Chehalis Tribe appeals its case against proposed truck stop

The Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation (tribe) reopened its appeal against a planned truck stop during a Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) work session on August 28. At issue was the dismissal of the tribe's case against a proposed truck stop at 19415 Ivan St SW, Rochester, the decision made by the hearing examiner on July 2. 

The BoCC's quasi-judicial review was held to reconsider the hearing examiner's decision de novo— reviewing it anew to determine whether there were any material facts at issue and if summary judgment was proper.

The BoCC did not issue a decision at the time of the August 28 review.

Overview

The examiner's decision dismissed the tribe's initial appeal against approving the US Market Truck Stop’s 12,347-square-foot store building, which includes a 2,049-square-foot attached restaurant, retail, truck fueling pumps, and driver amenities.

Other approved improvements include a convenience store, shower facilities, and other amenities for truck drivers, one or more fast-food restaurants with drive-through, eight fueling stations for semi-trucks, 14 fueling pump stations for passenger vehicles, two fueling stations for passenger trucks or recreational vehicles, a coffee cart, 63 parking spaces for semi-trucks, and 38 passenger vehicle parking stalls.

About 0.7 miles away from the location, the tribe owns and operates a passenger vehicle service station with a restaurant, convenience store, and associated facilities.

The project was approved on April 3 through a Combined Land Use Approval and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Mitigation Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS).

A SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) documents an official’s decision that a proposal is expected to have no significant adverse environmental impacts. An MDNS, however, involves a more public process and greater scrutiny as the proposal might have adverse impacts.

The hearing examiner issued a ruling stating that the tribe lacked standing to challenge the SEPA MDNS and that its zoning appeal lacks merit, prompting the appeal to be dismissed without an evidentiary hearing.

“While raising the adequacy of the traffic analysis as a contention, and while transportation impacts are within SEPA’s ‘zone of interests’, the appeal alleges simply that the approved traffic mitigation is 'likely insufficient.' The appeal fails to assert, much less submit a set of facts attempting to demonstrate that if the mitigation is insufficient, there would be an injury to the Appellant,” the hearing examiner wrote in his decision.

In other words, the examiner found no genuine issues regarding any material fact, and the judgment aligned with the law.

Tribe’s appeal

As the appellant, the tribe first requested that the MDNS be revoked and that the proposal be denied outright, based on two arguments.

First, the tribe claims that the project is prohibited in the Planned Industrial Park (PI Zone). The hearing examiner disagreed, saying the proposed fueling stations are service stations as contemplated under Thurston County Code 2027020.

Second, the tribe contended that the approved uses can only be allowed in the PI zone if they primarily serve other uses in the industrial park. The hearing examiner decided that the appellant failed to offer evidence or even serious arguments stating its position concerning zoning and that the issue presents a legitimate question of ambiguity regarding code interpretation.

At the August 28 meeting, the board held a session to evaluate whether the tribe’s zoning appeal lacked merit and whether the dismissal without a hearing was appropriate. The tribe claimed that the hearing examiner committed errors in procedures and codes.

Ezra Hammer, one of the Chehalis Tribe attorneys, asked the board to apply the same county standards to this project as the Tribe adhered to in its project. He restated arguments from the appeal, asserting that the examiner failed to rely on substantial evidence and erred in finding the project’s compliance to code, resulting in an insufficient transportation analysis and permitted use.

“The Tribe is an aggrieved party in that the Decision violated their rights under the TCC [Thurston County Code] and Rules of Procedure. Additionally, the Tribe uses the public road system throughout the County and the Decision's lack of proper transportation analysis will lead to a degradation in the condition of said road system. Additionally, the Decision's failure to properly adhere to the TCC undermines the rules-based order in the County that the Tribe relies upon,” the tribe’s appeal document stated.

Kristine Connolly, a Kittelson & Associates Traffic Engineer, explained that at first glance, the code appears to be the correct use for the site, but the description of the land use code for a truck stop may only be appropriate for a stop that doesn't have any other uses available to the traveling public.

“So what we found in reviewing the traffic study is that the trip generation was based on the land use code for truck stop,” said Connolly. “In this case, the site has…passenger, vehicle fueling positions, as well as restaurant uses, and convenience store that will generate trips that are not just truck trips.”

Applicant’s arguments

The hearing examiner’s decision states the applicant’s motion for summary judgment, a move asking the court to issue judgment on a claim. If granted, a decision is made without holding a trial.

“The Applicant contends that the appeal is primarily motivated by the Appellant’s goal of limiting economic competition with its relatively recently opened ‘travel plaza’ located within one mile and that such economic competition goals are not within the zone of interest protected by SEPA, and that therefore the Appellant cannot demonstrate standing to bring this appeal under SEPA,” the document stated.

US Petroleum LLC, the Applicant represented by Attorney Chris Pierce-Wright, also discussed that the traffic analysis issue the tribe raised during the latest meeting cannot be accepted.

“You can't take new evidence here. Basically what just happened was an engineer-provided testimony to you about an engineering analysis for what would happen at the site [and] how that engineer would have conducted a traffic analysis,” said Pierce-Wright.

The attorney also argued that the analysis was not presented before the hearing examiner and thus was not done under penalty of perjury. There was also no declaration submitted by the tribe to support that analysis.

Pierce-Wright added that the meeting is not a setting where the board can take additional information.

The board will issue a written decision on or before September 13.