street and 1220 North First Street, consisting of portions of Yakima County Assessor's Parcel Nos. 181313 -11012 and 11007. Date Decision Filed: October 200 1992 Current Land Use: Central Business District Support (CBDS) Proposed Land Use: Central Business District Support (CBDS) Current Zone: M -1 and CBDS Proposed Zone: CBDS Decision: C 11 U 1. The Examiner has jurisdiction. 2. For the reasons stated herein, the application complies with the objectives of the Urban Area Comprehensive Plann the intent of the Central Business District tupport zoning district, and the provisions of the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance. EXAMINER'S SUMMARY — 1 DOC, DE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE r CRY AND COUNTY OF YAKMA POST OFFICE SOX 4 „ m WiAYK`►+CA. WAS INGTON 98907 1506) 246 -0706 3. The apl..ication is approved, subje.:t to the following conditions: A. Eighty -two (82) parking spaces shall be required. D. A fence, consisting of a combination of solid, wall and wrought ,iron or similar material, at least 6 feet high, shall be built north of the general entrance area to the motel property, running from North First Street west to the south end of the eastern most wing of the building. C. A gate into the property should be constructed within the entrance way to the parking lot from North. First Street. D. A bus pull out shall be constructed along the frontage of North First Street, eliminating the existing small parking lot south of the entrance way. E. The M -1 property on both parcels shall not be utilized by the' Mission pending further land use approvals. The X- 1 property on both parcels shall be fenced from the CBDS property. Fencing may be of woven wire or equivalent, designed to deter physical access to the M -1 portions of the property. F. One free - standing sign shall be permitted, limited to 30 feet in height, with no readerboard. G. The alleyway between the Lewis property and the motel site shall be resurfaced pursuant to the direction of the Yakima City Engineer. -ti -_" R. The primary entrance to the Mission for Mission clients shall 'at;be located on -North -First - StreetW- 4. A final site plan, which includes the items shown on the original site plan, the additions or modifications required by this decision, and demonstrating compliance with the 'Urban Area Zoning ordinance, shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to issuance of a certificate of zoning review or building pe it, pursuant to YMC 15.12.050. S. This decision entitles the applicant to a Certificate of zoning Review, which is valid for one year from the date of issuance of the Certificate. The Certificate may be extended one time only for up to one additional year by application prior to the termination date, all as set forth in YMC 15.1.2.060. EXAMINER'S DECISION - 2 HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CRY AND COUNTY OF YAKMA "POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 98007 45091248.0706 6. Where any finding of fact, in whole or in part, can be deemed a conclusion of law, it shall. Where any conclusion of law, in whole or in part, can be deemed a finding of fact, it shall. Examiners EXAMINER'S DECISION - 3 M M �....M DOC. HEMNG EXAMINER FOR THE INDEX Grtlf POST OFFICE SOX a �~ YAKFAA. WASHNGTON 98907 a C509) 248-0706 I In Re Appeal by EXAMINER'S DECISION YAKIMA GATEWAY ) ORGANIZATION OF ) City No. UAZO CL(2)- #10 -92 ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL ) f OF UNION GOSPEL MISSION ) UAZO APPEAL No. #3 -92 APPLICATION ) Examiner No. 191 -1 -35 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF DECISION FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1. Applicant . . . . . . . . 1 2. Appellant . . . . . . . . 1 3. Location . . . . . . . . . 1 4. Application . . . . . .. 1 5. Proposed Use . . . . 0 . 1 6. Current Zoning and Use . . . . . . . 2 7. Project Description . .. . 2 8. Prior Interpretation . . 3 9. Application, Burden of Proof, and Record 7 10. Examiner's Subpoena Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 il. Constitutionl Issues . . . 10 12. Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 13. Yakiama Urban Area Zoning Ordinance . . .' 15 13.1 Present and Proposed Use Contrasted . . . . . . . . 15 13.2 Zoning Boundary . . . . . . . 15 13.3 Sitescreeninq . . . . . . . 17 13.4 Parking . . . . . . . . 0 18 13.5 Signs . . . . . . . . . 8 19 13.6 Compatibility . . . . . . 19 13.7 Property Values . . . . 0 22 13.8 Expert Evidence Concerning Property Values 23 13.9 Impact on Immediately Adjacent Properties . 27 13.10 Compatibility Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 14. State Environmental Policy Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 15. Public Notice 31 HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKMA POST OFFICE,80X 4 YAKMA. WASHINGTON 59007 45001249 -0706 C In Re Appeal by YAKIMA GATEWAY ) ORGANIZATION OF ) ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL ) OF UNION GOSPEL MISSION ) APPLICATION ) ) EXAMINER'S DECISION City No. UAZO CL(2)- f10 -92 UAZO APPEAL No. f 3 -92 Examiner No. I91 -1 -35 The Examiner conducted a public hearing on September 14, 15, and 22, 1992, with closing arguments by counsel on September 23, 1992. The staff report presented by Ks. Joan Davenport recommended approval, subject to a number of conditions. The Class 2 decision by Administrative Official Robert Shampine granted approval subject to a number of conditions. b/ T hat :determination was appealed, resulting a de novo pui µ e m iner. tae Exam r ins p ected th-6 --p -ro rty - andr" sur � �rg '--n—elg-bborhood, including the present Mission location and surrounding neighborhood, several times. 8U DECIS The Class 2 application is approved. From the view of the site, the matters contained in the official record including the staff report, a review of both the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan and the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, and from evidence received at the hearing, the Examiner makes the following: EI 'D NGS 1. g l cant. Union Gospel Mission. 2. Appellant. Yakima Gateway Organization 3. kocat , 1300 North First Street and 1220 North First Street, consisting of portions of Yakima County Assessor s Parcel Nos. 181313 -11012 and 11007. 4. .. •w OROSO u Class 2. Mission. HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CRY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 99907 15091245 -0706 Z 6. ur The subjtct property is zoned Central Business District Support (CBDS). It is presently developed as a 76 -room motel, operating as Yakima Inn, including a restaurant and meeting room facilities. Seventy -six (76) parking spaces exist on the motel property, all of which are paved and striped. The application also, includes the Lewis Construction property, which has 31 existing parking spaces and a contractor's office. The surrounding property is generally zoned CBDS, except that property to the west, behind this site, is zoned Light Industrial and consists of a construction yard and vacant field. Directly north of the Yakima Inn, across Oak Street, is the Settlers Inn, a restaurant. South of the Lewis Construction site, on the west side of North First Street, is an area of mixed retail uses, including a windshield repair and auto detailing facility, and a bottling and distribution facility. Across North First Street, which is a four -lane arterial, on the east side is a vacant service station (Kelly Oil), the Red Lion Motel about a block to the north, and north of that is the Trailer Village Mobile Home i RV Park, a small parcel with approximately 44 mobile home and camper units. North of that is a large vacant parcel beyond which is Bekin's Moving and Storage and Safeway Trucking. Beyond that is the intersection with I -82. Property one street east of North First Street consists of very modest residential and multiple family housing on the east side of Second Street. Directly north and west of Settlers Inn is an area of very modest single family housing, apartments, and a large mobile home and trailer park, together with three motels north of the Yakima Inn on the west side of North First Street. 7. Iloject pescri2tion. The Union Gospel Mission wants to relocate to this facility, converting the existing / 76_r:oom motel complex to the following uses: 31 family ud'ts, housing approximately 93 people; 3 dorm units for single women, housing EXAMINER'S DECISION — 2 HEARING EXAMINER FORTHE CRY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 INDEX YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 96907 (509) 246 -0706 . approximately 15 and 31 do :, units and single rooms for single P, men, housing approximately 1m0 �l�r Also planned are areas for chapel services and group meetings. Portions of the existing structure will be remodeled to accommodate reading rooms, showers, restaurants, dormitories and chapels. Approximately 11,825 square feet of new construction area will be added to the interior of the motel to accommodate additional facilities. This will result in the loss of 25 parking spaces from the motel site, leaving 51 parking spaces on the motel property and 31 at the adjacent Lewis Construction site, for a total of 82. The existing Lewis Construction Company building is planned to be used for ministry offices and food storage. Mission clients have disparate ethnic, religious, educational, and income backgrounds. They include all ages and both sexes. Women and their children make up the fastest growing portion of the homeless and constitute approximately 40 percent of those individuals in shelters. Approximately 23 percent of Mission clients are employed, 30 to 40 percent are alcoholic, and 13 to 25 percent are substance abusers. (See Ex. UGM -10, Union Gospel Mission national statistics). S. Prior _ laterDretation. In December, 1991, a Yakima businessman, concerned about potential relocation of the Mission adjacent to his business, requested a Use Interpretation clarifying the actual use which the Union Gospel Mission should be classified under the Zoning Ordinance. Prior analysis of the Mission's attempt to relocate had treated it as a "community center ", a Class 1 use in the CBD and CBDS zones. Class 1 uses do not receive any public review and do not allow an opportunity for public input. Pursuant to that request, submitted and processed in accordance' with YMC Chapter 15.22 dealing with Interpretations, this Examiner conducted a public hearing and issued an Interpretation dated February 27, 1992. In that Interpretation, the activities of the Union Gospel Mission were defined as a "mission ", and categorized as a Class 2 use in the Central Business District (CBD) and Central Business District Support zones. Class- EXAMINER'S DECISION - 3 D lNbgX HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKMA �& POST OFFICt SOX 4 YAKMA. WASHINGTON 98907 (5091246 -0706 uses allow an opportunity for public inpit prior to a fin decision. Mission was defined as: A facility typically owned or operated by a public agency or non - profit corporation, providing a variety, of services for the disadvantaged, typically including but not limited to temporary housing for the homeless, dining facilities, health and counseling activities, whether or not of a spiritual nature, with such services being generally provided to the* community at large. Interpretation, ZOA Interp. 1 -92, Examiner No. I92 -5 -2, page 1. This Interpretation was appealed to the Yakima City Council by the Union Gospel Mission. The Yakima City Council, with one member recusing himself due to concern for the appearance of fairness doctrine, split 3 -3 on separate motions. The motions were alternative to either uphold or reverse the Interpretation. With a split decision, the Examiner's Interpretation became a final decision when the Yakima City Council's action on the appeal was not timely appealed to Superior Court. That Interpretation is now the law of the case. By its terms, the Interpretation does not allow the Mission to be located in any zones within the Yakima jjrbAn_ArgA exce t those esignat+ed o BDS. ... Reference to the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Map,* xhibit 42, indicates that the CBD zone is generally located in the downtown central business district in an area roughly bounded by Lincoln Avenue on the north, Walnut Street on the south, Naches Avenue 'on the east, and 9th Avenue on the west. The CBDS zone is a strip which basically parallels First Street to the north and south of the central business district. It is typically, but not always, about one block wide on each side of North First Street. North of the Central Business District the CBDS zone extends to the intersection with I -82, and is typically one block deep on the west side of North First Street, and half a EXAMINER'S DECISION - 4 'HEARING EXAM94ER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKtAA. WASHINGTON 98907 I5091 248.0706 I,INDEX block to one block deep on the east side of North First Street. In the vicinity of this project, the zone is one block deep, to the east and west, on both sides of North First Street. This CBDS zone also extend.& approximately one block deep on both sides of East Yakima Avenue, from the east side of the central business district east to the intersection with I -82. First Street and Yakima Avenue are the primary perpendicular arterials servicing the central business district, with each being connected with full intersections to I -82. Prior to development of the freeway system, both arterials served as the major through - streets connecting Yakima with other communities. Accordingly, they exhibit the strip commercial development typically associated with major business access points for an urban area. This includes a variety of retail, service, and industrial businesses, including motels, hotels, and restaurants, together with car dealerships, convenience stores, fast food facilities, and service stations. is y .d.�ef.�i._ni' tio Interpretation _ .....__. .,..M..,.. does o allow location of Msion in the other within the Urb an Area. is Mission is not permitted to to Accordingly, the p Cate in the following zones: Suburban Residential, Single - Family Residential, Two- Family Residential, Multi- Family Residential, Professional Business, Local Business, Historical Bu siness, Small / C onvenience Center, Large Convenience Center, (1 i 9 ht Industrial' or Heavy Industrial zones. The zoning ordinance creates three classes of use which are permitted in each zone under varying levels of review. Class 1 uses are permitted outright, with no opportunity for public comment. Class 2 and Class 3 uses may be approved only after an opportunity for public input. Class 2 uses are generally dealt with administratively, with a written request for input from the neighborhood before a final decision is issued. Class 2 uses may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner fora de novo public hearing, as occurred here. Class 3 uses all receive a public hearing by the Hearing Examiner before a decision is made. Both Class 2 and Class 3 decisions may be appealed to the Yakima City Council. See, EXAMINER'S DECISION - 5 DOC. INDEX 6s HEARING EXAMINER' FOR THE CRY AND COUNTY OF YAKMA POST OFFICE BOX A YAKMA. WASHINGTON 999C (509) 2A"706 generally, YMC Chapters 15.04, 15.13, 15.14, and 15.15. A Class 2 use is defined as: ...generally permitted in the district. However, the compatibility between a Class 2 use and the surrounding environment cannot be determined in advance and occasionally a Class 2 use may be incompatible at a particular location. Therefore, Class 2 review by the Administrative Official is required in order to promote compatibility with the intent and character of the District and the objectives and development criteria of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan. The Administrative Official may approve, deny, or impose conditions on the proposed use and site improvements. YMC 15.04.020(2). Other uses permitted in the CBD and CBDS zones are set forth in YMC Chapter 15.04, Table 4 -1, Table of Permitted Land Uses. A comparison of these uses, and the circumstances under which they are permitted, provides a threshold basis for determining the types of uses considered appropriate and compatible in the CBDS zone. It also illustrates the types of activities which may create adverse impacts on adjacent uses. Class 1 uses, permitted outright in the CBDS zone, include community center meeting halls, convalescent and group homes, daycare centers of any size, and practically any retail trade or service activity, including taverns and liquor stores. Class 2 uses permitted in both the CBD and CBDS zones include parks, vocational schools, and planned residential developments of any dwelling unit density per acre. Class 2 uses which are permitted in the CBDS zone, but not permitted in any event in the CBD zone, include campgrounds, drive -in theaters, game rooms and card rooms, a variety of manufacturing facilities, boarding houses, and retirement homes. Class 3 uses are those uses which are generally not permitted in a zone, but on occasion may be determined compatible after a public hearing is conducted by the Hearing Examiner. YMC 15.04.020(3). Class 3 uses in the CBDS zone, according to Table 4- EXAMINER'S DECISION - 6 INDEXi. HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKMA. WASHINGTON 98907 1$09) 248-0706 r 1, include convalescent or nursing home and group domes, detention centers, halfway houses, hospitals, junior or community colleges, primary and elementary schools, junior and senior high schools, and a variety of manufacturing activities. Multi - Family Dwellings, from zero to over eighteen dwell1bg units per net residential acre, are permitted as a Class 3 use in CBDS. 91 A gi cati o o o . This application meets the requirements for Class 2 review, pursuant to YMC Chapter 15.14. It was accompanied by the appropriate supporting documentation including a general site plan complying with YMC Section 15.11.040. During the course of the hearing, additional information and maps were received further clarifying the scope and extent of the application, and providing an adequate basis for all parties and interested individuals to understand the nature and scope of the application and its impact upon the neighborhood. Class 2 uses are generally permitted in the district. YMC 15.04.020(2). Accordingly, the applicant receives the benefit of a rebuttable presumption that the proposed use is appropriate within this zone. The application, however, is subject to Class 2 review and as set forth in the above -cited section may be incompatible at a particular location. That administrative determination may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner pursuant to YMC 15.14.070. Appeals are handled under YMC Chapter 15.16. Class 2 appeals are de Bovo and subject to public hearing by the Examiner. YMC 15.16.030. The Examiner's decision is final, and may be appealed to the Yakima City Counsel pursuant to YMC 15.16.040 St seq. The burden of proof is on the applicant in any land use proceeding to demonstrate that the application complies with the zoning ordinance and related land use regulations. Appeal of a Class 2 decision does not shift the burden of proof from the applicant. It does, however, shift to the appellant the burden of coming forward with evidence to demonstrate the project is EXAMINER'S DECISION - 7 'DOC. INDEX HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE SOX 4 YAKMA. WASHINGTON 9990' (509)249 -0706 CITY OF YAKIMA Cable TV . ........................ — 575 -6092 Code Administration........_. 5'75 -6121 Housing .... ............................ 575 -6101 Planning .............................. 575 -6113 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 129 NORTH SECOND STREET CITY HALL, YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98901 (509) 575 -6113 SCAN 278 -6113 FAX 575 -6105 NOTIFICATION OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION On February 27, 1992, the Yakima Hearing Examiner rendered his decision on the use interpretation concerning the Union Gospel Mission, UAZO Interp. #1 -92. The request was reviewed at a public hearing held by the Hearing Examiner on February 13, 1992. A copy of the Hearing Examiner's Findings and decision is enclosed. Any part of the Hearing Examiner's decision may be appealed. Such appeal shall be filed within fourteen (14) days following the date of mailing of this notice and shall be in writing on forms provided by the Planning Division. For further information or assistance you may contact Joan Davenport, Supervising Associate Planner, City of Yakima Planning Division located on the 2nd floor of Yakima City Hall, (129 North Second Street), 575 -6164. Don S. Skone Planning Manager Date of mailing: 2/28/92 DOC. WEX Facilities for public trans" uch as a bus pull-out would assist in pedPr' "in use of the site. Balance must be given to providing a public transit, with the concern abOL Ti clients congregating to wait for the bus. 4 1. A Class (2) use is a generally permitted use throughout a zoning district. 2. The Administrative Official has jurisdiction. 3. The property is physically suitable for use as a Mission or any other use permitted in the CBDS District. 4. All necessary Urban services are available to the subject property. 5. This is a necessary public human services facility. 6. The application complies with the objectives of the Urban Area Comprehensive Plan and the provisions of the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance. 7. There were no specific factual circumstances submitted in evidence which would establish any negative impacts on surrounding properties. Pursuant f r Q of Eact. Qther consideratim. r the UO&I-QUIX V. i__JQD al 1 I 1. A revised site plan be submitted which identifies the following changes and !terns: (a) A day use area is to be provided within the facility and clients encouraged to utilize this area, rather than the appearance of loitering outside the structure. The Mission staff will be actively involved in monitoring such activities. (b) A solid, view obscuring wall is to be completed around the perimeter of the site, including the northern property tine with the vacant lot at Oak Street and First Street. Provide landscaping along the wall along First 'Street. (c) A gate into the property to be constructed within the entranceway to the parking lot. (d) A bus pull -out is to be constructed along the frontage of North First Street. This pull' -out is to be constructed in the small parking lot near the entrance of the restaurant. Other locations would be considered, subject to the approval of the Transit Division. (e) One freestanding sign will be permitted, with no readerboard. (f) Shaw the location of 82 parking stalls. 2. No use of the M -1 property will be allowed without clarification of the use by the Mission in that zoning district. 3. The applicant will be required to resurface the frontage of the alleyway (between the *Lewis' property and the motel site), to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This decision is final unless appealed to the Hearing Examiner within fourteen (14) days in accordance with Section 15.16.030, Yakima Municipal Code. Entered this 10th day of July, 1992, pursuant to the authority granted under Section 15.14.050, YMC ROBERT D. AMPINE Administrative Official DOC. H 1 . #Vhile some of the owners or representatives of business in the area claim this problem, -no factual evidence (see prior definition) has been submitted for review by the staff to this effect. If factual evidence had been available, it would have 3 been considered. 2, he subject property has been for sale for a period of time. Protection of the market from new competition or regulation of the market to prevent the private sale of a property is not a function of a Class (2) Review and therefore will not be considered. 3. . No factual evidence (see prior definition) has been submitted to support this claim. If such evidence had been submitted it would have been considered. The current location of the mission is very near to the Front Street Historic District and Track 29 which does not appear to have suffered from the proximity of the Mission. 4 �d r�„While it is true that the current Mission location on Front Street is often characterized by public loitering, one of the stated purposes of the Mission relocation is to provide for a day use area for clientele. The current site is too small, as stated by the applicant to accommodate this day use. Site plan design should be encouraged to limit the areas of loitering in the new location. Mitigation measures to address this are included in the Final Decision. 5. • Barge Lincoln Elementary School is approximately one -half mile from the subject site. Apparently the concern is that some homeless persons may harass school children. At least one letter was submitted by a teacher which stated she did not expect negative conflicts for school children as a result of this application. Again, no factual evidence (see prior definition) was submitted to support the claim that a threat would occur to school children with the application. If such evidence had been submitted it would have been considered. 6. 1pereasg ing ' in it ° Police and fire incident reports over the last two years were gathered from the City police department for both the current location of the Mission and at the proposed location (previously know as Nendels). Data was compiled which did not Include Fire incident responses to the Nendel's property (therefore the data is incomplete). However, In summary from the available information more calls were made to the Nendels business than the fission during the two year period (63 calls to Nendels, not including EMS calls and 53 calls to the Mission, which included EMS calls). Although the EMS data is incomplete, given the available information, and in consultation with the Yakima Police Department, it is reasonable to assume that the Mission would not have more calls than the current operation. 7. Not QQmpalible i ni As noted earlier, the Visioning report is useful in identifying community goals and issues. The Visioning Report supports both the human service element of this proposal and commercial element. It is not particularly helpful in making site specific locations, 8. Jbg MiUl rga; The motel building is now in reasonable repair (from exterior appearances) and generally well -kept. The Mission states an intention to maintain the quality appearance of the structure. Citizen preference is one of the major criteria that must be considered when determining the compatibility of a proposed use with its neighbors. Written comments regarding this application have been heavy, with comments of both support and opposition totalling over 800 letters. Issues raised in the letters point out that the mission is a community support facility (not unlike a park, school, wastewater treatment plant, landfill or jail). While these necessary community uses may be "Locally Unwanted Land Uses" (LULU'S) by some of the adjoining property owners, the siting of these facilities is difficult and decision- making must be objective. This location within the CBDS is considered appropriate for this use, with site consideration. Concerns of adjoining property owners can be addressed with site considerations, to facilitate visual compatibility. Sitescreening is required and landscaping of street frontages will be recommended. Limitation of signage would also contribute to compatibility in the district. Removal of the readerboard sign may reduce concems of local property owners. The site has two freestanding signs. The UAO allows for one freestanding sign per street frontage. The site has frontage on both Oak Street and First Street. However, both signs are on First Street. Removal of one of the signs would also contribute compatibility in the CBDS district. 00C. the Yakima Urban Area pr- hensive Plan. The proposed location highway commercial area is found to be compatible t, jitended uses of the Mission, which a, pa Aly meals and temporary t. lodging. Objective II of the Urban Area Plan is to assure that future land use controls respond to rather than attempt 2 to direct market demand by providing a degree of predictability to land use decisions while retaining I i . r n (Page 2 OLU Urban Area Zoning Comprehensive Plan). The Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan and Visioning 2010 Report support the need for alternative mousing approaches to address special housing needs. The Plan also presents strong language regarding retention of commercial areas. No factual evidence has been submitted to support the claim that the location of the mission, in this site would be detrimental to other businesses. After considering any comments received from other agencies, jurisdiction, or adjoining property owners, the administrative official shall take on or more of the following actions: a. Approve the site plan and issue a certificate of zoning review; b. Establish conditions for approval., or require other changes in the proposed site plan; c. Authorize ,adjustment in the basic design standards in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 15.10; d. Request additional or more detailed information including but not limited to a written program for development; e. Refer the site plan to the hearing examiner for review, public hearing and decision; or, f. Disapprove the site plan. (15.14.040.3 Y.M.C.) 0 d CQMPBEHENSIVE . PLAN The Union Gospel Mission provides a community service which serves the entire Yakima Valley. As a regional, community service the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan does not provide specific guidance related to the location of these uses. V19IQNIN 200 The Growth Planning element of Vision 2010 Report recognizes the need for the location of public lacilities. The Visioning Report also recognizes and encourages development which supports Yakima as the financial, commercial, cultural, retail and medical center of all of Central Washington, The Humanity and Family element supports the provision of Human Services which help families establish or re- establish self - dependent lilestyfes, and the delivery of these services must be culturally sensitive. In short, the Visioning report supports the human service element of the Union Gospel Mission, while also noting community values of retaining vibrant commercial service areas. Visioning is not particular helpful in making specific siting decision, but is a guide to community issues and preferences. URBAMAR The use interpretation issued by the Fearing Examiner created the Class 2 codification for the Mission. Class 2 uses are defined as those "generally permitted" throughout a zoning district, but for which site plan review is necessary by the administrative official to determine the compatibility of the use. The existing use of the subject property is for temporary housing, restaurant services, night club and meeting room facilities. The proposed use will continue all of the existing uses as presently exist on site, except for the night club. In fact, the no- alcohol or drug use is a basic tenet of the Union Gospel Mission operation. The important point here is that the proposed use is very similar in character and operation to the existing use. Some distinctions remain between the existing and proposed uses, such as: 1. No night club(dances/band, alcohol, late -night traffic, etc); 2. The clientele of the Mission will not pay a fee for lodging and meals; 3. Many of the clientele of the Mission wilt not own a vehicle; 4. The Union Gospel Mission offers spiritual counseling and other services which would assist the homeless or troubled population. P_QMP I ILITY The primary purpose of the Class 2 Review by the Administrative Official is to assess the compatibility of the proposal to the site environment. The discussion of compatibility in the proposed location is the primary argument cited in letters opposing this application. At the time of writing, 329 letters have been received in opposition and 457 In favor. Below is a listing of significant issues raised In writing by the public in opposition to this proposal and information related to those issues. INDEX 0I..I..Y OF YAKIMA %-ame 1 V .............................. X75 -6092 Code Administration.......... 575 -6121 Housing. ............................... 575 -6101 Planning .............................. 575 -6113 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 129 NORTH SECOND STREET CITY HALL, YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98901 (509) 575 -6113 SCAN 278 -6113 FAX 575 -6105 FINAL FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL In the Matter of Application of ) the Union Gospel Mission ) File No. UA20 CL 2 110-92 for a Class (2) Use In the ) ( ) Central Business District ) Support District Section 1 .02.202 Y.M.C. refers to Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1983 for definitions not defined in Chapter 15.02 Y.M.C. Factual Is defined as "restricted to or based on tact," Evidence is defined as "something that furnishes proof" or "something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter." The Union Gospel Mission proposes to relocate from its present location to a location currently being used as a motel, restaurant„ night club and meeting facility at 1300 No. 1st St. The missions purpose Is to provide food and longing for homeless persons along with ministry, counseling, and related services. ZONING AND LAND USE The subject property is zoned CBDS (Central Business District Support District). Adjacent properties have the following characteristics: North across Oak St ZONING CBDS 1 Restaurant East across 1 st St CBDS Mixed Retail - (Vacant Service Station, Restaurant) South CBDS Contractor's office (for sale) West M -1 Construction yard (vacant field) «.fir, i 11 . • . . .r. � � � 11 da .A DATED this 19th day of October, 1992. PHILIP A. LAMB nearing Examiner EXAMINER'S; D}ECISION - 33 WDEX HEARING EXMINEII FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAK04A POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKK& WASHINGTON 86907 1509/ 24"706 property, running from North First Street west to the south end of the eastern . most wing of the building. C. A gate into the property should be constructed within the 'entrance way to the parking lot from North First Street. D. A bus pull out shall be constructed along the frontage of North First Street, eliminating the existing small parking lot south of the entrance way. E. The M-1 property on both parcels shall not be utilized by ike--Wiss_i_o`npending further land use approvals. The M- - — ---------------- - 1 property on both pa"rcelsha�--Sifenced from the CBDS property. Fencing may be of woven wire or equivalent, designed to deter physical access to the M-1 portions of the property. F. one free-standing sign shall be permitted, limited to 30 feet in height, with no readerboard. G. The alleyway between the Lewis property and the motel site shall be resurfaced pursuant to the direction of the Yakima City Engineer. X18. The primary entrance to the Mission for Mission clients shall not be located on North First Street. 4. A final site plan, which includes the items shown on the original site plan, the additions or modifications required by this decision, and demonstrating compliance with the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to issuance of a certificate of zoning review or building permit, pursuant to YMC 15.12.050. S. This decision entitles the applicant to a Certificate of Zoning Review, which is valid for one year from the date of The. Certj Acj' A is,suance of the Certificate. e pay_b one �p exten, e time only for up to one additional year by application prior to the termination date, all as set forth in YMC 15.12.060. 6. where any finding of fact, in whole or in part, can be deemed a conclusion of law, it shall. Where any conclusion of law, in whole or in part, can be deemed a finding of fact, it shall. EXAMINER'S DECISION - 32 D()C. INDEX HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CRY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248-0706 review of all of the evidence, which after careful evaluation clearly establishes that the Mission has met its burden of demonstrating compatibility and compliance with applicable land use regulations. - 14. fitate Epyl,lonmentgI o c . The City of Yakima determined that this proposal is categorically exempt from SEPA Review pursuant to WAC 197 -11 -800 and YMC 6.88 dealing, with categorical exemptions. The SEPA threshold in the CBDS district is 12,000 sq. ft. of floor area and 40 parking spaces. New construction included in this proposal is less than 12,000 sq. ft. and the use is similar to the existing use of the structure. New parking areas are. not planned; however, 25 spaces will be converted to building area on the motel property, with other spaces added to the south. The total is less than 40 new parking spaces. This SEPA determination did not include new construction or development in the M -1 zoning district, which is not part of this application, nor possible building expansion on the Lewis property, all of which may require future SEPA Review. 15. Nblig X2t Public notice of the hearing was provided in accordance with the ordinance. From the foregoing Findings, the Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS 1. The Examiner has jurisdiction. 2. For the reasons stated herein, the application complies with the objectives of the Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, the intent of the Central Business District Support zoning district, and the provisions of the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance. 3. The application is approved, subject to the following conditions: A. Eighty -two (82) parking spaces shall be required. B. A fence, consisting of a combination of solid wall and wrought iron or similar material, at least 6 feet high, shall be built north of the general entrance area to the motel EXAMINER'S DECISION - 31 INDEX � � HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CRY AND COUNTY OF YAKIIMA POST OFFICE SOX 4 YAKMA. WASHINGTON 90007 4509) 2AG -0706 economic impact are completely true, thib project is still appropriate for the North First Street area. "he zoning ordinance recognizes that the Mission has a right to exist in this community, but that that right to exist is limited to two zones, the Central Business District and Central Business District Support zones. Anywhere, the Mission would propose to go in that area, with perhaps the exception of its presently owned properties, would in all probability generate considerable public concern and opposition. It is entirely rational for the City to limit the Mission to those business zones where the public infrastructure is in place and where a high level of public services are available to respond to real or perceived impacts of t his activ one of the objectives of these land use regulations is to supplement and not replace the market. If the Mission can buy, and someone is willing to sell, property in an appropriate zone, particularly where the number of zones is so closely proscribed, it is the function of the regulators to closely analyze the prospective impacts of the activity, and attempt to mitigate those impacts without substituting in its entirety their judgment for that of the marketplace. The specifics of this proposal deal rationally and comprehensively with the perceived problems created by a mission. The expanded facilities will in large part service the fastest growing component of Mission clientele, which are women and children. This component of the Mission's clientele are not perceived, based on the evidence in this record, to present a problem or threat to the neighborhood. To the extent that the Mission services become more family oriented, and are provided in a facility well designed to serve the Mission's needs, the possible inappropriate behavior of others will be lessened and it will be easier for the Mission to deal with the inevitable problems which will on occasion present themselves. This proposal, as conditioned below, complies with both the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance. This is based upon a EXAMINER'S DECISION - 30 HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 INDEX YAKNA. WASHWGTON 98907 1509) 24BO706 nearby, and is typically associated with more intense development of property. The Mission project is very well designed, but it is impossible to guarantee that all adverse impacts will be eliminated. It is not the function of this zoning ordinance to eliminate all adverse impacts, but to attempt to identify them, minimize and mitigate them, and locate uses in areas best suited to deal with the consequences. This is such an area, notwithstanding the legitimate concerns of the Lariat drive -in owners. The owner of an RV park to the northwest, and several residential residents on North Second Street and northwest of the subject property support this proposal as a significant improvement to the area. 13.10 iary. The Comprehensive Plan's compatibility criteria listed above in Section 12 identify six items for consideration. One of these items is citizen preference. One of the items is economic value, concerning the impact on adjacent property values. All of the other criteria, dealing with traffic, pollution, light and residential density, are satisfied by this project. If a vote were taken, citizen preference would approve the Mission at this location. Much of the community support is because the Mission is a solid well -run organization which the general public believes should be allowed to relocate and expand its services to the community. Many of the letters in support are from people outside the immediate area who will not be affected by this proposal. The immediate neighbors, however, have clearly identified issues of significant concern, and have identified potential problems with pedestrians and the impact on property values. Only the future will provide a definitive answer. Even if the opposition assumptions are only partly correct, this project could have a significant adverse impact upon the area. Assuming for the sake of this analysis that the expert projections of adverse EXAMINER'S DECISION - 29 Do � NEARING EXAMINER INDEX FOR THE CRY AND COUNTY OF YAKMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248 -0706 Their access and daily activities will be most affected by this project. It is likely that daily construction related activity will need to be conducted with more regard for pedestrians in the area, and perhaps with more control devoted to limiting pedestrian access to R & R property. There may also be an adverse impact upon'R & R property values. In part, this will probably be attributable to their lack of direct access to the street. The proximity of almost any other use, particularly with more intensive daylight activities then experienced with the motel, will aggravate the already limited access. This would be true for practically any activity permitted in this zone, located next to the R & R property. A high degree of cooperation will be required between the Mission and R & R Construction to identify and attempt to reduce problems of coexistence. Any anticipated adverse impacts are not sufficient to deny this application. Directly across from the project property- is the abandoned Kelly Oil Station. This has an abandoned building and pumping facility, numerous weeds and overgrowth, and piles of rubble. The area is a detriment to North First Street generally, and may well serve as a congregating point for individuals not being served by the Mission. It is a community problem and needs to be cleaned up, which would reduce adverse impacts on the Mission as well as other properties in the area. Directly south of the abandoned oil station is the Palomino Motel, with truck parking in the rear, followed by the burned out Phoenix Restaurant. The Lariat drive -in is next. It is very well maintained, with an attractive outdoor seating area. The Lariat and R & R Construction are probably the two businesses which will be most directly affected in an adverse way by this project, This decision puts an added and unwelcome burden on both property owners to work with the Mission to minimize its potential adverse impacts. Problems with loitering on the Lariat property may well increase, thus requiring additional police patrols and activity in the area. The same problem could be created if a park or school were located EXAMINER'S DECISION - 28 - DOC. HEARING EXAMINER fOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIAA POST OFFICE BOX s YAKMA. WASHINGTON 99907 11a� 45091246 -0706 neighborhoods are typically the most sensitive to fluctuations in value due to incompatible neighboring land uses. This is the position taken by the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance which provides the highest level of protection to the Single - Family Residential zone, with decreasing levels of protion accorded to less residential and more commercial zonest It is, therefore., reasonable to conclude that a properly designed and managed Mission', will have less impact upon a commercial area's market values than a group home in a single - family residential neighborhood. ee p c aracteristics of Nor I rst Street also affect this finding. There are a number of vacant parcels on North First Street in the immediate vicinity of this proposal. A large number of other parcels are somewhat developed, but in many respects are under developed. Immediately north of the Red Lion ,is an extremely modest trailer park with over 40 units on a very small parcel. Many of these units, by exterior physical inspection, would not comply with existing ordinances and building codes concerning single - family residences, whether or not located in a mobile home, RV Park, or on individual parcels. Directly north of that trailer park is a large open area which is completely vacant. A distance south of the Red Lion on the east side of North First Street, is the abandoned Kelly Oil Station and the burned out Phoenix Restaurant, 1Zoth of which have been vacant for several years. North First Street, because of the amount of vacant as well as under developed land, has significant potential for future development which hopefully will enhance the entire neighborhood, including the Red Lion. Development on North First Street has not yet begun to realize its potential. When it does so, it is quite likely that the Mission at that point would be unable to afford this property. 13.9 1MRagt on rimediately Ate, c$ t ]!XopAftLept R& R Construction, with its shop building and construction yard, is located immediately west of the Lewis parcel, with its only access through the alley between the Lewis parcel and the motel property. EXAMINER'S DECISION - 27 p� HEAR MEXAMNER THE NDEX } CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKsAA 1 Iw POST OFFICEVOX 4 YAKMA. WASHNGTON 90907 15091240 -0706 allowing the Mission to relocate. Mr. Campbell's testimony was that relocation of the Mission would be a factor in his decision concerning future tournament locations. His testimony also indicated that it is not the only factor, and that other factors include his becoming burned out about doing the work, the desire of other individuals in other com"Gnities to take on the task of tournament location, the lack of adequate numbers of motel rooms in the community, and general concerns about the level of crime in the community, citing the Mission as but one example of a perceived trend. It is inappropriate to conclude on the basis of this evidence that AAU tournaments will not come to Yakima solely because of this -decision The success of Track 29 and the historical district on North Front Street, in close proximity to the existing Mission, undermines the weight of these economic assumptions by the Red Lion. The evidence as to the impact of Missions on adjacent motels in Spokane, Seattle and other areas is inconclusive in supporting the Red Lion's case, and tends to support the Mission's position that these facilities can co -exist and survive. The most technical and far reaching information concerning this issue are the various materials prepared by Professor Michael Dear, represented in a number of exhibits, but particularly Exhibit UGM -36. Professor Dear has specialized in analyzing, on a national basis, the effect of group homes and similar locally undesirable land uses on adjacent property values. Professor Dear's work has been somewhat focused on group homes typically located in single - family residential neighborhoods. His conclusions, after considerable market analysis throughout the United States over a period of years, is that the presence of such group homes do not adversely effect property values. In many instances it can be shown that property values, probably for a variety of reasons, have increased after the group home started operation. A Mission is not a group home, nor is it located in a residential district. However, single - family residential EXAMINER'S DECISION - 26 JAI NEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKMA. WASHINGTON 98907 4509) 248-0706 Considerable anecdotal and documentary evidence was received concerning the impact, for better or worse, of-mission type uses adjacent to hotels in various cities of the United States. The 'fed Lion's assumptions of a decline in occupancy lead to a conclusion, based upon the figures expressed in Exhibit YG -61 of a decline in net operating income of $1,580,027. over a 6 year period, with a corresponding decline in market value of $1,550,000. • The conclusions reached by the Red ion's analysis follow only r if the underlying assumptions concerning impact upon occupancy are correct. The evidence in the record does not establish what the current occupancy rate of the facility is nor does the evidence reflect what the annual increase, if any, in the occupancy rate has been over recent years. Any projection of future increased occupancy rates must necessarily be tied to the current experience of the facility, which is not provided, and apparently was not included for reasons of confidentiality given the competitive nature of the entertainment industry. Even if the current operating data of the Red Lion were made available, the other necessary assumption, which even the experts acknowledged was a judgment call, is the impact on occupancy of having the Mission nearby. The Red Lion's experts in their judgment concluded that occupancy in the first year would decline 8 percent. For many small businesses, if their projection is true, that percentage is the margin between survival and bankruptcy. Many of the other businesses on North First Street echo these arguments, since they depend to a large extent on the spinoff of traffic generated by the motel industry. Restaurants, smaller motels, convenience stores and fast food drive -ins all depend, probably to a large extent, upon business spinoff from the Red Lion and related facilities. Thus, their concerns are heartfelt and very significant. The wrong call- on this could ruin their business. They have every right to be concerned. Substantial testimony together with a letter is part of the record concerning the probability that future AAU athletic tournaments will not be located in Yakima as a result, in part, of EXAMINER'S DECISION - 25 DO C. HEARING EXAMINER INDEX FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKBIA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKFAA. WASHINGTON 98907 15091248 -07@6 the related effe,., these negative perceptior,- would have on both operating income and underlying property values, the Red Lion takes the position that adverse economic impact attributable solely to substantially inaccurate perceptions of outsiders to the community should be the basis for denying this proposal. Although simplified, this gets at the heArt of the Red Lion's position. Regardless of the community's obligation to allow a number of different types of uses to locate in this zone, and regardless of the other benefits to the community of combining types of uses in zones which can receive the benefit of adequate policing and public infrastructure facilities, under this approach the City's land use regulations are a guarantor of nat only the status quo, but also of prevailing property values. Although perhaps an extreme statement of the Red Lion's position, such an approach does not provide a threshold by which to determine when impact upon property values will be the major if not the only criterion for land use decisionmaking. As reflected in both the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan, determination of compatibility requires balancing a number of issues. Certainly the impact upon property values is important. The balancing in this instance also includes consideration, however, of the suitability of this facility for its proposed uses, its location in an area well served by public infrastructure, and in a business zone permitting a large variety of intensive uses with similar potential impacts upon adjacent property. The Red Lion's experts assumed, on the basis of their experience in the entertainment travel industry, a decline in occupancy of 8 percent in the first year. Exhibit YG -2 documents their estimate that occupancy decline attributable to the Mission would stabilize after 5 years at a 3 percent drop from their normal occupancy. The charts also demonstrate their assumption that occupancy rates. would continue to increase from an unspecified current level. EXAMINER'S DECISION - 24 NEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 INDEX YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 98907 (509)248 -0706 had been accepted by the seller, be deferred pending the outcome of the Mission relocation efforts. That documentary evidence indicates that financing was an issue in any event, and that the offer had been accepted, with no indication that the subsequent letter by the prospective purchaser, prior to closing, had, in fact, been accepted by the seller or constituted any sort of amendment to the original offer. Based on the documents alone, it is difficult to reach any conclusion other than that the prospective buyer was concerned. It is unknown what the outcome was. Several bankers in the community submitted letters which differed drastically as to whether the Mission relocation would adversely affect property values and therefore their lending decisions. One banker's letter indicated that it would (Exhibit YG -13). Two banker's letters indicated that it would not, and that in any event it was inappropriate to reach a blanket conclusion on the impact on market values in a neighborhood of a given use. 13.8 Expert Evidence Concerning _ Pro a 'galue Evidence submitted on behalf of the Red Lion purported to establish a ..... ._. drop in operating income and there fore market value, based upon a decline in occupancy rates. The underlying assumption of this analysis was that visitors to the area, particularly groups and tourists, would have an unfavorable perception of the Red Lion due to its proximity to the Mission. Accordingly, the Red Lion's occupancy level would decline, leading to a decline in operating income, thus leading to a decline in real property values based upon a capitalization of income formula. The Red Lion acknowledged that the negative perception of visitors is in most respects inaccurate, and that the presence of the Mission will not in fact bring crime and vandalism to the area. The Red Lion took the position that even though the negative perception of visitors may be inaccurate, nevertheless that perception could not be countered in any significant way by education to the contrary, and therefore the Red Lion would be harmed. Based upon their assumptions concerning the impact, and EXAMINER'S DECISION - 23 Poc. HEARING EXAMINER ONDEX FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA AA. OFFICE BOX a YAKA. WASHINGTON 98907 M (509)248 -0706 a use does not o_"rrently exist in the North . first Street area does not mean that the area is forever immune from such uses. Because a number of uses can generate these types of impact, it is entirely appropriate for the City of Yakima to group such uses in areas best serviced by public infrastructure, including public transit, and in areas which receive high levels of support from police, fire and emergency services. This proposed site for the Mission is well designed, currently and as proposed in the future, to deal with the Mission's stated purpose and activities. A properly designed facility, which in all respects far surpasses that of the current Mission facility, will do more to mitigate the anticipated adverse impacts of this activity than any, other single measure. The appropriateness of this physical facility, coupled with the integrity and long standing demonstrated commitment of the Union Gospel Mission's Board of Directors and Executive Director, will combine to minimize, to the greatest extent humanly possible, the impacts which this facility will inevitably cause, to some unknown extent, to the North First Street area. 13.7 a Values Significant anecdotal and expert evidence was received concerning the projected impact of this project on area property values. Anecdotal and documentary evidence concerning several real estate transactions which may have been affected by news of the Mission's possible relocation were received. It is impossible to quantify the extent to which these real estate investment decisions were effected exclusively by the Mission as opposed to other broader economic factors, such as the generally poor economy, difficulty of obtaining financing, and the generally undeveloped and under developed nature of much of the property on North First Street. With respect to apartment buildings located north and west of this project, Exhibit YG -7 sets forth an offer of purchase together with an attached letter from the prospective purchaser reflecting his concern about the Mission and requesting that the offer, which EXAMINER'S DECISION - 22 0 HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKMA. WASHINGTON 96907 (509)248-0706 Street site, which provides interior courtyard space and rear space which will provide an alternative to pedestrian activity on the street, sidewalks and near adjacent businesses. A major component of this proposal is utilization of the interior courtyard and the courtyards behind the motel building to accommodate their clients. Until such time as the M -1 portion to the rear of the building may be allowed for Mission use, that portion cannot be utilized. Nevertheless, there is still adequate room, both behind the building up to the M -1 zoning boundary, and on the interior, to accommodate outside pedestrian activity without adversely affecting the neighbors. Whether and to what extent this area will provide an inducement to Mission- related pedestrians, thus limiting the impact on others, remains unknown. Furthermore, the Mission will not knowingly tolerate alcohol or drug related activity on their property. The existing Mission site on North Front Street in downtown Yakima has no such activity area. The Mission building is one -half block from the North Front Street historical district and Track 29, a highly developed pedestrian and tourist oriented retail area. It features a number of restaurants, shops, and pubs, some with outdoor seating. Both the historical district businesses and the Track 29 complex have developed, to a large degree, within the last five years, substantially changing the nature of the neighborhood for the better, with no adverse impact from the Mission reported. Exhibit 18 includes documents from property owners who have signed letters and a petition to this effect. This evidence of support for the Mission, and the ability of businesses to co -exist with the Mission, significantly counterbalances the evidence from one former property owner on South First Street, on the opposite side of the block from the existing Mission, who testified concerning problems with vagrants relative to his antique business. A number of uses are permitted in the CBDS zone which could generate similar pedestrian issues. Halfway houses, colleges, public schools and multi - family dwellings all can be located, under various review circumstances, in the CBDS zone. The fact that such EXAMINER'S DECISION - 21 NEARING EXAMINER FORTHE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKMA POST OFFICE BOX YAKMA. WASHINGTON 96907 4509) 2411-0706 the Mission to locate in their neighbornood will generate undesirable pedestrian activity, and that the combination of the Mission's presence in the neighborhood together with related pedestrian activity will adversely affect their businesses, thus reducing business income and property values. These convictions are sincerely and deeply held --by oany opponents of this proposal, who at the same time admire and respect the service which the Mission provides to this community. The concern about undesirable pedestrian activity is twofold. Part of the Mission's routine operating procedure is to encourage its clients to leave the facility during daylight hours to seek necessary social services, employment, and in general to spend that time to try to improve their circumstances. Accordingly, it is the Mission's standard although not inflexible practice to not allow clients to use their facilities during the day. Neighboring property owners are concerned that these individuals, particularly the presence of unattached men, will deter retail business by offending other customers and generally raising the sense of insecurity in the area. The second aspect is that there are a number of individuals who do not qualify for Mission services. They either are not eligible or fail to comply with Mission guidelines concerning their behavior while receiving Mission services. These individuals, denied access to the Mission, may remain in the general area and even more than the first group of individuals generate concerns about their behavior and impact on neighboring businesses. °`• It is difficult to quantify the extent and nature of these activities, but it is clear that this type of use will generate at least some pedestrian activity of this nature. With respect to both groups, those individuals attempting to recover from alcohol and substance abuse have a tendency to relapse during their recovery. There is a legitimate concern that these individuals may be seeking alcohol or drugs in the vicinity of the Mission. This activity has been an ongoing concern_of the Mission, and is one of the reasons they wish to relocate to the North First ._. EXAMINER'S DECISION - 20 DO�C. E HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CRY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKMA. WASHINGTON 98907 1509) 248.0706 3 proposed 82 spaces, with the potential for expansion in the event M -1 land can be utilized in the future, reasonably accommodates anticipated parking requirements. 13.5 Signs. The current motel has two free - standing signs, together with a wall - -siogn on the Lewis building. The applicant did not submit any signage proposals. YMC Chapter 15.08 deals with signs. Arguably this facility, because it fronts on both North First Street and Oak Street, would be entitled to a free- standing sign on each street frontage. The Lewis parcel might also be permitted to have one free - standing sign. It is unclear whether this location qualifies for a freeway sign, under YMC 15.08.150, which allows a freeway sign if the parcel is within 1,000 feet of a freeway interchange. Based upon the variety of concerns expressed by neighboring property owners, the Mission shall be limited to one free - standing sign, serving both parcels, on North First Street. No free- standing or projecting signs shall be allowed on Oak Street, nor shall freeway signs be permitted. Directional wall signs, not exceeding 10 square feet per sign face, shall be permitted where necessary to provide appropriate on- premise directions, on North First Street. (YMC 15.08.120). One of the existing free - standing signs on North First Street shall be eliminated and the other sign shall have a maximum height of no more than 30 feet, which is the maximum height in CBDS for signs which are less than 15 feet from the right of way. (YMC Chapter 15.08, Table 8 -3). Notwithstanding that roof and portable signs are permitted as a Class 1 use in the CBDS zone, neither type of sign shall be permitted. �- 13.6 Compatibility. The significant issue in this case is whether the proposed use is compatible with the existing neighborhood. Pedestrians and property values are the issue. These items are inter - related, and a significant amount of evidence has been received on both sides of these issues. Business owners who organized the Yakima Gateway Organization and who oppose this application are deeply concerned that allowing as,", EXAMINER'S DECISION - 19 DOM, HEARING EXAMINER FORTHE INDEX CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKFAA. WASHINGTON 96907 m @� (5097 246 -0706 security for the property, and help to buffer activities on the property from neighboring properties. Construction of a wall along First Street may be appropriate in the future if the Mission concludes that it needs it from a client- control standpoint. However, the current facade of the motel property is attractive, w -611 maintained, has no necessary entrances, and to simply build a wall for the sake of building a wall will exacerbate what might be perceived as a detention facility atmosphere, detracting from the commercial and retail nature of the district. Such a wall is not required to visually buffer this land use from adjacent properties. The amount of open area remaining, after construction of the bus pull out, will be limited in any event. 13.4 . The ordinance does not contain specific requirements for parking, similar to the sitescreening issue. The applicant proposes 82 parking spaces, which reflect a loss of 25 parking spaces on a portion of the motel site, which will be converted to building. If the Mission is permitted to expand in the future into the industrial zoning, additional parking will be immediately available on the Lewis construction property. Currently the Mission at its Front Street Location has very little parking, except for a few spaces off the alley. Presently anywhere from approximately 2 to 10 cars belonging to Mission clients are parked on the street near the present Mission. Most of their clients, however, do not have vehicles. The proposed location does not allow on- street parking on North First Street, which is a major arterial. This facility obviously will allow some expansion of Mission services, but has significantly more parking than the current site accommodates. Total occupancy proposed for the Mission is roughly equal to the current motel use, which includes nightclub activities which generate substantial amounts of traffic which will not occur with the Mission. Parking issues have not been significant with the existing Mission, notwithstanding their lack of parking. The EXAMINER'S DECISION - 18 i1 . ONDEX HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CflY AND COUNTY OF YAKMA POST OFFICE SOX 4 YAKMA_ WASHINGTON 96907 1509)246-0706 13.3. SightsgrgAningz, The use interpretation did not create specific design standards for evaluating the mission. Design standards set forth in the zoning ordinance deal with issues such as sightscreening and parking. Sitescreening concerning 4this particular use is not specifically dealt with in YMC Chapter 15.07. The decisionmaker has authority to require appropriate levels of sitescreening based upon the evidence, pursuant to YMC 15.10.020 and 15.10.030, which allows administrative adjustment of some development standards, and which also authorize special conditions of approval designed to accomplish the objective and intent of the zoning ordinance, mitigate negative impacts of development, and insure compatibility of the project with neighboring land uses. This proposal as submitted includes construction of a solid wall, typically 6 feet high except within the required front setback areas, extending from the northeast wing of the motel along the north side of the current vehicle entrance to the motel adjacent to North First Street. The vehicle entrance itself will have a locked iron or similar security gate prohibiting direct access from North First Street to the interior of the property except for specific permitted vehicles. The application also contemplates construction of a solid wall along the front of the restaurant portion of the motel, between the motel and North First Street. The,_ inten _ t of the wall is to close theW..area�to revent eaple from lira ering_gn the�rass biAween the p _ p �- —w .- w m64 jk and the building. This same area will have a pull out installed for a transit stop, thus eliminating a small parking lot currently located south of the main entrance to the motel, between the street and the restaurant portion of the building. From both a security and a sitescreening standpoint, the proposed wall running east and west on the north side of the current main vehicle entrance to the motel is appropriate. That wall may be a combination of solid wall and wrought iron, so long as it complies with the height requirements of the zoning ordinance. Construction of such a wall will facilitate internal EXAMINER'S DECISION — 17 D , � HEJJiNG EXAMNER FOR THE sit CTf AND COUNTY OF YAK94A POST OFFICE BOX a YAKMA. WASHNGTON 96907 "mm (509) 24e -0706 construction building parcel are bisected by a zoning boundary. The bulk of both parcels is zoned Central Business District Support. The south portion of the L- shaped Lewis parcel is zoned M -1, Light Industrial. The rear of the motel property is also zoned M -1. The location of the boundary is approximately even with the east end of the east -west c-bncrete block wall located on the south boundary of the motel property. This concrete block wall encloses an open graveled area on the south and a grassed park area on the north. The zoning boundary runs generally parallel to the building, but for a jog in the building. It is located approximately 24 feet from the southwest corner of the building, and approximately 40 feet from the northwest corner of the building. Initial review of this project by the Planning Department resulted in their recommendation that this use be allowed, except for that,portion of the parcel zoned M -1. That is the position which has been taken by the applicant, and this application is being reviewed on that basis. Long -term plans of the applicant indicate a desire to expand into the M -1 portion of these parcels "�by utilizing the additional enclosed area behind the motel for additional outdoor lounge area for Mission clients. , The M -1 portion of the Lewis property would be utilized for additional parking or warehouse -type activities. The Mission also in its long -term planning would like to expand into the vacant M -1 zoned property to the rear (west) of these parcels, and construct ball fields and other facilities depicted on Exhibit UGM 27. At this time that aspect of the proposal is tentative and is not part of this application. Under the Examiner's Interpretation the Mission is not a permitted use in the M -1 zone, and is not allowed by this decision. To expand into that zone requires an amendment of the Interpretation, which has not been requested by any party, including the City of Yakima. Alternatively, the leis upp ld amend the ordinance to deal with whether a Mission is a permitted use, and under what level of review, in the M -1 zone. EXINER'S DECISION - 16 HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE �+ CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKMA D .' POST OFFICE BOX 4 ONIDEX YAKMA. WASHINGTON 90907 15091246 -0706 This project is located on a major arterial and has full transit service, the hours of which can easily be revised, if necessary, to accommodate specific requirements. The site is serviced by all utilities. This project helps to meet housing needs of the community, which is an element of concern within the plan. With respect to the parks and recreation element of the plan, this project does not specifically affect that, except to the extent that it does provide adequate on -site open area to accommodate the various needs of the Mission. Consideration of the plan's compatibility factors will be dealt with in more detail below in conjunction with the more specific requirements of the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance. 13. Yak ima"'Pahalm area on. Cti d c . Specific aspects of the zoning ordinance will be dealt with below. 13.1. Pgresent d ]proposed Ust Cogntrastgd, The existing use of the property is as a motel, with a restaurant, nightclub, and meeting room facilities. The proposed use will continue all of the existing uses, except for the nightclub. That area will be converted to a chapel. The distinctions between the existing and proposed uses are the absence of alcohol, the related entertainment, and late night traffic. Many Mission clients do not own vehicles, and the need for parking will be reduced from that of the existing facility. The Mission will not be charging for lodging and meals, as compared to the existing motel, and the Mission will offer spiritual counseling and other services designed to assist their clients. The proposed new-construction of approximately 11,825 sq. ft. of floor area is all interior to the site and will not create setback, lot coverage, building height, or other design issues under the ordinance. It will comply in all respects with the zoning ordinance and building code. This project also includes utilization of a portion of the Lewis Construction parcel to the south. That building will be utilized, and additional parking will be provided on that parcel. 13.2 Zoni Boundary, Both the__ motel parcel and the EXAMINER'S DECISION - 15, INDEX HEI1RfJG EXAMNER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OFYAKMA POST OFFICE BOX 6 YAKFAA_ WASHINGTON 98907 15091248 -0706 extended. They are required to have sewer and water services available. (Plan OLU -11). The compatibility criteria, which serve as a general guide in identifying the factors to be considered in land use decisions, are set forth verbatim: Traffic a) Generation of auto and pedestrian traffic b) Generation of need for off - street facilities a) air, dust, auto pollution, odor, etc. b) Noise c) Visual appearance (aesthetics) 1. Structure type 2. Site layout, landscaping, screening 3. Signing 4. Overhead utilities Light a) Parking lot lights b) Outside building lighting c) Signs and advertising lights Economic Value Impact on adjacent property values Dengit (for residential areas) Citizen - Citizen input is an important consideration when determining the compatibility of proposed developments with neighboring pre - existing uses. area residents are able to identify potential problems or conflicts created by a proposed development and may offer positive suggestions for modifying the project or site design to mitigate those conflicts Neighborhood attitudes may be determined from the citizen report, or obtained at the time the development is proposed. Citizen preference is one of . the major criteria that must be considered when determining the compatibility of a proposed use with its neighbors. ( Plan, OLU -3 ) EXAMINER'S DECISION - 14 INDEX HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CRY AND COUNTY OF YAKMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKMA. WASHINGTON 98907 15091248 -0706 degradation of existing land uses or which will degrade the health, safety, or welfare of current residents of the area; and (3) that future land use controls respond to, rather than attempt to direct market demand, by providing a degree of predictability in land use decisions while retaining -flexibility to address individual situations. (Plan, OLU -1, 2). The Plan provides extensive guidance for consideration of compatibility. It recognizes that land uses can vary considerably in many ways, and that the intensity of the type of land use will determine its compatibility with other types of land use. The plan groups intensities of land use in categories ranging from industrial to central business district support, central business district, convenience center and auto oriented commercial uses, through various densities of residential uses. most of these specific categories are reflected as zones in the subsequently adopted Urban Area Zoning Ordinance. See Plan OLU -4. YMC Chapter 15.03, Zoning Districts. Typical land uses for each area are defined in the Plan. The central business district is intended to include all commercial uses. The central business district support area includes wholesale and retail businesses of all types, including, as examples, automobile sales and repair, hotels and motels, taverns, restaurants, gas stations, mobile home sales, and truck stops. (Plan, OLU -7). The Plan does not provide specific guidance concerning regional social service activities such as the Mission. The Plan's development criteria for commercial uses specifies that new commercial development shall be allowed if it promotes development of the CBD and associated peripheral activities, strengthens existing commercial areas, conveniently serves the area's population, does not infringe on other intensity uses in a conflicting manner, and provides the opportunity for expansion and diversification of business in the area. (Plan OLU -10, 11). All commercial uses are to be located where they can be served by arterials, where adequate off - street parking and sidewalks are provided, and where transit is currently provjdg�4 or may be EXAMINER'S DECISION - 13 DOC. HEARNG EXAMINER INDEX FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKMA. WASHINGTON 99907 0 V (509) 248 -0706 without regard to classifications granted special protection under the State or Federal constitution. Land use decisions made under these local regulations naturally must be based upon an objective evaluation of all relevant credible evidence. This, of course, is consistent with the local regulations, state and - federal law, and the expectations of the average citizen. Any attempt to regulate local land use inevitably requires hard decisions which must balance the competing sincerely held beliefs and positions of both sides to the issue. it is impossible to satisfy all parties. Any decision must balance, within the context of the local regulations and applicable law, the rights of individual property owners with the legitimate concerns of the local neighborhood and the larger community. Whether that has been properly done in this instance will be determined by a higher authority. 12. k U a CON212bangiv-0 Elan, The Union Gospel Mission provides a community service for the Yakima Urban Area, as well as for the entire Yakima Valley. The Comprehensive Plan does not provide specific guidance concerning the location of such community services, but it does provide guidance concerning analysis of a number of issues which affect land use decisions. The plan is divided into several sections, dealing with transportation, utilities, housing, and parks and recreation. Then the plan details goals and policies for an optimal land use plan, identifying a number of compatibility factors which help to flesh out the references to compatibility in the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, which defines compatibility as meaning "the, characteristics of different uses or development that permit them to be located near each other in harmony." YMC 15.02.020. The optimal land use section states that the plan has three primary objectives. These are to assure that (1) public services be provided as needed as economically as possible; (2) that future development be compatible with existing uses, by requiring that future development not involve any activity which will cause EXAMINER'S DECISION - 12 r HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CRY AND COUNTY OF YAKMA POST OFFICE Sox M A INDEXWASHINGTON 99907 it 45091249 -0706 with Federal equal protection rules, and that such regulations will be subject to strict scrutiny if they impinge upon personal rights receiving special protection under the Constitution. If any local regulations do infringe in a discriminatory way upon certain civil rights, then the applicable regulations are subject to heightened review, and generally must serve a compelling state interest in order to be upheld. In this instance the ordinance, coupled with the Examiner's Interpretation, treats this use as a "mission'", defined as a Class 2 use and subject to public input concerning its compatibility with the neighborhood. As reviewed above, Class 2 uses are generally permitted, but on occasion may be incompatible in a given neighborhood. Treating the Mission as a Class 2 use is consistent with other Class 2 uses in the CBDS zone, such as parks, vocational schools, planned residential developments, campgrounds, drive -in theaters, boarding houses, and retirement homes. (Se YMC Chapter 15.04, Table 4 -1.) Classifying certain uses as Class 2 uses, and allowing public input, is rationally related to the City of Yakima's legitimate interest in protecting and regulating, among other things, the function of the commercial zoning districts, retail trade, and tourism. These are legitmate concerns of local government. City of ,_Renton v.__Playtime aters , 475 US 41, 106 Sup. Ct. 925, 89 L.Ed 2d 29 (1986). It is clear that many issues, such as traffic congestion, crime, road safety, public urination, and noise are proper concerns of local land use regulations. Midnight ess ons Ltd,. V. Philpdelph.ia, 945 F.2d 667 (4th Cir. 1991, cert. den., 112 Sup. Ct. 1668 (1992)). The Class 2 and Class 3 uses categorized in the ordinance may, on occasion, generate direct or secondary impacts upon a zone, including traffic congestion, vehicle and pedestrian safety issues, noise and dust, or crime. The regulation of these impacts upon a community are appropriate and are handled under the City of Yakima's land use ordinances and policies on a rational basis EXAMINER'S DECISION - 11 HEARING EXAMINER EDOC. FOR THE CRY AND COUNTY OF YAKMA UNDEX POST OFFICE BOX f „u, m YAKMA. 09) 246 -070 96907 (so9� zaeo�os authority to mai, Ain order and to take thoL steps necessary to conduct an effective hearing. There is no showing in this instance that the subpoena authority is necessary to either conduct the hearing or to maintain a full and open consideration of the relevant issues. 11. gongtitgtional InaugIg The federal Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 USC 1 12006 et seq, does not apply to this proceeding. The ADA in its application to local governments is designed to extend civil rights protection to individuals with disabilities in the areas of employment, public accommodations, state and local government services, and telecommunications. By its terms the ADA does not apply to local land use decisions. In any event, the City of Yakima's land use regulatory ordinances and policies are facially neutral as to the handicapped on these issues, and there is no showing that decisions under said ordinances and policies, have been or are being made with discriminatory effect upon citizens with disabilities. The ordinance requires an objective evidentiary evaluation of the impacts on the community of a given use. The nature of the impacts are identified in the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan, and are intended to deal primarily with the impacts upon public infrastructure, and maintaining compatibility of projects with neighboring land uses, all of which is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance (YNC 15.01.030). The Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA), 42 USC IS 3601 et sea, may apply to local land use decisions, but it is unnecessary to decide that point because of the absence of any evidence to suggest that the facially neutral local land use regulations and policies have been applied in a fashion which discriminates against an individual based upon race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. Federal case law, as represented by rity gf !gIShMMl, W. ya e u _r t , 105 S. Ct. 3249, 473 U.S. 432, 87 L.ed.2d 313 (1985) , clearly requires that local land use regulations comply EXAMINER'S DECISION - 10 HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKMA POST OFFICE SOX 4 YAKMA. WASHINGTON 98907 II " (509) 248 -0706 Exhibit "E" - Legal Briefs lo. jXaLmjp2j1@ 63fteqna, buthRr During the hearing, counsel for the Gateway Organization orally moved that the Examiner issue a subpoena to Linda Dennis, requiring her attendance and testimony. This Examiner denied the motion, for reasons stated at that time on the record. Subsequently, counsel for the Gateway Organization submitted Exhibit YG -15, the Declaration of Linda Dennis, and did not make an offer of proof nor preserve their exception to the Examiner's ruling. It is probable that under Washington law a local municipality may accord its Hearing Examiner the authority to issue subpoenas. RCW 5.56.010 states in part that any person may be compelled to attend as a witness before any court of record, judge, commissioner, or referee, in any civil action or proceeding in this state. This is a civil proceeding, the Examiner's position is perhaps analogous to that of a commissioner or referee, and this proceeding is in many respects a court of record, in that subsequent appeals of the Examiner's decision are based upon the record established and preserved before the Examiner. Local municipalities are authorized by RCW 35.63.130 to adopt the Hearing Examiner system. That section provides in part: "The legislative body shall prescribe procedures to be followed by the Hearing Examiner." In this instance, the Hearing Examiner system established for the Yakima Urban Area does not explicitly grant the Hearing Examiner subpoena powers. See Intergovernmental Agreement for Mutual Use of Hearing Examiner Services, adopted jointly in 1986 by the City of Yakima and'Yakima County; and the respective Hearing Examiner ordinances adopted at the same time by both the City and the County. Those ordinances do authorize the Examiner to issue Rules of Procedure. Those rules, established April 81, 1986, make no reference to subpoena authority. Under Rule 4.12, and also presumably inherent to the position, the Examiner does have the EXAMINER'S DECISION - 9 INDE!S HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX a VAKMA. WASHINGTON 96907 I40,0912AS -0706 incompatible. The appellant need only present a prima facie case to rebut the presumption of compatibility of a Class 2 use. The presumption of compatibility created by the ordinance is not evidence. Its purpose is only to establish which party has the burden of first producing evidence. Once evidence has been presented, by either an interested or- disinterested party, to overcome the presumption of compatibility, the presumption has served its function. The decisionmaker is then required to evaluate the evidence presented by both sides, and reach his or her conclusion. See v , 26 Wa. App. 943, 948, 614 P.2d. 1319 (1980, rev den). The presumption does not shift the burden of proof, which remains on the applicant, to introduce evidence of compliance with the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. This is consistent with the Rules of Procedure for the Office of Hearing Examiner. Rule 4.5(A) provides that the applicant has the burden of establishing its position by a preponderance of the evidence. In this instance the appellant, Yakima Gat0yAy_Q-rgAnizAUonj introduced evidence as to the project's incompatibility; the Union Gospel Mission responded with evidence as to compatibility, and this decision is based upon a review of all the evidence. The record in this matter consists of all the material received by the Administrative Official, written material submitted to either the City of Yakima or the Hearing Examiner prior to close of the hearing, together with testimony and exhibits admitted at the hearing. The contents of the record are itemized in the following listings, attached hereto in their entirety as: Exhibit "A" - List of Attachments to Planning Department packet. Exhibit "B" - Mission Parties of Record and 7/2/92 Mission Comments (Letters received prior to hearing). Exhibit "C" - Hearing Exhibit List Exhibit "D" - Hearing Letter List (Letters received during the hearing). EXAMINER'S DECISION - 8 HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIPAA �i YAKFAPOST WASHNGTON 90907 4509)248-0706 K� Request Re UNION as a Use Business Business Zones. for Interpretation l GOSPEL MISSION ) i4n the Central District and Central District Support i EXAMINER#S INTERPRETATION City No. UA20- INTERP. #1 -92 Examiner No. I92 -5 -2 Back grog d. Mr. John Puccinelli, owner of a downtown restaurant, through his attorney has requested a use interpretation concerning the Union Gospel Mission. The City of Yakima referred -the request for an interpretation to this Examiner. Jurisdiction. YMC 15.22 governs interpretations by the Hearing Examiner. Section 15.22.030 permits the Examiner at his discretion to conduct a public hearing. Due to a request for public input and to present arguments directly to the Examiner, a public hearing was conducted February 13, 1992. Decision. The combination of uses typified by the Yakima Union Gospel Mission shall be characterized as a "Mission," subject to Class 2 review in the Central Business District (CBD) and Central Business District Support (CBDS) zones. Mission means a facility typically owned or operated by a public agency or non - profit corporation, providing a variety of services for the disadvantaged, typically including but not limited to temporary housing for the homeless, dining facilities, health and counseling activities, whether or not of a spiritual nature, with such services being generally provided to the community at large. naly• 1._ Factual Background. The Union Gospel Mission, (Mission herein) is interested in relocating, which has generated concern by potentially affected landowners as to the appropriate EXAMINER'S INTERPRETATION - 1 DOC. HEARNG EXAMM R FOR THE CRY AND COUNTY OFYAKMA INDEX POST OFFICE 90[ 4 YAKMA. WASHNGTON 99907 1 (509) 248 -0706 standard of legal review and the level of public comment required by the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of this interpretation is to review the nature of the activities conducted by the Mission, and determine whether those activities fit within any existing use classifications of the zoning ordinance. If not, then a new use will be established and defined, with a specified level of review. The Mission is a non - profit corporation providing a range of services. It has served the Yakima area for 56 years and has always been located in downtown Yakima. The Mission's primary purpose is the provision of spiritual and material support for those in need. In the past year it has served over 140,000 meals in- house; provided nearly 2,000 boxes of food to the community; provided clothing and other staples; as well as operating two dental clinics, a foot clinic, and providing showers and similar facilities. These services are all provided on a non - residential basis and constitute a substantial portion of the services provided by the Mission. The Mission also provides residential facilities. Within the existing facility typically 20 to 30 men and women are provided shelter in times of need. The Mission also provides spiritually oriented assistance to those having difficulty in coping with difficult situations, such as divorce, alcohol, drugs, etc. The Mission also operates a youth center consisting of a 17,000 square foot building located at 4th and Spruce. The center provides programs for 50 to 70 children each day, including Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, boxing, crafts, and basketball. Information in other applications for relocation submitted by the Mission describe the proposed use as providing food and lodging facilities for homeless men and families; drug and alcohol rehabilitation; ministry, and related services. Proposed facilities have included a dormitory and family shelter, dining and EXAMINER'S INTERPRETATION - 2 DO C. HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE INDEX CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAK W, WASHINGTON 96907 R�� (509) 248 -0706 kitchen facilities, auditorium, gymnasium, and maintenance /repair shops. It is the residential aspect of the facility, providing temporary housing to the homeless, those in need, and those displaced by personal or natural disasters, which generates the most concern by potential adjacent property owners. The Mission provides a flexible response to community needs. Depending upon its prospective location, the residential aspect of the program could be significantly increased, as reflected in the evidence concerning the proposed Terrace Heights location, in which temporary residential facilities for perhaps 200 individuals were contemplated. As in any business, the current facilities obviously constrain the scope and extent of services which can be provided. One of the Mission's primary objectives is to provide spiritually oriented assistance to help others help themselves. Accordingly, those receiving the benefit of temporary housing at the Mission are not allowed to stay in the Mission during the day, and are expected to use that time to seek employment and other assistance. . Joning Ord . a a . In prior applications the Mission has been treated by both City and County Planning staff as a "community center." Under this recognized use category in the zoning ordinance, the Mission received approval in 1986 to relocate in the Holtzinger Building, near its present location. At that time the zoning ordinance treated a co unity center as a Class 2 use in the CBD zone. In 1991 the County processed an application by the Mission to relocate in Terrace Heights as a community center, which is a Class 2 use in that Light Industrial zone due to the floodplain. The zoning ordinance designates certain uses in UAZO Table 4- 1. The table also specifies which of three levels of review apply to a given use. Class 1 uses are permitted in a zone, provided that the EXAMINER'S INTERPRETATION - 3 DOC. NEARING EXAMINER FOR THE MEX CRY AND COUNTY OF YAK04A POST OFFICE BOX 4 E` I YAKMA. WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248 -0706 standards for that zoning district are met. Clas-s 2 uses are gam;; 1 v permitted in a given zone, but compatibility between a Class 2 use in the surrounding environment cannot be determined in advance and occasionally a Class 2 use may be incompatible at a particular location. Class 2 uses are reviewed by an Administrative Official, with an opportunity for comment by landowners within 300 feet. Class 2 uses can be forwarded for Class 3 review at the discretion of the Administrative Official, or his or her decision can be appealed to the Examiner for Class 3 review (YMC 15.04.020), which results in a public hearing. Class 3 uses are generally not permitted in a particular zone, but may be allowed by the Hearing Examiner after Class 3 review and public hearing. The Examiner may approve, deny, or conditionally approve the proposed use in order to promote compatibility with the intent and character of the zoning district and the objectives and development criteria of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan (YMC 15.04.020). Any use which is not listed in Table 4 -1 is an unclassified use and shall be permitted only in those zoning districts so designated by the Hearing Examiner, in which case it shall be allowed only as a Class 2 or Class 3 use (YMC 15.04.040). The Interpretations chapter of the zoning ordinance governs this determination by the Hearing Examiner. The following conditions concerning use interpretations are imposed by YMC 15.22.050: No use interpretation shall vary the location or review requirements of any use listed in Table 4 -1. Furthermore, no use interpretation shall permit any use in any zoning district unless evidence is presented which demonstrates that it will comply with the intent and development standards established for that particular zone. The Examiner's interpretation may be appealed, in this instance to the City Council, pursuant to YMC 15.22.070 and YMC Ch.15.16. Both of the prior Mission applications afforded a chance for EXAMINER'S INTERPRETATION - 4 o HEARING EXAMINER �y FOR THE I CITY AND COUNT' OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAK&M WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248 -0706 public participation and review, so the issue of the applicable standard of review was not squarely met. After approving the Holtzinger Building as a Class 2 use in the CBD under the community center classification, the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance was amended by the City and the County to designate community centers as a Class 1 use in the downtown zones (�CBD and CBDS). - Documentary evidence of the reason for the amendment is not part of this record, nor is there any oral evidence in the record from any of the elected officials involved. Any conclusions concerning legislative intent based upon recollections of this Examiner or Planning staff are too speculative to base an imputation of legislative intent by others. The Terrace Heights application in 1991 was also treated as a community center; because a floodplain in an industrial zone was involved, it was subject to Class 2 review. By stipulation the Mission agreed to a public hearing in order to expedite processing of the application, given the likelihood of appeal in any event. As reflected in this Examiner's decision denying the application, it was recognized at that time that there was room for argument as to whether it was a "community center" or a "halfway house," which is a Class 3 use in the M -1 zone at issue there. See Examiner No. 091 -1 -40, pg. 10. After noting that it could be treated as a community center, a Class 2 use in that zone, or as a halfway house, a Class 3 use in that zone, this Examiner at page 11 stated: For purposes of analysis under the zoning ordinance this will be treated as a Class 3 land use, meaning that it is subject to the highest level of review under the ordinance. . . . Whether categorized as a Class 2 or a Class 3 use, the Examiner is obligated to determine that the use is consistent not only with the intent of the zone but also that it complies both with the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance and the comprehensive plan. (See YCC 15A.04.020(2) and (3).) Id. at p.11. The application was denied because it did not comply with the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan, regardless of whether it was a Class 2 or Class 3 use. It was unnecessary to EXAMINER'S INTERPRETATION - 5 o0 c. HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CRY AND COUNTY OF YAKS" POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKMA. WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248 -0706 a decide the class of use. Presumably for a variety of reasons that decision was not appealed to the Yakima Board of County Commissioners. It does not have much precedential value, because it does not have even the suture of a trial court decision, but it does reflect that there has been some ongoing confusion as to the type of use involved and the appropriate level of review. Because it was at least a Class 2 use in that zone the application did receive public review. This zoning ordinance, and specifically its Table of Uses with related definitions, is the best guide to resolution of this problem. There are zoning cases on the books dealing with categorization of missions, halfway houses, and community centers, but they are all unique to the specific zoning ordinance involved. As an example, a Pennsylvania case determined that a land use defined as a "community center" also included a "halfway house," which apparently was not otherwise dealt with in the zoning ordinance. The court ruled that a halfway house, used to educate young people and their parents to the dangers of drug use and abuse, counseling and advising drug users and former addicts, and for referring such people to outside sources of medical, legal, and spiritual aid and to employment and recreational communities was a "community center or similar use" as set forth in -the local zoning ordinance. Swift y, Zoning Hparing Board of A_b to T , 328 A.2d 901, 16 PA. CMWLTH. 356 (1974). That case is distinguishable from our situation in that our zoning ordinance defines both halfway house and community center. In a New Jersey will contest case the definition of mission came up. That court cited with approval an old Connecticut case in which the court stated: By universal acceptance the word "missionary," whether as • noun or adjective, embraces, not only the conception of • religious, charitable, or educational work or worker, but also such a work done through philanthropic motives, for the welfare of others too poor, too unappreciative, or too indifferent to do it themselves, and by persons EXAMINER'S INTERPRETATION - 6 y C HEARING EXAMINER FOR TW CRY AM COUNTY OF YAKMA " POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKMA_ WASHINGTON 98907 w� (509) 2480706 a supported or means furnished in part at -least by some agency of which those for whom the work is done do not form a sustaining part. TipAcl 1 ttf TTT 7 on Trust Cr v. bd-- um nnc Home fnr al., 14 A.2d 490, 127 N.J. EQ. 518 (1940). That definition, however stilted, clearly describes this Mission's activities. That definition, and a description of this Mission's activities, also describe a use different from either a community center or a halfway house. This ordinance defines community center as meaning: A facility owned and operated by a public agency or non- profit corporation, provided that the principal use of the facility is for public assistance, community improvement, or public assembly. YMC 15.02.020, p.9. That definition, without reference to other provisions of the ordinance, would include all government facilities, including juvenile detention facilities, jails, office buildings, schools, and hospitals, all of which nevertheless have their own listing in Table 4 -1. Halfway house is defined as meaning: A home for juvenile delinquents and adult offenders leaving correctional and /or mental institutions; or a rehabilitation center for alcohol__and /or drug users; which provides residentially oriented facilities for the rehabilitation or social adjustment of persons who need supervision or assistance in becoming socially reoriented but who do not need institutional care. YMC 15.02.020, p.11. This Mission does some of that. It does some of the community center activity also. But it is not just a community center, it is not just a halfway house. It is a combination of uses, for which this ordinance does not provide much guidance in evaluating. Reviewing the various uses listed in Table 4 -1 is helpful. Community centers are lumped with meeting halls and fraternal organizations, and treated as a Class 1 use in this zone, as compared to halfway houses which are treated as a Class 3 use. EXAMINER'S INTERPRETATION - 7 DOC- HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 1 YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 96907 .. ,,� (509) 248 -0706 Detention centers are a Class 3 use in CBD and CBDS, as are hospitals. The Mission's activities do not rise to the level of a detention center or hospital, but they are more intensive than a group home, which is a Class 1 use. Group homes are defined as: A place for handicapped, physically or developmentally disabled adults, or dependent or predelinguent children, providing special care in a homelike environment. YMC 15.02.020, p.11. High density multi- family dwelling units are typically a Class 1 use in the CBD, and a Class 3 use in the CBDS, whereas the same density of dwelling units in a planned residential development are treated as Class 2 uses in both zones. Boarding houses are a Class 1 use in CBD, and a Class 2 in CBDS, as are retirement homes. Boarding houses are defined as: An establishment providing both lodging and meals for not more than 10 persons residing in the facility on a permanent or semi - permanent basis. YMC 15.02.020, p.6. The Mission's level of activity is clearly more than a boarding house with 10 or fewer people. By comparison, nearly all retail uses are Class 1 in both zones. Hotels, for instance, have almost identical activities to the Mission, and are treated as a Class 1 use. This is consistent with the definition of Central Business District, which: is to preserve the Central Business District of the City of Yakima as the region's center of commerce, industry, recreation and culture. This District is characterized by very intensive development and a variety of land uses including retail sales and service establishments, high density residential development, financial institutions, professional buildings and government offices. YMC 15.03.030.10. The definition of the CBD Support District is expanded to accommodate both wholesale and retail activities, with some high density residential development (YMC 15.03.020.11). Given the focus of the zones, it is appropriate that retail uses be Class 1. Although similar, the Mission's activities are not typically EXAMINER'S INTERPRETATION - 8 HEARVAG EXAMINER ` FOR THE . CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA �q POST C*Tr§CE BOX 4 5 E YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 99907 c509n 248 -0706 thought of as a traditional retail use. It has been suggested that it is the type of user of the Mission, rather than the type of activities, which is at the root of the problem and that this has been treated not as a question of the appropriate land use but as to who uses the land. Stereotypes, prejudices, and public perceptions as to the type of clientele utilizing the Mission's services are in fact a central part of the controversy. This city has a legitimate public interest in fostering a downtown environment in which retail uses can co- exist, peacefully and prosperously, with necessary public and social services. No retail area can long survive, regardless of the opinions of store owners, if the public has a perception that an area is unsafe or for some reason undesirable. It is government's obligation to develop rational regulations which recognize and balance the legitimate constitutional and legal expectations of the whole community. Determining that the Mission is a specific type of use subject to public input prior to its approval simply creates a process by which the public can help government recognize and balance various viewpoints. Class 2 review means, in the terms of this ordinance, that the use is generally permitted but on occasion may be incompatible. That can be said for practically any use in any area. Table 4 -1 indicates that many activities are subject to some level of public review before being located in the downtown business zones. This includes higher density planned residential developments, which under the explicit definition of the downtown zones is encouraged to be downtown. The point of public review is not to discriminate or to provide a means to discriminate. In any subsequent review of the Mission, the burden on both the public and the government will be to review the application in a principled manner, without succumbing to bias or prejudice, with the decision based upon objective reasoning and logical conclusions. As recognized by the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, public preference is to be considered, but public preference alone can EXAMINER'S INTERPRETATION - 9 DOC. HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA _ POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 96907 (509) 246 -0706 B b rarely, if ever, be the sole determinant for locating unpopular or locally undesirable land uses. An argument has been raised that substantial deference should be paid to the staff determination, by both the City and the County, that the Mission should be treated as a community center. This of course is the typical rule of administrative law. Mall. Inc. v , Seattlp,, 108 Wn.2d 369, 739 P.2d 668 (1987), was cited at the hearing as illustrative. In that case an administrative determination had been appealed to the Hearing Examiner, who upheld the administrative determination. On appeal to the trial court, that court upheld the Hearing Examiner. The Washington Supreme Court in upholding the lower decision ruled that considerable judicial deference should be given to the construction of an ordinance by those officials charged with its enforcement, meaning in that instance the administrative official and the Hearing Examiner. While this Examiner will certainly appreciate any deference he -may ever receive in the future from any judge, this Examiner is so low on the totem pole that there is no one else to defer to. As reflected above, the issue has been in controversy for some time, has never been clearly resolved, and accordingly the City Planning Department when they received a request for interpretation forwarded it directly to the Examiner. Staff has never had to deal with the issue head -on before, simply because the ordinance provisions applicable at the time always accorded public review. In the first instance, Holtzinger, the Mission got what they requested, with no public outcry. In the second, Terrace Heights, they failed after stipulating to a public hearing, and did not appeal. For all practical purposes the issue is a matter of first impression now, and the staff is following the method set forth in the ordinance to obtain an interpretation. The activities encompassed by the Mission are consistent with the intent and development standards of both the Central Business EXAMINER'S INTERPRETATION - 10 ONDEX HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CRY AND COUNTY OF YAKMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKMA. WASHINGTON 96907 (509)246-0706 District and Central Business District Support zones. Class 2 review is appropriate in order to determine, based upon a specific factual circumstance, if there are any issues which present compatibility concerns. Defining the Mission as a Class 2 use has the effect of creating a presumption that the use is permitted, but permits some public review. DATED this 27th day of February, 1992. EXAMINER'S INTERPRETATION - 11 PHILIP A. LAMB Hearing Examiner HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKMA. WASHINGTON 98907 �� (509) 248 -0706 UNION GOSPEL MISSION APP #005 -15 (APP #002 -15 — CL2 #019 -14 & CL2 #004 -15) EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER F Rearing Examiner's Interim Decision & Briefs F -1 Hearing Examiner's Interim Decision IIF 07/01/2015 F -2 F -3 F -4 Brief Statement received from James Carmody Brief Statement received from Patrick Andreotti Brief Statement received from Mark Kunkler 07/07/2015 07/07/2015 07/07/2015 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 6 Pages BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA In the Matter of the Appeals of Two Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to the Union Gospel Mission, Submitted by: William Brado and the Yakima Gateway Organization Relative to the Construction of Additional Parking, Health Care Clinic Facilities and Residential Dormitory Units at the Existing Union Gospel Mission Site Located at 1300 North 1" Street APP #002 -15 CL2 #019 -14 CL2 @004 -15 CITY OF YAKIMA'S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM By Interim Decision dated July 1, 2015, the Hearing Examiner has requested additional briefing. The additional briefing concerns the interpretation and effect of certain sections of the Yakima Municipal Code dealing with procedural requirements of "notice," particularly the scope or extent of notice required to be given by the City of Yakima when providing notice of a land use decision under YMC 15.14.050. The City of Yakima supports the interpretation of Joan Davenport, AICP, Director of the City's Community Development Department. A. Tim Notice of Application was Properly Sent to All Propej,:!y Owners. CITY OF YAKIMA'S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM-1 DOC. INDEX # CITY OF YAKIMA LEGAL DEPARTMENT CIVIL DIVISION 200 South Third Street Yakima, WA 98901 -2830 (509) 575 -6030 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Pursuant to the evidence in the record, the City of Yakima properly sent notice of the parking lot application to the owners of property within 300 feet of the Union Gospel Mission ( "UGM ") parcel pursuant to YMC 15.14.040(B). The City received one (1) comment from an anonymous person and the Administrator issued her final decision. YMC 15.14.050 states: 15.14.050 Notification of final decision. The administrative official's final decision shall be issued within seven days from the end of the comment period, or, if additional information was requested, within seven days from the date the administrative official received the information. The administrative official shall mail any other findings and decision to the applicant and to other parties receiving initial notice not later than three working days following the issuance of the final decision. The administrative official shall also specify that the decision is final unless appealed to the hearing examiner. (Emphasis added). The City of Yakima delivers notice of the Administrator's Decision to (a) the applicant, and (b) other "parties receiving initial notice." The code section does not require delivery of the notice of decision to "every person" who received the initial notice of application. Instead, it requires delivery of the notice of decision to the applicant and "other parties receiving initial notice." A "person" can become a "party of record" as defined at YMC 15.02.020: "Party of record" means the applicant and any other person who has submitted written comment on any action or proposed action, or who has appeared at a public hearing or public meeting and signed an official register requesting notice of further action. The City provides specific notice of the Administrator's decision to the applicant and any person who has become a "party of record." Even "persons" who did not receive initial written notice of application may become "parties of record." A person may receive notice of an application through the City's web site — and, in some cases, through posting of a sign on the premises where the work is to be performed. CITY OF YAKIMA'S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM-2 CITY OF YAKIMA LEGAL DEPARTMENT CIVIL DIVISION DOC. INDEX # 200 South Third Street Yakima, WA 98901 -2830 4 (509) 575 -6030 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 In these cases, a person receiving "notice" of an application would not become a party unless he or she submitted a written comment or request for future notifications of associated land use decisions. In short, even a "landowner" who owns property within 300 feet of a proposed project — and thus received written notice of the permit application — must take steps to submit a written comment or request for future notification in order to be a "party" entitled to receive notice of the Administrator's decision. An interpretation of the applicable code by the Administrator charged with enforcing the applicable rules is entitled to deference. Port of Seattle v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 151 Wash.2d 568, 90 P.3d 659 (2004); Public Utility Dist. No. I of Clark Co v. Pollution Control Hearings Board, 137 Wash. App. 150, 151 P.3d 1067 (2007); D. W. Close Co., Inc. v. Washington State Dept. of Labor and Industry, 143 Wash. App. 118, 177 P.3d 143 (2008); Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S. Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). The Planning Division has implemented an interpretation of YMC 15.14.050 intended to balance the duty to provide adequate and appropriate notice of the initial application with a duty to provide specific notice of the decision to the applicant and those parties that have taken steps to achieve standing as "parties" in a particular land use matter. Even if the Hearing Examiner has concerns regarding the Planning Division's interpretation of the requirements of YMC 15.14.050, the City of Yakima contends that substantial compliance with the notice requirements has been achieved in this case. The City of Yakima made an additional opportunity for persons to submit comments, testimony and evidence in conjunction with the appeal of the consolidated parking lot /clinic application. All parties and interested persons had an opportunity to appear and present testimony and evidence. All the CITY OF YAKIMA'S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM-3 CITY OF YAKIMA LEGAL DEPARTMENT CIVIL DIVISION DOC. INDEX # 200 South Third Street Yakima, WA 98901 -2830 '" (509) 575 -6030 evidence that will ever be presented in this matter has already been presented. The essential purposes of the notice requirements have been met in this case — to provide an expanded opportunity to appear and present evidence and testimony. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 7th day of July, 2015. CITY OF YAKIMA' S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM-4 CITY OF YAKIMA LEGAL DEPARTMENT DIVISION CIVIL DOC. INDEX # 200 South Third treet F. Yakima, WA 98901 -2830 " "" (509) 575 -6030 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA In the Matter of the Appeals of Two Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to the Union Gospel Mission, Submitted by: William Brado and the Yakima Gateway Organization Relative to the Construction of Additional Parking, Health Care Clinic Facilities and Residential Dormitory Units at the Existing Union Gospel Mission Site Located at 1300 North 1St Street CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that on the date stated below I served a copy of the following documents: City of Yakima's Supplemental Memorandum to the parties below in the manner indicated to each: Gary Cuillier 314 North Second St. Yakima WA 98901 Patrick M. Andreotti Flower & Andreotti 303 E. D Street, Ste. 1 Yakima, WA 98901 CITY OF YAKIMA'S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM-5 First Class U.S. Mail Facsimile X Hand Delivery Attorney Messenger Service First Class U.S. Mail Facsimile X Hand Delivery Attorney Messenger Service DOC. IIN(D,�EX # F- ' 1 CITY OF YAKIMA LEGAL DEPARTMENT CIVIL DIVISION 200 South Third Street Yakima, WA 98901 -2830 (509) 575 -6030 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 James C. Carmody Meyer Fluegge & Tenney P.S, 230 South Second Street P.O. BOX 22680 Yakima, WA 98907 First Class U.S. Mail Facsimile X Hand Delivery Attorney Messenger Service DATED at Yakima, Washington this 7th d Iy.OfJU1y, 2015, Mn is E. Rosales, Legal Assistant City of Yakima Legal Department CITY OF YAKIMA' S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM-6 DOC. INDEX # 1w CITY OF YAKIMA LEGAL DEPARTMENT CIVIL DIVISION 200 South Third Street Yakima, WA 98901 -2830 (509) 575 -6030 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON HEARING EXAMINER In the Matter of the Appeals of Two Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to the Union Gospel Mission Submitted by: WILLIAM BRADO and the YAKIMA GATEWAY ORGANIZATION Relative to Construction of Additional ) Parking, Health Care Clinic Facilities, ) And Residential Dormitory Units at ) The Existing Union Gospel Mission ) Site Located at 1300 North lst Street. ) APP #002 -15 CL2 #019 -14 CL2 #004 -15 r JUL. 0 7 2015 APPELLANT'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION i Two (2) provisions of the Municipal Code govern the notice requirements applicable to this proceeding: YMC 15.14.040B provides in relevant part: "Application of Adjacent Property Owners. When the administrative official's preliminary decision is to approve the application, or approve with conditions, the administrative official shall, within five days, forward a notice of the application to all landowners within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the development site...." YMC 15.14.050 provides in relevant part: "...The administrative official shall mail any other findings and decision to the applicant and to other par tics receiving the initial notice not later than three working days following the issuance of the decision. The administrative official shall also specify that the decision is final unless appealed to the hearing examiner." (Emphasis added) The language of YMC 15.14.050 is clear. Notice is not required to be given to parties of record as defined in YMC 15.02.020 but is to be given to parties receiving (or in this case the parties required to be given) notice pursuant to YMC 15.14.040. The notice provision in YMC 15.14.050 is clearly distinguishable from the notice of the decision provision in Class 3 review proceedings. YMC 15.15.050 which requires notice of a decision be mailed to "parties of record in the case ", the term which is defined in YMC Law Office of FLOWER & AMREOTTI APPELLANT'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR 303 East "D" Street #1 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - 1 Yakima, WA 98901 C:\ Users\Pat\Documents\PAK \pat\Pat \pleadings \bradoresponse.docx Telephone: 509 - 248 -9084 z 0 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 15.02.020. If the City Council in adopting YMC 15.14.050 had intended the notice of decision in a Class 2 review be given only to "parties of record ", it would have used the defined term as it did in YMC 15.14.050. In construing a statute, the specific terms of the statute cannot be ignored and if a statute's meaning is plain on its face, effect must be given to that plain meaning. In Re ftrejyLgg of 1 1 , 155 Wn.2d 374, 393 (2005). There can be no question that the specific terms of YMC 15.14.050 requires notice of the decision be given to Appellant -Brado and any other property owner within 300 feet from the exterior boundaries of the project site who were required to be provided with notice of the application. It is also important to note that a notice of decision pursuant to YMC 15.14.050 requires notice that the decision becomes final unless appealed to the Hearing Examiner. There is no similar requirement for notices of decision in a Class 3 proceeding. Habitat, Wpatch vs S tl I t County, 155 Wn.2d 397 (2005) is helpful here. In that case, the Court held the time for filing a LUPA appeal ran from the date on which the appellant received actual notice of the written decision it sought to have reviewed. 155 Wn.2d at 409. In this case, ice of the decision was not given to Appellant -Brado and other property owners within 300 feet of the project site until the City issued its Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal for CL2 #019 -14 on 5/28/15. Habitat Watch also recognizes appellant's decision to seek administrative review rather than a LUPA appeal is appropriate. In that case, instead of filing a LUPA appeal upon learning of the land use decisions, the appellant filed a Petition for Revocation with Skagit County. After Petition was denied, Appellant sought and obtained LUPA review of the County action and a LUPA decision on the merits. 155 Wn.2d at 411 -412. Appellants elected to pursue administrative remedies and incorporated an appeal of CL2 #019 -14 with its appeal of CL2 #004 -15 which was filed 5/01/2015 before the required notice of decision had been given to Appellants. ,`2 DATED July 7, 2015, RECEIVED L 0 7 2015 PA` .fR� IC ANDREOTTI, WSBA #7243. FLOWER & ANDREOTTI, MY OF YAKI A Attorneys for Appellants. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT L Off' f APPELLANT'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - 2 C:\ Users\ Pat \Documents\PAK \pat \Pat \pleadings \brado response.docx aw ice o FLOWER & ANDREOTTI 303 East "D" Street #1 Yakima, WA 98901 Telephone: 509 - 248 -9084 O 6 O '"" 0 DENNIS L. FLUEGGE* ROBERT C. TENNEY MARK D. WATSON* JEROME R. AIKEN* JOHN A. MAXWELL, JR. * Also admitted in Oregon July 7, 2015 THE LAW OFFICES OF MEYER, FLUEGGE & TENNEY, P.S. 230 South Second Street P.O. Box 22680 Yakima, Washington 98907 -2680 Gary Cuillier City of Yakima, Hearing Examiner 129 N. 2"d Street, 2" d Floor Yakima, WA 98901 Re. Brado & Yakima Gateway Appeal — Union Gospel Mission App # 002 -15 CL2 #019 -14 CL2 #004 -15 Dear Hearing Examiner: * *PETER M. RITCHIE ERIN E. MOORE JAMES C. CARMODY ** *GARY E. LOFLAND * *Also admitted in Virginia * * * Of Counsel arniod ;nft law, coin p COMMUNITY 1Jp11 t 01 11''i., This letter is provided pursuant to Hearing Examiner's Interim Decision dated July 1, 2015. In the Interim Decision, you have requested comment upon the applicability of YMC 15.14.050 with respect to the timely filing of appeals in this matter. This correspondence will supplement our earlier submissions with respect to the appeal. City Provided Required Notice of Application. As an important beginning proposition, City of Yakima provided the required Notice of Application to adjacent property owners pursuant to YMC 16.05.010. THERE WAS NO DEFECT IN THE NOTICE OF APPLICATION. Appellants received the Notice of Application and failed to provide any comment with respect to the application or otherwise participate in the administrative review process. City issued its administrative decision in accordance with ordinance provisions. Appellants had full opportunity to participate and comment but failed to do so. They have no right to invoke a post - decision process where they failed to exercise their ordinance rights in a timely manner. Notice of Decision Is Required to Be Sent Only To "Parties of Record". The ordinance requirements for notification of final decision with respect to a Class (2) use application are set for in YMC 15.14.050. That ordinance provision provides as follows: The administrative official's final decision shall be issued within seven days from the end of the comment period, or, if additional information was requested, within seven (7) days from the date the administrative official received the information. DOC. INDEX # a Telephone 509 -575 -8500 • Fax 509 -575 -4676 0 www.mftlaw.corn WII".`NN�ll k Gary Cuillier if li1,.Iiii Page 2 �AO� 11 ilI 0f-W i opmr. The administrative official shall mail any other findings and decisions to the applicant and to other parties receiving initial notice not later than three (3) working days following the issuance of the final decision. The administrative official shall also specific that the decision is final unless appealed to the hearing examiner. (Italics added). The ordinance language specifically requires issuance of the decision to "parties of record" which is a subset of the initial mailing of the application. Urban Area Zoning Ordinance ( "UAZO ") specifically defines "party of record" as follows: "Party of record" means the applicant and any other person who has submitted written comment on any action or proposed action, or who has appeared at a public hearing or public meeting and signed an official register requesting notice of further action. A "party" is defined in a manner that requires the submission of comment, attendance at public hearing or requests notice of further action. No part of an ordinance or statute should be disregarded "...unless it is the result of an obvious mistake or error." Yakima County Fire District No. 12 v. City of Yakima, 122 Wn.2d 371, 383 (1993). The definition of party cannot be disregarded. City was not required to give non - parties notice of the decision. Appellants are not a party because they chose not to comment or otherwise comment on a known application. The clear ordinance language is consistent with historic administrative interpretation with respect to this provision. Hearing Examiner made inquiry of Community Development Director Joan Davenport who advised that the notice was sent to "parties of record" in a manner "...consistent with the comparable provision for notice of Class (3) decision." YMC 15.15.050 provides that notice of an examiner's decision in a Class (3) use decision is sent to "other parties of record ". City Staff have consistently applied this interpretation and notification process with respect to land use decisions. Any decision contrary to the historic practice would also be inconsistent with the clear and unambiguous language of the zoning ordinance. Conclusion Appellants' appeal should be dismissed because of failure to file a timely appeal in this proceeding. City provided proper Notice of Application and Appellants failed to exercise their ordinance rights with respect to comment or participation in the administrative review process. They were not entitled to notice of the final decision and this appeal is barred by failure to comply with administrative and ordinance timelines. Very truly yours, MEYER, FLUEGGI�,& TENNEY, P.S. 1 (' C "�l I�^i�cs rnd ,a UADebbieG \Yakima % rarem �, Gospel Mission \Medical Clinic Expansion\Itr to cui11ier2.docx DOC. INDEX # RECEIVED jtp_ , 2015 CITY 01' YAKIMA Rosalinda Ibarra Yakima City Planning Division 129 North 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 Gary A Cuillier ATTORNEY AT LAW 314 N. SECOND STREET YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98901 July 1, 2015 (509) 575 -1800 FAX: (509) 452 -4601 HAND - DELIVERED Re: Hearing Examiner's Interim Decision: APP #002 -15, CL2 #019 -14 & CL2 #004 -15 — In The Matter of the Appeals of Two Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to the Union Gospel Mission Submitted by William Brado and the Yakima Gateway Organization. Dear Rosalinda, Enclosed is the Hearing Examiner's Interim Decision regarding the above - entitled matter. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Thank you. Yours very truly, KRR: krr Enclosure cc: Karri Espinoza, Yakima County Planning Division, w/ Enclosure Pat Spurgin, City of Yakima Pro Tern Hearing Examiner, w/ Enclosure DOC. INDEX t City of Yakima, Washington n.w ,, Hearing Examiner's Interim Decision July 1, 2015 In the Matter of the Appeals of Two Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to the Union Gospel Mission Submitted by: William Brado and the Yakima Gateway Organization Relative to Construction of Additional Parking, Health Care Clinic Facilities And Residential Dormitory Units at The Existing Union Gospel Mission Site Located at 1300 North 1St Street APP #002 -15 CL2 #019 -14 CL2 #004 -15 A. Request that Attorneys Mark Kunkler, Patrick Andreotti and James Carmody Provide Additional Information to be Included in the Record: This request is being directed and delivered by the Hearing Examiner to the three attorneys of record in this proceeding for the following reasons: (1) The issue in this appeal of whether there has been substantial compliance with the Notice of Application requirements for the decision in CL2 #019 -14 need not be decided unless the appeal of that decision is properly before the Hearing Examiner. (2) Case authorities submitted by the parties, including those submitted on June 24, as applied to the facts of appeal CL2 #019 -14, indicate that a LUPA appeal at this point would be time - barred as it was not commenced within 21 days from the date when the Appellants received the decision or actual notice thereof in one of the manners William Brado/Yakima Gateway Organization 1 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. Is' St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) ®DC' iN RECEIvED COMMUNITY - � specified in RCW 36.70C.040(3). (Exhibit D -1, Mr. Brado's letter of March 30, 2015). Appellants have instead taken steps to exhaust their intra- agency administrative appeal remedies by filing an appeal to the Hearing Examiner on May 1, 2015, which has City ordinance requirements for notice of a Class (2) decision that are different than those specified in the LUPA statute. The intra- agency administrative appeal of the CL2 #019 - 14 decision would not be time - barred if the mailing of the notice of the City's Class (2) decision only to the Applicant on January 20, 2015, failed to satisfy the requirements of YMC §15.14.050 prior to the filing of the appeal. (Exhibit B -7(a) and B- 7(b)). There were no parties of record entitled to the Notice of Decision because the only comment was anonymous with no return address. (Exhibit B -6 and Exhibit List description). Whether the May 1, 2015, appeal was within 14 days "following the mailing of the final decision" per YMC §15.16.030 depends upon the meaning of the phrase "other parties receiving initial notice" per YMC §15.14.050. That determination requires an interpretation of whether the phrase is intended to refer to "parties of record" who learn of the proposal and comment before the Notice of Application is mailed or to all of the "landowners" within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the development site who are entitled to the Notice of Application per YMC § 15.14.040(B) even if they fail to submit any comments. (3) Hoping to be apprised of some other more definitive ordinance provision or written policy or procedure, a phone call was made on June 29 pursuant to Hearing Examiner Rule 3.3(C) to Planning Division Assistant II Lisa Maxey who was unable to answer the question. But a response of Community Development Director Joan Davenport on June 30 by phone indicated that there is no other written clarification of the meaning of YMC §15.14.050, just a long- standing administrative interpretation consistent with the comparable provision for notice of Class (3) decisions. The basis for the interpretation will be provided here so that any of the three attorneys of record who are able and willing to do so may present a brief one or two page position statement either rebutting or supporting that Planning Division interpretation which is based on the following factors: (i) YMC §15.14.050 specifies "parties" rather than "landowners "; (ii) the only definition of "parties" in the zoning ordinance is the definition of "parties of record" in YMC Chapter 15.02; (iii) Table 11 -2 in YMC §15.11.090 distinguishes between "parties of record" and "property owners "; (iv) YMC §16.07.020 is more general than provisions specifically applicable to certain classes of uses; and (v) parties of record can learn of proposed projects and submit comments before the Notice of Application is mailed, in which case they will receive that notice as well as the Notice of William Brado/Yakima Gateway Organization 2 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 1St St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) DOC. INDEX "" Decision. (5) For the reasons detailed here, any of the three attorneys of record in this appeal are invited to submit a one or two page position statement as soon as possible by delivering it to the other two attorneys involved and the Planning Division. Since the decision in this matter must be issued within 10 business days of June 24, 2015, when the record was closed, it will be issued within the earlier of. (i) within two days after delivery of all three position statements or (ii) by Thursday, July 9, 2015, based on any position statements that are delivered by 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 7, 2015, which are the only ones that will be accepted into the record as additional exhibits. (6) Any procedural questions regarding this interim decision should be directed to Lisa Maxey or Rosalinda Ibarra at the Planning Division phone number who will either answer the question or obtain the answer to the question. DATED this 1 St day of July, 2015. '" 30- 0° 01 ,011 "y 0 l l William Brado /Yakima Gateway Organization 3 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 1St St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) Gary Guil ie, Hearing Examiner DOC- IN®EX UNION GOSPEL MISSION APP #005 -15 (APP #002 -15 — CL2 #019 -14 & CL2 #004 -15) EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER G Hearing Examiner's Final Decision G -1 Notice of Hearing Examiner's Decision 07/13/2015 G -la: Parties and Agencies Notified G -lb: Affidavit of Mailing .._ .__._............_ ................. ............................... . ......... _..................... ww .... . ................ .. _.......... . ........ - ....... ........ --- . ........... . ........................................... ........... __.._.... .... ............................... ..... ........ ................. ___ ....... ..______..._______________----------- ..... ............................... ---- .. . _ ....................................... ..................... ..................... - -. ........... _................. _... ............................ ... l..._....................... AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA RE: APP #002 -15 (CL2 #004 -15 & CL2 #019 -14) Union Gosvel Mission 1300 N 1St St I, Lisa Maxey, as an employee of the City of Yakima Planning Division, have dispatched through the United States Mails, a Notice of Hearing Examiner's Decision. A true and correct copy of which is enclosed herewith; that said notice was addressed to the applicant, and parties of record, that said property owners are individually listed on the mailing list retained by the Planning Division, and that said notices were mailed by me on the 13th day of July 2015. That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the statements made herein are just and true. 77��' - / I -. Lisa Maxey Department Assistant II I 1 1 18131311500 ^ 1813131207 ' 18131311443 2 RIVERS INVESTMENTS UI O]N1 COLD STORAGE DD DOUG CHRISTEN HAULING INC PO BOX 3062 PO BOX 27 1313 GORDON RD UNION GAP, WA 98903 YAKIMA, WA 989070027 YAKIMA, WA 98901 ilk 18131311450 18131311491 18 1311432 YAKIMA, WA 98902 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 GP HOSPITALITY LLC GOLDEN GOLDEN LI LAI 1405 N 1ST ST 6=12'P AVE 612S =El� Y A, WA 98908 YAMMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98901 1814,11�1 141 18131311013 18131311419 PN 145,544 1ST ST 2300 RIVER RD UNIT 26 PO BOX 4335 18131311440 18131312019 18131311448 0 JEAN OWENS REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST SEAWARD PROPERTIES LLC SUNSHINE MOTEL INN LLC 1602 SPEYERS RD 1314 GORDON RD 1223 N 1ST ST SELAH, WA 98942 YAKIMA, WA 98901 YAKIMA, WA 98901 ST PO BOX 565 P=5 WA 98901 YAKIMA, WA 98907 YAKIMA, WA 98907 181,3,1 04 ,�110, 18131311007 18131311006 UNION 6O!spp'mfSSS$ON UNION GOSPEL MISSION YAKIMA CITY PO BOpe 1300 N 1ST ST 129 N 2ND ST YAKt6A, WA 989070565 YAKIMA, WA 989011702 YAKIMA, WA 989012613 18131311422 1813 iil-49$�� 18131311420 212 SYCAMORE ST 212 SYCAlMORCSi' 204 SYCAMORE ST YAKIMA, WA 989011718 YAKlirA, WA 989011718 YAKIMA, WA 989011718 18131311426 18131312007 18131311444 CHARLES E. FIELDS DOUG & SANDERS TRUST TILTON DOUGLAS EDWIN CHRISTEN 211 E OAK ST 1312 GORDON RD 1313 GORDON RD YAKIMA, WA 989011715 YAKIMA, WA 989011725 YAKIMA, WA 98901 18131311430 1,9141311431 18131311499 1408 N 1ST ST 1408 N 1ST 1311 N IST ST YAKIMA, WA 98901 YAKfM,'WA 98901 YAKIMA, WA 98901 18131311421 18131311493 18131311429 1 N1|GUELUR0NA RA]N8AUS0N WILLIAM A& MARY F8RA0] 7O9E ADAMS ST 1Z23m 1ST ST 77102 MAH|EM|sST YAK|N1A,VVA989Ol [ YAK|W1A,VVA989Ol U KA|LUAKONA,H|9674O 181,31311427 WILLCAM-A Y -' F ' BRADO 77162 NE ---- KAit(Q01NA, Hi 96740 Yakima Gatewa y OrganfzaVon c/o WHIlarr, Brado 203 Oak Ave Yaklma, 101A 98901 B4 Total Parc�IS - Urlon Gospel Mission - App al - AH1,40021-15 wkf-off, 46 Uea!96,— ftvf#00p--I,S � -t113115 L-,)w Office of Flower & Anidreo'! c/o Patrck AndreotO 303 E D St #1, Yak! ma, WA 98901 D10C. INDEX # Ntc of HE Decision Parties of Record - Union Gospel Mission - At P #002 -15 (CL2 #004 -15) Jean Owens Attn: Patrick Andreotti William Brado ���������— Atin: Rick Phillips Mina Kyle 1602 Speyers Rd Flower & Andreotti Yakima, WA 98908 203 Oak Ave William Brado Union Gospel Mission _ ......... ......._....................... David H y � ai�"1��ti9Sl �111,PJ Selah, WA 98942 303 East D Street Ste 1 Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima, WA 98908 1300 N I" St Bertha Lopez Debra Raney 230S2 d St Yakima, WA 98901 5501 Pear Butte Dr Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima, WA 98907 Yakima, WA 98901 Caarmod (n7mftlav✓ corm 302 N 22nd Ave 1408 N I" St 1300 N l n St Yakima, WA 98902 Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima, WA 98902 Bob Whitney Carol W, Lynn Hartman 308 N 21" Ave 710 N 68h Ave 201 Oak Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Yakima, WA 98908 Yakima, WA 98901 William Brado ___............ Alice Keller _ ......... ......._....................... David H 201 E Oak St #6 621 W Yakima Ave PO Box 8328 Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima, WA 98902 Yakima, WA 98908 James Carmody Bertha Lopez Debra Raney 230S2 d St PO Box 1814 5501 Pear Butte Dr Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima, WA 98907 Yakima, WA 98901 Caarmod (n7mftlav✓ corm Dean Owens Davin Gill Stephanie Beaman 1707 N I" St PO Box 4335 1707 N 1 n St Yakima, WA 98901 Richland, WA 99353 Yakima, WA 98901 Samina Engle Tracie Erie Angel Gonzalez �tl B711C1,' llg con) �.,.,, n) 109 Bartlett PI 107 Bartlett Pl Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima, WA 98901 PO Box 2052 Yakima, WA 98907 Name Debbie Cook Dana Kallevig Dan Riddle Mark Kunkler Jeff Cutter Archie Matthews Mark Soptich Chief Rizzi Joe Caruso Carolyn Belles Jerry Robertson Glenn . Denma ... n Suzanne DeBusschere Dave Brown Mikeu Shane Randy Meloy Scott Schafer James Dean James Scott Kevin Futrell Joan Davenport For the Record/File Binder Copy Ryan C, 902 S 31" Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Ed Kershaw 4706 Green Ridge Drive Yakima, WA 98908 Chris C. PO Box 10988 Yakima, WA 98901 541 Pomona Heights Rd Yakima, WA 98901 DeNard Jones 110 N 55'h Ave Yakima, WA 98908 Dennis O'Brill 109 Bartlett Pl Yakima, WA 98901 In -House Distribution E -mail List . ................ Division E -mail Address Wastewater Engineering Legal Dept Legal WWDept ..... _..... ONDS Fire Dept Police Department Code Administration ....... Code Administration Code Administration Code Administration Code Administration Water /Irrigation Engineering ........................................... ___M Wastewater Public Works Dept Utilities Refuse Division Transit Division Planning danat.kalicviJ @ akuJlaawa.,grry Mar ',kunlcl i° at ya in awa.ggy J.gfE r1.ttgr@y'akj, ear ity archiemaiLlIpyw al Cn�l iawa. mmg,lar Joe. �aaa atsaa.y.. „taaaaywa;.y J, Abbenhaus 4211 Scenic Dr Yakima, WA 98908 Phil Wachsmith 71 Rolling Hills Dr Yakima, WA 98908 PO Box 565 Yakima, WA 98901 Nicole O'Connor 907 Carriage Hill Dr Yakima, WA 98908 Marvin Lindley 4101 McLean Dr Yakima, WA 98908 200 S 3`d St Yakima, WA 98901 p y robcl�9sa1 raaaTlaywta gaa glan,la.de tl�ldn rakiinawa,6 v uzatin debUSSCh ,,re yjjkjtaa<tW44Qy. dave.brown@ a1(hnawa gay 11oli:e I ?Lt ta'gatkiy!, .I )y Scott , scha f r akllaa,aatva gL Jain e .s,c t r yakln�au q goy Type of Notice: I vk-(— o f E Dc SI O^_, File Number: RP#OOA- , Date of Mailing:' Revised 12/2014 INDEX Maxev, Lisa From: Maxey, Lisa Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 2:39 PM To: Belles, Carolyn; Brown, David; Caruso, Joe; Cook, Debbie; Cutter, Jeff; Davenport, Joan; Dean, James; DeBusschere, Suzanne; Denman, Glenn; Futrell, Kevin; Ibarra, Rosalinda; Kallevig, Dana; Kunkler, Mark; Matthews, Archie; Maxey, Lisa; Meloy, Randy; Riddle, Dan; Rizzi, Dominic; Robertson, Jerry; Schafer, Scott; Scott, James; Shane, Mike; Soptich, Mark Cc: Martin, Trevor Subject: NOTICE OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION - Union Gospel Mission - APP #002 -15 (CL2 #004 -15 & CL2 #019 -14) Attachments: NOTICE OF HE DECISION - Union Gospel Mission - APP.pdf Attached is a Notice of Hearing Examiner's Decision regarding the above - entitled project. If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact assigned planner Trevor Martin at (509) 575 -6162 or by email at trevor.mart n akimawa. . Thank you! .Lisa t Department Assistant :ll (509) 576 -6669 isa . City of Yakima Planning Division 129 N. 2nd St. Yakima, WA 98901 INDEX COMMUNi IY DEVELOPMENT DEP T E loan Davenport, AICP, Director 129 lVorth Second iStreet� 2nd Floor 'Yakima, Washington 98901 Phone (509) 575-6183 183 a 1 "a (509) 575-610,15 w,fi)w. al(;ii awa.,iruo7)1,,uer;iceilcommu it ,rl,i! elopm nt. NOTIFICATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION July 13, 2015 On July 9, 2015 the City of Yakima Hearing Examiner rendered his decision on APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 & CL2 #004 -15). The appeal submitted by William Brado and the Yakima Gateway Organization is an appeal of the Administrative Official's Decisions for CL2 #019 -14, approving construction of a parking lot, and CL2 #004 -15, approving the construction of a new health care clinic for the Union Gospel Mission in the GC /M -1 zoning district. The appeal was reviewed at an open record public hearing held on June 17, 2015. Enclosed is a copy of the Hearing Examiner's Findings and Decision. Any part of the Hearing Examiner's decision may be appealed to the Yakima City Council. Appeals shall be filed within fourteen (14) days following the date of mailing of this notice and shall be in writing on forms provided by the Planning Division. The appeal fee of $340 must accompany the appeal application. For further information or assistance you may contact Trevor Martin, Assistant Planner, at (509) 575 -6162 or e-mail: t gygrj a,arti! a iu °n wy gqv. Trevor Martin Assistant Planner Date of Mailing: July 13, 2015 Enclosures: Hearing Examiner's Decision DOC. IND" # di 575-6126 ^ 111daddingy (509),575-6183 ^ Qfflee qtNewhbrhdddad . DaWm7dddj)dddr,dPt Mu "edwks,v (5) 575-6101 City of Yakima, Washington Hearing Examiner's Decision July 9, 2015 In the Matter of the Appeals of Two Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to the Union Gospel Mission Submitted by: William Brado and the Yakima Gateway Organization Relative to Construction of Additional Parking, Health Care Clinic Facilities And Residential Dormitory Units at The Existing Union Gospel Mission Site Located at 1300 North 1St Street RECEIVED JUII- 0 0 2015 CITY OF YA I A COMMBffY DEVELOPMENT APP #002 -15 CL2 #019 -14 CL2 #004 -15 A. Introduction. The findings relative to the procedural aspects of this matter leading up to this decision are as follows: (1) An open record public hearing for this consolidated appeal was conducted by the Hearing Examiner on June 17, 2015, which lasted for more than four hours. (Exhibits D -4 & D -9; video recording of proceeding). (2) Assistant Planner Trevor Martin presented his staff report which addressed issues presented in this consolidated appeal and which recommended denying the appeal and affirming the two decisions being appealed. (Exhibit A -1). (3) Testimony in favor of the Appellants' position to the effect that the grounds for appeal should be granted and the decisions being appealed should be reversed was William Brado /Yakima Gateway Organization 1 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 1St St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) DOC. N DEX G— I presented by attorney Patrick Andreotti on behalf of Appellants William Brado and the Yakima Gateway Organization, by Appellant William Brado, and by Gary Rufener, Mina Kyle, Devin Gill, Jean Owens, Lynn Hartman, Charles Fields and Stephanie Beaman. (4) Testimony in favor of the Respondent Applicant's position to the effect that the appeal should be denied and the decisions being appealed should be affirmed was presented by Respondent Union Gospel Mission's attorney James Carmody, Union Gospel Mission's Executive Director Rick Phillips, Dennis Michael Buehler, Ryan Crafts, Bertha Lopez, Calvin Friend, Alondra Garibay, Ed Kershaw, Bob Whitney, Manichanh Ratts, Marvin Lindley and Beth Klingele. (5) Testimony in favor of the Respondent City of Yakima's position to the effect that the decisions being appealed should be affirmed was presented by Senior Assistant City Attorney Mark Kunkler and Supervising Planner Jeff Peters in addition to Assistant Planner Trevor Martin. (6) Prior to the hearing, one anonymous written public comment was received in opposition to the parking lot application (Exhibit B -6), and two anonymous written public comments and a written comment from Appellants' attorney Patrick Andreotti were received in opposition to the health care clinic /residential dormitory application (Exhibits C -6(a), page 1; C -6(b), page 1; & C- 6(c)). A petition signed by 227 people was sub- mitted in part before the hearing and in part during the hearing which requested that the Union Gospel Mission abide by its 1994 agreement with local businesses and that the Union Gospel Mission and City work together to insure that the signers and their customers and visitors have safe and clean access to their property. (Exhibits D -6 & E- 13). Additional exhibits submitted at the hearing and made a part of the record included three written public comments from Dennis O'Brill, Angel Gonzalez and Tracie Erie in opposition to the application (Exhibits E -8, E -9 & E -10); a Hearing Memorandum from Patrick Andreotti favoring the Appellants' position (Exhibit E -I1); a Hearing Memorandum from Mark Kunkler opposing the Appellants' position (Exhibit E -7); a copy of the previous 1992 and 1995 decisions interpreting and approving the Union Gospel Mission's uses at 1300 North 1St Street (Exhibits E -1, E -2, E -3 & E -4); a May 30, 2015 letter from Bruce Smith explaining the intent of the 1994 agreement relative to access from Oak Street to the proposed parking area (Exhibit E -5); and a June 10, 2015, letter from Patrick Andreotti detailing Yakima Gateway Organization requests of the Union Gospel Mission (Exhibit E -6). The record was kept open until June 24, 2015, in order to allow the attorneys involved in this appeal to submit additional information and William Brado /Yakima Gateway Organization 2 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 1S` St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) INDEX case authorities. On that date Mr. Carmody submitted pertinent case authorities (Exhibit E -14) and Mr. Andreotti submitted pertinent ordinance provisions (Exhibit E -15) which were made a part of the record. The record of this consolidated appeal hearing was thereupon closed as of June 24, 2015. (7) A review of the court cases and ordinance provisions submitted on June 24, 2015, revealed that the alternative events that constitute the issuance of a decision triggering the 21 -day Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) appeal period in RCW 36.70C.040(3) are different from the singular event which constitutes a notice of a decision triggering the 14 -day Class (2) decision appeal period specified by applicable City zoning ordinance provisions. (Exhibits E -14 & E-15; YMC §15.16030(B); & YMC §15.14.050). Since the meaning of the requirement in YMC §15.14.050 that notice of a Class (2) decision be mailed "to other parties receiving initial notice" in addition to the applicant is not clarified by any other ordinance provision or Planning Division written policy or procedure, the three attorneys of record in this decision were invited by means of an interim decision dated July 1, 2015, to submit a brief position statement regarding the meaning of that phrase by July 7, 2015. (Exhibit F -1). They did so and their position statements are supplemental exhibits in the record. (Exhibits F -2, F -3 and F -4). (8) After a de novo review pursuant to YMC § 15.16.030(F) of all of the exhibits in the record, the video recording of the hearing and the City ordinance provisions, the State statutory provisions and the Washington court cases relevant to this appeal, this decision has been issued within ten business days of the date when the Hearing Examiner announced at the hearing that the record would be closed on June 24, 2015. B. Summary of Decision. The Hearing Examiner denies the appeal of the CL2 #019 - 14 parking lot decision and the appeal of the CL2 #004 -15 health care clinic /residential dormitory decision, affirms the CL2 #019 -14 decision and modifies the CL2 #004 -15 decision by adding a condition. C. Basis for Decision. Based upon the Hearing Examiner's most recent view of the site and nearby properties with no one else present on June 16, 2015; his consideration of William Brado/Yakima Gateway Organization 3 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 15` St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) the staff report, exhibits, testimony and other evidence presented at the open record public hearing on June 17, 2015, as well as the additional Court case and City ordinance authorities submitted on June 24, 2015, and additional position statements submitted on July 7, 2015; and his consideration of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance which is Title 15 of the Yakima Municipal Code (YMC) and other applicable Washington State Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) author- ities; the Hearing Examiner makes the following findings: I. FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE HEAR- ING EXAMINER TO HEAR AND DECIDE THIS CONSOLIDATED APPEAL (1) YMC §1.43.080(A) empowers the Hearing Examiner to hear, make a record of, and decide matters prescribed by the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, Title 15. (2) YMC §15.14.070 provides that any decisions by the Administrative Official under Type (2) review may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner in accordance with YMC Chapter 15.16. (3) YMC § 15.16.030 specifies the details required for such appeals to the Hearing Examiner. (4) The Hearing Examiner's jurisdiction to hear and decide this consolidated appeal of the decisions for CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15 was not an issue in this proceeding, but the Applicant contends that the Hearing Examiner is required to affirm the decision for CL2 #019 -14 without a consideration of the Appellants' grounds for appeal due to the lack of a timely appeal. (Exhibits E -14 & F -2). IL FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE HISTORY OF THE APPROVALS OF THE UNION GOSPEL MISSION AT ITS CURRENT LOCATION William Brado/Yakima Gateway Organization 4 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 1st St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) INDEX (1) On February 13, 1992, after the City of Yakima (City) referred a request for a Use Interpretation to Hearing Examiner Philip Lamb, he held a public hearing regarding the request. (Exhibit E -1, page 1). The stated purpose of the interpretation proceeding which was assigned City file number INTERP. #1 -92 was to determine whether the activities conducted by the Union Gospel Mission (UGM) fit within any existing land use classifications in the City's zoning ordinance and, if not, to establish and define a new land use with a specified level of review. (Exhibit E -1, page 2). (2) On February 27, 1992, the Hearing Examiner issued a Use Interpretation which found that the nature of existing and proposed UGM activities included a range of services such as spiritual and material support for those in need, meals both on and offsite, clothing and other staples, dental clinics, a foot clinic, shower and similar facilities, residential facilities, a youth center, food and lodging facilities for homeless men and families, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, dormitory and family shelter, dining and kitchen facilities, auditorium, gymnasium and maintenance /repair shops. (Exhibit E- 1, pages 2 -3). The uses primarily reviewed by the Hearing Examiner to determine if the UGM activities were already a classified use included uses designated as community centers, halfway houses, detention centers, hospitals, group homes, high density multi- family dwelling units and boarding houses. The zoning districts considered for the appropriate location of an unclassified "Mission" use included the Central Business District (CBD) and Central Business District Support (CBDS) (Currently known as General Commercial (GC)) zoning districts. (Exhibit E -1, pages 7 -11). The Hearing Examiner established a new use not previously classified as a use in the City's zoning ordinance which could be considered for location in two zoning districts as follows: "The combination of uses typified by the Yakima Union Gospel Mission shall be characterized as a `Mission,' subject to Class 2 review in the Central Business District (CBD) and Central Business District Support (CBDS) zones." He defined the "Mission" use as follows: "Mission means a facility typically owned or operated by a public agency or non - profit corporation, providing a variety of services for the disadvantaged, typically including but not limited to temporary housing for the homeless, dining facilities, health and counseling activities, whether or not of a spiritual nature, with such services being generally provided to the community at large." (Exhibit E -1, page 1). (3) On July 10, 1992, the City's Administrative Official issued a Class (2) use decision for City file number CL(2) #10-92 approving the proposed UGM "Mission" use at 1300 North 1St Street, subject to eight conditions. (Exhibit E -2). William Brado/Yakima Gateway Organization 5 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. Is' St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) D INDEX �. (4) On July 24, 1992, the Yakima Gateway Organization appealed the Adminis- trative Official's decision for CL(2) #10-92 to the Hearing Examiner on the grounds that (i) the Administrative Official did not have authority to consider the UGM's application; (ii) the Administrative Official's refusal to consider comments was unlawful; (iii) the proposed use was incompatible with the uses surrounding it; (iv) the proposed use would adversely impact adjoining property values; and (v) the proposal lacked adequate parking. (Exhibit A -1, page 2). (5) After conducting a public hearing over a period of four days, the Hearing Examiner on October 19, 1992, issued his decision regarding the appeal submitted by the Yakima Gateway Organization which upheld the Administrative Official's decision to allow UGM to locate at 1300 North 1St Street, subject to eight conditions. (Exhibit E -3). (6) On June 8, 1995, at the request of UGM, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing regarding a three - pronged application submitted by UGM and on June 9, 1995, he issued a second Use Interpretation which was assigned City file number Interpretation #2 -95. It modified the conditions of the previous 1992 Use Interpretation and allowed the "Mission" use to also be considered a Class 2 use in the Light Industrial (M -1) zoning district. (Exhibit E -4, pages 1, 3, 6 &7). III. FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE HISTORY OF BOTH OF THE APPLICATIONS AND DECISIONS SUBJECT TO THIS APPEAL (1) On December 2, 2014, the Union Gospel Mission (UGM) submitted an application which was assigned City file number CL2 #019 -14. It requested approval to construct a new paved parking lot 13,000- square -feet in size consisting of 32 standard parking spaces and 2 handicapped parking spaces. (Exhibit B -1). (2) On December 18, 2014, a Notice of Application was mailed to the Applicant and to only three of the 21 landowners within 300 feet of the UGM site due to an error in the City's mailing system discovered on March 27, 2015. (Compare Exhibit B -S(a), page 3, with Exhibit C -S(a), page 1; Exhibit B -S; Exhibit B -5(b); Exhibit A4, page 2; Exhibit E -7, page 2). Notices of Application and Notices of Decision are also routinely emailed to 21 City employees listed on the City's In -House Distribution E -mail List and three or four Planning Division staff members. (Exhibits B -S(a), B -7(a), C -5(a), C -7(a), D- 4(a)). William Brado /Yakima Gateway Organization 6 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 1st St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) C INDEX (3) On January 2, 2015, the only written public comment submitted during the 20- day public comment period for CL2 #019 -14 was submitted anonymously without a return address. (Exhibit B -6 and Exhibit List description for Exhibit B -6). (4) On January 20, 2015, the City's Class (2) decision was issued approving the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot application subject to conditions. (Exhibit B -7). The Notice of Decision for that decision was mailed to the Applicant. It was not mailed to any parties of record due to the fact that the only public comment was anonymous without a return address. Nor was it was mailed to any landowners within 300 feet of the UGM development site entitled to the Notice of Application because the Planning Division interprets the phrase "parties entitled to initial notice" in YMC §15.14.050 to mean parties of record rather than landowners. (Exhibit B -7(a), B -7(b), B -6 & Exhibit List description of Exhibit B -6; Exhibit F -1, pages 2 -3; & Exhibits F -2, F -3 & F -4). (5) On February 6, 2015, a Certificate of Zoning Review was issued for construc- tion of the 34 -space parking lot on parcel number 181313 -11504 owned by UGM which had been approved by the decision in CL2 #019 -14. (Exhibit B -8). (6) On March 3, 2015, UGM submitted application CL2 #004 -15 for approval of a 3,585- square -foot health care clinic use and a 5,688- square -foot residential dormitory use to be constructed within the interior space of its facility located east of the 34 -space parking lot which had been approved by the decision in CL2 #019 -14. (Exhibit C -1). (7) On March 17, 2015, a Notice of Application for CL2 #004 -15 was mailed to parties of record and to 21 landowners within 300 feet of the UGM site. (Exhibits C -5, C -5(a) & C- 5(b)). Three written public comments were thereafter received during the 20- day comment period, one of which was from Appellants' attorney Patrick Andreotti. (Exhibit C -6(a), page 1; Exhibit C -6(b), page 1; & C- 6(c)). (8) On March 27, 2015, it was brought to the City's attention that the December 18, 2015, Notice of Application for UGM's CL2 #019 -14 parking lot application which had been approved on January 20, 2015, had not been mailed to all of the landowners within 300 feet of the site due to an error in the City's mailing system that failed to generate an address for every landowner within 300 feet of the site. (Exhibit A4, page 3; Exhibit B -5; Exhibit B -5(a) compared with Exhibit C -5(a); Exhibit C -7, page 7, Finding No. 7; Exhibit E -7, page 2; & Exhibit E -11, page 1). (9) On March 30, 2015, Appellant William Brado asserted in a letter addressed to Joan Davenport, Community Development Department at City Hall, that the decision William Brado/Yakima Gateway Organization 7 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 15` St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) INDEX approving UGM's parking lot should be withdrawn and that work should cease on the parking lot. His stated reasons for those assertions were that a court would decide that the rights of property owners were violated due to the City's failure to notify adjoining neighbors of the intent to approve the parking lot and that the decision should be considered null and void because it allowed access to the parking lot from Oak Street in violation of an agreement between UGM and business owners in the area. (Exhibit D -1). (10) On March 30, 2015, a Stop Work Order was placed on the UGM parking lot project, which is still in place. (Exhibit A-], page 3). (11) On April 17, 2015, the City of Yakima issued a decision approving UGM's health care clinic /residential dormitory application CL2 #004 -15. (Exhibit C -7). (12) On May 1, 2015, the City Planning Division received an Appeal from William Brado and Yakima Gateway Organization which appealed the decisions for both applications CL2 #004 -15 and CL2 #019 -14. (Exhibit D-1). (13) On May 28, 2015, the City mailed a Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal to the Applicant, the Appellants and the 21 landowners within 300 feet of the site. (Exhibits D -4, D -4(a) & D- 4(b)). The stated intent of the Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal was to cure the failure to provide Notice of Application and Decision for the first application, the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot application. It further gave notice that that decision had been appealed and had been consolidated with an appeal of the CL2 #004 -15 health care clinic /residential dormitory decision. (Exhibit D-4, page 2). (14) On May 29, 2015, Appellants' attorney Patrick Andreotti by letter addressed to Joan Davenport, AICP Planning Manager, Director of Community Development at City Hall, asserted that the Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal in file no. CL2 #019 -14 regarding UGM's parking lot application failed to cure the original defective notice because YMC §15.40.040(B) [sic. YMC §15.14.040(B)] and State and Federal constitutional due process provisions require that notice and an opportunity to be heard be given before the administrative decision is made. (Exhibit D -5). (15) On June 17, 2015, the hearing was held for the consolidated appeals of both the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision and the CL2 #004 -15 health care clinic /residential dormitory decision pursuant to the Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal. (Exhibit D -4). The testimony and written comments described in sections 2 through 6 of the Introduction to this Decision were submitted at the hearing. The Hearing Examiner announced that the record would be kept open until June 24, 2015, to allow for submittal William Brado/Yakima Gateway Organization 8 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 1st St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) EX of additional information. Mr. Carmody submitted additional case authorities and Mr. Andreotti submitted additional ordinance authorities, whereupon the record was closed as of June 24, 2015. (Exhibits E -14 & E -15). (16) A review of the additional case and ordinance authorities submitted by Mr. Carmody and Mr. Andreotti indicated that the meaning of the requirement in YMC § 15.14.050 that notice of a Class (2) decision be mailed "to other parties receiving initial notice" could determine whether the Appellants timely filed their appeal to the Hearing Examiner. The three attorneys of record submitted position statements regarding the meaning of that phrase on July 7, 2015, as requested by an interim decision of July 1, 2015. (Exhibit F- 1,F-2, F -3 & F -4). IV. FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE APPELLANTS' MAY 1. 2015. APPEAL OF THE JANUARY 20 2015. PARKING LOT DECISION IN CL24019 -14 WAS TIMELY SO AS TO PERMIT THE HEARING EXAMINER TO CONSIDER THE STATED GROUNDS FOR THEIR APPEAL OF THAT DECISION (1) The Applicant correctly points out that Washington Courts follow a bright -line rule that will even time -bar Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) appeals from decisions that are "issued" without the requisite notice to property owners if the appeal to Court is not taken within the 21 -day period following "issuance" of a "land use decision." (Asche v. Bloomquist, 132 Wn.App. 784, 133 P. 3d 475 (2006)). (2) A decision is "issued" for LUPA appeal purposes at the latest when the local jurisdiction provides a copy of the decision to the appellant in response to what one Court referred to as a "public disclosure" request and what is commonly referred to as a "public records" request. (Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 155 Wn.2d 397, 120 P. 3d 56 (2005)). A decision can also be considered to be "issued" for LUPA purposes earlier than that such as either (i) on the date when a written decision or notice thereof is mailed to the appellants which did not occur as to the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision until May 28, 2015. (Exhibits B -5(a) & D- 4(a)); (ii) on the date when a decision is made by an ordinance or resolution of a legislative body sitting in a quasi-judicial (appellate) capacity which is not applicable here; or (iii) on the date when a decision is entered into the William Brado /Yakima Gateway Organization 9 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. I" St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) l I„ ��I NDEX public record, which date was not submitted as evidence for this appeal hearing. (RCW 36.70C. 040(3) & (4) (a) -(c)). (3) Here the earliest date that the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision could have been "issued" for LUPA purposes was January 20, 2015, when it was mailed to only the Applicant, provided that only the Applicant was entitled to the Notice of Decision. (Exhibit B -7(a); RCW 36.70C.040(4)(a)). There were no parties of record who could be mailed the Notice of Decision because the only comment was anonymous without a return address. (Exhibit B -6 & Exhibit List description of Exhibit B -6). The next earliest date that the decision could have been "issued" for LUPA purposes was the date of a March 30, 2015, letter from Appellant William Brado addressing details of the decision which he had obtained in a manner and at a time which was not submitted as evidence for this appeal hearing. (Exhibit D -1; RCW 36.70C.040(3) & (4) (c)). But the Appellants claim that the YMC § 15.14.050 requirement to mail the Notice of Application for Class (2) decisions to "other parties receiving initial notice" includes them as landowners within 300 feet of the development site who were entitled to be mailed the Notice of Application for the Class (2) parking lot use application per YMC § 15.14.040(B), but who did not receive that Notice of Application because of an error in the City's mailing system which was discovered on March 27, 2015. (Exhibit C -7, page 7, Finding #7; Exhibit D -4; Exhibit D -5; Exhibit E -7, page 2; Exhibit D -1, page 5; & Exhibit E -11, pages 1 -3) . (4) The failure of Appellants to appeal the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision within 21 days of those possible dates of "issuance" for LUPA purposes is somewhat irrelevant because the Appellants still had to obtain a "land use decision" in order to file a LUPA appeal and still had to exhaust their administrative appeal remedies in order to have standing to pursue their LUPA appeal after filing it. (RCW 36.70C.060(2)(d)). (5) A LUPA appeal must be filed within 21 days of the "issuance" of a "land use decision" which is defined in the State LUPA statutes as "a final determination by a local jurisdiction's body or officer with the highest level of authority to make the determi- nation, including those with the authority to hear appeals on (a) an application for a project permit." (RCW 36.70C.030(1); RCW 36.70C.020(2); RCW 36.700.040(3) -(4)). The final determination relative to a Class (2) use is made by the Yakima City Council. (YMC §15.16.040(A)). In order to obtain that final determination, first it is necessary to appeal the Administrative Official's decision to the Hearing Examiner within "fourteen days following the mailing of the final decision by the administrative official or William Brado/Yakima Gateway Organization 10 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 1s` St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) MEX I-- designee." (YMC 15.16030(A) & (B)). The notice of a Class (2) decision is required to be mailed to the applicant and "to other parties receiving initial notice." (YMC §15.14.050). The initial notice of a Class (2) application is required to be mailed to "all landowners within three hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the development site." (YMC 15.14.040(B)). Consequently, the first prerequisite for Appellants to be able to file a LUPA appeal is a timely appeal of the Administrative Official's decision to the Hearing Examiner, and if unsuccessful at that level, then a timely appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision to the City Council. If unsuccessful at the City Council level, Appellants at that time would then be in a position to file a LUPA appeal of the City's "final determination" as to the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision within 21 days of its "issuance" for LUPA purposes and to have standing so as to be able to thereafter pursue the LUPA appeal after having exhausted all of the City's administrative appeal remedies applicable to Class (2) use decisions. (RCW 36.700 030(1); RCW 36.70C. 020(2); RCW 36 70C. 040(3) & (4) (a) -(c); RCW 36 70C.060(2)(d)). (6) It can be seen from this analysis that the determination of whether the Appellants' grounds for appeal of the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision are properly before the Hearing Examiner for consideration depends upon the City ordinance provisions relative to the 14 -day appeal period for Class (2) decisions rather than the different State statutory provisions relative to the 21 -day appeal period for LUPA appeals. In this regard, the City and the Applicant agree with the Planning Division's interpretation that the Appellants' May 1, 2015 appeal was untimely because it was not within 14 days of the mailing of the January 20, 2015 Notice of Decision for the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision which was properly mailed only to the Applicant since the only "party of record" commented without providing a name or return address. (Exhibits B -6, F -2 & F -4; YMC 15.02.020). The Appellants on the other hand take the position that their appeal was timely because notice of a Class (2) decision must be given to all the parties who initially were mailed the notice of the application, namely to "all landowners within three hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the development site," which here did not occur until the Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal was mailed on May 28, 2015, after their appeal was filed. (Exhibit F -3; YMC 15.14.040(B)). (7) The differing views of the timeliness of the Appellants' administrative appeal of the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision stems from a differing view as to the proper construction or meaning of the phrase in YMC §15.14.050 that requires the findings and decision to be mailed to the applicant and to "other parties receiving initial notice." William Brado/Yakima Gateway Organization 11 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. I" St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) INDEX '6 (Exhibits F -2, F -4 & F -3). Both the Appellants and Applicant argue that their different interpretations are clear from the language used in YMC §15.14.050, and all three of the attorneys have presented persuasive arguments in support of their respective positions. However, none of the position statements regarding the meaning of the pertinent phrase in YMC § 15.14.050 addressed the effect that YMC § 16.07.020, YMC § 16.05.010(A) and YMC § 16.01.050 may have upon its relevance in addressing this issue. YMC § 16.07.020 requires a Notice of Decision to be mailed to the applicant, parties of record and parties who were provided a Notice of Application. YMC §16.05.010(A) requires the Notice of Application to be mailed to the applicant's designated contact person and to the owners of property within three hundred feet of the development site. YMC §16.01.050 states that Title 16 shall govern in the case of conflicts between Title 16 and other ordinances. (8) The Hearing Examiner initially considered the meaning of the phrase in YMC §15.14.050 to be important enough to issue an interim decision requesting additional argument regarding its meaning. (Exhibit F -1). These Title 16 ordinance provisions that were reviewed near the end of the Hearing Examiner's ten - business -day time limit for issuing this decision (from June 24, 2015, when the record was closed) may have an important bearing upon the relevance of YMC §15.14.050. But rather than delay issuance of this decision to obtain argument from the three attorneys of record prior to making a determination as to the relevance of YMC §15.14.050, the Hearing Examiner finds that Appellants' appeal to the Hearing Examiner of the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision was timely filed without the need to determine the meaning or relevance of YMC § 15.14.050. (9) Regardless of the correct construction or the relevance of the language of YMC § 15.14.050, here the City, with the consent and cooperation of the Applicant, itself effectively tolled the time period for the Appellants' appeal by issuing and mailing its supplemental notice of appeal. (Exhibit D -4; Exhibit E -7, page 3, 3Yd paragraph). The Hearing Examiner agrees with the approach that was taken by the City (i) because the City's administrative appeal ordinance provisions do not express the same purposes as the LUPA statutory provisions to provide "timely judicial review" (RCW 36.700 010) and to "prevent parties from delaying judicial review at the conclusion of the local administrative process." (Exhibit 14, Habitat Watch i�. � it Caata�' ��,, supra at page 406); (ii) because of the fact that the disputed language in YMC §15.14.050 is susceptible to two reasonable meanings, one of which would result in a finding that the time period for Appellants' administrative appeal to the Hearing Examiner had not yet passed by May 1, 2015, due to the manner of mailing the Notice of Decision for the CL2 #019 -14 parking William Brado/Yakima Gateway Organization 12 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 1St St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) S lot decision; and (iii) because of issues regarding the relevance of the phrase in YMC §15.14.050 in view of the provisions of YMC §16.07.020, YMC §16.05.010(A) and YMC § 16.01.050. (Exhibits D -4, D -4(a) and D- 4(b)). V. FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE FIRST STATED GROUND FOR APPEAL TO THE EFFECT THAT APPLICATIONS CL2 #019 -14 AND CL2 #004 -15 ARE REQUIRED TO BE REVIEWED AS CLASS 3 RATHER THAN AS CLASS (2) USE APPLICATIONS FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS STATED IN APPELLANTS' "REASON FOR APPEAL" "(a) Annlications CL2 #004 -15 and CL2 #019 -14 are required to be reviewed as Class 3 Land Use Applications: In 1992, the City Hearing Examiner approved a Union Gospel Mission (`UGM') application to locate its facility at its present location, 1300 North 1St Street. The Hearing Examiner's Decision was appealed to the Yakima City Council by the Yakima Gateway Organization (`YGO'). To resolve the YGO appeal, UGN [sic. UGM] and YGO entered into a `Settlement Agreement Re: Union Gospel Mission Relocation' (`Settlement Agreement') pursuant to which, in exchange for withdrawal of the YGO appeal, UGM agreed to substantial conditions and restrictions beyond those imposed in the Hearing Examiner's Decision. The Settlement Agreement was filed with the City August 2, 1994. Section 2 of the Settlement Agreement specifically dealt with future development at the Mission site. Pursuant to Section 2(a), YGO specifically agreed to development as shown on a schematic plan attached to the Agreement. Section 2(b) specifically required future development in excess of that which was shown on the schematic plan attached to the Settlement Agreement would be subject to Class 3 review which would be requested by both UGM and YGO at the time of application for such future development. Neither the parking lot subject to Application CL2 #019 -14 or the present appli- cation CL2 #004 -15 are improvements which were contemplated in the Settlement Agreement and are, therefore, subject to Class 3 review. UGM breached the Settlement Agreement by filing the above - numbered applications as Class 2 land use applications. The City abetted that breach of the William Brado /Yakima Gateway Organization 13 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 1st St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) x Agreement by processing and entering decisions on the two (2) applications as Class 2 applications. The Settlement Agreement and its Class 3 review provisions are specifically enforceable as between the members of YGO and the UGM. Although the City itself was not a party to the Settlement Agreement, the permits the City issued for location and construction of Mission facilities were possible only because of the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The City is required to review the above - numbered applications as Class 3 land use applications. The Decisions in both CL2 #004 -15 and CL2 #019 -14 must be reversed and the applications remanded for processing and reviewed as Class 3 land use applications." (1) No evidence was presented at the hearing to contradict the Appellants' initial assertions relative to this ground for appeal regarding events in 1992 and 1994. Specifically, City Hearing Examiner Philip Lamb's appeal decision approved an appli- cation of the Union Gospel Mission (UGM) to locate its facility at its present location at 1300 North 1St Street in 1992. (Exhibit E -3). The Hearing Examiner's Decision was appealed to the Yakima City Council by the Yakima Gateway Organization (YGO). In order to resolve the YGO appeal, UGM and various members of YGO entered into a private agreement between themselves entitled "Settlement Agreement Re: Union Gospel Mission Relocation" (Settlement Agreement) prior to Council action. In exchange for withdrawal of the YGO appeal, UGM agreed to substantial conditions and restrictions beyond those imposed in the Hearing Examiner's decision. (Exhibit E -4, page 3, P paragraph; Exhibit C -6(c) attachment). Nor was any evidence submitted to contradict the fact that the Settlement Agreement was filed with the City on August 2, 1994; that Section 2 of the Settlement Agreement specifically dealt with future development of the site; and that the parties specifically agreed to development as shown on a schematic plan that was not attached to the copy of the agreement submitted for the record of this appeal. (Exhibit C -6(c) attachment, page I & absence of a page 6). (2) Appellants' assertion that the parking lot use requested by application CL2 #019 -14 and the health care clinic /residential dormitory uses requested by application CL2 #004 -15 are not the type of improvements contemplated in the Settlement Agreement were not disputed. But Appellants' assertions that Section 2(b) of the Settlement Agreement applied to future improvements outside the M -1 zone and was breached by filing the CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15 applications as Class (2) use William Brado/Yakima Gateway Organization 14 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 1st St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) INDEX applications were disputed by the attorney who drafted the agreement. (Testimony of James Carmody). (3) The reference in Section 2(b) of the Settlement Agreement to only the M -1 zoning district would support the interpretation that UGM and YGO agreed to jointly request that the "Mission" use be designated as a Class (3) use in the M -1 zone subject to an exception allowing for Class (2) review of the potential future uses shown on the schematic plan within the M -1 zoning district. (Exhibit C -6(c) attachment, page 1). Section 2(b) of the Settlement Agreement does not contain an agreement to jointly request that the "Mission" use be designated as a Class (3) use in the CBD (Central Business District) or in the CBDS, now GC (Central Business District Support, now General Commercial) zoning districts. Therefore, the wording of the Settlement Agreement, even if it were enforceable against the City, would not clearly and unambiguously require that approval of the health care clinic /residential dormitory uses in the GC zoning district be remanded for Class (3) review. In any case, the proper construction of any ambiguity in that Section 2(b) of the Settlement Agreement would be for a Court rather than the Hearing Examiner to decide. (4) Even if Appellants' construction of Section 2(b) of the Settlement Agreement were to be accepted by a Court, it is clear that any joint request by the UGM and YGO of the Hearing Examiner to designate the "Mission" use as a Class (3) use in the M -1 zone and /or in any other zone was denied by the Hearing Examiner in his Interpretation #2 -95 issued on June 9, 1995. (Exhibit E -4). Even though the hearing for the interpretation process was conducted on June 8, 1995, after the Settlement Agreement was filed with the City on August 2, 1994, the Hearing Examiner in his decision unequivocally classified all "Mission" uses as Class (2) uses in the M -1 (Light Industrial) zoning district despite whatever requests were presented to do otherwise. (Exhibit E -4, page I & page 3, section 7; Exhibit E -4, page 6, Conclusion #2). He did not purport to adopt any of the Settlement Agreement provisions or declare them to be binding on the City. To the contrary, he enumerated independent reasons why it would be appropriate to delete the bus stop requirement that the UGM and YGO agreed to jointly request of the Hearing Examiner and City Council per Section 11 of their Settlement Agreement. (Exhibit C- 6(c) attachment, page 3, section I1). Specifically, he explained that both UGM and YGO were jointly requesting that it be deleted due to the fact that it could become a gathering place for loiterers and the fact that there was already a bus stop on Oak Street adjacent to the site. He expressly found that the City of Yakima was not a party to that Settlement William Brado /Yakima Gateway Organization 15 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 15` St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) INDEX # 0_ J� Agreement and that his deletion of the bus stop was based upon the joint request of UGM and YGO rather than a determination on his part that the City was bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreement. (Exhibit E -4, page 3). (5) If there was any breach of the Settlement Agreement regarding the joint request described in Section 2(b) of the Settlement Agreement, it occurred when the Class of use was assigned to the "Mission" use in the M -1 zoning district by the Hearing Examiner after a public hearing in 1995. The public hearing was conducted as a result of the referral by the Planning Division of a consolidated request for a Use Interpretation and for approval of a Class (2) use application per YMC § 15.14.020(A) & (C). The specific purpose of the referral was for the Hearing Examiner to determine whether the "Mission" use should also be allowed in the M -1 zoning district and, if so, whether UGM's Class (2) use application for the expansion of its activities into that zoning district should be granted. (Exhibit E -4, pages 2 -3). (6) Furthermore, if there was a breach of the agreement to make the joint request described in Section 2(b) of the Settlement Agreement in 1995 when the Class of use of the "Mission" use in the M -1 zoning district was being determined through a public hearing process, the breach was solely a matter between the parties to the Settlement Agreement. The failure of the parties to make such a joint request for either of the two decisions here under review would also be solely a matter between the parties to that agreement. The specific performance of a private agreement is a matter for a Judge rather than a Hearing Examiner to decide. But it is clear for our purposes here that the City did not abet any breach of the Settlement Agreement by processing these two UGM applications as Class (2) uses in accordance with the 1992 and 1995 decisions of its Hearing Examiner and the terms of its zoning ordinance provisions giving precedential effect to such decisions. (YMC §15.22.040(C)). (7) The Appellants' attorney, Mr. Andreotti, correctly recognized that enforce- ment of the private Settlement Agreement would have to be by way of a Court action rather than in an administrative appeal proceeding before a Hearing Examiner. (Exhibit E -6, page 2). Whether the requirement in Section 2(b) of the Settlement Agreement to jointly request that the "Mission" use be classified as a Class (3) use was satisfied or breached during the 1995 public hearing before the Hearing Examiner is not in the record and would in any event be an issue for a Court to determine in addition to the correct construction of the language of the agreement in this regard. Even if that section of the Settlement Agreement is still specifically enforceable, the bottom line is that it is still William Brado/Yakima Gateway Organization 16 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 151 St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) k. only an agreement to jointly request a result that the City is not obligated to accom- modate because, as the Appellants concede, the City was not a party to the agreement. (Exhibit C -6(c) attachment, page 1). Moreover, the City did not here receive such a joint request to elevate the level of review beyond that prescribed by its Hearing Examiner. (8) The Appellants' assertion that the City is required to review these two appli- cations as Class (3) land use applications because the permits the City issued for location and construction of UGM facilities were made possible only because of the terms of the Settlement Agreement is purely speculative so far as the evidence, or lack thereof, in this record is concerned. No evidence was presented in this proceeding to suggest that the City Council would have reversed the Hearing Examiner's decision and denied UGM's application if YGO had followed through with its appeal. (Video recording of June 17, 2015, public hearing & all exhibits submitted). The record does not rule out the possi- bility that the City Council might have affirmed the approval of UGM's "Mission" use with or without conditions similar to the Settlement Agreement if it had been given the opportunity. Development Agreements can be presented to the City Council for its approval, whereupon the City Council can designate an authorized representative to sign them and to make sure they are recorded. But here YGO chose for its own reasons which are not in the record to enter into a Settlement Agreement with UGM and withdraw its appeal before the City Council issued a decision. (Exhibit E -4, page 3). If the reason were relevant, the Hearing Examiner would note that the provisions in Section 18 relative to nondisclosure of the names of the YGO members who signed the agreement suggest a desire on their part to preserve their privacy. (Exhibit C -6(c) attachment, page 4). (9) Regardless of YGO's reasons for withdrawing its appeal to the City Council relative to the approval of the current UGM uses at the current location as Class (2) uses, the provisions of Section 2(b) of the Settlement Agreement clearly do not require the City to now review these two CL2 #004 -15 or CL2 #019 -14 applications as Class (3) land use applications or require a reversal and remand of either of those decisions for processing and review as a Class (3) land use application. The City is not bound to honor, approve or otherwise implement the terms of the private Settlement Agreement between UGM and YGO or to even accept or agree to any joint request that those parties may make pursuant to that agreement, particularly where the request for a different level of review for UGM uses would at the present time be contrary to the most recent and the only determinations that have ever been made as to the appropriate level of review for such uses. (Exhibit E -7, page 5; Testimony of James Carmody and Mark Kunkler). William Brado/Yakima Gateway Organization 17 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 1st St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) 3,1 VI. FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE SECOND STATED GROUND FOR APPEAL TO THE EFFECT THAT THE DECISION ON APPLICATION CL2 #019 -14 IS VOID FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS STATED IN APPELLANTS' "REASON FOR APPEAL" "(b) The Decision on Application CI 2 #019 -14 is void: The UGM expansion contemplated by Application CL2 #004 -15 required additional on -site parking. UGM sought approval for this additional on -site parking through Application CL2 #019 -14. As noted above, the City improperly reviewed this application as a Class 2 land use application rather than a Class 3 application. In addition, the City failed to comply with its own requirements for Class 2 land use review. YMC 15.14.040(B), governing the notice requirements for Class 2 review, provides: `Notification of adjacent property owners. When the administrative official's preliminary decision is to approve the application, or approve with conditions, the administrative official shall, within 5 days, forward a notice of application to all landowners within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the development site....' The 4/17/2015 Decision on this application, Finding 7, acknowledges the City failed to give adequate notice of the parking lot application but finds the Decision `was not appealed.' The fact that Decision was not appealed is not surprising since the adversely affected property owners had no notice of either the application or the Decision. In Preke ,es vs. King Cop ty, 98 Wn.App. 275, 281, 990 P.2d 405 (1999), the Court specifically held: `One purpose of specific statutory requirements for public notice of an impending land use decision is to insure that the decision makers receive enough information from those who may be affected by the action to make an intelligent decision.' In Prosser Hill Coalition vs. Spokane County, 176 Wn.App. 280, 291, 309 P.3d 1202 (2013), the Court recognized defective notice undermines the information gathering process and further recognized and held the proper remedy for effective [sic. defective] notice was a remand to the decision maker for hearing after appropriate notice. William Brado/Yakima Gateway Organization 18 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 1St St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) D INDEX ,: Limitations of RCW Chap. 36.70C are inapplicable in this situation. Because affected property owners had no notice of the application or Decision, they could not and were not required to file a LUPA appeal within the time permitted by statute. The Decision on the parking lot application, CL2 #019 -14, is void for failure to provide notice required by the City's own code. The matter must be remanded for processing after appropriate notice. Because the UGM expansion contemplated by Application CL2 #004 -15 cannot be approved without adequate parking, that Decision must also be reversed and remanded to the Planning Department." (1) The evidence in the record is to the effect that there are currently 125 paved parking spaces for the facility. The 1995 Hearing Examiner decision required 82 parking spaces, the dental clinic added in 2012 requires 10 parking spaces, the new health care clinic would require 20 parking spaces and the new residential uses would require 20 parking spaces for a total of 132 parking spaces. Therefore, seven more paved parking spaces are required for the health care clinic and all of the 18 residential dormitory units described in the CL2 #004 -15 application. Appellants' assertion to the effect that the health care clinic and all of the residential dormitory units proposed by application CL2 #004 -15 required additional on -site parking spaces for which UGM sought approval through CL2 #019 -14 is not disputed. With the approval and construction of the 34 additional paved parking spaces proposed in application CL2 #019 -14, the UGM facility would have 159 paved parking spaces, 27 more paved parking spaces than would be needed for the existing and proposed uses. (Exhibit C -1, page 2; Exhibit C -7, page 3). (2) For the reasons set forth in the Findings relative to the first stated ground for appeal in Section V above, the City did not improperly review this application as a Class (2) rather than a Class (3) application. (3) Appellants' assertions are undisputed to the effect that (i) YMC § 15.14.040(B) requires a Notice of Application for a Class (2) use to be mailed to all landowners within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the development site within five days after a preliminary decision is made to approve the application (Exhibit A4, pages 2 & 9; Exhibit E -7, page 2); (ii) Finding #7 of the April 17, 2015 decision approving the health care clinic /residential dormitory uses per CL2 #004 -15 acknowledges a previous failure to give adequate notice of the parking lot application. (Exhibit C -7, page 7); (iii) the Prekeges case held that one purpose of specific statutory requirements for public notice William Brado/Yakima Gateway Organization 19 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 1st St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) NDEX of an impending land use decision is to insure that the decision makers receive enough information from those who may be affected by the action to make an intelligent decision; and (iv) the Prosser Hill Coalition case recognized that defective notice under- mines the information gathering process and held that the proper remedy for defective notice was a remand to the decision maker for hearing after appropriate notice. (Exhibit E -11, pages 2 -3; Exhibit 14, Prosser Hill Coalition v. Spokane County, supra at pages 283 -284 & 292 -293). (4) The Hearing Examiner need not decide whether the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision would have been void for failure to provide the initial Notice of Application and /or Notice of Decision required by the City's zoning ordinance because the City subsequently cured its defective notice by issuing a Stop Work Order on the parking lot, consolidating the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision with the CL2 #004 -15 health care clinic /residential dormitory decision for review and appeal, and mailing a Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal to all parties entitled thereto. (Exhibits D -4, D -4(a) & D -4(b); Exhibit E -7, page 5; & Exhibit F -4, pages 3 -4). (5) Absent the steps taken to cure or remedy the failure to mail the original Notice of Application to all landowners within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the UGM development site, a Court could find that the original Notice of Application for the proposed parking lot did not substantially comply with the ordinance requirements. The Notice of Application was mailed to three of the 21 owners of adjacent parcels. (Compare Exhibit B -5(a) with Exhibit C- 5(a)). Mailing of the Notice of Application for a Class (2) application to all landowners within 300 feet of the site is important because it is the only type of notice that those landowners are given regarding their opportunity to submit comments regarding Class (2) applications. The Notice of Application for a Class (2) application is neither published in the newspaper nor posted on the property. (Table 11 -2 in YMC Chapter 15.11, YMC §15.14.040(B) & YMC §1605.010). By way of comparison with the facts in Washington cases, posting a sign on a nearby road which was not the most heavily traveled nearby road and stating in the notice that the site was north and west of the wrong nearby road did not substantially comply with ordinance requirements even though the notice was also mailed to property owners within 400 feet of the site. (Prosser Hill Coalition v. County of Spokane, supra at pages 290 -292; Exhibit E -7, page 3; Exhibit E -11, page 2; & Exhibit E -14, page 2). Publishing of a proper notice of application in one newspaper instead of two newspapers and posting the notice seven days less than required did not substantially comply with ordinance William Brado/Yakima Gateway Organization 20 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 1St St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) I a ? . p ^A # requirements even though the notice was also mailed to the property owners within 500 feet. (Exhibit 14, Prekeges v. King County, supra at pages 280 -281). (6) Despite the defects in the mailing of the initial Notice of Application on December 18, 2014, the mailing of the Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal for the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot application on May 28, 2015, constituted substantial compliance with the applicable Notice of Application requirements because it advised of- (i) the December 2, 2014 date of the application; (ii) the May 28, 2015 date of the Notice of Application; (iii) a brief description of the proposed 34 -space parking lot project, including its location at 1300 North 1St Street in Yakima, Washington and its City file number CL2 #019 -14; (iv) the location where the application and any studies could be reviewed at the City of Yakima Planning Division on the 2nd floor of City Hall at 129 North 2nd Street in Yakima, Washiligton, including the City website information that could be found under Quick Links: http: / /www.yakimawa.gov /services /planning /; (v) the June 16, 2015, date as the last day for submission of written comments prior to the hearing and the date of the public appeal hearing on June 17, 2015 when comments also could be submitted; (vi) a statement of the right of any person to comment on the application before or during the hearing and thereby be entitled to receive any future notices and decisions; (vi) the June 17, 2015 date, the 9:00 a.m. time, and the Yakima City Council Chambers location at 129 North 2nd Street in Yakima Washington for the public appeal hearing which was scheduled at the time of the Notice of Application for a date more than 15 days from the date of the Notice; and (vii) additional information about the purpose of the Notice and the details of the consolidated appeal hearing determined to be appropriate by the Director of Community Development. (7) The information set forth in the City's Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal was the information required for a Notice of Application by YMC §16.05.010 and YMC §16.05.020; for a Notice of Public Hearing by YMC §16.05.050; and for a Notice of Appeal of a Class (2) use decision by YMC §15.14.070 and YMC §15.16.030(D) with one exception. Even though the Notice of Application did not specifically state the date of the December 15, 2014, notice of completion for the application (Exhibit B -2) as required by YMC § 16.05.020(A), the Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal stated the physical address where the files and additional information relative to both CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15 were available for public review. (Exhibits D -4, D -4(a) and D- 4(b)). William Brado/Yakima Gateway Organization 21 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 1st St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) (8) Mr. Andreotti argued by letter of May 29, 2015, that notice and an opportunity to be heard must be provided before rather than after the administrative decision is made. (Exhibit D -5). However, even the initial Notice of Application is required to be mailed after a preliminary decision to approve the application has already been made by the Administrative Official under YMC § 15.14.040(B). (9) The fact that a final decision rather than a preliminary decision approving the application had been made before the Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal was mailed does not prevent that Notice from serving the intended purpose for a Notice of Application which is to afford the recipients an opportunity to submit written comments about the application. Here no written comments from the public in addition to the original anonymous written comment of January 2, 2015 (Exhibit B -6) were received by the 19th day of the comment period. Only a letter of May 29, 2015, on behalf of the Appellants from Mr. Andreotti was received which asserted that a Notice of Application cannot be provided after the decision is made. (Exhibit D -5). Here the recipients of the Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal were afforded an additional opportunity to comment that is not normally afforded for Class (2) applications. They were also afforded the opportunity to either submit written comments or live testimony about the parking lot application at the hearing on the 20 "' day of the comment period. (Exhibit D -4, page 2). (10) Curing the defective notice in the manner selected by the City with the Applicant's concurrence is much preferable to a subsequent remand for that purpose either by the Hearing Examiner, the City Council or a Court with the attendant unnecessary delay and expense which that would entail. The Notice of Application after such a remand would also be mailed after a final CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision had already been made. (11) In order to assure that any comments submitted at the hearing relative to the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision had been considered and given the same effect as after a remand of the decision, the Hearing Examiner asked the three Planning Division representatives who attended the entire hearing whether any of the comments submitted during the hearing would cause the Planning Division to change anything in its CL2 #019 - 14 parking lot decision. The response was that no comments were presented at the hearing to cause the Planning Division to change or modify its parking lot decision. (Testimony of Jeff Peters). William Brado/Yakima Gateway Organization 22 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 1St St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) DOC. INDEX ✓ry (12) The evidence presented at the hearing by way of written comments or testimony of any significance relative to the parking lot decision involved the terms of the private Settlement Agreement between UGM and YGO which arguably included more limitations upon the access to the parking lot from Oak Street than was required by the City's decision in CL2 #019 -14. (Video recording of the hearing and all exhibits submitted). Mailing of the Notice of Decision for this Hearing Examiner decision in accordance with the applicable zoning ordinance requirements will cure and remedy any arguable deficiencies in the January 20, 2015 notice of the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision and will commence the 14 -day time period for a further appeal to the Yakima City Council by any aggrieved person(s) or by any agency of the City /County affected by this decision. (13) Even though the proper remedy for notice defects that are not in substantial compliance with the notice requirements is to remand the matter for processing with proper notice (Prosser Hill Coalition v. County of Spokane, supra at pages 283 -284 & 292 -293), and even if the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision would have been void for failure to mail the Notice of Application thereof to all landowners within 300 feet of the UGM site on December 18, 2014, here the parking lot work was subsequently ordered to be stopped and the defect in the mailing of the Notice of Application was cured on May 28, 2015. The defect in the mailing of the notice was cured and remedied by the mailing of the Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal to all persons entitled thereto, including the landowners within 300 feet of the development site. (Exhibits D -4, D -4(a) and D- 4(b)). (14) The actions on the City's part to cure the defects in the December 18, 2014, mailing of the Notice of Application for the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision substan- tially complied with all Notice of Application and Notice of Appeal ordinance requirements without the need for a remand of the decision. These steps on the City's part accomplished substantially the same notice and provided substantially the same opportunity to be heard regarding the application that a remand of the matter would accomplish. This is true even though it was mailed after the January 20, 2015 decision was issued because remand of the matter would also involve the mailing of a second Notice of Application after the January 20, 2015 decision had already been made. This is also true whether it allowed a 19 -day comment period during which no additional public comments were received about the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision or whether it allowed a 20 -day comment period for submission of either written or verbal comments at William Brado/Yakima Gateway Organization 23 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. Is` St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) Doe. INDEX the hearing which did not provide any basis for changing or modifying that decision. The City's timely steps to cure and remedy notice issues before the hearing, which should be encouraged, avoided the unnecessary delay and expense that a remand of the matter would entail. (15) Since there is no need to remand the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision to the Administrative Official to re- process that application with proper notice, the CL2 #004 -15 health care clinic /residential dormitory decision which requires additional paved parking spaces need not be reversed and remanded to the Administrative Official to await re- processing that application. However, in the event that the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision is appealed to the Yakima City Council and in recognition of the fact that the CL2 #004 -15 health care clinic /residential dormitory decision is a separate decision that could possibly be partially completed or modified or completed with other provisions for seven parking spaces elsewhere or completed while an appeal is pending or otherwise considered separately from the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision, the following condition will be added to the CL2 #004 -15 health care clinic /residential dormitory decision: "f. Additional parking spaces of the number and type specified by YMC Chapter 15.06 are required for those uses that are approved and constructed pursuant to this decision." VIL FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE THIRD STATED GROUND FOR APPEAL TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CL2 #004 -15 DECISION MUST BE REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A DETERMINATION OF COMPATIBILITY FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS STATED IN APPELLANTS' "REASON FOR APPEAL" "(c) Compatlbili y: Whether the present application is properly reviewed as a Class 2 or a Class 3 application, compatibility review is required. YMC 15.04.020(B) and (C). The City's Decision on this application notes the compatibility requirement for a Class 2 review but does not address compatibility issues in the Decision or findings. Compatibility was a hotly contested issue at the initial hearings on location of the UGM on North 1St Street. Some of the compatibility issues were addressed in the William Brado/Yakima Gateway Organization 24 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 1s` St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) * INDEX Settlement Agreement with the imposition of additional conditions to mitigate some impacts of the Mission on surrounding businesses. Those conditions include: Section 3 of the Agreement required the Mission to provide a restroom to the general public 24 -hours per day, 7 days per week. This restroom facility is not presently provided with resulting, anticipated adverse effects on surrounding property. Section 6 of the Agreement provided UGM would provide a reading /day room between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Clients would be allowed to stay on the UGM property as long as they adhere to UGM rules. This facility does not appear to have been maintained, if it was ever provided with the result that Mission residents and clients for other services are out on North 1st Street and surrounding areas most or all of the day. Section 10 of the Agreement provided the Mission would provide two (2) scheduled shuttles per day offering transportation for clients to designated spots in the City for a minimum of one (1) year. The shuttle service was not continued with the result that there is now a steady stream of pedestrians, clients and residents of the Mission, moving up and down North 1st Street on both sides of the street, interfering with businesses in the area and their customers. Section 12 of the Agreement provided a minimum of one (1) uniformed night security guard would be provided by UGM to make hourly patrols of the property and stay in radio communication with the Yakima Police Department. This has not been done. Section 15 of the Agreement limited occupancy of the facility to 260 residents, unless otherwise reduced by the City of Yakima Fire Code provisions. It is unknown what the current number of residents of the facility is or what the total number of residents would be if the proposed expansion is approved. The total number of residents must, however, be limited to 260 consistent with the Agreement. The starting point of any compatibility review for expansion of UGM facilities and operations must be a determination of whether or not UGM has complied with the conditions pursuant to which it began operations on North 1 st Street, and whether or not those conditions were, in fact, adequate to render the Mission and its operations compatible with surrounding land uses. The compatibility of expanded facilities and operations of UGM must also be viewed in light of the effect the current operations have had on property values in the neighborhood. William Brado/Yakima Gateway Organization 25 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 15` St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) INDEX r��w:wnwrGO�u�u� An example of the impact on values is the former Red Lion Inn property, Parcel No. 181313 - 11001. At the 1992 hearing, substantial testimony and evidence was submitted in behalf of Red Lion that the location of the Mission would have a devastating impact on their business and property values. In 2005, the property sold for $3,911,000.00 (Excise Tax Receipt No. 374046). In 2012, the property sold at a trustee's sale following foreclosure of a Deed of Trust for $2,000,000.00 (Excise Tax Receipt No. E001954). In 2013, the property sold for $1,500,000.00 (Excise Tax Receipt No. 433294), approximately 38% of its 2005 value. The 4/17/2015 Decision must be reversed and remanded to the Planning Department for determination about UGM's compliance with the original conditions imposed as well as a specific evaluation of or if additional conditions are required to insure the compatibility of current and expanded Mission operations with the existing businesses on North 1st Street." (1) Appellants correctly assert that the present applications require compatibility review whether they are Class (2) uses or Class (3) uses under YMC §15.04.020(B) or YMC §15.04.020(C). Under those provisions, both Classes of uses must be compatible with the intent and character of the district and the policies and development criteria of the Yakima urban area comprehensive plan. The purpose of the zoning district development standards is to achieve, or at least promote, compatibility of Class (2) uses by objective and uniform standards prescribed by the City's legislative policy- making body rather than by subjective and unpredictable opinions held by different Admin- istrative Officials, Hearing Examiners or City Councils. (YMC §15.05.010, YMC §15.06010, YMC §15.07.010, YMC §15.08.010 & RCW 15.09.010). (2) Against this backdrop mandating the consideration of the compatibility of UGM's existing and proposed uses in the context of the intent and character of the M -1 (Light Industrial) and GC (General Commercial) zoning districts and the comprehensive plan policies and development criteria, the City's decisions in CL2 #019 -14 and in CL2 #004 -15 speak for themselves as to the many factors they consider and address in detail regarding the compatibility of the uses they approve. (3) The CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision contains a consideration of the nature of the proposal which is to construct a 34 -space 13,000- square -foot paved parking area next to UGM's existing facility similar to other paved parking on its site. The decision contains (i) a consideration of the intent of the General Commercial comprehensive plan William Brado/Yakima Gateway Organization 26 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 1St St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) D INDEX designation to include retail and service uses; (ii) a consideration of the applicable comprehensive plan goals and policies that are consistent with the existing UGM use and its request for additional parking; (iii) a consideration of the intent of the M -1 zoning district which is in part to minimize conflicts between uses in the M -1 district and surrounding uses and also to avoid generating noise levels, light, odor or fumes that would constitute a nuisance or hazard per YCC §15.03.020; (iv) a consideration of the zoning classifications of the surrounding properties which are the same as the two zoning classifications of the UGM site; (v) a consideration of the specific zoning ordinance requirements that apply to the parking lot application, including landscaping of the parking area, sidewalk installation along Oak Street, installation of lighting for the parking lot that will be directed to reflect away from adjacent properties, construction of the driveway to the parking lot, sitescreening that is already provided for the parking lot, the proper width for the access aisles next to the two accessible parking spaces, paving of the undeveloped property so as to reduce airborne particulate levels of dust and installation of a stormwater collection system to filter surface runoff. (Exhibit B -7; YMC §15.06090(A); YMC §12.05.010; YMC §15.06.100; YMC §15.06.065(E); YMC §15.06065(G); YMC Chapter 15.07; YMC Chapter 8.64; YMC ,¢15.06065; & YMC §12.03.010) . (4) The CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision also contains a consideration of the fact that a parking lot by itself, without being part of a "Mission" use, would be an outright permitted Class (1) use in the M -1 zoning district. It finally imposes conditions requiring the construction of a sidewalk on the south side of Oak Street along the UGM frontage and requiring eight- foot -wide access aisles next to the two nine - foot -wide accessible parking spaces. A large part of the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision in some way addresses factors relating to the compatibility of the parking lot with the intent and character of the M -1 zoning district and with the policies and development criteria of the comprehensive plan. (Exhibit B -7). No testimony or written comments submitted at the hearing detailed any basis for finding the parking lot to be incompatible with the intent and character of the M -1 zoning district or the policies and development criteria of the comprehensive plan. Appellants' main contention regarding the compatibility of the parking lot as approved was the failure of the access from Oak Street to be limited in the way that they contend was the intent of the Settlement Agreement, which interpretation was disputed by UGM. William Brado /Yakima Gateway Organization 27 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 1s` St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) R, INDEX (5) The CL2 #004 -15 health care clinic /residential dormitory decision likewise contains a consideration of the nature of the proposal which is to construct inside the exterior boundaries of its existing facility (i) a new 3,585- square -foot health care clinic connected to its existing dental clinic which will consist of a reception office, administration area, waiting room, assessment /vitals lab, exam rooms, dispensary, storage area and other support facilities and also (ii) 18 second - floor -level residential dormitory units above the health care clinic and dental clinic that will accommodate 10 women in 5 units and 28 men in 13 units with other support facilities and improvements. The decision also considers in great detail the factors to be considered relative to compatibility and the manner in which they apply to specific features of the health care clinic and the residential dormitory units. (Exhibit C -7; YMC 15.06.090(A), YMC §15.06100; YMC §15.06.065(E); YMC §15.06.065(G); YMC Chapter 15.07; YMC Chapter 8.64; YMC §15.06.065; and YMC §12.03.010; comprehensive plan Goal 3.10, Goal 3.16, Policy 3.16.1 & Policy 3.16.2). The decision indicates (i) that the additional dormitories are intended to provide better separation of single men from families; (ii) that the installation of a sidewalk along Oak Street would be deferred for a time during which the installation of a fence was recommended in accordance with the suggestion of UGM; and (iii) that the access to the parking lot from Oak Street must be gated with an automated access for use exclusively by delivery, maintenance and operations of the Union Gospel Mission and not by UGM clients. (Exhibit C -7, page 7; Exhibit C -7, page 8, condition 1(c)). (6) The record confirms Appellants' contention that compatibility was a hotly contested issue at the initial hearings on the location of the UGM at its current North 1St Street site. Prior to the Administrative Official's Class (2) decision in CL(2)#10-92 on July 10, 1992, a total of 796 letters had been submitted for the record, 329 letters in opposition and 467 letters in favor. (Exhibit E -2, page 2). Some of the compatibility concerns listed in that decision were expressed by those in opposition to the decisions in this consolidated appeal, though there was considerably less opposition to the current applications and decisions than expressed by the 329 letters submitted and four days of testimony presented in 1992. (Exhibit E -2, page 3). The conditions required by the 1992 decision greatly contributed to the compatibility of UGM's existing facility with the surrounding area. (Exhibit E -2, page 4). They were the result of a thorough and expert consideration of the compatibility of the "Mission" use at the current 1300 North 1St Street location for at least 21 pages of the Hearing Examiner's appeal decision issued on October 19, 1992. (Exhibit E -3, pages 12 -33). His interpretations of the "Mission" use as compatible at its current location in Interp. #1 -92 and Interpretation #2 -95 also exhibit a thorough understanding and consideration of the UGM uses and their compatibility in comparison with other uses in the area and in the same zoning districts. (Exhibit E -1 and E -4). His compatibility analysis is equally applicable to the decisions involved in this consolidated appeal because the current applications will not significantly change the UGM uses that have for the most part been in place since 1996. (7) The proposed parking lot and health care clinic /residential dormitory uses will likely increase the compatibility of UGM's use by providing a paved rather than dirt parking area with lighting and storm drainage and utilization of interior space within the facility to improve the ability to provide quality health care and residential facilities in order to better serve people who would are in dire need of that type of assistance. Members of the public who expressed opposition to those proposed uses at the hearing were mainly objecting to the inappropriate conduct of homeless people who were unwilling to abide by the rules of conduct that are required to be a client of UGM. Some of the main objections can generally be summarized as follows: (a) Some homeless people who walk to and from or loiter in the vicinity of the UGM site use business and residential properties as restrooms or subject property owners to theft, vandalism or other criminal acts without any conse- quences, and cause customers of businesses and renters of residential property to avoid the area with an attendant significant loss of income and decrease in property values. (b) As asserted by the petition submitted to the Planning Division that is signed by 227 people (Exhibits D -6 & E -13), the UGM operations would be more compatible if UGM were to comply with the Settlement Agreement provisions filed with the City in 1994, including the provision prohibiting all access to the parking lot from Oak Street except for utilities. (8) On the other hand, members of the public who testified in favor of the additional UGM uses indicated that UGM clients likely are not the ones causing problems for nearby businesses and residents. They emphasized the valuable services that UGM provides for disadvantaged individuals in our area. Those services include temporary housing, meals, job skills classes, dental and medical treatment, addiction recovery programs, catering, recycling and referrals to other local service providers. It does so through volunteers and donations rather than tax dollars. Improving the UGM health care clinic with the additional parking spaces needed for that use will allow UGM to provide better health care services to the community without exacerbating the William Brado/Yakima Gateway Organization 29 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 1S` St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) INDEX problems detailed by those who testified in opposition to the proposed uses. The UGM has been complying with all of the provisions of the Settlement Agreement and will continue to do so, although there is a difference of opinion as to the intended meaning of several of the provisions. Some of the main points expressed by members of the public who testified in support of the approval of the UGM parking lot, health care clinic and residential dormitory uses can be summarized as follows: (a) The fact that people who create problems for businesses or residences are not residents of UGM is apparent from the host of activity that takes place on North 1St Street after 9:00 p.m. when UGM residents are in bed. There have been 30 to 40 homeless people living along the river for many years who have always walked up and down North lst Street. Many of them have mental problems which sometimes lead to inappropriate conduct. Many homeless people are war veterans who are suffering from the effects of traumatic stress syndrome. Some people from other areas become homeless here when they are released from the County jail. Disadvantaged people from other areas are never bussed or invited to the UGM, but are instead referred to resources in their local area. UGM does not condone criminal activity and works closely in cooperation with law enforcement and responds promptly to complaints from property owners about criminal conduct of people in the vicinity. Exclusively through donations and the efforts of numerous volunteers without any federal, state or local tax dollars, the UGM helps many adults and youth change their lives and become productive citizens who would otherwise likely end up either dead or in prison. Decreases in business profits and property values along North 1St Street over the years have been due to factors other than UGM such as the impoverished nature of much of that area which has attracted impoverished individuals for various reasons over the years and such as the fact that development of the downtown mall, the convention center and a variety of tourist attractions resulted in the location of new national chain restaurants, hotels and other businesses there for the convenience of their customers rather than on North 1 st Street. (b) Specifically with regard to the effect of the proposed health care clinic on the type of concerns expressed by the opponents at the hearing, that clinic will not affect the number of people coming to the UGM, but will allow UGM to have a better facility to better provide services that it has been providing for years. Only about 10% of the health care clinic patients are homeless. Medical care is provided to most homeless individuals by government programs. About 90% of William Brado/Yakima Gateway Organization 30 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 1st St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) DOC. NDEX the UGM's patients are hard - working low- income people who drive to and from their appointments. They are typically uninsured people who would not be able to access medical care except by using hospital emergency rooms which are unable to provide the primary and preventative medical care needed and which are sometimes so expensive that the only alternative is bankruptcy. (c) Specifically with regard to compliance with the Settlement Agreement, UGM has complied with all of the provisions of that agreement and will continue to do so. For example, UGM has two day rooms, public restrooms and a park in the back surrounded by six - foot -high walls that are accessible from the south side of the building. UGM has a night watchman who checks the property. UGM will not have more that the 260 residents specified in the agreement even with the proposed residential dormitory units that are primarily intended to provide separation between single men and families. An average of 128 residents stay at UGM which includes about 40 in men's programs, 20 -25 in women's shelter housing, 5 -10 immobile seniors and 25 -30 physically or mentally handicapped residents. The largest number of residents that UGM has ever housed is 214. The additional 18 dormitory units for 38 residents, even if they were all additional residents, would not exceed the 260 maximum number in the agreement. The Settlement Agreement allows access to the parking lot from Oak Street for the delivery of services and not for access by UGM clients. The proposed parking lot area has historically been used for the storage of materials. UGM clients have not been allowed access to that area. It was not intended that access to that area from Oak Street be limited to access for utilities only. The Settlement Agreement provides that the UGM will provide a half -hour time slot at the beginning of each monthly Board meeting for YGO members to attend in order to facilitate commu- nication and allow the two organizations to work more closely together, but no YGO member has ever appeared at a Board meeting to discuss any concerns. (9) Appellants' assertion that requirements of their private Settlement Agreement would mitigate some of the UGM impacts on surrounding businesses are properly addressed in a specific performance action in a Court rather than in this proceeding because its requirements are in addition to the standards in the City's zoning ordinance and because the intended meaning of several of the requirements is disputed. The requirements of that agreement are private commitments between the UGM and YGO which are not binding upon the City. Insofar they exceed the standards set forth in the City's zoning ordinance, the City would be reluctant to impose them absent a joint William Brado/Yakima Gateway Organization 31 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 1s` St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) iNDEX request which was never submitted for the CL2 #019 -14 or CL2 #004 -15 applications. (10) The Settlement Agreement requirements in addition to those required by City ordinances may be enforceable by a Court action as mentioned in Mr. Andreotti's letter to Mr. Phillips. (Exhibit E -6, page 2; Exhibit C -6(c) attachment, page 4, section 19). Insofar as Mr. Phillips and Mr. Carmody both testified that all of the requirements of the agreement have been and will be complied with, another alternative to confirm whether that is the case would be for YGO members to take advantage of their contractual right per Section 5 of the Settlement Agreement to attend Board meetings to ask questions, make requests or otherwise open avenues of communication in the interest of working closer together to find solutions to concerns. (Exhibit C -6(c) attachment, page 2). (11) The only direct evidence that was submitted at the hearing regarding the issue of UGM's compliance with the 14 conditions of the decisions pursuant to which it began operations on North 1St Street was to the effect that it did comply with those conditions. (Exhibit A -1, page 10, last paragraph). Additional conditions have been imposed on UGM's operation by the two decisions subject to this consolidated appeal which promote the compatibility of the parking lot and health care clinic /residential dormitory uses. (Exhibit B -7, page 7; Exhibit C -7, pages 7 -8). (12) There was testimony at the hearing to the effect that new development in the City such as construction of the convention center was the cause of the decrease in the value of the Red Lion Inn property rather than the commencement of the UGM operations at 1300 North 1St Street in 1996. Since the value of the Red Lion Inn in 1996 was not submitted into evidence, it cannot be determined from the evidence in the record whether its value decreased from 1996 to 2005. If it did not, it would be reasonable to conclude that the decrease in value between 2005 and 2013 was due to factors other than the UGM operations, including perhaps even worsening economic conditions in addition to new development elsewhere in the City. (13) For these reasons, the decision in CL2 #004 -15 need not be reversed and remanded to the Planning Division for a determination regarding UGM's compliance with the original conditions imposed as well as a specific evaluation as to whether additional conditions are required to insure the compatibility of current and expanded UGM operations with the existing businesses on North Ist Street. William Brado/Yakima Gateway Organization 32 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 1st St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) INDEX , , VIII. FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE FOURTH STATED GROUND FOR APPEAL TO THE EFFECT THAT THERE ARE SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN CERTAIN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE CL2 #004 -15 DECISION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS STATED IN APPELLANTS' "REASON FOR APPEAL" "(d) Specific ecific Defects in the 4/1.71201.7 Decision: Without waiving any of the foregoing objections to the validity of the 4/17/2015 Decision, the following- described Findings, Conclusions and portion of the Decision are erroneous and require reversal of the Decision: Finding 3: The finding the application is subject to Class 2 is erroneous as noted above. Class 3 review is required. Finding 4: The 1990 [sic., 1992] Decision and the Settlement Agreement limit the total number of residents at the facility to 260. This includes not merely UGM clients, but also UGM staff residing on the premises. There must be specific evidence and a specific finding the increased residential facilities will not increase the capacity of the UGM facility to house more than 260 residents. Findings 7 -11: As noted above, the Decision authorizing expanded parking facilities is void for failure to give required notice. In addition, Finding 11 permitting use of the Oak Street access for "delivery, maintenance and operations of the Union Gospel Mission" is contrary to the Settlement Agreement. Settlement Agreement, Section 4, provides: `Access [sic. Client access] to the property, current and future, shall be restricted to the south side [sic. southside] alley entrance designated by the [sic.] Hearing Examiner. The 1St [sic. First] Street entrance will be for administrative and staff [sic., purposes] only, [sic. .J [sic. There shall be no] access [sic. from Oak Street except] for delivery or services to the subject property.' The Agreement as written contains a typographical error. The phrase `delivery or services' was intended to be "delivery of services" and it was understood and agreed by all parties to the Agreement the only access to the UGM facility from Oak Street would be for delivery of utility services such as sewer, water and electricity. No vehicular or pedestrian access from Oak Street was to be permitted. Any approval of the additional parking must specifically preclude any access from Oak Street. William Brado/Yakima Gateway Organization 33 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. Is' St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) INDEX Finding 12: The recommendation that a 6 -foot fence be installed along the entire length of the Union Gospel Mission abutting Oak Street should be a requirement, not a recommendation. Conclusion 1: The Conclusion the proposed expansion of facilities and services is "compatible with adjoining land uses" is unsupported by evidence in the record or Findings in the Decision and must be reversed. Decision, Section C: For the reasons stated above, the Decision must be reversed in its entirety." (1) The Finding in decision CL2 #004 -15 that it is subject to Class (2) review is not erroneous as indicated by the Findings set forth above in Section V of this decision. Class (3) review is not required. (2) The CL2 #004 -15 application requested five dormitory units to house two women each, eleven dormitory units to house two men each and two dormitory units to house three men each for a total of 38 residents. The testimony at the hearing was to the effect that the average occupancy of the UGM facility is 128 residents, that the most residents that UGM has ever housed is 214 and that the intent of the additional dormitories is to provide better separation of single men from families. Even if all 38 residents were additional residents, UGM would still have less than 260 residents. As previously stated, YGO has the contractual right to monitor compliance with Section 15 of its Settlement Agreement by attending Board meetings per Section 5 thereof if it wishes to do so. (Exhibit C -1, page 2; Exhibit C -7, page 3; Testimony of Rick Phillips). (3) The CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision is not void for failure to give required notice because of the steps taken by the City prior to the June 17, 2015 hearing to substantially comply with all of the City's Notice of Application requirements for Class (2) uses which are analyzed in detail in the Findings set forth in Section VI of this decision. (4) Appellants' assert that Finding 11 of the CL2 #004 -15 decision which restricts the parking lot allowed by CL2 #019 -14 to use for delivery, maintenance and operations of the UGM by way of an automated access gate and prohibits use by clients is contrary to Section 4 of the Settlement Agreement because that section was intended to provide that there shall be no access from Oak Street except for delivery of utility services to the subject property rather than what it says: "There shall be no access from Oak Street William Brado /Yakima Gateway Organization 34 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 1St St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) MEX except for delivery or services to the subject property." Appellants' assertion would require proof of an unintended mistake in the way the contract reads, a construction of the phrase "delivery of services" and an answer to the question of where other than from Oak Street are delivery or service vehicles allowed to access the UGM site if client access is restricted to the southside alley entrance and the First Street entrance is for administrative and staff purposes. (Exhibit C -7, pages 7 -8; Exhibit C -6(c) attachment, page 2). (5) Whatever the assertions may be in this regard, it would be for a Court to decide if the language in Section 4 of the Settlement Agreement is ambiguous and, if so, to evaluate the live testimony of witnesses who profess to recall its intended meaning. If the meaning is determined to be as asserted by Appellants, perhaps the circumstances would lead a Court to specifically enforce that provision in addition to what the City has required at the suggestion of the Applicant. The Settlement Agreement is similar to private covenants against property which impose requirements in addition to what the City requires and which the City likewise does not enforce. The requirement of an automated gate to the parking lot to assure use only for delivery, maintenance and operations of UGM in Finding 11 and Condition 1(c) of the CL2 #004 -15 decision was added at the suggestion of the UGM. (Exhibit C -7, pages 7 -8). Many of the Findings in Section V of this decision relative to the terms of the Settlement Agreement that purport to classify the "Mission" use as a Class (3) use are equally applicable to the terms of the Settlement Agreement that purport to specify the type of access to the UGM parking lot. (6) Appellants' assertion that the recommendation for a 6 -foot fence along the Oak Street frontage in the CL2 #004 -15 decision should be a requirement is similar to the access limitations for the parking lot. The UGM already satisfies the City's requisite sitescreening requirements along Oak Street. The fence recommendation was also only included in the decision at UGM's request as a temporary feature pending installation of a sidewalk. (Exhibit C -7, page 7, Finding 12; Exhibit A4, page 13, 2 "paragraph). (7) For these reasons, the CL2 #004 -15 decision is not required to preclude all access from Oak Street to the UGM parking lot. (8) Conclusion 1 of the CL 4004 -15 health care clinic /residential dormitory decision to the effect that those uses are compatible with adjoining land uses is supported by evidence in the record and Findings in the decision and need not be reversed. A large part of that eight -page decision addresses in some way the compatibility of those uses "with the intent and character of the district and the policies and development criteria of William Brado /Yakima Gateway Organization 35 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 1st St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) W the Yakima urban area comprehensive plan." (YMC 1 S. 04.020(B)). Many of the Findings in Section VII of this decision are applicable to Appellants' assertions relative to this stated ground for appeal. IX. FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE FIFTH STATED GROUND FOR APPEAL TO THE EFFECT THAT APPELLANTS' REQUESTED RELIEF SHOULD BE GRANTED IN THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC WAYS AS SET FORTH IN APPELLANT'S' "REASON FOR APPEAL" "(e) Requested Relief: Appellants request: The Decision in Application CL2 #019 -14 be determined to be void for lack of adequate notice. Applications CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15 be reversed and remanded to the City Planning Department for processing as Class 3 land use applications as required by the Settlement Agreement pursuant to which the UGM was permitted to locate at its present site. The Decision on Application CL2 #004 -15 be reversed and remanded with specific directions to the Planning Department any Decision approving the application specific- ally include the conditions contained in the Settlement Agreement, and access to the facility from Oak Street be specifically prohibited in addition to any other conditions imposed to insure compatibility." (1) The Hearing Examiner declines to decide that the decision in the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision is void for lack of adequate notice for the reasons detailed in the Findings set forth in Section VI of this decision. (2) The Hearing Examiner declines to reverse and remand the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision and the CL2 #004 -15 health care clinic /residential dormitory decision for processing as Class (3) land use applications, declines to find that the Settlement Agreement requires that result and declines to find that UGM was permitted to locate at its present site because of the Settlement Agreement. This request is denied for the reasons detailed in the Findings set forth in Section V of this decision. William Brado/Yakima Gateway Organization 36 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 1st St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) xb��f (3) The Hearing Examiner declines to reverse and remand the CL2 #004 -15 health care clinic /residential dormitory decision with specific directions to the Planning Division to specifically include in any decision approving the application the conditions contained in the Settlement Agreement and the condition that access to the facility from Oak Street be specifically prohibited in addition to any other conditions imposed to insure compatibility. This request is denied for the reasons detailed in the Findings set forth in Sections V, VII and VIII of this decision. CONCLUSIONS Based upon the foregoing Findings, the Hearing Examiner reaches the following Conclusions: (1) The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction under YMC §15.16.030(F) to affirm, reverse, wholly or in part, or modify a Class (2) decision that is appealed, and to that end is vested with all the powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken. (2) Public notice requirements have been satisfied for this consolidated appeal and for the decisions being appealed. (3) Both of the decisions in CL2 #019 -14 and in CL2 #004 -15 have been properly reviewed and decided as Class (2) uses rather than Class (3) uses. (4) The defects in the mailing of the Notice of Application and arguably in the Notice of Decision for the Administrative Official's CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision were cured and remedied with the requisite mailing of a Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal which substantially complied with the notice requirements for said Administrative Official's decision whether it allowed 19 days for written comments to be submitted or 20 days for written comments and /or live testimony to be submitted. (5) In the event that the CL2 4019 -14 parking lot decision is appealed to the Yakima City Council and in recognition of the fact that the CL2 #004 -15 health care clinic /residential dormitory decision is a separate decision that could possibly be partially completed or modified or completed with other provisions for seven parking spaces elsewhere or completed while an appeal is pending or otherwise treated separately from William Brado/Yakima Gateway Organization 37 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 15` St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) u the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision, the following condition will be added to the CL2 #004 -15 health care clinic /residential dormitory decision: "f. Additional parking spaces of the number and type specified by YMC Chapter 15.06 are required for those uses that are approved and constructed pursuant to this decision." (6) Compatibility of the existing and proposed UGM uses have been considered thoroughly by three Class (2) administrative proceedings and four public hearings before the City's Hearing Examiner and have been conditioned as a result of said proceedings to satisfy the Class (2) use requirement for compatibility with the intent and character of the district and the policies and development criteria of the Yakima urban area compre- hensive plan. (7) Neither the requirements of the 1994 private Settlement Agreement nor the joint requests of the UGM and YGO submitted pursuant to that agreement are binding upon the City even though they may be considered as appropriate regarding issues of compatibility. Issues of interpretation and enforcement of the terms of that agreement by an action for specific performance of the terms are properly determined by a Court rather than a Hearing Examiner. (8) None of the Appellants' asserted grounds for appeal warrant the reversal and /or remand of either of the decisions in CL2 #019 -14 or in CL2 #004 -15 for the reasons set forth in the Findings for this decision. (9) Any of the Findings set forth in this decision that constitute Conclusions are intended to be considered as Conclusions to the same extent as if they were included within this section of this decision. (10) This decision may be appealed within the time and in the manner required by applicable City ordinances. DECISION This consolidated appeal which is being processed under City of Yakima file number APP #002 -15 is DENIED; the decision which is being appealed and which was William Brado/Yakima Gateway Organization 38 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 15` St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) INDEX issued under City of Yakima file number CL2 #019 -14 is AFFIRMED; and the decision which is being appealed and which was issued under City of Yakima file number CL2 #004 -15 is MODIFIED to include the following additional condition: f. Additional parking spaces of the number and type specified by YMC Chapter 15.06 are required for those uses that are approved and constructed pursuant to this decision. DATED this 9th day of July, 2015. William Brado/Yakima Gateway Organization 39 Consolidated Appeal of Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to Union Gospel Mission, 1300 N. 1s` St. APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15) tLP-= 6%. Gary M. 6ifflier, Hearing Examiner DOC. INDEX loan Davenport, 129 North Second Street, 2nd t:'loor Yakima, Washing, ton � 890 Phone (509) 575-6183 Fax (509) 575 -6105 NOTIFICATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION July 13, 2015 On July 9, 2015 the City of Yakima Hearing Examiner rendered his decision on APP #002 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 & CL2 #004 -15). The appeal submitted by William Brado and the Yakima Gateway Organization is an appeal of the Administrative Official's Decisions for CL2 #019 -14, approving construction of a parking lot, and CL2 #004 -15, approving the construction of a new health care clinic for the Union Gospel Mission in the GC /M -1 zoning district. The appeal was reviewed at an open record public hearing held on June 17, 2015. A copy of the Hearing Examiner's Findings and Decision is available upon request and is posted on the Planning Website under Quick Links: litt : / /www, al <itrmawa. aov/services/ latittiim ,,/. Any part of the Hearing Examiner's decision may be appealed to the Yakima City Council. Appeals shall be filed within fourteen (14) days following the date of mailing of this notice and shall be in writing on forms provided by the Planning Division. The appeal fee of $340 must accompany the appeal application. For further information or assistance you may contact Trevor Martin, Assistant Planner, at (509) 575 -6162 or e- mail: tevor.martitt( kim awa.gov. Trevor Martin Assistant Planner Date of Mailing: July 13, 2015 0 ®C. INDEX Yakh m "° 111xftd UNION GOSPEL MISSION APP #005 -15 (APP #002 -15 — CL2 #019 -14 & CL2 #004 -15) EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER H Appeal to City Council (APP #005 -15) rim t VMS H -1 Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision 07/27/2015 H -2 ....... .. .... ..........._ _ .................._ ......... Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision (Appeal to 08/18/2015 City Council) H -2a: Parties and Agencies Notified H -2b: Affidavit of Mailing H -3 ..................... Letter of Transmittal of Mailing Labels 09/02/2015 H -3a: Parties and Agencies Notified H -4 Memorandum Extension Request from James Carmody 09/15/2015 H -5 - - -- - � .... ................ ... ............ Brief Statement received from Patrick Andreotti 09/16/2015 H -6 ._._._. ........ ......._.... ____... Brief Statement received from Mark Kunkler 09/17/2015 H -7 _ .............. __ Brief Statement from James Carmody ._._. __ ........... __ ............ .................... _ .................. . ....... ._..... ....._............................................... _ ............................................................... ............................... 09/24/2015 _. . . . ..................... BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF YAKIMA _._ -. ------- _.w. Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision on the APP #05 -15 Appeal of William Brado and Yakima Gateway Organization Relative to Class (2) CL2 #019 -14 Authorizations for Construction of Additional CL2 #004 -15 Parking, Healthcare Facilities and Residential Dormitory Units at the Existing Union Gospel Mission Site Located at 1300 North lst Street, Yakima, Washington IT et ii UNION GOSPEL MISSION'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION AND IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL This Memorandum is submitted by Union Gospel Mission with respect to William Brado and Yakima Gateway Organization's appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision and on APP #005 -15 (CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15). I. INTRODUCTION Union Gospel Mission ( "UGM ") filed two land use applications with the City of Yakima. The applications sought authorization of the following: 1. An application for approval of a new 13,000 square foot paved parking lot. The parking lot is within and enclosed area on the western perimeter of the property. The lot will provide 32 standard parking spaces and two handicapped spaces. 2. An application for approval of a 3585 square foot healthcare clinic and a 5688 square foot residential second floor connected to the existing dental clinic. (CL2 #004 -15). While both uses are Class (1) uses within the General Commercial (GC) and Light Industrial (M- 1) zoning districts, the applications were processed as Class (2) uses in accordance with prior UNION GOSPEL MISSION'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION AND IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL - 1 LAW OFFICES OF MEYER, FLUEGGE & TENNEY, P.S. 230 South Second Street • P.O. Box 22680 Yakima, WA 98907 -2680 Telephone (509) 575 -8500 INDEX interpretations and land use decisions.' City of Yakima Community Development Department reviewed the applications and issued Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Decisions approving both applications.2 Both decisions affirmed compliance with all development standards and established specific project conditions. William Brado and Yakima Gateway Organization ( "Appellants ") filed administrative appeal of City of Yakima's approval of the land use applications. The administrative appeal challenged alleged notice and procedural defects in the administrative process; errors in the applicable standard of review; failure to apply provisions of a 1994 Settlement Agreement between YGO and UGM; and other issues.3 Hearing Examiner conducted a full de novo public hearing on June 17, 2015. Hearing Examiner issued an extraordinarily detailed and complete decision on July 9, 2015.4 The decision 1 Medical clinics are Class (1) uses within the General Commercial (GC) zoning district. The parking lot is an outright permitted Class (1) use in the M -1 zoning district. Hearing Examiner Decision VII(4). The applications were reviewed as Class (2) uses under prior Hearing Examiner Interpretations. 2 Class (2) land use applications are reviewed by Community Development Department. YMC 15.14.040. Administrative Official is authorized to issue a decision on such applications. YMC 15.14.040(C). The administrative official is required to prepare findings and conclusions stating the specific reasons, and citing the specific chapters and sections of the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance (UAZO) upon which the administrative official's decision is based. YMC 15.14.040(E). The findings must demonstrate that the administrative official's decision complies with the policies of the Yakima Urban Comprehensive Plan, the intent of the zoning district, and the applicable development provisions and standards. Id. Administrative Official's decisions with respect to both application comply with all provisions of the review ordinance. 3 William Brado and Yakima Gateway Organization (YGO) filed an appeal of both administrative decisions on May 1, 2015. Decisions by the administrative official under Type (2) review are appealed to the Hearing Examiner. YMC 15.14.070. The appeal is conducted in accordance with procedures established by YMC Ch. 15.16. The appeal is heard in an open record hearing with the hearing being held de novo. YMC 15.16.030. Appellant and the public are afforded a full and complete opportunity to present evidence, testimony and argument in order to establish a record and challenge the basis for the decision. YMC 15.16.030(F). Hearing Examiner is authorized to consider the testimony, evidence and argument and issue a final decision on the appeal and applications. Id. Decisions of the Hearing Examiner are final unless appealed to the legislative body. YMC 15.16.030(G). 4 Hearing Examiner's decision is unprecedented in its detail and attention to appeal issues, hearing testimony and evidence and applicable legal issues and principles. The decision addresses each issue and includes specific findings of fact and conclusions with respect to the issue presented. Appellants have not challenged any of the factual determinations contained within the decision. UNION GOSPEL MISSION'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LAW OFFICES OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION AND IN OPPOSITION TO MEYER, SmmO St E & TE0, EWN P.S. 230 South ���trati� Sga�u�t � I" �?, a�i4¢a�n R(p APPEAL - 2 Yakima, WA Ga��I� °b7 �1a�6��I FF EI tekphono (5099 575-K500 SEP 4 2015 INDEX CITY (),F YAK11WA was thorough, complete and detailed in its analyses and determinations with respect to specific points raised during the course of the appeal. The appeal hearing was an "open record hearing" which allowed full and complete testimony with respect to all issues. All parties were afforded a full and complete opportunity to present their respective cases. All issues were fully vetted and addressed. Appellants make no arguments that they were denied the opportunity to fully and completely develop their case. And they have not challenged Examiner's factual findings. They simply disagree with his conclusions. They are requesting a second bate of the apple before the City Council. This appeal is different than the open record proceeding before the Hearing Examiner. City Council sits in an appellate capacity. City Council has vested Hearing Examiner with authority to conduct hearings and make decisions on administrative appeals. City Council is required to "...give substantial deference to both the legal and factual determinations of a Hearing Examiner...." Lanzce G. Douglass, Inc. v. City of Spokane Valley, 154 Wn. App. 408, 415 (2010). And the City Council "...is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the examiner." Maranatha Mining, Inc. v. Pierce County, 59 Wn. App. 795, 800 -01 (1990). Hearing Examiner listens to the testimony, weighs the evidence and credibility of witnesses, and makes a final decision. Hearing Examiner issued a 39 page decision. It is an amazingly thorough, complete and comprehensive decision. Appellants simply reiterate their appeal points and ask that the City Council substitute their judgment for that of the Hearing Examiner. This is not permissible. Maranatha Mining, Inc. v. Pierce County, 59 Wn. App. 795, 800 -801 (1990). The court in Maranatha drew the following distinction: If the examiner's decision constitutes a recommendation only, the Council may substitute its judgment for that of the examiner on all issues. See, e.g., Rosales v. Department of Labor & Indus., 40 Wn App. 712, 715, 700 P.2d 748 (1985); West Slope Comm'ty Council v. Tacoma, 18 Wn. App. 328,337-38, 569 P.2d 1183 (1970), review denied, 89 Wn.2d 1016 (1978). If, on the other hand, the Council acts only as an appellate body with its determination based solely on the original record, it is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the examiner, and it must sustain the examiner's findings UNION GOSPEL MISSION'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LAW OFFICES OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION AND IN OPPOSITION TO MEYER, FLOEGGE & TE P.S. 230 South Second Street • P.O. Box Box 2 22680 APPEAL-3 Telephone (o9�A��s- ��i�a;?1FCJE1V S® INDEX St:P 24 1015 U1.1 Y lt� YAKIMA PCANN,f oav of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence. See Messer v. Snohomish Cy. Board of Adjustment, 19 Wn. App. 780, 787, 578 P.2d 50 (1978). Hearing Examiner's Decision is supported both factually and legally by the record established in public hearing. IL FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND DECISION 2.1 Land Use Applications. The factual background regarding the applications is straight - forward and relatively undisputed. Union Gospel Mission ( "UGM ") filed two (2) separate land use applications. (a) Paved Parks tI <1. UGM submitted an application requesting approval for construction of a new paved parking lot which was 13,000 square feet in size consisting of 32 standard parking spaces and two handicapped parking spaces. (File No. CL2 #019 -14). The parking area adjoins the UGM facility and is similar to other paved parking on the site. Examiner's Decision VII(3). The proposed parking area complies with all development standards and ordinance requirements. UGM requested no adjustments or variances. Access to the parking area is gated (with automatic access) and from Oak Street. Use is exclusively for delivery, maintenance and operations. Clint access is prohibited. (b) Healthcare Clinic /Residential Dormitory. UGM submitted an application for Class (2) approval of a 3,585 square foot healthcare clinic and 5,688 square foot residential dormitory to be constructed within the interior space of its facility. (File No. CL2 #019 -14). The facility is designed to provide healthcare to underserved populations. Only about 10% of the health care patients are homeless.5 The residential component provides better design and does not increase total residents. s Hearing Examiner thoroughly reviewed the proposed healthcare clinic in the context of concerns raised by opponents at the hearing. Hearing Examiner made the following findings: UNION GOSPEL MISSION'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LAW OFFICES OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION AND IN OPPOSITION TO MEYER, FLUEGGE & TE P.S. 230 South Second Street • P,O, Box Box 2 22680 APPEAL-4 Yakima, WA 98907 -2680 Telephone (509) 575 - 8500`0 21 411 INDEX ;., 2� 5 -1 YAPWA Ltm While each proposed use is normally a Class (1) outright permitted use within the zoning district, City of Yakima complied with prior land use interpretations and processed the applications as Class (2) uses. YMC 15.14.040(c).6 Administrative Official was authorized to issue decisions on such land use applications. Administrative official issued a decision approving the CL2 #019 - 14 parking lot application on January 20, 2015. Administrative approval was issued for the healthcare clinic /residential dormitory (CL2 #004 -15) on April 17, 2015. City suspended all work on the approved projects on March 30, 2015. The Stop Work Order was issued to address purported notice defects in the review process. UGM complied with all City directives. 2.2 Application Notice and Procedures. While Appellants have raised several technical challenges to the notice procedures, the record is uncontroverted that City of Yakima bent over backwards to provide opponents a full opportunity to present objection in a public hearing. All work was stopped on the project and supplemental notice sent to property owners and agencies on May 28, 2015. The notice provided the opportunity to submit comment or testimony Specifically with regard to the effect of the proposed healthcare clinic on the type of concerns expressed by the opponents at the hearing, that clinic will not affect the number of people coming to the UGM, but will allow UGM to have a better facility to better provide services that it has been providing for years. Only about 10% of the healthcare clinic patients are homeless. Medical care is provided to most homeless individuals by government programs. About 90% of UGM's patients are hard - working low- income people who drive to and from their appointments. They are typically uninsured people who would not be able to access medical care except by using hospital emergency rooms which are unable to provide the primary and preventative medical care needed and which are sometimes so expensive that the only alternative is bankruptcy. Examiner's Decision VII(8)(b). Detailed testimony was provided by physicians with respect to clinic operations, patient composition and provision of services to the homeless. Appellants have not taken exception to these factual determinations. 6 Administrative Official is authorized to issue a decision on Class (2) land use applications. YMC 15.14.040(C). Administrative Officials are required to prepare findings and conclusions supporting the decision; identify applicable development standards and ordinance requirements; and determine compliance with policies of the Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, zoning district and other applicable provisions. YMC 15.14.040(E). The decision of the Administrative Official may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. YMC 15.14.070. Hearing Examiner conducts a de novo public hearing on the application. YMC 15.16.030(F). Hearing Examiner's decision shall be final unless appealed to the city council. YMC 15.16.030(G). UNION GOSPEL MISSION'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION AND IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL - 5 at a scheduled public hearing. City's brief contains an accurate and complete summary of the procedural history. UGM supports and joins in with City's position. Hearing Examiner conducted public hearing on June 17, 2015. The hearing lasted nearly four hours with extensive testimony provided by both project proponents and opponents. Hearing Examiner considered all of the evidence and testimony, weighed the credibility of witnesses, and issued a final decision on July 9, 2015. Hearing Examiner should be complimented on the detail and analysis in his decision. Each appeal point was addressed, testimony and evidence weight, and decision issued in a professional manner. 2.3 Hearine Examiner Public Hearin x. As a beginning point, Hearing Examiner acknowledged that initial notice on the parking lot application (CL2 #019 -14) was defective but concluded that such defect was cured by a supplemental notice and opportunity to be heard. The Hearing Examiner need not decide whether the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision would have been void for failure to provide the initial Notice of Application and /or Notice of Decision required by the City's Zoning Ordinance because the City subsequently cured its defective notice by issuing a Stop Work Order on the parking lot, consolidating the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision with the CL2 #004 -1 S healthcare clinic /residential dormitory decision for review on appeal and mailing a Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal to all parties entitled thereto. Examiner's Decision IV(4). Hearing Examiner found that the corrective measures undertaken by City constitute a substantial compliance with the notice requirements: Despite the defects in the mailing of the initial Notice of Application on December 18, 2014, the mailing of the Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal for the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot application on May 28, 2015, constituted substantial compliance with the applicable Notice of Application requirements because it advised of- (i) the December 2, 2014 date of the application; (ii) the May 28, 7 It is important to note that the procedural challenge based on notice related only to the parking lot application. The Notice of Application for the Healthcare Clinic /Residential Application (CL2 #004 -15) was properly mailed to parties of record and to 21 landowners within 300 feet of the UGM site. Examiner's Decision III(7). There are not procedural issues with respect to this application. UNION GOSPEL MISSION'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LAW OFFICES OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION AND IN OPPOSITION TO 30 So MEYER, FLUECCE & RO, Box P.J. 230 South Second Street ° P,O, Box 22680 APPEAL-6 Yakima, WA 98907 -2680 Telephone (509) 575 -8500 Ik.)0 ,„ 9 Yw 1 Al r 1 1 l 2015 date of the Notice of Application; (iii) a brief description of the proposed 34 -space parking lot project, including its location at 1300 North 1St Street in Yakima, Washington and its City file number. C12 #019 -14; (iv) the location where the application and the studies could be reviewed at the City of Yakima Planning Department on the 2nd floor of City Hall at 129 North 2nd Street in Yakima, Washington, including the City website information that could be found under Quick Links: I'tttla t to w� � wwt kµ � ro" cw� ,i , 11�r ��t , ; (v) the June 16, 2015, date as the last day for submission of written comments prior to hearing and the date of public appeal hearing on June 17, 2015 when comments also could be submitted; (vi) a statement of the right of any person to comment on the application before and during the hearing and thereby be entitled to receive any future notices and decisions; (vi) [sic] the June 17, 2015 date, the 9:00 a.m. time, and the Yakima City Council Chambers location at 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, Washington for the public hearing which was scheduled at the time of the Notice of Application for a date more than 15 days from the date of notice; and (vii) additional information about the purpose of the Notice and the details of the consolidated appeal hearing determined to be appropriate by the Director of Community Development. Hearing Examiner Decision VI(6). Appellants and the public were entitled to provide full and complete testimony at the public hearing. The hearing was de novo and appellants fully participated in providing evidence and submitting arguments. All testimony was provided and considered by Hearing Examiner. Hearing Examiner carefully considered the evidence and examined staff with respect to information developed during the course of the public hearing. Specific input was requested from staff regarding the impact of hearing evidence on the prior administrative approvals. The following finding was entered with the decision: In order to assure that any comments submitted at the hearing relative to the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision had been considered and given the same effect as after a remand of the decision, the Hearing Examiner asked the three Planning Division representatives who attended the entire hearing whether any of the comments submitted during the hearing would cause the Planning Division to UNION GOSPEL MISSION'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LAW OFFICES of HEARING EXAMINER DECISION AND IN OPPOSITION TO MEYER FLond Sm & TENBox 2 P s 230 SotzkRt'��uatrda5 �aaa��:a 1'� ".a"� 6ivau 22" APPEAL - 7 akhrn��, '�rA ay d a °Ia zrstr ' o, � F1 VeE) Taub; lhon o 575-8504) G0 - StP 2 4, 1015 INDEX X17 . OF YAKIMA �1�� I change anything in its CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision. The response was that no comments were presented at the hearing to cause the Planning Division to change or modify its parking lot decision. Hearing Examiner Decision VI(11). Staff confirmed that the evidence did not change its prior determinations. Hearing Examiner recognized that this procedure was most efficient and fair to the appellants. Here the recipients of the Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal were afforded an additional opportunity to comment that is not normally afforded for Class (2) applications. They were also afforded the opportunity to either submit written comments or live testimony about the parking lot application at the hearing on the 201h day of the comment period. (Exhibit D -4, p. 2). Curing the defective notice in the manner selected by the City with the Applicant's concurrence is much preferable to a subsequent remand for that purpose either by the Hearing Examiner, the City Council or a Court with the attendant unnecessary delay and expense which that would entail. Examiner's Decision VI (9) and (10). Hearing Examiner next considered the applicability of the Settlement Agreement between UGM and Yakima Gateway organization. Appellants argued that the Settlement Agreement was binding on the City and required processing as a Class (3) use application. Hearing Examiner rejected the argument and found: (1) the City was not a party to the agreement; (2) the wording of the agreement did "...not clearly and unambiguously require that approval of the healthcare clinic /residential uses in the GC zoning district be remanded for Class (3) review; (3) the prior interpretations classified all "Mission" uses and "Class (2) Uses "; (4) acknowledged that enforcement of a private contract was outside Hearing Examiner's jurisdiction; and (5) the applications were properly processed by City Staff. Examiner's Decision V. Appellant's also argued that UGM had failed to comply with various requirements set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Hearing Examiner specifically addressed these arguments and made the following findings: UNION GOSPEL MISSION'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION AND IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL -8 The UGM has been complying with all of the provisions of the Settlement Agreement and will continue to do so, although there is a difference of opinion as to the intended meaning of several of the provisions. Specifically with regard to compliance with the Settlement Agreement, UGM has complied with all of the provisions in the agreement and will continue to do so. For example, UGM has two dayrooms, public restrooms and a park in the back surrounded by six - foot -high walls that are accessible from the south side of the building. UGM has a night watchman who checks the property. UGM will not have more than 260 residents specified in the agreement even with the proposed residential dormitory units that are primarily intended to provide separation between single men and families.—the Settlement Agreement allows access to the parking lot from Oak Street for the delivery of services and not for access by UGM clients. The proposed parking lot area has historically been used for the storage of materials. UGM clients have not been allowed access to that area. It was not intended that access to that area from Oak Street be limited to access for utilities only. Examiner's Decision VII(8). Hearing Examiner also noted that the Settlement Agreement provided a vehicle for discussion and resolution of disputes. The Settlement Agreement provides that the UGM will provide a half -hour time slot at the beginning of each monthly Board meeting for YGO members to attend in order to facilitate communication and allow the two organizations to work more closely together, but no YGO member has ever appeared at a Board meeting to discuss any concerns. Id. These are factual determinations made by the Hearing Examiner following consideration of evidence and testimony. Appellants have not taken exception to these determinations. Hearing Examiner finally made specific determinations with respect to purported defects and administrative findings and conclusions (Examiner's Decision VIII). Project compatibility (Examiner's Decision VII). The decision contains a detailed assessment of land use compatibility for both the proposed parking lot and healthcare clinic /residential dormitory. It was determined UNION GOSPEL MISSION'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION AND IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL -9 that UGM complied with all development conditions and has operated in accordance with land use approvals. Hearing Examiner also recognized that the proposals met all applicable development conditions and requirements. Based on the totality of the hearing and evidence, Hearing Examiner entered the following decision: This consolidated appeal which is being processed under City of Yakima file number APP #002 -15 is DENIED; the decision which is being appealed and which was issued under City of Yakima file number CL2 #019 -14 is AFFIRMED; and the decision which is being appealed and which was issued under City of Yakima file number CL2 #004 -15 is MODIFIED to include the following additional condition: f. Additional parking spaces of the number and type specified by YMC Ch. 15.06 are required for those uses that are approved and constructed pursuant to this decision. Hearing Examiner filed his decision on July 9, 2015. Appellants filed a timely appeal. III. ISSUES ON APPEAL Appellants have presented four primary issues on appeal. The identified appeal issues are as follows: (1) Whether Hearing Examiner erred by failing to apply the provisions of the 1994 Settlement Agreement between UGM and Yakima Gateway Organization. (2) Whether City of Yakima's notice procedures constituted substantial compliance with notice requirements. (3) Whether Hearing Examiner's decision that proposed uses are compatible is supported by substantial evidence. (4) Whether Hearing Examiner erroneously determined access issues to the UGM facility from Oak Street. UNION GOSPEL MISSION'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION AND IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL - 10 These issues are identical to the issues presented to the Hearing Examiner. Hearing Examiner addressed each contention in detail and clearly articulated the basis and reasoning for his decision. V. APPELLATE STANDARDS FOR REVIEW 4.1 Standards of Review. William Brado and Yakima Gateway Organization appealed Hearing Examiner's Decision. Hearing Examiner is vested with authority to make decisions on appeals of administrative decisions. City Council sits in an appellate capacity and is required to "...give substantial deference to both the legal and factual determinations of a Hearing Examiner...." Lanzce G. Douglass, Inc. v. City of Spokane Valley, 154 Wn. App. 408, 415 (2010). The appeal is on the record and no new evidence may be considered in the closed record appeal. YMC 15.16.040. (a) QAZO Appeal, Sco pe of Issues and Appellate Record. Each appellant is required to "...specify the claimed error(s) and issue(s) that the legislative body is asked to consider on appeal and shall specifically state all grounds for such appeal." YMC 15.16.040(A). Issues or grounds of appeal not identified in the notice of appeal shall not be considered by the appellate body. YMC 15.16.040(b). The parties have submitted written argument or memorandums but the hearing "...shall not include the presentation of new evidence and shall be based solely upon the facts presented to the examiner." YMC 15.16.040(B)(1). This hearing is categorized as a "Closed Record Appeal" which is defined as follows; "Closed record appeal" means an appeal conducted by the Yakima City Council following an open record hearing conducted by the hearing examiner on a project permit application. The appeal shall be decided on the basis of the record established at the open record hearing, and only appeal arguments shall be allowed. Upon a clear showing of good cause, the city council may allow the record to be supplemented by limited new evidence or information. UNION GOSPEL MISSION'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LAW OFFICES OF MEYER, FLUEGGE & TENNEY, P.S. HEARING EXAMINER DECISION AND IN OPPOSITION TO 230 south second Street • P.o, Box 22( .0 APPEAL - 11 Yakima, wn 98907 -2680 Telephone (509) 575 -8500 INDEX 1A -1 ly YA pN?Dlr�' YMC 16.02.020. The administrative record is to be assembled and submitted by the Planning Department. YMC 15.16.040(B)(3). The closed record appeal definition is supplemented by specific appellate procedures. A. The City Council shall hear appeals of all decisions by the Hearing Examiner during a public meeting or a limited hearing for receipt of oral legal argument. B. A complete appeal application must be submitted prior to scheduling of the council meeting or limited hearing. C. The closed record appeal shall be on the record before the City Council, and no new evidence shall be presented. The record shall include all materials received in evidence at any previous state of the review, audio /visual tapes of the prior hearing(s) and the final order being appealed, and argument by the parties at the examiner's hearing. D. The appellants and any respondents to the appeal shall have the opportunity to present oral and written argument. Oral argument shall be confined to the prior established hearing examiner of record and any alleged errors in the decision. A closed record appeal strictly limits the scope and extent of hearing argument and testimony. No party has requested that the record be supplemented or raised objection to any factual determination made by Hearing Examiner. (b) City Council is Required to Give Substantial D ferencc to Hearing Examiner Decision. City Council has established that the Hearing Examiner is the decision - maker with respect to administrative appeals of land use decisions. YMC 15.04.050 and YMC 15.22.030. Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing, accepted testimony and evidence and issued a final decision. Those findings and decisions cannot be disturbed on appeal absent a finding that the decision was erroneous as a matter of law or was not supported by substantial evidence. UNION GOSPEL MISSION'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION AND IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL-12 Appellants have not challenged the factual determination or asserted that decisions were not supported by substantial evidence. The courts have consistently recognized that appellate review is deferential to factual and legal determinations made by the hearing examiner. Schofield v. Spokane County, 96 Wn. App. 581, 586 (1999). City Council "...must give substantial deference to both the legal and factual determinations of a hearing examiner as the local authority with expertise and land use regulations." Lanzce G. Douglass, Inc. v. City of Spokane Valley, 154 Wn. App. 408, 415 (2010). See also, City of Medina v. T- Mobile USA, Inc., 123 Wn. App. 19, 24 (2004) ( "RCW 36.70C.130(1) reflects a clear legislative intention that this court give substantial deference to both legal and factual determinations of local jurisdictions with expertise in land use regulation. ") City Council may not substitute its judgment for that of the Examiner. Maranatha Mining, Inc. v. Pierce County, 59 Wn. App. 795, 800 -801 (1990) ( "if, on the other hand, the Council acts only as an appellate body of its determination based solely on the original record, it is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the Examiner, .... .). These rules are important in the context of a quasi-judicial appeal. City of Yakima has extended decision - making authority to Hearing Examiner and that authority must be respected. The appellate body is further required to review all evidence and any reasonable inferences in most favorable to the party that prevailed in the highest form exercising fact - finding authority. Davidson v. Kitsap County, 86 Wn. App. 673, 680 (1997). Washington State Department of Corrections v. City of Kennewick, 86 Wn. App. 521, 535 (1997). UGM was the prevailing party in the proceeding. V. ARGUMENT AND ANALYSIS Appellants have simply reiterated appeal arguments previously addressed to the Hearing Examiner. Hearing Examiner reviewed and rejected each of the issues in a precise complete and thoughtful manner. The decision was based on specific factual determinations and applicable law. Hearing Examiner weighed the evidence and determined the credibility of witnesses. UNION GOSPEL MISSION'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION AND IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL - 13 Appellants have not challenged any of the factual determinations. UGM also supports the arguments and materials submitted by City of Yakima. Our arguments are intended to supplement both the Hearing Examiner Decision and City's Brief. 5.1 Settlement Agreement Is a Private Contract and Not Binding on the Citv of Yakima. Appellants begin with the unusual argument that the Hearing Examiner erred by failing to apply the provisions of the 1994 Settlement Agreement between Union Gospel Mission and Yakima Gateway Organization. City of Yakima was not a party to the agreement and none of the terms have been codified. Appellant's argument fails on many levels. The essence of Appellant's argument is that all UGM applications must be processed as Class (3) uses.$ It is argued that City of Yakima erred by processing the land use applications as Class (2) uses in accordance with 1992 and 1995 Hearing Examiner Interpretations. City of Yakima followed the practice and procedures that have been in place for more than twenty years. First, City of Yakima is not a party to the Settlement Agreement and has no authority to enforce the private contract. The referenced review standard has never been adopted by City of Yakima. Hearing Examiner also noted that the Examiner's 1995 Interpretation (which was issued after the execution of the Settlement Agreement) "...unequivocally classified all `Mission' uses as Class (2) uses in the M -1 (Light Industrial) zoning district." Examiner's Decision V. (4). YGO 8 Settlement Agreement ¶2(b) contains a specific reference to Class (3) review and provides: UGM and YGO shall jointly request the City of Yakima (and any other necessary governmental entities) to designate `Mission" as a Class (3) use within the M -1 zoning district. YGO and UGM agree that such classification and review process shall not be applicable to the future development in accordance with the attached schematic plan. Class (3) review shall be applicable only to uses or developments above and beyond those contemplated on the schematic plan. Hearing Examiner found that the referenced language "...would not clearly and unambiguously require that approval of the Healthcare Clinic /Residential Dormitory uses in the GC zoning district be remanded for Class (3) review." Examiner's Decision V. (3). It was noted that the reference was simply to the M -1 (Light Industrial) zoning district. UNION GOSPEL MISSION'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION AND IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL-14 LAW OFFICES OF MEYER, FLUEGGE & TENNEY, P.S. 230 South Saond Sfrucl P O Ho 9( Yakima, WA 9:K9 a�" -21"80 1!1 r Telephone t509t 575- 8500 � MIS INDEX YAKh v-1 W participated in the 1995 hearing and the interpretation specifically established the use as a Class (2) use within the M -1 (Light Industrial) zoning district. YGO did not file an appeal of this determination and applications have been consistently processed since that time under the Class (2) standard of review. Appellant's have sat on their hands for more than twenty years before raising the issue. Second, legal counsel for YGO "...correctly recognized that enforcement of the private Settlement Agreement would have to be by way of a Court action rather than in and administrative appeal proceeding before a Hearing Examiner." Examiner's Decision V(7). It was also noted that the contractual provision relates to an agreement to submit the issue for determination. Even if that section of the Settlement Agreement is still specifically enforceable, the bottom line is that it is still only an agreement to jointly request a result that the City is not obligated to accommodate because, as the Appellant's concede, the City was not a party to the agreement. Examiner's Decision V(7). Hearing Examiner then notes that a "clear and joint request" was made in 1995 and the request was denied by the Examiner. Examiner's Decision V(4). City of Yakima also correctly notes that it does "...not have unfettered liberty to administratively `vary' the review processes and development standards adopted and established in their municipal codes." City Brief —13. There was no breach or violation of the Settlement Agreement. Third, the Settlement Agreement is not a "development agreement" under applicable law. Appellant argues that the Settlement Agreement must be construed and enforced as a development agreement. Based on the history of the approval process for the existing Mission facility between 1992 and 1995, the issues created for the North 1St Street neighborhood by the Mission's operations, the Settlement Agreement must be considered as a development agreement binding upon UGM and enforceable by the City. Appellant's Brief— 8. UNION GOSPEL MISSION'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LAW OFFICES OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION AND IN OPPOSITION TO 30 S MEYER, FLoECCE & P,0 Box , P.S. 230 South Second Street • P „O, Box 22680 APPEAL-15 Yakin , Ws 98907.268+ ��p+`ll•elephone (509) 5"55. 810 ` 491 , e `r DOD. p ll This is a new argument. As a simple beginning point, development agreements were not recognized at the time of the Settlement Agreement. Development Agreements were not codified until 1995. At that time, our legislature undertook a comprehensive review of land use procedures to establish "uniform, expedited appeal procedures and uniform criteria for reviewing [land use decisions made by local jurisdictions], in order to provide consistent, predictable and timely judicial review." RCW 36.70C.010. Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) was adopted to govern these land use procedures. Development agreements were a part of that legislation. Cedar River Water and Sewer Dist. v. King County, 178 Wn.2d 763, 781 (2013). The "development agreement" argument fails for a second reason — the Settlement Agreement was not adopted in accordance with applicable statutory provisions related to development agreements. A valid development agreement requires that the local government is required to be a party to the development agreement. RCW 36.7013.170(1) (government may enter into a development agreement with a person having ownership or control of real property within its jurisdiction.) The court in Cedar River Water and Sewer Dist. recognized that the development agreement must be "...between the regulating authority and the developer." Cedar River Water and Sewer Dist., 178 Wn.2d at 784. City of Yakima was not a party to the Settlement Agreement. Next, any development agreement requires a public hearing in order to be binding authority. RCW 36.7013.200 provides: A county or city shall only approve a development agreement by ordinance or resolution after a public hearing. The county or city body or a planning commission, hearing examiner, or other body designated by the legislative body to conduct the public hearing may conduct the hearing. If the development agreement relates to a project permit application, the provisions of Chapter 36.70C RCW shall apply to the appeal of the decision on the development agreement. UNION GOSPEL MISSION'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LAW OFFICES OF MEYER, FLVECCe P 0, Box , P.S. HEARING EXAMINER DECISION AND IN OPPOSITION TO 230 South Second Street ° , Box 22680 APPEAL-16 Yakima, WA 98907 -2680 @�pp NNww Telephone (509) 575 -8500 INDEX CRY'OF A ,.l k� J No public hearing was held on the Settlement Agreement and the municipality didn't authorize the Agreement by ordinance or resolution. The Settlement Agreement is simply not a "development agreement" as authorized by law. Hearing Examiner found that there had been compliance with the Settlement Agreement. The issue of review standard within the Light Industrial (M -1) was presented and determined in the 1995 interpretation. Appellants put forth several specious arguments during the course of the open record public hearing. It was alleged that (1) there is not a public restroom available on a 24/7 basis; (2) a reading/dayroom has not been provided at the facility; (3) scheduled shuttles have been discontinued in violation of the Agreement; and (4) a uniform night security guard has not been provided for the facility. Each of these allegations were refuted by testimony at the hearing. There has been full and complete compliance with all aspects of the Settlement Agreement. Examiner's Decision VI(9) and (10). 5.2 All Parties and Persons Had Notice of the Union Gospel Mission Applications and Full Opportunily to Comment and Participate in the Cie Novo Hearing Process Before the Hearing Examiner. Appellants argue that City failed to provide proper notice of the application for the parking lots.9 City acknowledged a defect in the original notice and promptly proceeded to cure the defect and assure interested parties of a full and complete opportunity to comment and participate in the land use processes. As a beginning proposition, there can be no question that Appellants were active and involved participants before the Hearing Examiner. All of their issues, evidence and arguments were presented in a de novo open record public hearing. There is not one piece of evidence or argument that wasn't presented for consideration by the decision makers. In order the assure that 9 Appellants make no challenge to the notice provided with respect to the healthcare clinic /residential application. All property owners were given notice of the application and decision. The sole notice issue relates to the parking lot application. UNION GOSPEL MISSION'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION AND IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL-17 LAW OFFICES OF MEYER, FLUEGGE & TENNEY, P.S. 230 South Second Street • P,.O. Box 22680 Yakima, WA98907 2(0 Telephone (509) 57�5 ■ Ty, y W "� all of the issues were fully considered, Hearing Examiner specifically questioned staff regarding the impact hearing testimony on their administrative determinations. In order to assure that any comments submitted at the hearing relative to the CL(2) #019 -14 parking lot decision had been considered and given the same effect as after a remand of the decision, the Hearing Examiner asked the three Planning Division representatives who attended the entire hearing whether any of the comments submitted during the hearing would cause the Planning Division to change anything in its CL #019 -14 parking lot decision. The response was that no comments were presented at the hearing to cause the Planning Division to change or modify its parking lot decision. Hearing Examiner Decision VI(11). Staff confirmed that the evidence did not change its prior determinations. Second, City took an unprecedented step of issuing stop work orders and circulating supplemental hearing notices. The purpose for these steps was to assure the participatory rights of adjacent property owners. Hearing Examiner recognized the significance of these steps: Here the recipients of the Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal were afforded and additional opportunity to comment that is not normally afforded for Class (2) applications. They were also afforded the opportunity to either submit written comments or live testimony about the parking lot application at the hearing on the 20th day of the comment period. (Exhibit D -4, p. 2). Curing the defective notice in the manner selected by the City with the Applicant's concurrence is much preferable to a subsequent remand for that purpose either by the Hearing Examiner, the City Council or a Court with the attendant unnecessary delay and expense which that would entail. Examiner's Decision VI(9) and (10). Based on the record and testimony provided at public hearing, Hearing Examiner concluded that the City's extraordinary steps constituted substantial compliance with applicable notice requirements. Examiner Decision VI(6). Substantial compliance is intended to assure that UNION GOSPEL MISSION'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION AND IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL -18 LAW OFFICES OF MEYER, FLUEGGE & TENNEY, P.S. 230 South Second Street • P.O. Box 22680 Yakima, WA 98907 -2680 Telephone (509) 575 -8500 pit e, , A U . INDEX , � r ;, decision maker "... receive enough information from those who may be affected by an action to make an intelligent decision." Prekeges v. King County, 98 Wn. App. 275, 280 -81 (1999). Appellants had full and complete opportunity to present all evidence and argument before a decision was made by the Hearing Examiner. 5.3 Hearing, Examiner Properly Considered and Decided all Issues Related to Compatibility of the Proposed Improvements. Appellants next argue that the Hearing Examiner "...erred in determining the expanded uses pursuant to the Parking Lot and Facility Expansion Applications were compatible with existing uses." Appellants Notice of Appeal 2(d) and (e). Appellants have not identified specific errors and failed to take exception to any of the factual determinations made in the decision. Of the 39 total pages in the Examiner's Decision, about one -third is devoted to a discussion and determination of compatibility issues. Testimony was disputed and Hearing Examiner considered all evidence and testimony, weighed the credibility of witnesses and issued a final decision. The decision was thoughtful, thorough and complete. As a beginning point, he recognized that compatibility was a component of the review under YMC 15.04.020(B) and YMC 15.04.020(C). Examiner recognized that the City's decisions in CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15 "...speak for themselves as to many factors they consider and address in detail regarding the compatibility of the uses they approve." Examiner's Decision VII(2). Both applications comply with all applicable development regulations and standards. The applications also complied with all applicable development conditions established for "Mission" uses as well as comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance requirements. Not a single variance or deviation from applicable standards was requested or approved for the project applications. Examiner detailed the compatibility determinations for both the parking lot expansion and healthcare clinic /residential components. Hearing Examiner rejected much of the opposition testimony and actually concluded that the proposed uses would improve land use compatibility. UNION GOSPEL MISSION'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LAW OFFICES OF MEYER, FLUEGGE & TENNEY, P.S. HEARING EXAMINER DECISION AND IN OPPOSITION TO 230 South Second Street • P.0, Box 2 APPEAL-19 Yakima, WA 98907-2680 P111 �t Telephone (509) 575-8500 " 5i °,. '. PA I,�,,,�a -m�rrV The proposed parking lot and healthcare clinic /residential dormitory uses will likely increase the compatibility of UGM's use by providing a paved rather than dirt parking area with lighting and storm drainage and utilizing the interior space within the facility to improve the ability to provide quality healthcare and residential facilities in order to better serve people who are in dire need of that type of assistance. Examiner's Decision VII(7). Hearing Examiner made a specific notation that 90% of the people served by the healthcare clinic were not homeless but rather "...hard- working low- income people who drive to and from their appointments." Id. Hearing Examiner is vested with authority to determine the weight of evidence and testimony. City Council is required to "...give substantial deference to both the legal and factual determinations of a Hearing Examiner." Hearing Examiner is supported by substantial evidence in the record. 5.4 Hearing Examiner Correctly Determined that Limited Ingress/Eltress Froin Oak Street is Permitted to the UGM Facifl Appellants argue that it was error for the Hearing Examiner to uphold the City's decision that allows restricted access to the Union Gospel Mission site to and from Oak Street. The Parking Lot decision restricts the parking lot to use for delivery, maintenance and operations of the Union Gospel Mission. There is an automated access gate and mission clients are prohibited from accessing the facility from Oak Street. Appellants argument is based upon Section 4 of the Settlement Agreement, which provides 4. Access. Client access to the property, current and future, shall be restricted to the south side alley entrance designated by Hearing Examiner. The First Street entrance will be for administrative and staff purposes only. There shall be no access from Oak Street except for delivery or services to the subject property. Hearing Examiner provided extensive analysis and findings with respect to this appeal issue. Settlement Agreement authorizes access from Oak Street. The only prohibition is that "clients " UNION GOSPEL MISSION'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION AND IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL - 20 LAW OFFICES OF MEYER, FLUEGGE & TENNEY, P.S. 230 South Second Street • P.O. Box 22680 Yakima, WA 98907 2O , ,� �� � Tele @�houe (i09) 575 8547 k� " We. . P INDEX ��C1 must be prohibited from Oak Street access directed to the southerly entrance location. Hearing Examiner found that "... [t]he requirement of an automated gate to the parking lot to assure use only for delivery, maintenance and operations of UGM in Finding 11 and Condition 1(c) of the CL2 #004 -15 decision was added at the request of the UGM. Examiner Decision VIII(S). The application also complies with all applicable site screening and development requirements. Hearing Examiner's decision is supported by substantial evidence. CONCLUSION ON Union Gospel Mission requests that the City Council appeal and affirm Hearing Examiner's decision. Dated this 20' day of September, 2015. MEYER, FLUEGGE & TENNEY, P.S. Attorneys for Union Gospel Mission �'µ r James C. Carmody, ''°SA 5205 UNION GOSPEL MISSION'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LAW OFFICES OF MEYER, FLUEGGE & TENNEY, P.S. HEARING EXAMINER DECISION AND IN OPPOSITION TO 230 South Second Street • P O, Box '22680 APPEAL - 21 Yakima, WA 98907-2680 Telephone (509) 575-8500 I t& nu I nniw C CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that on the date stated below I served a copy of this document in the manner indicated: Joan Davenport F1 First Class U.S. Mail City of Yakima Planning Division 129 North Second Street — 2 ❑d Floor 11 E -Mail Yakima, WA 98901 °zd Delivery ❑ UPS Next Day Air .............................................. ........_.................._.._ Mark Kunkler .... ..................... []First Class U.S. Mail City of Yakima Legal Department 200 South Third Street 11 E -Mail Yakima, WA 98901 F`rT, .d Delivery ❑ UPS Next Day Air ......................................... �........_.......____............................._.— ._...._.__�............_------ Patrick M. And reotti .- .- . .. .. .. ................. _ []First Class U.S. Mail Flower & Andreotti 303 E. D Street, Ste. I 11 E -Mail Yakima, WA 98901 [: "'fiand Delivery ❑ UPS Next Day Air DATED at Yakima, Washington, this day of September, 2014. Deborah Girard, Legal Assistant UADebbieG \Yakima Union Gospel Mission\Appeal Brief.docx UNION GOSPEL MISSION'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION AND IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL - 22 LAW OFFICES OF MEYER, FLUEGGE & TENNEY, P.S. 230 South Second Street • P.O. Box 22680 Yakima, WA 98907 -2680 Telephone (509) 575 -8500 � DOC R INDEX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 24 Pages 5 h P 7 Cod i b pi A ce °k" BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA In the Matter of the Appeals of Two Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to the Union Gospel Mission, Submitted by: William Brado and the Yakima Gateway Organization Relative to the Construction of Additional Parking, Health Care Clinic Facilities and Residential Dormitory Units at the Existing Union Gospel Mission Site Located at 1300 North 1St Street APP #002 -15 CL2 #019 -14 CL2 #004 -15 CITY OF YAKIMA' S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION AND IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL I. INTRODUCTION On July 9, 2015, Hearing Examiner Gary M. Cuillier issued a comprehensive 39 -page Decision upholding the City of Yakima's issuance of two Class (2) use approvals to the Union Gospel Mission, and denying the appeal filed by William Brado and the Yakima Gateway Organization (hereafter "YGO "). William Brado and YGO have appealed the Hearing Examiner's Decision to the City Council of the City of Yakima. For the reasons set forth in the Hearing Examiner's Decision ( "Decision ") and below, the City of Yakima respectfully asserts that the CITY OF YAKIMA' S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HEARING EXAMINER AND IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL -1 CITY OF YAKIMA LEGAL DEPARTMENT CIVIL DIVISION DUC. 200 South Third Street Yakima, WA 98901 -2830 I (509) 575 -6030 4 f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Hearing Examiner's Decision is correct and must be affirmed, and that the appeal filed by Mr. Brado and the YGO must be denied. In brief, the Union Gospel Mission submitted applications for two use approvals: (a) Parking loot. To improve part of its existing property as a gated parking lot to allow access to its property from Oak Street for the use exclusively of delivery, maintenance and operation of the Union Gospel Mission. The access and parking lot would not be used by clients or residents of the Union Gospel Mission. The parking lot is 13,000 square feet in area, and would accommodate 34 standard parking spaces and two handicapped parking spaces. (b) deal i C ve /esidential finPln vernept. Construction of a 3,585 square foot addition to its current facilities to house a health care clinic (with reception office, administration area, waiting room, assessment /vitals lab, exam rooms, dispensary, storage area and support facilities). The clinic would be located adjacent to the existing dental clinic facilities in the Union Gospel Mission complex. Additionally, the application sought approval of construction of additional second -story dormitory units (to be located above the dental and health clinic) to accommodate 10 women in five units and 28 men in 13 units. The additional residents will not exceed the original 260 population limitation allowed per the 1992 Class (2) decision. The Union Gospel Mission submitted a complete application for the Parking Lot on December 2, 2014. On December 18, 2014, the City mailed a "Notice of Application" concerning the Parking Lot application. Due to an error in the City's automated mailing system, the Notice of Application was not sent to all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the Union Gospel CITY OF YAKIMA'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HEARING EXAMINER AND IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL - 2 RECEIVED CITY OF YAKIMA LEGAL DEPARTMENT C, .....� r CI'VII DIVISION �. 01, 200 "�0011,I°hlydl Slrct t �� Yaklmo, WA 98'901 28 ����''''''''pppp (su�a) s�a:�•6II:�cI ^,fin M ���,���HQfn`�I��' "{i Y �n � �AN I. w # ! ..... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Mission property. This error was not discovered until March 27, 2015. The City received only one comment on the application — from an anonymous source. Before the mailing error was discovered, the City on January 20, 2015 issued a Class (2) decision approving the proposed Parking Lot improvement with conditions.' On February 7, 2015, the City issued a Certificate of Zoning Review to the Union Gospel Mission authorizing the Union Gospel Mission to seek and obtain necessary building permits to construct the parking lot improvement. The Union Gospel Mission then obtained the necessary permits and commenced construction activities. On March 17, 2015, Union Gospel Mission submitted a complete application for the Health Care /Residential Improvement. Notice of Application was (properly) mailed to all property owners of record within 300 feet of the Union Gospel Mission property. The City received four comments. On March 27, 3015, the City was notified that not all property owners within 300 feet of the Union Gospel Mission had received a copy of the Notice of Application for the Parking Lot project. On March 30, 2015, the City notified Union Gospel Mission of the issue and placed a Stop Work Order on the Parking Lot project. On April 17, 2015, the City issued a decision approving the Health Care /Residential Improvement project. 1 A "parking lot" is a Class (1) permitted use in the M -1 Light Industrial zoning district. However, because the "mission" use was established by the 1992 and 1995 Hearing Examiner Interpretations as a Class (2) use in the M -1 Light Industrial, CBD Central Business District and GC General Commercial zoning districts, the requested parking lot improvement was handled and processed by the City as a Class (2) use. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 On May 1, 2015, William Brado and YGO filed an appeal of both the Parking Lot and Health Care /Residential Improvement use decisions. The appeal challenged the issuance of the City's decisions based broadly on (a) insufficiency of the Notice of Application for the Parking Lot project, and (b) failure of the City to comply with the terms and conditions of a 1994 Settlement Agreement between the YGO and the Union Gospel Mission.2 On May 28, 2015, the City of Yakima mailed a Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal to the Union Gospel Mission, the Appellants and to the landowners within 300 feet of the Union Gospel Mission. As stated by the Hearing Examiner: The stated intent of the Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal was to cure the failure to provide Notice of Application and Decision for the first application, the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot application. It further gave notice that the application had been appealed and had been consolidated with an appeal of the CL2 #004 -15 health care clinic /residential dormitory decision. Hearing Examiner's Decision, APP 4002 -15, at page 8. The Supplemental Notice advised that any interested person could submit written comments through June 16, 2015, and could submit written comments or testimony at the appeal hearing on June 17, 2015. The only additional written comment received by June 16, 2015 was a letter submitted by the Appellant's attorney. The appeal hearing before the Hearing Examiner occurred on June t7, 2015. The hearing lasted four hours, and several persons spoke to the issue. All persons interested in the issue had I The City of Yakima was not a party to the 1994 Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement provided in pertinent part that YGO and the Union Gospel Mission would jointly request that certain future expansions of the mission's property be processed as Class (3) applications. The Appellants also contend that this Settlement Agreement limited the use of the Parking Lot property to "delivery of [utility] services" to the mission, and that the uses proposed by the mission in the current Parking Lot permit were beyond this limited scope. These allegations are contested by the Union Gospel Mission. The City of Yakima maintains that it is not bound by the terms of a private Settlement Agreement and is obligated by due process considerations to apply its zoning and development codes as adopted. CITY OF YAKIMA' S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HEARING EXAMINER AND IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL - 4 Y '"" CITY OF YAKIMA LEGAL DEPARTMENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 an opportunity to present their comments and concerns. The Supplemental Notice cured the Notice of Application deficiency concerning the Parking Lot improvement — all property owners within 300 feet of the site were served with copies of the Supplemental Notice, and were given an opportunity to submit written comments and an opportunity to submit written comments or testimony at the June 17, 2015 appeal hearing. II. ARGUMENT The Appellants raise six issues they contend are error. The City of Yakima answers that the Hearing Examiner correctly determined all issues and that no errors were made. The City of Yakima responds to each of the Appellants' arguments below. A. The 1992 and 1995 HearinL- Examiner Interpretation Decisions ret!ardinLy the establishment of a "mission" use were lawfully decided. Appellants attempt to challenge the validity of Hearing Examiner Interpretations issued more than twenty years ago. On February 27, 1992, the Hearing Examiner issued an Interpretation Decision pursuant to YMC 15.04.040 and Chapter 15.22 YMC that created a land use definition for "mission" and designated such use as a permitted Class (2) use within the GC General Commercial and CBD Central Business District. This unclassified use decision was rendered at the request of the Union Gospel Mission. On July 10, 1992, the City of Yakima issued a Class (2) use decision that allowed the Union Gospel Mission to establish its mission facilities at 1300 North 1St Street. CL(2) #10 -92; Decision at page 5. On July 24, 1992, YGO appealed the City's decision to the Hearing Examiner. After conducting a four -day hearing, the Hearing Examiner denied YGO's appeal and upheld the City's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 YGO then appealed the Hearing Examiner's Decision to the City Council. The City Council never heard the appeal. The appeal was withdrawn when YGO and the Union Gospel Mission entered into a Settlement Agreement, a copy of which was provided to the City on August 2, 1994. Decision, Exhibit A -1 and page 5. On June 8, 1995, at the request of the Union Gospel Mission, the Hearing Examiner issued a Use Determination modifying certain aspects of the 1992 Interpretation Decision and allowed a "mission" use in the M -1 Light Industrial zoning district. The Union Gospel Mission has since developed and operated its facilities in conformity with the 1992 and 1995 Use Determinations and Interpretation. The City of Yakima has never been a party to the Settlement Agreement. Appellants contend that the Hearing Examiner did not have authority to issue his 1992 and 1995 Interpretations and Use Determinations. This is incorrect. YMC 15.04.040 and Chapter 15.22 YMC specifically authorize a hearing examiner to make unclassified use determinations and interpretations. YMC 15.04.040 provides: 15.04.040 Unclassified uses. Any use not listed in Table 4 -1 is an unclassified use and shall be permitted only in those districts so designated by the hearing examiner. Any unclassified use permitted in a particular zoning district shall be allowed only as a Class (2) or (3) use. The hearing examiner shall follow the provisions of YMC Chapter 15.22 when determining which zoning districts are appropriate for a particular unclassified use. (Emphasis added.) Relevant portions of Chapter 15.22 YMC include the following provisions: 15.22.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to define the responsibilities, rules and procedures for clarifying the text of this title, the zoning map that it incorporates, and the rules and regulations adopted pursuant to it. CITY OF YAKIMA'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HEARING EXAMINER AND IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL - 6 RECEIVED 1 „gym a , -, ., PLANIM,14G.71 ow CITY OF YAKIMA LEGAL DEPARTMENT CIVIL DIVISION 200 South Third Street D® Yakima, A 98901 -2830 (509) 575-8030 H- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 15.22.020 Written request for interpretation. A written request for interpretation of any provision of this title, use or nonuse, the zoning map, or any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to this title, shall be submitted to the department. Each request shall set forth the specific provision or provisions to be interpreted and the facts of the specific situation giving rise to the request for an interpretation. 15.22.030 Review by the hearing examiner. The department shall, within five days of the receipt of any request for interpretation, forward all applications for interpretation to the hearing examiner for decision. The hearing examiner may refer any application or request for interpretation to any interested, affected, or concerned agencies or persons for review and comment. In addition, the hearing examiner may, at his sole discretion, schedule and hold a public hearing on any proposed interpretation issue. Notice of any hearing held to consider an interpretation shall be mailed to the person requesting the interpretation and published once at least ten working days prior to the hearing. 15.22.040 Notice of examiner's decision. A. The hearing examiner shall mail a written copy of his interpretation to the applicant, the Yakima County planning department, the city of Yakima department of community and economic development, and their respective administrative officials. Such notice shall be provided within thirty days from the date of his receipt of an application for interpretation or such longer period of time as may be agreed to by the applicant. B. The hearing examiner shall clearly state the analysis and reasons upon which any interpretation is based and, if the interpretation is a use interpretation, how the interpretation is consistent with the specific conditions established in YMC 15.22.050. C. The department shall keep a copy of each interpretation on file and shall make a copy available for public inspection during regular business hours. 15.22.050 Use interpretations. The following conditions shall govern the hearing examiner in issuing use interpretations (see YMC 15.04.040): A. No use interpretation shall vary the location or review requirements of any use listed in Table 4 -1 or home occupation listed in Table 4 -2. B. No use interpretation shall permit any use in any zoning district unless evidence is presented which demonstrates that it will comply with the intent and development standards established for the particular zoning district. CITY OF YAKIMA'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HEARING EXAMINER AND IN OPPOSITION RECEIVED TO APPEAL - 7 CITY OF YAKIMA LEGAL DEPARTMENT CIVIL DIVISION yy w p9 200 South Third Stre� [[ A �.Y Yakirana, W'e"t ti18901- 28�� ®� (509) 5'75 -6030 1 2 3 4 6 d 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 RCW 35.63.130 describes the ability of a first class city to establish a hearing examiner system. This section provides (emphasis added): (1) As an alternative to those provisions of this chapter relating to powers or duties of the planning commission to hear and report on any proposal to amend a zoning ordinance, the legislative body of a city or county may adopt a hearing examiner system under which a hearing examiner or hearing examiners may he and decide applications for amending the zoning ordinance when the amendment \ lliwcl, is a plied Cor is not ol`ge ral �Ippljc�Gl�z'la�. In addition, the legislative body may vest in a hearing examiner the power to hear and decide those issues it believes should be reviewed and decided, by a hearing examiner, including but not limited to: (a) Applications for conditional uses, variances, subdivisions, shoreline permits, or qi. y..,o. li.er c .ass oappl ications far or per ai n to d'eyelo inent of "land or land ITuse; (b) Appeals of administrative decisions or determinations; and (c) Appeals of administrative decisions or determinations pursuant to chapter 43.21 C RCW. The legislative body shall prescribe procedures to be followed by the hearing examiner. (2) Each city or county legislative body electing to use a hearing examiner pursuant to this section shall by ordinance specify the legal effect of the decisions made by the examiner. The legal effect of such decisions may vary for the different classes of applications decided by the examiner but shall include one of the following: (a) The decision may be given the effect of a recommendation to the legislative body; (b) The decision nnay be g- ivewn __the effect of an administrative clecisi n appealable within a ified time limit to the leata�I body; or (c) Except in the case of a rezone, the decision may be given the effect of a final decision of the legislative body. (3) Each final decision of a hearing examiner shall be in writing and shall include findings and conclusions, based on the record, to support the decision. Such findings and conclusions shall also set forth the manner in which the decision would carry out and conform to the city's or county's comprehensive plan and the city's or county's development regulations. Each final decision of a hearing examiner, unless a longer period is mutually agreed to in writing by the applicant and the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 hearing examiner, shall be rendered within ten working days following conclusion of all testimony and hearings. First, the "unclassified use" jurisdiction authorizes the Hearing Examiner to make amendments to the zoning code so long as those amendments are "not of general applicability." The creation of a definition of for an "unclassified use" and designation of the specific zoning districts where such use can be permitted as a Class (2) or Class (3) use applies only in the specific zone(s) designated by the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner would not have jurisdiction to create a new use that applied in all zoning districts of the City. Second, pursuant to YMC 15.04.040 and Chapter 15.22 YMC, the legislative body of the City has delegated this specific authority to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner lawfully and appropriately exercised his authority in the 1992 and 1995 Interpretation and Use Determination decisions, as well as the 1992 Class (2) project decision. Third, the municipal code at YMC 15.22.070 has made the interpretation decision an "administrative" function, subject to appeal to the City Council. The City Council makes the final determination whenever a timely appeal is filed. This factor has been held by courts to constitute a lawful delegation of authority to a hearing examiner. See, e.g., West Slope Community Council v. City of Tacoma, 18 Wash. App. 328, 569 P.2d 1183 (1977); State ex rel. Morrison v. Seattle, 6 Wash. App. 181, 492 P.2d 1078 (1971). Fourth, no administrative appeal was ever consummated regarding the 1992 Hearing Examiner decision, and no judicial writ of review or appeal was ever filed in superior court seeking to overturn the Hearing Examiner's decision. No administrative appeal was filed by YGO or any other person challenging the Hearing Examiner's 1992 Class (2) decision or the 1995 Hearing Examiner Interpretation. No judicial appeal or writ of review was ever filed for the 1992 Class (2) CITY OF YAKIMA' S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HEARING EXAMINER AND IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL - 9 CITY OF YAKIMA LEGAL DIVISION PARTMENT 7 P 17 200 South Third Street ® O IX•d ) Yakima, WA 98901 -2830 ��ee OF (509) 575 -6030 I N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 decision, and no writ of review or petition for review under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) was ever filed concerning any of these land use decision. Chapter 36.70C RCW. The administrative decisions and Hearing Examiner decisions are therefore final and any right to challenge such on appeal has been waived. See, Chelan County v. Nykreim, 146 Wash.2d 904, 52 P.3d 1 (2002); Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 155 Wash.2d 397, 120 P.3d 56 (2005); Asche v. Bloomquist, 132 Wash. App. 784,133 P.3d 475 (2006). Fifth, on August 4, 2015, the City Council of the City of Yakima adopted Ordinance No. 2015 -022. This ordinance codified the 1992 and 1995 Hearing Examiner's Interpretation and use decisions, and added additional provisions regarding any mission use established after the effective date of such ordinance. By operation, it further had the effect of recognizing mission uses that had been established prior to the effective date of the ordinance. Section 2 of the Ordinance provides: Section 2. YMC 15.04.020 is hereby amended to add a definition of land use for "mission" use to read as follows: "Mission" means a facility typically owned or operated by a public agency or non - profit corporation, providing a variety of services for the disadvantaged, typically including but not limited to temporary housing for the homeless, dining facilities, health and counseling activities, whether or not of a spiritual nature, with such services being generally provided to the public at large. Mission uses shall be Class (2) uses within the GC General Commercial, CBD Central Business District, and M -1 Light Industrial zoning districts as set forth in Table 4 -1, YMC 15.04.030, and subject to a Type (3) review as set forth in Chapter 15.15 YMC with a development agreement incorporating applicable development standards and mitigations imposed by the hearing examiner. Effective as and from August 24, 2015, any modification of an existing mission use shall be subject to the modification procedures and provisions of Chapter 15.17 YMC; provided, that any proposed modification that does not meet the criteria in YMC 15.17.040 for administrative review and approval shall be subject to a Type (3) review with a development agreement incorporating applicable development standards and mitigations imposed by the hearing examiner. CITY OF YAKIMA'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HEARING EXAMINER AND IN OPPOSITION RECEI ED CITY OF YAKIMA LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO APPEAL - 10 CIVIL DIVISION SC �° 200 South Third Street D ®C• E II ::� J. u 2 01 ^5 Yakima, WA 98901 -2830 p (509) 575.6030 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 (Emphasis added.) The only "existing mission use" at the time the ordinance was adopted was for the Union Gospel Mission at its location at 1300 North lst Street. Such mission use has been approved by the City Council and has been authorized pursuant to municipal code. B. The "Settlement Agreement" cannot be bindin g on the Ci!y of Yaldnia. Appellants contend that it was error for the Hearing Examiner to fail to apply the 1994 Settlement Agreement to the Parking Lot and Health Care /Residential Improvement permit applications. Specifically, Appellants contend that, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the improvement to the Parking Lot and development of the Health Care /Residential Improvement required these applications to be treated as Class (3) Uses subject to Type (3) Review. Section 2 of the Settlement Agreement included an agreed plan of UGM facilities and development. Section 2(b) provided that, if UGM desired to construct any future improvement not described in the plan, UGM and YGO shall "jointly request" the City of Yakima to process such application with a Class (3) review. Exhibit C -6(c), page 4. Pursuant to the 1992 and 1995 Hearing Examiner Interpretations (and the 1992 Class (2) permit), the mission use was classified as a Class (2) use. Under applicable City codes, substantial modification of a Class (2) required a Type (2) review. This was done. At the time the Parking Lot and Health Care /Residential Improvement projects were allowed, no provision of the Yakima Municipal Code required that such improvements be classified as Class (3) uses requiring Type (3) review. YMC 15.17.040 and Chapter 15.17 YMC. The effect of the Appellants' argument is that the City was required to process the Union Gospel Mission's permit applications as Class (3) uses — contrary to the enacted codes and procedures of the City. This would have violated the Union Gospel Mission's due process rights CITY O YAKIMA "S BRIEF IN S(JPIIOIZ f OF R, e IV l HEARING G E AMINER AND IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL - l I t CITY YAKIMA T I IV SIONDEPARTMENT *� 7 2015 200 Sopat'IW °rlI icd Street Duce Yakima, WA 08901 -2830 CITY t KN� , (5ii9 aiS -6030 PLANNING i # ,_, 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 to have its applications processed in accordance with the procedures in existence at the time the applications were filed. Appellants contend that the "Settlement Agreement controls future development at UGM's site." Appeal, at Item 2(b)(1). However, the City of Yakima was never a party to this agreement, and there is no basis in law to bind the City of Yakima to the provisions of a private agreement that is contrary to its codified procedures. As ruled by the Hearing Examiner: (6) Furthermore, if there was a breach of the [Settlement Agreement] to make the joint request described in Section 2(b) of the Settlement Agreement in 1995 when the Class of use of the "Mission" use in the M -1 zoning district was being determined through a public hearing process, the breach was solely a matter between the parties to the Settlement Agreement. The failure of the parties to make such a joint request for either of the two decisions here under review would also be solely a matter between the parties to that agreement. The specific performance of a private agreement is a matter for a Judge rather than a Hearing Examiner to decide. But it is clear for our purposes here that the City did not abet any breach of the Settlement Agreement by processing these two UGM application as Class (2) uses in accordance with the 1992 and 1995 decisions of its Hearing Examiner and the terms of its zoning ordinance provisions giving precedential effect to such decisions. (YMC §15.22.040(C)). (7) The Appellants' attorney, Mr. Andreotti, correctly recognized that enforcement of the private Settlement Agreement would have to be by way of a Court action rather than in an administrative appeal proceeding before a Hearing Examiner. (Exhibit E -6, page 2). Whether the requirement in Section 2(b) of the Settlement Agreement to jointly request that the "Mission" use be classified as a Class (3) use was satisfied or breached by the 1995 public hearing before the Hearing Examiner is not in the record and would in any event be an issue for a Court to determine in addition to the correct construction of the language of the agreement in this regard. Even if that section of the Settlement Agreement is still specifically enforceable, the bottom line is that it is still only an agreement to jointly request a result that the City is not obligated to accommodate because, as the Appellants concede, the City was not a party to the agreement. (Exhibit C -6(c) attachment, page 1). Moreover, the City did not here receive such a joint request to elevate the level of review beyond that prescribed by its Hearing Examiner. (8) Regardless of YGO's reasons for withdrawing its appeal to the City Council relative to the approval of the current UGM uses at the current location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 as Class (2) uses, the provisions of Section 2(b) of the Settlement Agreement clearly do not require the City to now review these two CL2 #004 -15 and CL2 #019 -14 applications as Class (3) land use applications or require a reversal and remand of either of those decisions for processing and review as a Class (3) land use application. The City is not bound to honor, approve or otherwise implement the terms of the private Settlement Agreement between UGM and YGO or to even accept or agree to any joint request that those parties may make pursuant to that agreement, particularly where the request for a different level of review for UGM uses would at the present time be contrary to the most recent and the only determinations that have ever been made as to the appropriate level of review for such uses. (Exhibit E -7, page S; Testimony of James Carmody and Mark Kunkler). Decision, at pages 16 -17. Cities do not have unfettered liberty to administratively "vary" the review processes and development standards adopted and established in their municipal codes. Developers are entitled to expect that the rules and standards established and codified by the City for one development will be the same standards that apply to other similar developments. To administratively "vary" the review processes on a case -by -case basis would be arbitrary and capricious. To "vary" the review standards for any class of use, the City must either (a) amend its municipal code so that the new review process would apply to all uses in that class; or (b) enter into a Development Agreement for a specific project pursuant to Chapter 36.70B RCW. A Development Agreement is a document and formal process that requires a public hearing, a written development agreement (signed by the developer and the City) setting forth the applicable development standards, phasing and types of review, and recording of the Development Agreement with the County Auditor's Office. The "review procedures" described in Section 2(b) of the private Settlement Agreement between YGO and the Union Gospel Mission were never adopted or codified by the City of Yakima, and there was no Development Agreement executed by the City of Yakima. Thus, it cannot be said that the Settlement Agreement "controls future CITY OF YAKIMA' S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HEARING EXAMINER AND IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL - 13 E U I E CITY OF YAKIMA LEGAL DEPARTMENT CIVIL DIVISION ._ g7 200 South Third Scree �i l r 201�.� Yaka "ma,"k A98901w28 Vr (509) 575 -6030 INDEX "AKI �A 1 LANINRNl l b µ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 development at UGM's site" as alleged by the Appellants. The Hearing Examiner properly concluded that the City is not bound by the Settlement Agreement. C. All parties and persons had notice of the Union Gospel Mission applications. and had fllll nnnnrtnnity to cnmm..ent and nnrtichnatP in the aT111ea1 hearing before the Hearinu Examiner. When the City learned on March 27, 2015 that the Notice of Application for the Parking Lot improvement had not been delivered to all property owners within 300 feet of the Union Gospel Mission, it did three things to cure. First, the City placed a Stop Work on the Parking Lot project. Second, after conferring with the Union Gospel Mission, the City consolidated the Parking Lot project with the Health Care /Residential Improvement project, giving opportunity for additional comment and opportunity to appeal. Third, the City issued a Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal advising all parties of record and owners of property within 300 feet of the Union Gospel Mission of an additional opportunity to submit comments and participate in the appeal hearing scheduled for June 17, 2015. The Hearing Examiner found and concluded: (6) Despite the defects in the mailing of the initial Notice of Application on December 18, 2014, the mailing of the Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal for the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot application on May 28, 2015, constituted substantial compliance with the applicable Notice of Application requirements because it advised of: (i) the December 2, 2014 date of the application; (ii) the May 28, 2015 date of the Notice of Application; (iii) a brief description of the proposed 34 -space parking lot project, including its location at 1300 North 1St Street in Yakima, Washington and its City file number CL2 #019 -14; (iv) the location where the application and any studies could be reviewed at the City of Yakima Planning Division on the 2 "d floor of City Hall at 129 North 2 "d Street in Yakima, Washington, including the City website information that could be found under Quick Links: ]tp / lwrrv. y;1i�uaK�..�vl,mAiccs /pl��a��r; (v) the June 16, 2015, date as the last day for submission of written comments prior to the hearing and the date of the public appeal hearing on June 17, 2015 when comments also could be submitted; (vi) a statement of the right of any person to comment on the application before or during the hearing and thereby be entitled to receive any future notices and decisions; [(vii)] the June 17, 2015 date, the 9:00 a.m. time, and the Yakima Council Chambers location at 129 North 2 "d Street in Yakima, Washington for the CITY Ole` YAKIMA'S BRIEF IN StJPPOR`IT OF 1JEAlUNG EXAMINER AND IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL - 14 RECEIVED CI' SEP 1 7 201,5 CITY OF 'L NM'kha 0,iV CY OF YAKIMA LEGAL DEPARTMENT CIVIL DIVISION 200 South Third Street 00C■ Yakima, WA 98901 -2830 INDE (509) 575 -6030 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 public appeal hearing which was scheduled at the time of the Notice of Application for a date more than 15 days from the date of the Notice; and [(viii)] additional information about the purpose of the Notice and the details of the consolidated appeal hearing determined to be appropriate by the Director of Community Development. (7) The information set forth in the City's Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal was the information required for a Notice of Application by YMC § 16.05.0 10 and YMC § 16.05.020; for a Notice of Application by YMC § 16.05.050; and for a Notice of Appeal of a Class (2) use decision by YMC § 15.14.070 and YMC §15.16.030(D) with one exception. Even though the Notice of Application did not specifically state the date of the December 15, 2014, notice of completion for application (Exhibit B -2) as required by YMC § 16.05.020(A), the Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal stated the physical address where the files and additional information relative to both CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15 were available for public review. (Exhibits D -4, D -4(a) and D- 4(b)). (13) Even though the proper remedy for notice defects that are not in substantial compliance with the notice requirements is to remand the matter for processing with proper notice (Prosser Hill Coalition v. County of Spokane, supra at pages 283 -284 & 292 -293), and even if the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision would have been void for failure to mail the Notice of Application thereof to all landowners within 300 feet of the UGM site on December 18, 2014, here the parking lot work was subsequently ordered to be stopped and the defect in the mailing of the Notice of Application was cured on May 28, 2015. The defect in the mailing of the notice was cured and remedied by the mailing of the Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal to all persons entitled thereto, including the landowners within 300 feet of the development site. (Exhibits D -4, D -4(a) and D- 4(b))• (14) The actions on the City's part to cure the defects in the December 18, 2014, mailing of the Notice of Application for the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision substantially complied with all Notice of Application and Notice of Appeal ordinance requirements without the need for a remand of the decision. These steps on the City's part accomplished substantially the same notice and provided the substantially the same opportunity to be heard regarding the application that a remand of the matter would accomplish. This true even though it was mailed after the January 20, 2015 decision was issued because remand of the matter would also involve the mailing of a second Notice of Application after the January 20, 2015 decision had already been made. This is also true whether it allowed a 19 -day comment period during which no additional public comments were received about the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision or whether it allowed a 20 -day comment period for the submission of either written or verbal comments at the hearing which CITY OF YAKIMA' S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HEARING EXAMINER AND IN OPPOSITION RECEIVED TO APPEAL - 15 CITY OF YAKIMA LEGAL DEPAR CIVIL DIVISION S 200 s, y p 200 South Third Street ,)EP 9 A iC Yakima, WA 98901 -2830 (509)575 -6030 CITY F lvlv L NIMI! G o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 did not provide any basis for changing or modifying that decision. The City's timely steps to cure and remedy notice issues before the hearing, which should be encouraged, avoided the unnecessary delay and expense that a remand of the matter would entail. Decision, at pages 21, 23 -24. Bottom line, every party and every person who had any interest in or concern with the Parking Lot permit and /or the Health Care /Residential Improvement project had full and fair opportunity to submit comments and participate in the appeal hearing. All the evidence that will ever be presented in this matter has already been presented. The essential purposes of the notice requirements have been met in this case — to provide an expanded opportunity to appear and present evidence and testimony. The City understands and respects the importance of providing notice of pending land use actions. As noted by the court in Prekeges v. King County, 98 Wash. App. 275, 280 -81, 990 P.2d 405 (1999): The key to achieving substantial compliance with a procedural statute is the satisfaction of the substance essential to the purpose of the statute. Crosby v. County of Spokane, 137 Wash.2d 296, 301, 971 P.2d 32 (1999); Allen v. Public Utility Dist. No. I of Thurston County, 55 Wash.2d 226, 233, 347 P.2d 539 (1959). One purpose of specific statutory requirements for public notice of an impending land use decision is to ensure that the decision makers receive enough information from those who may be affected by the action to make an intelligent decision. See Glaspey & Sons, Inc. v. Conrad, 83 Wash.2d 707, 711 -12, 521 P.2d 1173 (1974). In Gardner v. Pierce County Board of Commissioners, 27 Wash. App. 241, 243 -44, 617 P.2d 743 (1980), the court held that a neighboring landowner should be afforded a fair opportunity to be heard, and tolled the time period to appeal a land use decision when the lack of public notice deprived a neighboring landowner of a fair opportunity to be heard. See, Prosser Hill Coalition v. County of Spokane, 176 Wash. App. 280, 309 P.3d 1202 (2013). In the present CITY OF YAKIMA' S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HEARING EXAMINER AND IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL - 16 RECEIVED CITY OF YAKIMA LEGAL DEPARTMENT CIVIL DIVISION S E P 1, n 2015 200 South Third StreeD p Yakinii, WA 98901 -283q I A ��4� ,o, (:509 57.5.6030 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 appeal, the City has taken action to correct the lack of proper notice with regard to the Parking Lot application and decision so as to provide neighboring landowners with an opportunity to provide comment and participate in the pending appeal. In purpose and effect, the City has itself tolled the time period to appeal such decision in order to provide an opportunity to provide comment and participate in the pending appeal. In this regard, the City has achieved substantial compliance with the procedural requirement by "satisfying the substance essential" to the purpose of the notice requirements. Crosby v. County of Spokane, 137 Wash.2d 296, 301, 971 P.2d 32 (1999); Allen v. Public Utility Dist. No. I of Thurston County, 55 Wash.2d 226, 233, 347 P.2d 539 (1959). The decision makers and the hearing examiner thereby will "receive enough information from those who may be affected by the action to make an intelligent decision." Prekeges v. King County, 98 Wash. App. 275, 281, 990 P.2d 405 (1999); see, Glaspey & Sons, Inc. v. Conrad, 83 Wash.2d 707, 711 -12, 521 P.2d 1173 (1974). D. The Hearing Examiner properly considered and decided all issues relatiu y to compatibility of the proposed improvements. Of the 39 total pages in the Hearing Examiner's Decision, about one -third of the Decision (pages 24 to 36) consists of discussion and determination of compatibility issues. After citing the requirements in YMC 15.04.020(B) and YMC 15.04.020(C) that issues of compatibility with the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan be addressed, the Hearing Examiner found and concluded: (2) Against this backdrop mandating the consideration of compatibility of UGM's existing and proposed uses in the context of the intent and character of the M -1 (Light Industrial) and GC (General Commercial) zoning districts and the comprehensive plan policies and development criteria, the City's decisions in CITY OF YAKIMA'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HEARING EXAMINER AND IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL - 17 RECTIVED CITY OF YAKIMA LEGAL DEPARTMENT CIVIL DIVISION ® 2015 20h Ilsrd Street a P Yakima, WA 0800 "1.2830 i' � K i ha w, (509) 57 -60,30 ONDEX PLANIM!,IG l: a 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15 speak for themselves as to the many factors they consider and address in detail regarding the compatibility of the uses they approve. (3) The CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision contains a consideration of the nature of the proposal which is to construct a 34 -space 13,000- square -foot paved parking area next to UGM's existing facility similar to other paved parking on its site. The decision contains (i) a consideration of the intent of the General Commercial comprehensive plan designation to include retail and service uses; (ii) a consideration of the applicable comprehensive plan goals and policies that are consistent with the existing UGM use and its request for additional parking; (iii) a consideration of the intent of the M -1 zoning district which is in part to minimize conflicts between uses in the M -1 district and surrounding uses and also to avoid generating noise levels, light, odor or fumes that would constitute a nuisance or hazard per [YMC] § 15.03.020; (iv) a consideration of the zoning classifications of the surrounding properties which are the same as the two zoning classifications of the UGM site; (v) a consideration of the specific zoning ordinance requirements that apply to the parking lot application, including landscaping of the parking area, sidewalk installation along Oak Street, installation of lighting for the parking lot that will be directed to reflect away from adjacent properties, construction of the driveway to the parking lot, sitescreening that is already provided for the parking lot, the proper width for the for the access aisles next to the two accessible parking spaces, paving of the undeveloped property so as to reduce airborne particulate levels of dust and installation of a stormwater collection system to filter surface runoff. (Exhibit B -1; YMC §15.06090(A); YMC §12.05.010; YMC §15.06100; YMC §15.06065(E); YMC §15.06065(G); YMC Chapter 15.07; YMC Chapter 8.64; YMC §15.06.065; & YMC §12.03.010). (4) The CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision also contains a consideration of the fact that a parking lot by itself, without being part of a "Mission" use, would be an outright permitted Class (1) use in the M -1 zoning district. It finally imposes conditions requiring the construction of a sidewalk on the south side of Oak Street along the UGM frontage and requiring eight- foot -wide access aisles next to the two nine - foot -wide accessible parking spaces. A large part of the CL2 #019 -14 parking lot decision in some way addresses factors relating to the compatibility of the parking lot with the intent and character of the M -1 zoning district or the policies and development criteria of the comprehensive plan. Appellants' main contention regarding the compatibility of the parking lot as approved was the failure of the access from Oak Street to be limited in the way that they contend was the intent of the Settlement Agreement, which interpretation was disputed by UGM. (5) The CL2 #004 -15 health care clinic /residential dormitory decision likewise contains a consideration of the matter of the nature of the proposal which is to construct inside the exterior boundaries of its existing facility (i) a new 3,585 - square -foot health care clinic connected to its existing dental clinic which will CITY OF YAKIMA'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HEARING EXAMINER AND IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL - 18 FIECEIVEQ ITY OF YAKIMA LEGAL DEPARTMENT CIV I L L'DI V 1410N 5 v 200 South Ili' 'd Street r D .� �� I5 � Yakiaxy7, IAA 98901 -2830 (5'09) 575.6030 I , a consist of a reception office, administration area, waiting room, assessment /vitals lab, exam rooms, dispensary, storage area and other support facilities and also (ii) 18 second - floor -level residential dormitory units above the health care clinic and dental clinic that will accommodate 10 women in 5 units and 28 men in 13 units with other support facilities and improvements. The decision also considers in great detail the factors to be considered relative to compatibility and the manner in which they apply to specific features of the health care clinic and the residential dormitory units. (Exhibit C -7; YMCD §15.06090(A); YMC §15.06065(E); YMC §15.06.065(G); YMC Chapter 15.07; YMC Chapter 8.64; YMC §15.06.065; and YMC §12.03.010; comprehensive plan Goal 3. 10, Goal 3.16, Policy 3.161 & Policy 3.162). The decision indicates (i) that the additional dormitories are intended to provide better separation of single men from families; (ii) that the installation of a sidewalk along Oak Street would be deferred for a time during which the installation of a fence was recommended in accordance with the suggestion of UGM; and (iii) that the access to the parking lot from Oak Street must be gated with an automated access for use exclusively by delivery, maintenance and operations of the Union Gospel Mission and not by UGM clients. (Exhibit C -7, page 7; Exhibit C -7, page 8, condition I (c)). Decision, at pages 27 -28. The Hearing Examiner considered all evidence and testimony presented at the hearing and concluded that the proposed improvements as described above were compatible with the purpose and intent of the zoning district and the comprehensive plan. Evidence and testimony in the record and presented at the hearing also support the Hearing Examiner's findings and conclusions that the Union Gospel Mission's current operations were consistent and compatible with the original decisions and permits: (11) The only direct evidence that was submitted at the hearing regarding the issue of UGM's compliance with the 14 conditions of the decisions pursuant to which it began operations on North 1 St Street was to the effect that it did comply with those conditions. (Exhibit A -1, page 10, last paragraph). Additional conditions have been imposed on UGM's operation by the two decisions subject to this consolidated appeal which promote the compatibility of the parking lot and health care clinic /residential dormitory uses. (Exhibit B -7, page 7; Exhibit C -7, pages 7 -8). Decision, at page 32. CITY OF YAKIMA'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HEARING EXAMINER AND IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL - 19 UY;� CI1 Si:::. y7 2�U1 Bpi QTY Of"" ii Ali,., 'Y OF YAKIMA LEGAL DEPARTMENT CIVIL DIVISION 200 South Third Street Yakima, WA 98901 -2830 ) (509) 575 -6030 INDEX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 E. The Hearing Examiner rightfully ruled that limited ingress /egress to the Union f. os gel Properly f -onr Om ak Street is permitted. Appellants allege that is was error for the Hearing Examiner to uphold the City's decision that allows restricted access to the Union Gospel Mission site to and from Oak Street. Finding 11 of the City's CL2 #019 -14 Parking Lot decision restricts the parking lot to use for delivery, maintenance and operations of the Union Gospel Mission by way of an automated access gate, and prohibits use by the mission's clients. The Appellants contend that this is contrary to Section 4 of the Settlement Agreement which states: 4. Access. Client access to the property, current and future, shall be restricted to the southside alley entrance designated by Hearing Examiner. The First Street entrance will be for administrative and staff purposes only. There shall be no access from Oak Street except for delivery or services to the subject property. Decision, at pages 34 -35; Exhibit C -6(c), page 2. Nothing in the City's actual conditions imposed regarding access to and from Oak Street conflicts with the 1992 and 1995 decisions and interpretations of the Hearing Examiner, nor is there any conflict with Section 4 of the Settlement Agreement. Contrary to the reading of Appellants, Section 4 does not prohibit all access to and from Oak Street — it specifically allows access for "delivery or services" to or on behalf of the Union Gospel Mission. The City's conditions do not allow the mission's clients to use the access from Oak Street. Rather, pursuant to the City's conditions, such access is to be gated and restricted to "delivery, maintenance and operations" of the Union Gospel Mission, terms which are synonymous with the terms "delivery or services" as set forth in Section 4 of the Settlement Agreement. Appellants argue that the use of the term "delivery or services" was a typographical error, and that the phrase should have read "delivery of services." In the City's view, the change or CITY OF YAKIMA'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HEARING EXAMINER AND IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL - 20 RECEIVED CITY OF YAKIMA LEGAL DEPARTMENT ry q CIVIL DIVISION J P % L I 200 South Third SPrvet Ya9cr`r a,WA r93901- 23,3(, � (509) 575 -6030 41 f 4 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 "correction" of terms makes little difference. "Delivery of services" could just as easily support a construction allowing access from Oak Street for the "delivery of goods and maintenance and operation services" for the Union Gospel Mission. The Hearing Examiner made the following ruling: 4. Appellants assert that Finding 11 of the CL2 #004 -15 decision which restricts the parking lot allowed by CL2 #019 -14 to use for delivery, maintenance and operations of the UGM by way of an automated access gate and prohibits use by clients is contrary to Section 4 of the Settlement Agreement because that section was intended to provide that there shall be no access from Oak Street except for delivery of utility services to the subject property rather than what it says: "There shall be no access from Oak Street except for delivery or services to the subject property." Appellants' assertion would require proof of an unintended mistake in the way the contract reads, a construction of the phrase "delivery of services" and an answer to the question of where other than from Oak Street are delivery or service vehicles allowed to access the UGM site if client access is restricted to the southside alley entrance and the First Street entrance is for administrative and staff purposes. (Exhibit C -7, pages 7 -8; Exhibit C -6(c) attachment, page 2). 5. Whatever the assertions may be in this regard, it would be for a Court to decide if the language in Section 4 of the Settlement Agreement is ambiguous and, if so, to evaluate the live testimony of witnesses who profess to recall its intended meaning. If the meaning is determined to be as asserted by Appellants, perhaps the circumstances would lead a Court to specifically enforce that provision in addition to what the City has required at the suggestion of the Applicant. The Settlement Agreement is similar to private covenants against property which impose requirements in addition to what the City requires and which the City likewise does not enforce. The requirement of an automated gate to the parking lot to assure use only for delivery, maintenance and operations of UGM in Finding 11 and Condition 1(c) of the CL2 #004 -15 decision was added at the suggestion of UGM. (Exhibit C- 7, pages 7 -8). Many of the Findings in Section V of this decision relative to the terms of the Settlement Agreement that purport to classify the "Mission" use as a Class (3) use are equally applicable to the terms of the Settlement Agreement that purport to specify the type of access to the UGM parking lot. Decision, at pages 34 -35. CITY OF YAKIMA' S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HEARING EXAMINER AND IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL - 21 , FIVE CITY OF YAKIMA LEGAL DEPARTMENT E CIVIL DIVISION p " 200 South Third Street ' °' Yakima, WA 98901 -2830 CITY Or- te„ (509) 575 -6030 ,NG 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 III. CONCLUSION Anyone who reads the Hearing Examiner's Decision in this case will conclude that the Hearing Examiner considered and addressed all issues raised by the Appellants, and considered and addressed such issues in a thorough and comprehensive manner. The Hearing Examiner rejected all grounds of appeal raised by the Appellants and upheld the City's decisions in the Parking Lot and Health Care /Residential Improvement applications submitted by the Union Gospel Mission. The Hearing Examiner in 1992 and 1995 had specific authority to issue an unclassified use decision pursuant to YMC 15.04.040, Chapter 15.22 YMC and RCW 35.63.130. By such specific designation of limited legislative authority, the Hearing Examiner designated the "Mission" use classification and determined that such use was a Class (2) use in the GC General Commercial, CBD Central Business District, and the M -1 Light Industrial zoning districts. The Union Gospel Mission commenced operations at its current location at 1300 North 1St Street pursuant to such decisions and permit. The Union Gospel Mission has operated in conformity with such decisions and permit since the start of its operations. The Union Gospel Mission and YGO entered into a private Settlement Agreement in 1994. The City of Yakima was not a party to this agreement and does not have standing to enforce any provision of such agreement. As noted by the Hearing Examiner, the Settlement Agreement is akin to private covenants often entered into between private parties governing the use of certain property. However, the City has no jurisdiction to enforce such covenants. The City undertook extensive efforts to correct a notification error on the Parking Lot permit. When it learned of the computer error, the City issued a Stop Work Order, consolidated 32 CITY OF YAKIMA' S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF 33 HEARING EXAMINER AND IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL - 22 IIJ UTY OF YADTO -,% LANNEN 0,11V 'ITY OF YAKIMA LEGAL DEPARTMENT CIVIL DIVISION 200 Sout Third Strter�t Yakima, WA 9t3901 -2&92 a (509) 575 -6030 INDEX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 the Parking Lot application/decision with the Health Care /Residential Improvement application, and issued a Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal. All parties of record and owners of property within 300 feet of the mission site were afforded an opportunity to comment and participate in the appeal filed by Appellants. No person was barred from presenting evidence and testimony at the appeal hearing, and all persons having any interest in the consolidated projects were allowed to participate. The Hearing Examiner found and ruled that the City cured any problem with defective notice and had substantially complied with the central purpose of the notice provisions. The Hearing Examiner extensively analyzed compatibility of the proposed improvements with the intent and purpose of the zoning district and the comprehensive plan, and ruled that the proposed improvements, with the conditions imposed, were compatible with the zoning district and comprehensive plan. He considered and discussed all evidence and testimony presented at the appeal hearing and specifically ruled on all points. This hearing is a quasi-judicial hearing, and the decisions and determinations of the Hearing Examiner are entitled to deference. The City of Yakima respectfully requests that the Decision of the Hearing Examiner be affirmed in all respects and that Appellants' appeal be denied. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 17th day of September, 2015. CITY OF YAKIMA LEGAL DEPARTMENT _ ...... ...... ........' Mark A. Kunkler, WSBA #14995 Senior Assistant City Attorney Attorney for City of Yakima CITY OF YAKIMA' S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HEARING EXAMINER AND IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL - 23 '-' ECEI V DCITY OF YAKIMA 11:C AL DEPART i:6V' CIVIL DIVISION � 230 Stuth l dyd Street J t P i 7 2 0N Yakima, WA 98901 -2830 WDE (509) 575 -6030 V 1A 1 -° QTY OF YAKdwI : PLANIM'C' 0JV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA In the Matter of the Appeals of Two Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to the Union Gospel Mission, Submitted by: William Brado and the Yakima Gateway Organization Relative to the Construction of Additional Parking, Health Care Clinic Facilities and Residential Dormitory Units at the Existing Union Gospel Mission Site Located at 1300 North 1St Street CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that on the date stated below I served a copy of the following documents: City of Yakima's Brief in Support of Hearing Examiner and In Opposition to Appeal to the parties below in the manner indicated to each: Patrick M. Andreotti X E -mail (p aandreotli(il fl , �vej maD(lr cot,tilaw oil'i) Flower & Andreotti _ Facsimile 303 E. D Street, Ste. 1 Hand Delivery Yakima, WA 98901 Attorney Messenger Service James C. Carmody E- mail (cw a °ar od imil i aw.c�oin) Meyer Fluegge & Tenney P.S. Facsimile 230 South Second Street Hand Delivery P.O. Box 22680 Attorney Messenger Service Yakima, WA 98907 DATED at Yakima, Washington this 17th day of September, 2015, 1� ,gip Lisa Maxey, Department Assistamat City of Yakima Planning Department CITY OF YAKIMA'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HEARING EXAMINER AND IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL - 24 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF YAKIMA Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision on the Appeal of William Brado and Yakima Gateway Organization Relative to Construction of Additional Parking, Health Care Clinic Facilities and Residential Dormitory Units at the Existing Union Gospel Mission Site Located at 1300 North 1St Street. APP #05 -15 APPELLANT - WILLIAM BRADO AND YAKIMA GATEWAY ORGANIZATION'S APPEAL BRIEF INTRODUCTION This appeal arises from two (2) applications filed by the Union Gospel Mission ( "UGM "), an application to construct a new paved parking lot for 32 standard parking spaces and 2 handicapped parking spaces filed 12/02/2014, City File No. CL2 #019 -14, and an application for approval of a 3,585 square foot health care clinic and 5,688 square foot residential dormitory to be constructed within the facility located East of the proposed 34 space parking lot, which was assigned City File No. CL2 #004 -15. On 12/18/2014, the City mailed notice of the application to the Applicant and only three (3) of the twenty -one (21) landowners within 300 feet of the project site, contrary to the requirements of the City Code. On 1/20/2015, the City issued a Class 2 decision approving the parking lot application subject to conditions. The Decision was mailed to Applicant but not any of the residents located within 300 feet of the project site. On 3/17/2015, a Notice of Application for the facility expansion was mailed to twenty- one (2 1) landowners within 300 feet of the UGM site. Comments on the facility expansion application were submitted timely in behalf of William Brado. On 4/17/2015, the City issued its Decision approving the facility expansion. On 5/01/2015, William Brado and the Yakima Gateway Organization appealed the Decisions for both the parking lot and facility expansion. P E1 APPELLANT - WILLIAM BRADO AND YAKIMA GATEWAY ORGANIZATION'S APPEAL BRIEF - 1�� C:\ Users\ Pat \Documents \PAK \pat \Pat \appeal brief.docx y g'",� w � � & way , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 111 1.2 13 14 1.5 16 17 1e i9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2B On 5/28/2015, the City mailed a "Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal" to the es who should have received notice of the initial parking lot application, stating its intent to cure the failure to provide notice which had been required in December, 2014. On 6/17/2015, an appeal hearing was held before the City's Hearing Examiner. On /09/2015, the Hearing Examiner issued his Decision which denied the appeals of both the arkilig lot Decision and the facility expansion Decision, affirmed the parking lot Decision and dified the facility expansion Decision adding a condition. This appeal to the City Council was timely filed on 7/27/2015. II. FACTS The facts from which the present controversy arises date back more than twenty (20) On 2/27/1992, the then - Yakima County Hearing Examiner Phillip Lamb issued an interpretation which defined the activities of the Union Gospel Mission as a "mission use" and it as a Class 2 use in the Central Business District ( "CBD ") and Central Business istrict Support ( "CBDS ") zones. That interpretation was appealed to the Yakima City Council. The Council split 3 -3 on M-rent motions to approve or revise the interpretation with the result that the Hearing aminer's interpretation became the final Decision of the City Council. This Decision was not City staff approved an application of the Union Gospel Mission under that interpretation a Class 2 use in the CBDS zone but not in the portion of the property which is located in the 1 zone. This Decision was appealed to the Yakima County Hearing Examiner who issued his on on 10/20/1992. The Decision was issued after four (4) days of public hearings. Much of the hearing testimony and exhibits and a third of the Hearing Examiner's i,sion were related to the issue of compatibility. VPI LLAN'I - WILLIAM BRADO AND YAKIMA IATEWAY ORGANIZATION'S APPEAL BRIEF - 2 ':\ Users \Pat\Documents \PAK \pat \Pat \appeal brief.docx RECEIVED 1 61 ('PM. OF ' AKii u", NV Law Office of FLOWER & AMREOTTI 303 East "D" Street 41 DUC Yakima, WA 98901 Te:t.ephone: 509- 248 -9084 INDE 1 2 3 4 C� 6 7 8 9 7 c� 12 1, 3 1.4 1..5 1.6 1.7 18 19 20 2 }.. 2.7.. 23 24. 2.5 26 27 28 li° The Hearing Examiner noted at page 19 of the Decision: "The significant issue in this case is whether the proposed use is compatible with the existing neighborhood. Pedestrians and property values are the issue. These items are interrelated, and a significant amount of evidence has been received on both sides of these issues." Concern about undesirable pedestrian activity had two (2) aspects: (1) Mission clients encouraged to leave the facility during daylight hours but remaining in the area, and (2) Individuals who do not qualify for Mission services because they are not eligible or fail to with Mission guidelines concerning their behavior who, although denied access to ission services, remain in the area. The Hearing Examiner concluded there would be an impact of undesirable pedestrian vity to an unknown extent that the physical facility and commitment of UGM's governing would minimize the impacts the facility would inevitably cause. (Hearing Examiner's n.,. p. 22) Substantial concern was also expressed about the Mission's impact on area property ties and businesses. The primary evidence related to business and property value loss was by the Red Lion. Although the Hearing Examiner only discounted evidence presented Red Lion, the Hearing Examiner did note (Examiner's Decision, p. 25): "The Red Lion's experts in their judgment concluded that occupancy in the first year would decline 8 %. For many small businesses, if their projection is true, that percentage is the margin between survival and bankruptcy. Many of the other businesses on North 15t Street echo these arguments, since they depend to a large extent on the spinoff of traffic generated by the motel industry. Restaurants, similar motels, convenience stores and fast food drive -ins all depend, probably to a large extent, on business spinoff from the Red Lion related facilities. Thus, their concerns are heartfelt and very significant. The wrong call on this could ruin their business. They have a right to be concerned." The Hearing Examiner further recognized that the Lariat Drive -in which was very well Laintained with an attractive outdoor seating area would, along with R &R Construction, be the vo (2) businesses most directly affected in an adverse way by the Mission. (Examiner's �ccision, p. 28) Law office of PPI:LLANT- WILLIAM BRADO AND YAKIMA 303 East "D" Street V DOC ATEWAY ORGANIZATION'S APPEAL BRIEF - 3 Yakima, WA 98901 :14,Nsers\ Pat \Documents \PAK \pat \Pat \appeal brie£docx Telephone: 509 - 248 -9084 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IEPp .� r wl y The Hearing Examiner's Decision approved the application subject to conditions. PLA, The Examiner's Decision was appealed to the Yakima City Council. Before the appeal was heard by the Yakima City Council, the Yakima Gateway niZation and UGM entered a "Settlement Agreement Re: Union Gospel Mission ation" which was filed with the City on 8/02/1994. The Agreement provided restrictions and limitations on Mission operations which YGO bers believed would mitigate some of the adverse impacts from the Mission on their sinesses and property values. The Agreement specifically provided: "These terms are in addition to those required by the City of Yakima staff and Phil Lamb, the Hearing Examiner." The terms and conditions of the Agreement must, therefore, be considered in the nature a development agreement imposing restrictions binding upon both the Mission and the City. The Agreement specifically provided Class 3 review for any expansion of Mission lities not included within a schematic attached to the Agreement. It appears the present ,ing lot and building expansion was not contemplated or shown in 1994 and is, therefore, subject to Class 3 rather than Class 2 review. [Agreement, Section 2(b)] Section 3 of the Agreement required the Mission to provide a restroom to the general r.,Iblic 24 -hours per day, 7 days per week. This restroom facility is not presently provided with resulting, anticipated adverse effects on surrounding property. Section 6 of the Agreement provided UGM would provide a reading /day room between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Clients would be allowed to stay on the UGM property as long as they adhere to UGM rules. Although this facility may have been provided, many Mission residents and clients for other services are out on North 1St Street and surrounding areas or all of the day resulting in the adverse pedestrian impacts anticipated by the Hearing in 1992. Section 10 of the Agreement provided the Mission would provide two (2) scheduled shuttles per day offering transportation for clients to designated spots in the City for a minimum of one (1) year. The shuttle service was not continued with the result that there is now a steady st vam of pedestrians, clients and residents of the Mission, moving up and down North 1 st Street on both sides of the street, interfering with businesses in the area and their castoff j'16. aw ce of FLOWER & ANDREOTTI APPELLANT- WILLIAM BRADO AND YAKIMA 303 East "D" Street #1 GATEWAY ORGANIZATION'S APPEAL BRIEF - 4 Yakima, WA 98901 C:\ Users\ Pat \Documents \PAK \pat \Pat \appeal brief docx Telephone: 509 - 248 -9084 INDE 414 01V _5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1.. 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 12 of the Agreement provided a minimum of one (1) uniformed night vg S O psi ,a y 'i ��, trity Z n "IV would be provided by UGM to make hourly patrols of the property and stay in radio t nicatiott with the Yakima Police Department. This has not been done consistently. The result of the Settlement Agreement was withdrawal of the YGO appeal and the earing Examiner's 1992 Decision becoming final. Subsequently on 6/09/1995, the Hearing Examiner entered a second Decision relating to e UGM North 1st Street location for property west and south of the primary motel facility hich was, at the time, zoned M1 and not considered in the 1992 Decision. The Hearing Examiner's 1995 Decision recognized and implemented the YGO — UGM atnent. Agreement by eliminating the requirement of a North 1st Street bus stop which had included in the 1994 Decision. By acknowledging and implementing the Settlement Agreement in the 1995 Decision, the Examiner recognized the Agreement as a development agreement governing future peratioti and expansion of UGM. With respect to the current parking lot expansion application, the City acknowledges it led to provide notice as required by municipal code. Appellants did not comment on the parking lot application because they received no tice of it. Appellants did, however, receive notice of the facility expansion application and Ltbmitted timely comments in response to notice of that application addressing both the facility's pattsiott and the previously approved, without adequate notice, parking lot application. A hearing was held on 6/17/2015 before the Hearing Examiner on the 5/01/2015 appeal f the parking lot and facility expansion approvals. Substantial testimony was presented at the hearing from North 1st Street business owners bout both the reliance of the business owners on the terms of the 1994 Settlement Agreement and problems associated with UGM clients extending over the period of the Mission operation. This testimony established the Hearing Examiner's 1992 conclusion about compatibility of the Mission with existing uses on North 1st Street was incorrect. APPELLANT- WILLIAM BRADO AND YAKIMA GATEWAY ORGANI'ZATION'S APPEAL BRIEF - 5 C:\ Users\ Pat \Documents \PAK \pat \Pat \appeal brief.docx Lays Office of 303 East "D" Street 41 1 Yakima, WA 98901 Telephone: 509 -248 -9084 I P 1. 2 4 6 r 8 9 1.. 0 i_2 13 z� �9 20 21. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cy Gary Rufener, owner of the Road Runner /Pacific Pride convenience store and fuelm station, testified the value of his property had declined to twenty percent (20 %) of what it was purchased for in the late 1980's and the volume of his business had decreased by seventy percent (70%) during the years in which the Mission has been located on North 1St Street. Mr. Rufener further° testified eighty -five percent (85 %) of the businesses located on North 1St Street have either gone out of business or changed ownership on numerous occasions since 1994. In addition, Mr. Rufener testified that although the Settlement Agreement required public restroom facilities be available at the Mission 24 hours a day, such facilities were not maintained in a manner available to the public with the result businesses along North 1 st Street had their property used as bathroom facilities. Nina Kyle, who owns property at 1205 -1207 North 1St Street, testified ownership and operation of the Lariat Drive -in #2 from about 1965 to 1999. Ms. Kyle testified after the Mission began operations in the mid- 1990's, a park she had constructed for her customers adpacent to the drive -in was continually occupied by apparently homeless people associated with (lie Mission to the extent that her customers could not use the facility and, in fact, resulted in a decline of business so severe the drive -in was closed in 1999. Stephanie Beamer, who works at Owens Cycle, testified about the use of the Owens Cycle restrooms by people traveling from a homeless camp along the river to the Mission as well as those transients roaming around and sleeping at the business. In addition, Ms. Beamer testified about the problems created for her family's rentals along Bartlett by people moving 1'roni the river encampment to the Mission facility including thefts, intimidation of renters, and trespassing on the rental properties. Rick Phillips, UGM Executive Director, acknowledged people coming to the Mission for non-resident services such as meals, including people traveling to and from the river encampment to the Mission, created problems for North 1 st Street business owners but asserted UGM had no control over these individuals when they were not at the Mission facility. Mr. Phillips further testified contrary to testimony by affected business owners the Mission complied with all terms of the Settlement Agreement. Specifically, there was a restroom facility available to the public. It appears from the testimony the restroom is within an enclosed area of the UGM facility which requires entry into the UGM facility and which would not be available to the general public 24 hours a day. Law Office of FLOWER & ANDREOTTI APPI LLANT- WILLIAM BRADO AND YAKIMA 303 East "D" Street #1 'J GATEWAY ORGANIZATION'S APPEAL BRIEF - 6 Yakima, WA 98901L)(, C:\ Users\ Pat \Documents \PAK \pat \Vat \appeal brie£docx Y`eiep:hone: 509 248 -9084 �� 1 2_ 3 4 5 6 9 1.0 11 12 1.'3 14 1. 1.6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2.7 28 On 7/09/2015, the Hearing Examiner issued his above - described Decision and this appeal timely filed. Ill. ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL Hearing Examiner erred by failing to apply provisions of the 1994 SettleftlCrlt,Ag!LLeluent. 1. ,estl ictiotis on future develg �n�t. A primary point of dispute between the Appellants and both the City and UGM is the to be given the Settlement Agreement. It is important to note the Settlement Agreement recent action taken by the City Council. Although there was no appeal of the 1992 interpretation establishing the definition of a ission or the subsequent 1994 and 1995 Hearing Examiner Decisions authorizing the UGM at its present location, the interpretation and determination was not presented to the lanning Commission as a proposed text amendment to the urban area zoning ordinance or by ordinance approved by the City Council as should have been done. See: City of akima's Appeal Brief, Appeal of Hearing Examiner Interpretation Decision No. INT #001 -14 Yakima Neighborhood Health Services, p. 12. The result of this oversight was the City 1's adoption of Ordinance No. 2014 -027 imposing a moratorium on acceptance of for Mission uses within the Small Convenience Center zoning district and, after fanning Commission review and recommendation, the adoption by the City Council on the 15 Consent Agenda of Ordinance 2015 -022 which provided at Section 2: "Section 2: YMC 15.04.020 is hereby amended to add a definition of land use for `mission' use to read as follows: " `Mission' means a facility typically owned or operated by a public agency or non - profit corporation, providing a variety of services for the disadvantaged, typically including but not limited to temporary housing for the homeless, dining facilities, health and counseling activities, whether or not of a spiritual nature, with such services being generally provided to the public at large. Mission uses shall be Class (2) uses within the GC General Commercial, CBD Central Business District, and M -1 Light Industrial zoningm' districts as set forth in Table 4 -1, YMC 15.04.030, and subject to a Type (3) review as set forth in Chapter 15.15 YMC with a S p development agreement incorporating applicable development Val .1, standards and mitigations imposed by the hearing examiner. Effective as and from August 24, 2015, any modification of in a,, Office of FLOWER & ANDREOTTI APPELLANT- WILLIAM BRADO AND YAKIMA 303 East "D" Street 41 JJ � GATEWAY ORGANIZATION'S APPEAL BRIEF - 7 Yak.l..rna, WA 963 901 � , C:\ Users\ Pat \Documents \PAK \pat \Pat \appealbrief.docx `['eleph.an.e. 509 248 90634 ell �d —1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1.0 11 12 13 1.4 15 1..6 7.7 18 19 20 21. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Settlement Agreement is in the nature of a development agreement and specifically impasses conditions in addition to those required by the Hearing Examiner. The execution of the Agreement resulted in the withdrawal of Yakima Gateway ization's appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Decision to the City Council and allowed the of a Certificate of Zoning Review for the first phase of the project within the CBDS The Settlement Agreement also allowed UGM to proceed with the second phase of the in the M -1 zone consistent with the plans incorporated in the Settlement Agreement. The 995 Hearing Examiner interpretation Decision authorizing the Mission use in the M -1 zone ly recognized the Settlement Agreement and as part of that Decision, modified the 1992 to eliminate the requirement of a bus stop in front of the Mission consistent with the of the Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 2015 -022, any proposed modification is subject to the ovisions of YMC 15.17. The parking lot application proposed an increase of more than twenty 0) parking spaces and, therefore, would be subject to Class 3 review pursuant to the ordinance.. 44C 15.17.020B. The facility's expansion application proposed an increase of residential 11sity as well as an increase in the height of the structure, again requiring Class 3 review. VIC 15.17.020A and D. This level of review is the same level of review contemplated for expansion of Mission ililies by Section 2(b) of the Settlement Agreement. Based on the history of the approval process for the existing Mission facility between 11992 and 1995, and the issues created for the North 1St Street neighborhood by the Mission's ions, the Settlement Agreement must be considered as a development agreement binding upon UGM and enforceable by the City.. Lacy Office of \P11- 11.I.,ANT- WILLIAM BRADO AND YAKIMA 303 East "D" Street #1 iA`11: "WAY ORGANIZATION'S APPEAL BRIEF - 8 Yakima, WA 98901 "':\ Users\ Pat \Documents \PAK \pat \Pat \appeal brief.docx Telephones 509 - 248 -9084 lim existing mission use shall be subject to the modification it y il- procedures and provisions of Chapter 15.17 YMC; provided, that .., any proposed modification that does not meet the criteria in YMC 15.17.040 for administrative review and approval shall be subject to a Type (3) review with a development agreement incorporating applicable development standards and mitigations imposed by the hearing examiner." The Settlement Agreement is in the nature of a development agreement and specifically impasses conditions in addition to those required by the Hearing Examiner. The execution of the Agreement resulted in the withdrawal of Yakima Gateway ization's appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Decision to the City Council and allowed the of a Certificate of Zoning Review for the first phase of the project within the CBDS The Settlement Agreement also allowed UGM to proceed with the second phase of the in the M -1 zone consistent with the plans incorporated in the Settlement Agreement. The 995 Hearing Examiner interpretation Decision authorizing the Mission use in the M -1 zone ly recognized the Settlement Agreement and as part of that Decision, modified the 1992 to eliminate the requirement of a bus stop in front of the Mission consistent with the of the Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 2015 -022, any proposed modification is subject to the ovisions of YMC 15.17. The parking lot application proposed an increase of more than twenty 0) parking spaces and, therefore, would be subject to Class 3 review pursuant to the ordinance.. 44C 15.17.020B. The facility's expansion application proposed an increase of residential 11sity as well as an increase in the height of the structure, again requiring Class 3 review. VIC 15.17.020A and D. This level of review is the same level of review contemplated for expansion of Mission ililies by Section 2(b) of the Settlement Agreement. Based on the history of the approval process for the existing Mission facility between 11992 and 1995, and the issues created for the North 1St Street neighborhood by the Mission's ions, the Settlement Agreement must be considered as a development agreement binding upon UGM and enforceable by the City.. Lacy Office of \P11- 11.I.,ANT- WILLIAM BRADO AND YAKIMA 303 East "D" Street #1 iA`11: "WAY ORGANIZATION'S APPEAL BRIEF - 8 Yakima, WA 98901 "':\ Users\ Pat \Documents \PAK \pat \Pat \appeal brief.docx Telephones 509 - 248 -9084 lim 1.. 0 1, u 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1 _ 6 1.7 1.8 1.9 20 2:1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ���N kry uryypNI pp p That being the case, both the parking lot application and the facility expansion t VA��`1� application are subject to Class 3 review. The Hearing Examiner's Decision must be reversed and both applications remanded for Class 3 review processing. 13, Supplemental Notice of Application Appeal for parking lot application failed to satisfy notice I quirements. The Hearing Examiner erred in holding the City's 5/28/2015 "Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal" for the parking lot application issued more than four (4) months after [lie Decision to grant the application had been made was adequate to provide notice of the application prior to making a decision on the application and to give notice of the Decision as required by the municipal code. In Prosser Hill Coalition vs. Spokane County, 176 Wn.App. 280, 291 -292, 309 P.3d 1202 (2013), the Court held: "While the hearing examiner ruled the notice requirements were met because nothing indicated neighboring property owners were confused or did not receive notice, it is difficult to measure the im act that the 1111,11ty notice had on concerned individuals. In other words, it Is diffictilt_to prove a negative. `One purpose of specific statutory requirements for public notice of an impending land use decision is to insure that the decision makers receive enough information from those who may be affected by the action to make an intelligent decision.' like Yes vs, 1Cin g County, 98 Wn.App. 275, 281, 990 P.2d 405 (1999). The defective notice undermines the information gathering process. (Emphasis added) "A neighboring land owner should be afforded a fair opportunity to be heard. See, Gardner vs. fierce COUniy Bd. ol" C girl n r , 27 Wn.App. 241, 243 -244, 617 P.2d 743 (1980) (Court tolled the time period to appeal a land use decision when the lack of public notice deprived a neighboring land owner of a fair opportunity to be heard). Even applying the lesser standard of substantial compliance, `[t]he key to achieving substantial compliance with a procedural statute is satisfaction of the substance essential to the purpose of the statute.' 1'rwg g,, 98 Wn.App. at 280. Posting a sign contrary to the county's placement requirement and providing notice with the wrong property description is not within the substantial compliance standard. Law Office of ^i PPIiLLAN "I "'- WILLIAM BRADO AND YAKIMA 303 East "D" Street 811 'ATEWAY ORGANIZATION'S APPEAL BRIEF - 9 Yakima, WA 98901 � \t8sers\ Pat\ Documents \PAK \pat \Pat \appeal brief.docx Telephone: 509 -248 -9084 t1 11. 2 3 4 5 r 'r 8 9 1.0 1.. 1.. 1.2 13 14 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 20 21. . 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 "In sum, because the notice was not posted near the required street and the notice did not contain the correct property description, as required by the clear language of [the municipal code], the trial court did not err in remanding the matter to the hearing examiner." A; In this case, it appears the notice given by the City of the parking lot expansion lication, was given only to one (1) of twenty -three (23) landowners entitled to notice pursuant to the municipal code. This being the case, there was a complete failure to comply with the public notice re,quirements, the purpose of giving public notice was completely thwarted, and the Decision approving the parking lot expansion is void. The purpose of notice requirements is to provide decision makers with information prior to decision erng made. .......... __ __ As the Prosser Hill Coalition Court noted, it is impossible to tell what the impact of the failure to give the required notice was because it is impossible to prove a negative. In this case, the "Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal" of the parking lot Decision provided after the Notice of Appeal and public hearing had been provided for the facility's expansion Decision was confusing at best. In addition to the confusion created by the timing of the Notice, the fact the parking lot Decision had been made months before notice of the ication was given and had, in fact, been incorporated in the Decision approving the facility's aisiorr more probably than not would lead an interested party to conclude providing inents after the fact would be futile. The only appropriate remedy for the acknowledged failure to give required notice of the parking lot application and Decision is to remand the matter to the City staff for processing wnsistent with the requirements of the City code. C. Hearing Examiner erred in determining the proposed UGM narking lot and facilities t x ansi n in conjunction witli (lie problems ar°i ip from current UGM operations, was in the are, )�ltible with t,x]st,arl uses The Hearing Examiner's 1992 Decision recognized at p. 29: "Even if the opposition assumptions are only partially correct, this project could have a significant adverse impact on the area." Law Office of APPELLANT- WILLIAM BRADO AND YAKIMA 303 East "D'° Street #1 GATEWAY ORGANIZATION'S APPEAL BRIEF - 10 Yakima, WA 98901 C:\ Users\ Pat \Documents \PAK \pat \Pat \appeal brief.docx Telephone: 509 - 248 -9084 ',�a. n� ra�� „� �a.:r s N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 15 6,1 - P, Notwithstanding recognition of significant adverse impacts, the Hearing Examiner Pt 4,A ultimately determined CBDS was an appropriate location for a mission use. The Yakima Gateway Organization members in 1992 recognized the conditions imposed by the Hearing Examiner's Decision were inadequate to achieve even minimum compatibility. The result was the negotiated settlement between the Yakima Gateway Organization and UGM imposing additional conditions on Mission operations which it was believed would allow the UGM and existing land uses to co- exist. Initially, it appears the UGM substantially complied with the additional conditions of the Agreement and the adverse effects of Mission operations on surrounding businesses were somewhat mitigated. With the passage of time, however, compliance with the conditions fell by the wayside, Mission operations expanded, and the number of individuals served both as residents and transient clients increased, and the adverse impacts on existing uses mushroomed. The testimony at the 6/17/2015 hearing clearly establishes the adverse impact of current UGM operations on and incompatibility with existing uses. The proposed parking lot expansion, expansion of the medical facility, and addition of living units will intensify the use of the Mission facility to add to the existing incompatibility problems. Any approval of the current applications must include as a condition of approval incorporation of the Settlement Agreement as a "development agreement" specifically enforceable by the City to limit, to the extent possible, the adverse impacts on other North Is' Street uses. D. The Hearine Examiner erred in determinina access to the UGM facilitv from Oak Street was pcIlllttte l foI° any I II[ delivery of utility services. The Settlement Agreement in Section 4, which addressed access to the UGM facility, provided in part: "There shall be no access from Oak Street except for delivery or services to the subject property." The 1995 Decision which allowed the Mission use in the M -1 zone included, as part of Condition C: Law Office of FLOWER & AMREOTTI APPELLANT - WILLIAM BRADO AND YAKIMA 303 East "D" Street 41 GATEWAY ORGANIZATION'S APPEAL BRIEF - I I Yakima, WA 98901 C:\ Users\ Pat \Documents \PAK \pat \Pat \appeal bri ef.docx Telephone: 5 0 9- 2 4 8 - 9 0 8 4 C `fu # H- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1.2 1.3 1.4 15 1.6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 oil "The perimeter of the Mission site under lCtUal use shall be l:enced." Tile IJGM site along teak. Street was„ in flact, fenced and no access to the site has occurred Oak Street until authorized by the parking tot expansion Decision subJeet to this appeal, the testimony of William Brado at (lie 6,/1712015 hearing and the 5/30/2015 letter frog Smith (Ilearing Exhibit 1 -1 -7) indicate the language of the Settlement Agreement quoted e contains a typo, The intent of the Agrcen3ent was that any access to the Mission site frolrl Street would be only for utilities and the intended language of the Agreement was: "There shall be no access from Oak Street except for delivery of services to the subject property." (Intended language underscored) This interpretation of the Agreement was disputed by Rick Phillips at the hearing. The fact the UGM facility has been fenced along Oak Street precluding both pedestrian and vehicle access from Oak Street to the UGM site is consistent with the statements by Mr. Brado and Mr. Smith as to the intent and intended language of the provision. At best, the phrase "delivery or services" is ambiguous. Where language is ambiguous, it should be construed against the party who drafted the language. Gaylord vs. "Facorna School District, 88 Wn.2d 286, 559 P.2d 1340 (1977). James Carmody, attorney for UGM, stated at the 6/17/2015 hearing he drafted the Settlement Agreement. That being the case, the Agreement must be construed against UGM and the Agreement interpreted and enforced as proposed by Mr. Brado and Mr. Smith. Any approval of the parking lot expansion must specifically preclude pedestrian and vehicular access from Oak Street to the UGM site. IV. CONCLUSION The City Council should, in this appeal, find the Settlement Agreement is a development agreement applicable to uses on the UGM site which imposes conditions on UGM operations and expansion of the UGM facilities, including the requirement expansion be subject to Class 3 review, APPELLANT - WILLIAM BRADO AND YAKIMA GATEWAY ORGANIZATION'S APPEAL BRIEF - 12 C:\ Users\ Pat \Documents \PAK \pat \Pat \appeal brief.docx Lana Office of 303 East ` °D" Street 41 rX Yakima, WA 98901 IN Telephones 509- 248 -9084 P 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Hearing Examiner's affirmance of the City staff Decisions approving both the parking lot expansion and facility expansion should be reversed and remanded to City staff for processilg under a Class 3 review. The City Council should also find as an independent basis for reversal of the Hearing f 'Ixaminer Decision, the admittedly inadequate notice of the parking lot expansion application and Decision was not cured by the City's "Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal ", reverse the Decision approving the parking lot expansion, and remand it to City staff for appropriate processing. In the event the Council finds approval of the facility expansion application is appropriate, the City Council should impose, as an additional condition of approval, the terms of the Settlement Agreement as a development agreement governing both UGM operations and any future expansion. If the City Council determines approval of the parking lot expansion is appropriate, an additional condition prohibiting vehicular and pedestrian access to the parking lot from Oak Street must be included. APPELLANT - WILLIAM BRADO AND YAKIMA GATEWAY ORGANIZATION'S APPEAL BRIEF - 13 C:\ Users\ Pat \Documents \PAK \pat \Pat \appeal brief.docx Respectfully submitted, PATRICK ANDRE,01: "11 1, WSBA �� #7243. FLOWER & ANDREOTTI, Attorney for Appellants - William Brado and Yakima Gateway Organization. Law Office of FLOWER & AMREOTTI 303 East "D" Street 41 Yakima, WA 98901 Telephone: 509 - 248 -9084 IND 0 -5 Maxey, Lisa From: Martin, Trevor Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 8:25 AM To: Maxey, Lisa Subject: FW: Union Gospel Mission - Appeal Response From: Davenport, Joan Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 11:45 AM To: James Carmody Cc: Kunkler, Mark; Martin, Trevor Subject: RE: Union Gospel Mission - Appeal Response From: James Carmody [mailto :Carmod mft[ vu.c± oon] Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 10:52 AM To: Davenport, Joan Cc: Kunkler, Mark Subject: Union Gospel Mission - Appeal Response Joan:. The notice we received called for memorandum's to be filed on September 16. Union Gospel Mission and the City of Yakima are respondents in the action. In accordance with past practice, it seems appropriate that we should file responses to the Appellant's memorandum. It really isn't fair to have us guess as to the arguments. We would propose filing response memorandum on September 29. Thank you for your consideration. ,ye 1"" � r I .M n f This e-mail transmission may contain information which is protected by the attorney - client, work - product and/or other privileges. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure or taking of any action in reliance on the contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please contact us immediately and return any e-mail to us by choosing Reply (or the corresponding function on your e -mail system) and then deleting the e-mail. DOG, INDEX Mailing Labels — Union Gospel Mission Appeal to City Council — APP #005 -15 Gary Cuillier Attn: Rick Phillips Attn: William Brado 314 N. 2nd Street Union Gospel Mission Yakima Gateway Organization Yakima, WA 98901 1300 N 1St St 201 Oak St #6 Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima, WA 98901 Rick. chilli s u m.or _... _.. Attn: Patrick Andreotti _._ ..................... ............................... Jean Owens ----------- William Brado Law Office of Flower & Andreotti 1602 Speyers Rd 203 Oak Ave 303 E D St #1 Selah, WA 98942 Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima, WA 98901 pandreotti@flower-andreottilaw.com — Mina Kyle ........ Sara H. .................. ............ Gary Rufener Lariatlad 2 ahoo.com 302 N 22nd Ave 1408 N 1St St Yakima, WA 98902 Yakima, WA 98901 ..... ............................... Calvin Friend ------------- Ryan C. — ............. J. Abbenhaus 1300 N 1St St 902 S 31St Ave 4211 Scenic Dr. Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima, WA 98902 Yakima, WA 98908 ... ..— ................. ..... Bob Whitney Carol W. _ ..................... Lynn Hartman 308 N 21St Ave 710 N 68th Ave 201 Oak Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Yakima, WA 98908 Yakima, WA 98901 Ed Kershaw Phil Wachsmith Alice Keller 4706 Green Ridge Dr 71 Rolling Hills Dr 621 W Yakima Ave Yakima, WA 98908 Yakima, WA 98908 Yakima, WA 98902 David H. Chris C. PO Box 8328 PO Box 10988 Rick Phillips Yakima, WA 98908 Yakima, WA 98901 PO Box 565 Yakima, WA 98901 . ............................... .. James Carmody ____...._........ Bertha Lopez _ ........ Debra Raney 230S2 nd St PO Box 1814 5501 Pear Butte Dr Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima, WA 98907 Yakima, WA 98901 Carmodv@mftlaw.com .........._.. Roger Wilson _ ..... .................... Nicole O'Connor ......... _._ .......... .... Dean Owens 541 Pomona Heights Rd 907 Carriage Hill Dr 1707 N 1St St Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima, WA 98908 Yakima, WA 98901 . ................... Davin Gill _ .. __uu . ....... Stephanie Beaman ------- .— ................................. DeNard Jones PO Box 4335 1707 N 1s' St 110 N 55th Ave Richland, WA 99353 Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima, WA 98908 DOC. IN�DEX Marvin Lindley Samina Engle Tracie Erie 4101 McLean Dr samina kimatv.com 109 Bartlett PI Yakima, WA 98908 Yakima, WA 98901 Angel Gonzalez Dennis O'Brill Mark Kunkler 107 Bartlett PI 109 Bartlett PI 200 S 3rd St Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima, WA 98901 Mark.kunkler @yakimawa.gov Bruce Smith Claudia 18131311500 PO BOX 2052 KIMA TV 2 RIVERS INVESTMENTS LLC Yakima, WA 98907 Clatidia@kimatv.com PO BOX 3062 UNION GAP, WA 98903 18131312027 18131311443 18131311450 COM COLD STORAGE CO DOUG CHRISTEN HAULING INC GC II LLC PO BOX 27 1313 GORDON RD 2300 RIVER RD #13 YAKIMA, WA 989070027 YAKIMA, WA 98901 YAKIMA, WA 98902 18131311491 18131311452 18131311013 GOLDEN LI LAI LLC GP HOSPITALITY LLC JJS PROPERTIES LLC 612 S 75TH AVE 1405 N 1ST ST 2300 RIVER RD UNIT 26 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98901 YAKIMA, WA 989026201 18131311419 18131311440 18131312019 MMT LODGING GROUP LLC 0 JEAN OWENS REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST SEAWARD PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 4335 1602 SPEYERS RD 1314 GORDON RD WEST RICHLAND, WA 99353 SELAH, WA 98942 YAKIMA, WA 98901 18131311448 18131311008 18131311422 SUNSHINE MOTEL INN LLC UNION GOSPEL MISSION ALVIN TATGE 1223 N 1ST ST PO BOX 565 212 SYCAMORE ST YAKIMA, WA 98901 YAKIMA, WA 98907 YAKIMA, WA 989011718 18131311420 18131311426 18131312007 CARINA QUINTANA CHARLES E. FIELDS DOUG & SANDERS TRUST TILTON 204 SYCAMORE ST 211 E OAK ST 1312 GORDON RD YAKIMA, WA 989011718 YAKIMA, WA 989011715 YAKIMA, WA 989011725 18131311444 18131311430 18131311499 DOUGLAS EDWIN CHRISTEN GARY E & MARJORIE J RUFENER JESUS E RAMIREZ 1313 GORDON RD 1408 N 1ST ST 1311 N 1ST ST YAKIMA, WA 98901 YAKIMA, WA 98901 YAKIMA, WA 98901' 18131311421 18131311493 18131311429 MIGUEL URBINA RAJIV SAUSON WILLIAM A & MARY F BRADO 709 E ADAMS ST 1223 N 1ST ST 77162 MAHIEHIE ST YAKIMA, WA 98901 YAKIMA, WA 98901 KAILUAKONA, HI 96740 NDEX # .- L ,,... CITY OF YAKIMA, PLANNING DIVISION LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL I, Lisa Maxey, as an employee of the City of Yakima, Planning Division, have transmitted to: Sonya Claar -Tee, Yakima. City Clerk, by hand delivery, the following documents: 1. Mailing labels for UNION GOSPEL MISSION APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL (APP #005 -15); including all labels for adjoining property owners of subject property, agencies and parties of record. Signed this 2nd day of September, 2015. P Lisa Maxey Department Assistant II Received Icy: lo ol Date, .. S. IT__________________ ______________________________. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA RE: APP #005 -15 (APP #002 -15) Union Gospel Mission 1300 N 1St St I, Lisa Maxey, as an employee of the City of Yakima, Planning Division, have dispatched through the United States Mails, a Notice of Appeal of HE Decision. A true and correct copy of which is enclosed herewith; that said notice was addressed to the appellant and all parties of record and that said notices were mailed by me on the 18th day of August, 2015. That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the statements made herein are just and true. Lisa Maxey Department Assistant II DOC. INDEX ",-2 b 18131311500 18131312027 ' 1 1 18131311443 2 RIVERS INVESTMENTS LLC COM COLD STORAGE CO DOUG CHRISTEN HAULING INC PO BOX 3062 PO BOX 27 1313 GORDON RD UNION GAP, WA 98903 YAKIMA, WA 989070027 YAKIMA, WA 98901 18131311450 GC II LLC 18131311491 GOLDEN LI LAI LLC 163,,,1311432 GOLDC: ,. 2300 RIVER RD #13 612 S 75TH AVE 6 TH AV " YAKIMA, WA 98902 YAKIMA, WA 98908 ° " YAKIMA, WA 98908 ...... 181'3h144 33 18131T31,434 18131311452 � GOLDEN LI X11 G AVE GOLDEN LIM GP HOSPITALITY LLC 612 S �# 612 S VE 1405 N 1ST ST Y,AX A, WA 98908 Y A, WA 98908.." YAKIMA, WA 98901 181 11451 18131311013 18131311419 GP HOS tTY LLC AS PROPERTIES LLC MMT LODGING GROUP LLC 140, ,KIST STS `w, 2300 RIVER RD UNIT 26 PO BOX 4335 AN IMA, WA 98901 YAKIMA, WA 989026201 WEST RICHLAND, WA 99353 18131311440 18131312019 18131311448 0 JEAN OWENS REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST SEAWARD PROPERTIES LLC SUNSHINE MOTEL INN LLC 1602 SPEYERS RD 1314 GORDON RD 1223 N 1ST ST SELAH, WA 98942 YAKIMA, WA 98901 YAKIMA, WA 98901 181S3114�94 504 SUNSH IN' INN LLC UNION GOSPEL EL MISSION UNIO C:j�ISSI Nm 122 ST ST PO BOX 565 P -BOX 565 LIMA, WA 98901 YAKIMA, WA 98907 YAKIMA, WA 98907 1813,13110904 18131311007 18131311006 fiSSNON UNION GOSPEL MISSION YAKIMA CITY PO BOX 1300 N 1ST 5T 129 N 2ND ST Y K1' " , WA 989070565 YAKIMA, WA 989011702 YAKIMA, WA 989012613 18131311422 1813W 1311 � 18131311420 ALVIN TATGE ALVIN E TATGE CARINA QUINTANA SYCAMORE 204 SYCAMORE ST YAKIMA, WA 989011718 YA 1718 WMA, WA 8901 YAKIMA, WA 989011718 18131311426 18131312007 18131311444 CHARLES E. FIELDS DOUG & SANDERS TRUST TILTON DOUGLAS EDWIN CHRISTEN 211 E OAK ST 1312 GORDON RD 1313 GORDON RD YAKIMA, WA 989011715 YAKIMA, WA 989011725 YAKIMA, WA 98901 18131311430 181:31211431 18131311499 GARY E & MARJORIE J RUFENER GARY E & flAR.�JORIE J RUF NEB JESUS E RAMIREZ 1408 N 1ST ST 1408 N 1ST ST 1311 N 1ST ST YAKIMA, WA 98901 YAXMA, WA 98901 `` °`° YAKIMA, WA 98901 . 18131311421 18131311493 18131311429 MIGUEL URBINA RAJIV SAUSON WILLIAM A & MARY F BRADO 709 E ADAMS ST 1223 N 1ST ST 77162 MAHIEHIE ST YAKIMA, WA 98901 YAKIMA, WA 98901 KAILUAKONA, HI 96740 18131311427 34 Law Office of FIDWef & AftdreOtti *"r WILL M4Y F BRADO c/o Patrick An arvo a I UMon 5 Go,,el Mission - D 77162MAF"flEHIEST ... Appeal - APP#002-1 303 IE St #1 KAItUAKONA, HI 96740 Y' l"i"ra, VVA 98901 N3 Oak Ave, Yamma, WA 98001, NBC.. V,A(pl(0 -I'() ( y 5e4+ �,� �Duu- INDEM # . Parties of Record - Union Gospel Mission - APP #005 -15 Jean Owens Attn: Patrick Andreotti William Brado Alin: Ric _ mp ....................._.--,.----- _.-- .._------------- - - -... . . ........................ ............ ........ ... - -._. _._...k Philli s Mina Kyle 1602 Speyers Rd Flower & Andreotti 203 Oak Ave Union Gospel Mission Iwiil ed r "elAlaor a�kre, Selah, WA 98942 303 East D Street Ste 1 Yakima, WA 98901 1300 N 1 't St Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima, WA 98901 andrepA a flower- andreottfl %y com Rick. h`Ili s yugmeorg _ -- — 1 - - Sara H Gary Rufener Calvin Friend Ryan C J, Abbenhaus 302 N 22nd Ave 1408 N I" St 1300 N I" St 902 S 31" Ave 4211 Scenic Dr Yakima, WA 98902 Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima, WA 98902 Yakima, WA 98902 Yakima, WA 98908 Bob Whitney 308 N 21" Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Carol W. 710 N 68d' Ave Yakima, WA 98908 Lynn Hartman 201 Oak Ave Yakima, WA 98901 Ed Kershaw 4706 Green Ridge Drive Yakima, WA 98908 Phil Wachsmith 71 Rolling Hills Dr Yakima, WA 98908 William Brado Alice Keller David H. Chris C. Rick Phillips 201 E Oak St #6 621 W Yakima Ave PO Box 8328 PO Box 10988 PO Box 565 Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima. WA 98902 Yakima. WA 98908 Yakima. WA 98901 Yakima, WA 98901 James Carmody y ertha Lopez p Debra Raney aney �.- ._..- _........_______._ Roger Wilson - __. Nicole O'Connor 230 S 2 "d St PO Box 1814 5501 Pear Butte Dr 541 Pomona Heights Rd 907 Carriage Hill Dr Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima, WA 98907 Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima, WA 98908 Carmod rnftlaw.com Glenn Denman ......... Code Administration mmmctln,IT3,ellu�Wmciaitniw sr Suzanne DeBusschere Dean Owens Davin Gill Stephanie Beaman DeNard Jones Marvin Lindley 1707 N l t St PO Box 4335 1707 N I" St 110 N 55' Ave 4101 McLean Dr Yakima, WA 98901 Richland, WA 99353 Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima, WA 98908 Yakima, WA 98908 Samina Engle Tracie Erie Angel Gonzalez Dennis O'Brill Mark Kunkler 5tpwrotistl kutiatw,optJ 109 Bartlett PI 107 Bartlett PI 109 Bartlett PI 200 S 3`d St tlaveirciair�aliiriawa goy Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima, WA 98901 _............__.... ........................................................._......................................-.................................. ............................... Revised 12/2014 Mark.kunkier ct7 akir Bruce Smith Claudia PO Box 2052 KIMA TV Yakima. WA 98907 Claud iaa.kimatv. com In -House Distribution E -mail List Name Division E -mail Address _.. . D ebbie Cook ............................. . ...... Engineering I)ebiii , (Ifl)k t)yAkl tr1ilwa,L,2 -y Dana Kallevig Wastewater dana,.. al.levi ,,c yakll v w Il Dan Riddle _...._._ Engineering. ..................... _....Matk.kunjk ...(tats I iddle(r) nkitrl aiv .. --------------------------- _ . ...................... ___...... Mark Kunkler Legal Dept erITt� liia7ga wv or Jeff Cutter Legal Dept "elf cutter Lei) akiniawa. ov Archie Matthews ONDS archa .iratthew +akitxia a.grav Mark Soptich Fire Dept matk,so tick ci) akliiiaWa Lov Chief Rizzi - ............... .................Wil.r Police Department .......................... 1 +6 "fi7waliirtieir ate Joe Caruso Code Administration oe ar�usoo yakii awa. v Carolyn Belles Code Administration crc, t�lJ l, el . .)lyrk inaW . y Je rry Robertson n ................... Code Administration . ... mITITITIT IT.IT ITITITITIT ei i robes toon r �kiiaWa, xc Glenn Denman ......... Code Administration mmmctln,IT3,ellu�Wmciaitniw sr Suzanne DeBusschere Code Administration Siizcniiit .d biissclier r`i, al�'rJJ iv y Dave Brown Water /Irrigation ........ ..........................mike dave.brown fib akiinaWa.go v ._.� __ ..... Mike Shane Engineering ....... s.liaiie r� akiiiiawa ,god............ Randy Meloy Wastewater r�lricrtlt lcleillcliiiaw�i gov Scott Schafer Public Works Dept scott.schaterCa:yall ilaJititv�t gaammv James Dean Utilities Janl s deatl f'r a itit rl iq�ovv, James Scott �uuuuu '" °Refuse Division l in a.sc41tt c il�itala a g¢ v _ ..................... Kevin Futrellmmmmmmmmmmm ... Transit Division kevin.fiitreli akimawa.gov Joan Davenport Planningoali tlaveirciair�aliiriawa goy ..... For the Record/File . Record/File ...... ......................... ...... � ... .......... ............................... mmm Binder Copy _............__.... ........................................................._......................................-.................................. ............................... Revised 12/2014 b Type of Notice:.. of A �14!ecil File Number: i�#v'st_-s Date of Mailing: D _Ld� INDEX ## a Maxey, Lisa From: Maxey, Lisa Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 11:54 AM To: Belles, Carolyn; Brown, David; Caruso, Joe; Cook, Debbie; Cutter, Jeff; Davenport, Joan; Dean, James; DeBusschere, Suzanne; Denman, Glenn; Futrell, Kevin; Ibarra, Rosalinda; Kallevig, Dana; Kunkler, Mark; Matthews, Archie; Maxey, Lisa; Meloy, Randy; Riddle, Dan; Rizzi, Dominic; Robertson, Jerry; Schafer, Scott; Scott, James; Shane, Mike; Soptich, Mark Cc: Martin, Trevor Subject: NOTICE OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL - Union Gospel Mission - APP #005 -15 Attachments: NOTICE OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL - Union Gospel Mission - APP.pdf Attached is a Notice of Appeal regarding the above - entitled project. If you have any questions about this proposal please contact assigned planner Trevor Martin at (509) 575 -6162 or by e-mail at trevor,martin akimaw . 'ov. Thank you! Lisa axeji Department Assi atarit l (509) 576r6669 1 n����a���°�a�n�:�"�w�•gi"n�� City of Yakima Planning Division 129 N. 2nd St. Yakima, WA 98901 DOC- "X '. ku. . *20 NOTICE Of APVEAi_ TO ��— CQUN--.-L - UF1,10", GICSpef MkVG&- - APP�--- Dpte OPtions, NOMA Te-A DWOOW AdobtPDF Calibri we W =gl AWG Fonmt PainUr V�FW� Adikess Che& Affadh Attach Susin ,_5 Catenoar Swmjrt Follow- Low spaing Book Nam-, Ne Rem Card- - W, ° - Uripbo al�d Rem Ted Nar�_e ! =dads. Omxms ft-aftiv 98901 Phome 0518 3' 111111"ax (,5091)., #15105 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL DATE: August 18, 2015 TO: Appellant & Parties of Record FROM: Joan Davenport, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Notice of Appeal for the Hearing Examiner's Decision upholding the approval of the Administrative Official's Decision for Land Use Application numbers CL2 #019 -14 and CL2 #004 -15. File Number(s): APP #005 -15 Tax Parcel Number(s): 181313 -11504 Location: 1300 N. 1St St., Yakima, WA NOTICE OF APPEAL The City of Yakima Department of Community Development has received an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Decision regarding an appeal of the Administrative Official's decision for CL2 #019 -14, approving construction of a parking lot, and CL2 #004 -15, approving the construction of a new health care clinic for the Union Gospel Mission in the GC /M -1 zoning district. The appeal was filed by William Brado, 201 Oak Street, and the Yakima Gateway Organization. NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING In accordance with YMC § 15.16.050, this application for an Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Decision to the Yakima City Council requires a Public Meeting. A closed record public meeting before the Yakima City Council will be scheduled to be held in the City Hall Council Chambers at 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, WA. Pursuant to YMC § 16.08.030(C) The closed record appeal shall be on the record before the city council, and no new evidence shall be presented. The record shall include all materials received in evidence at any previous stage of the review, audio /visual tapes of the prior hearing(s), and the final order being appealed, and argument by the parties at the examiner's hearing. NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF APPEAL MATERIALS Appellant and Parties of Record, please be advised that additional information, including the appeal applications, Notice of Appeal, and any written argument or memorandum of authorities accompanying the appeals may be obtained from the City of Yakima Planning Department upon request at, 129 N 2nd Street, Yakima, Washington, or found on the City of Yakima Planning website under Quick Links: htt / /www. akiinawa. ov /services/ lannin l D ®� INDEX APPELLANT AND APPLICATION OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT WRITTEN ARGUMENT OR MEMORANDUM Parties of record for appeal APP #005 -15 wishing to respond to the filed application may submit a written argument or memorandum to the legislative body no later than 5:00 p.m. Wednesday, September 16, 2015. Please be advised that all written argument or memorandum must be submitted by the above date as the City of Yakima Community Development Department has provided for the maximum time allowed for the submittal of written argument or memorandum in accordance with YMC § 15.06.040(B)(2). In addition, all argument or memorandum shall not include the presentation of new evidence and shall be abased only upon the facts presented to the examiner. Upon completion of the legal required timeframe to submit written argument or memorandum a public hearing before the Yakima City Council will be scheduled by the City of Yakima Clerk to hear the appeal. NOTICE ON FUTURE ACTION ON APPEAL Decision and future notices will be sent to parties of record. If you have any questions on this proposal, please contact Trevor Martin, Assistant Planner at (509) 575 -6162 or by e-mail at trevor.n1arkinOva imawa, ov. Encl: Appeal application INDEX LAND USE APPLICATION ' CITY OF YAKIMA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 129 NORTH SECOND STREET, 2ND FLOOR, YAKIMA, WA 98902 VOICE: (509) 575 -6183 FAX: (509) 575 -6105 INSTRUCTIONS —PLEASE READ FIRST Please type or print your answers clearly. Answer all questions completely. If you have any questions about this form or the application process, please ask a Planner. Remember to bring all necessary attachments and the required filing fee when the application is submitted. The Planning Division cannot accept an application unless it is complete and the filing fee paid. Filing fees are not refundable. This application consists of four parts. PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION AND PART IV — CERTIFICATION are on this page. PART II and III contain additional information specific to your nroDosal and MUST be attached to this Dace to comnlete the aDplication. PART I GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Applicant's Mailing Address: 1 l S Yakima Gateway Oraani ti 2 01Oak Street # 6 ----. a z an„an _- Information: •••• Wµµ — ------ - - - - -- City: _. c"1J . a — �_rr... t 6dA µµ rlr ..9 8 9 0, Phone: �( ) E -Mail: 2. Applicant's Check One: Owner ❑ Agent ❑ Purchaser ❑ Other Interest in Property: Name: m..,._.. _....- 3. Property Owner's .............._ ....._._ ....... ... .. �� mn.. InformationIf other ._ Mailing Address ....................................................................... ........................................................................... ............................... ........... ..............._............. ...._._....,._ . _...................__.. than Applicant): City: _ 1E Mail: Subject Property's Assessor's 18131 _ _ ...... N 1. ( gt . �) t3 St St rCr ] (JL? 5. Legal Description of Property. P f lengthy, please attach i on a separate document) t) tiler y mm m m r„ l ._ _ 6. P al . _ =. _ —1 a, k ,.— 1 � , , .i I3.. ..... ._ Property Address. El SR [I R l w❑ R-2 [-I R -3 -❑ B -1 ❑ B -2 ❑ HB ❑ SCC ❑ LCC ❑ CBD UGCW ❑ AS W❑ RD EIM-1 ❑ M -2 — _�......__ ................ .................___ ___....... .............................. 8. Type Of Application: (Check All That Apply) ❑ Administrative Adjustment ❑ Environmental Checklist (SEPA Review) ❑ Easement Release ❑ Type (1) Review ❑ Right -of -Way Vacation ❑ Rezone ❑ Type (2) Review ❑ Transportation Concurrency ❑ Shoreline ❑ Type (3) Review ❑ Non - Conforming Use /Structure ❑ Critical Areas Review ❑ Preliminary Short Plat Appeal to HE / City Council ❑ Variance ❑ Final Short Plat ❑ Interpretation by Hearing Examiner ❑ Temporary Use Permit ❑ Short Plat Amendment ❑ Modification ❑ Overlay District ❑ Preliminary Long Plat ❑ Home Occupation ❑ Binding Site Plan ❑ Final Long Plat ❑ Comprehensive Plan Text or Map Amendment ❑ Planned Development ❑ Plat Alteration —Long Plat ❑ Short Plat Exemption: mm d 011icr PART II — SUPPLEMENTAL APM.,lCA "1TION, PART Ill — Etlet 1 ilk[. 11 AITACHNIF"N 1 S, & PART IV — NARRATIVE 9 S1,E? ATTACHED S IE.I.I'S PART V — CERTIFICATION 10. certify that tl inibrinalu i)r ttns application and the required arttachnxcnts ° re trued correct to the best of my knowledge. Property � p � rty � O' wrrvr's S grraularrc Date Applicant's Signature 'KTJL, am Br4do, indiyiduailyteand for Yakima Gateway d "11.1 A1'PLItw "A "11(1N( ,1 I' . 1 If 0 r' a n i at.i n DA" ' " I� VF ;11AI w RECEIVED BY: AMQUNT PAID: RECEIPT NO: �4 - e X-i5- ls0��19 i /2 14 ev sed 07 0 Page 1 3 INDEX " R ' Supplemental Application for: a „ a i�l a Y lFT APPEAL Yakima Urban Area Zonin Ordinance Cha ter 15 16 g P ❑ Of Administrative Official's Decision 0 Of Hearing Examiner's Decision F] Of Subdivision Administrator's Decision ❑ Of SEPA Determination E] Other ........................... ............................... Appeal of File Number: Date Action Taken: 7/13/15 1. Description of Action Being Appealed: See Attachment. 2. Reason for Appeal: Describe the specific error(s) or issues(s) upon which the appeal is based, including an explanation of why the decision is not consistent with the Yakima Urban Area Plan, The Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, or other provisions of law. (Reference the section, paragraph, and page of the provision(s) cited.) (Attach if lengthy) See Att:achnient. Revised 07/2014 Page 14 F INDEX Attachment to Notice of Appeal Description of Action Being A ,n fl� r q!k�l�r���p William Brado and the Yakima Gateway Association, pursuant to YMC 15.60.040(a), appeals the Hearing Examiner Decision "In the Matter of the Appeals of Two Class (2) Use Approvals Issued to the Union Gospel Mission" submitted by William Brado and the Yakima Gateway Association relative to construction of additional parking, health care clinic facilities and residential dormitory units at the existing Union Gospel Mission site located at 1301 North 1St Street, APP #002 -15 issued on July 9, 2015 and published on July 13, 2015 (herein "Decision "). 2. Reasons for Appeal: Describe tli : pcci c error(s) or issr�re (s) upon which the aLilieal is based, including an explanation of why the Decision is not consistent with the Yakima Area Urban Area Plan, Yakima Urban Area zoning Ordinance or other provisions visions of the law reference to section Sara a.rar )hl h at id m1lee_of the provision p c tc : (a) The Hearing Examiner erred in holding the UGM expansion applications were subject only to Class 2 review because the City zoning code has never been amended to permit Mission uses as Class 2 uses in the GC /M1 zoning districts. Any amendment of a zoning ordinance to include additional permitted uses within a zone is a legislative action vested in the City Council and not within the authority of the Hearing Examiner. RCW 42.36.010, Raynes vs. C ty of l g— ,ayerl AI1, 118 Wn.2d 237, 821 P.2d 1204 (1992). (b) The Hearing Examiner erred in failing to apply the provisions of the 1994 Settlement Agreement Re: Union Gospel Mission Relocation ( "Settlement Agreement ") and require Class 3 review of Application Nos. CL2 #019 -14 ( "Parking Lot Application ") and CL2 #004 -15 ( "Facility Expansion Application "). (1) Settlement Agreement controls future development at UGM's site. The Hearing Examiner failed to recognize the Settlement Agreement was in the nature of a binding development agreement without which the initial development of the Mission property would not have occurred and which controls future development at the UGM site. NOEX (c) The Hearing Examiner erred in determining the City's "Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal" for the Parking Lot Application on May 28, 2015, cured the City's failure to give notices required by YMC 15.14.040B. (d) The Hearing Examiner erred in holding the City adequately considered the compatibility as required by YMC 15.04.02013 and C, ignoring evidence of past and current Union Gospel Mission ( "UGM ") operations which demonstrate incompatibility in fact. (e) The Hearing Examiner erred in determining the expanded uses pursuant to the Parking Lot and Facility Expansion Applications were compatible with existing uses. Contrary to YMC 15.04.02013 and C, and contrary to the specific purpose and intent of the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance specified in YMC 15.01.030 (3) and (10). (f) The Hearing Examiner erred in determining access to the UGM facility from Oak Street was permitted for any purpose except delivery of utility services. 3. Request for Extension of Time to File Memorandum: Appellants request the period of time in which to file a Memorandum pursuant to YMC 15.16.040132 be extended to 29- days after mailing the Notice of Appeal, the same extension granted in APP #004 -15 in which the City of Yakima is an appellant, and which involves similar issues. C:\ Users\ Pat\ Documents \PAK \pat \Pat \miscellaneous \brado attachment to appeal.docx �17I � ��� NDEX 'Th Distributed at th,e =Ty ;d Meeting to -10-13 ,CODE ADMAN :uIVISION S BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL 1 OCT O 2015 CITY OF YAKIMA DREC'VD FAXED' 2 CIRAID` FYI 3 Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision on ) the Appeal of William Brado and Yakima ) APP #005 -15 4 Gateway Organization Relative to ) 5 Construction of Additional Parking, Health ) APPELLANTS - WILLIAM BRADO Care Clinic Facilities and Residential ) AND YAKIMA GATEWAY 6 Dormitory Units at the Existing Union ) ORGANIZATION'S MOTION TO Gospel Mission Site Located at ) STRIKE LATE FILED MEMORANDA 1300 North 1st Street. ) 8 ) 9 COME NOW Appellants - William Brado and Yakima Gateway Organization and move 10 the Yakima County Council to strike and not consider any appeal memoranda filed after 11 9/16/2015 in this matter. 12 Appellants' 7/27/2015 appeal requested the period for filing a Memorandum pursuant to 13 YMC 15.16.040B be extended to 29 days after mailing the Notice of Appeal. 14 The Notice of Appeal to City Council issued by City staff on 8/18/2015 provided: 15 "Parties of record for appeal APP #005 -15 wishing to respond to the filed application may submit a written argument or 16 memorandum to the legislative body no later than 5:00 p.m., 17 Wednesday, September 16, 2015. Please be advised that all written argument or memorandum must be submitted by the above 18 date as the City of Yakima Community Development Department has provided for the maximum time allowed for submittal of 19 written argument or memorandum in accordance with YMC 20 Section 15.06.040(B)(2) [sic]." 21 With respect to the filing of any memorandum after the 29 day period, YMC 22 15.16.040B.2 provides: 23 "The legislative body may grant further extensions on a finding by 24 the legislative body of the existence of extenuating circumstances which warrant such extensions. Notice of an extension shall be P� 25 given to all parties of record." �°�^ /D 26 OCT 0 2015 oF pi A i l 27 p pij, 28 APPELLANTS MOTION TO STRIKE LATE FILED MEMORANDA - 1 V. Law Office of FLOWER & ANDREOTTI 303 East "D" Street #1 Yakima, WA 98901 Telephone: 509 - 248 -9084 It is Appellants' understanding the Appeal Memorandum of the City of Yakima was filed 9/17 or 9/18/2015, and the Memorandum of Applicant -Union Gospel Mission filed 9/24/2015, 2 both after the final date established for submittal of memoranda. 3 The Appellants have received no notice of any application to or action by the City 4 Council granting an extension of time in which to file the City and Applicant's memorandum. 5 Because the memorandum were not timely filed, they should be stricken and not 6 considered by the City Council. 7 DATED: October 2, 2015. 8 7j, 9 c \ixo4 / PATRICK ANDREOTTI, WSBA #7243. 1 o FLOWER & ANDREOTTI, 11 Attorney for Appellants. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 j 26 27 UC 2 015 Cf yA� rr�1, �' L RA 1 QIV. 28 APPELLANTS MOTION TO STRIKE LATE FILED MEMORANDA - 2 Law Office of FLOWER & ANDREOTTI 303 East "D" Street 41 Yakima, WA 98901 Telephone: 509 - 248 -9084 • Distributed at the. Meeting /0-ell Claar Tee, Sonya Subject: FW W /Ref Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision regarding construction at site of Union Gospel Mission, Public Hearing October 6, 2015 From: Bob Whitney [mailto:bcilmn @yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 8:32 PM To: City Council Subject: W /Ref Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision regarding construction at site of Union Gospel Mission, Public Hearing October 6, 2015 I'm Bob Whitney, a resident of Yakima at 308 N 21st Avenue and for nearly 40 years managed or owned escrow businesses in Yakima, and paid those taxes. The convening of this tribunal borders on the incomprehensible, unless there is some reason to dislike the Union Gospel Mission in its own identity. Look what they do there: Turn the hopeless from despair and revenge on society to becoming contributing citizens, and without taxpayers footing the bill. Certainly not all their clients make it, but what if the Mission weren't there? Train workers in several types of work and equip them to live in today's world and pay taxes, and without taking federal program dollars and asking the city for block grants. Turn people away from crime, who may have been in the penal system but at least at this point in their lives have turned away from being locked up and costing taxpayers increased tax amounts. Attract dozens of volunteers to give time to hundreds of students, so that now some youth who have grown up in the Hole are at the University of Washington, Whitworth, WSU, YVCC and other schools, without taking federal tutoring funds. And many dozen more people volunteer in many other programs so that society doesn't feel the burden and have to come up with the funds to sustain new programs. As to this application, how much would be the cost in dental care and in medical care to the businesses along N First street if all of the clients who use the medical and dental facilities of the Union Gospel Mission instead did not have it, and so would go to emergency rooms? If it weren't for charity care, what would be the pressure to raise the businessman's B85O taxes? Property taxes? Sales Tax? Excise taxes? Or compete for city block grant funds? Recalling the news articles that described N First Street in 1992, this entrance to the city was a major concern of the YPD vice officers. There was a criminal defense attorney that testified in a 1992 hearing before hearing officer Phillip Lamb as to the DEA interest in the area, and specifically that the property the Mission was wanting to acquire at the time was a focus of that agency. It seems always to have been thus - that entrances to a city may be well cared for and the properties will not attract criminal activity, or fall into disrepair and attract a criminal element. Of the entrances to this city, North First Street is most in need of maintenance and investment because there are too many properties that are not well maintained. That attracts a group of people that the property owners don't want. But that element is not a result of the Mission's location. That element is actually diminished because the Mission, in serving a great God, deals with all the conditions of mankind. Can my statement about that group of people on N First Street be tested? Certainly. After 9:00 PM the people attracted to the Mission are inside. Do the incidents of property vandalism and crime in the area suddenly fall to nearly zero at 9:00 at night? So here's the rub for the neighbors of the Union Gospel Mission: support the mission and witness all the care and support of those people who seek its services. That holds down the financial burdens on the taxpayers. Or fight to diminish the Union Gospel Mission - leading to more people who need public support, with fewer new taxpayers and fewer educated citizens coming from the Mission's programs. But if you do the latter and fight to diminish the Union Gospel Mission, frame your tax bills this year and hang 2 them on a prominent wall. They will never be this low again no matter how long you keep your businesses and own your properties. Bob Whitney 308 N 21 Ave Yakima WA 575 -8769 3