Loading...
HE Decision OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF YELM REPORT AND DECISION CASE NO.: BSP-05-0197-YL and SPR-05-0160-YL APPEAL OF MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE BSP-05-0197-YL APPLICANT/ APPELLANT: 3B&C, LLC P.O. Box 875 Yelm, WA 98597 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval to create 6 commercial building sites through the binding site plan process, and to construct a 5,600 square foot commercial building on one of the building sites. The site encompasses 2 parcels. There are existing residences on the site that will be demolished. SUMMARY OF APPEAL: The appellant is appealing the mitigation measures attached to a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance for a proposed binding site plan to create commercial spaces for and site plan review to construct a 5,600 square foot commercial building. SUMMARY OF DECISION: Request granted. Appeal denied. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing Planning and Community Development Staff Report and examining available information on file with the application, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the request as follows: The hearing was opened on November 7, 2005. Parties wishing to testify were sworn in by the Examiner. The following exhibits were submitted and made a part of the record as follows: EXHIBIT "1" - Planning and Community Development Staff Report and Attachments EXHIBIT “2” - Submittal from the City EXHIBIT “3” - Map EXHIBIT “4” - Map EXHIBIT “5” - Map EXHIBIT “6” - Document from Washington State Department of Ecology EXHIBIT “7” - Responses to Mitigation Measures TAMI MERRIMAN appeared, presented the Planning and Community Development Department Staff Report addressing the binding site plan, and testified that the site is located at the intersection of West Road and 103rd. The applicant filed an environmental appeal because it wants to use alternate technology for stormwater due to the location of Yelm Creek and the high groundwater table. The site plan shows the buildings proposed on the west side of the internal plat road. The development will require the demolition of the existing residence, and wetlands are more than 200 feet away. The City will evaluate each building in accordance with the design guidelines as it is proposed. Conditions require landscaping and corner enhancement. GRANT BECK appeared and presented the findings and conclusions of the responsible official on the environmental appeal and testified that mitigating measures were imposed pursuant to SEPA review on stormwater drainage impacts because of high groundwater. The City did not accept alternate technology, but required the bottom of the pond to have an elevation of six feet above groundwater. The pond must also accommodate road frontage stormwater. The appellant cited three reasons for the appeal: 1. The City didn’t identify the groundwater protection in the presubmittal hearing; 2. The requirements are beyond the minimum regulations of the City; 3. The proposed vortex system is used elsewhere and accepted. He determined that all of the issues fail and that the MDNS should be approved. Concerning presubmittal, it is true that the City did not identify the additional protection, but these are pre-meeting conferences and pre-review conferences. The Examiner has previously ruled on this issue. The City is requiring the same condition as it did in the Wal-Mart MDNS. The high groundwater is an emergent issue. We have the same groundwater issue and the same condition attached. The high groundwater did not emerge as an issue until after formal submittal. SEPA review fills in gaps left by legislation. At the time of review the Critical Areas Ordinance had not been updated, but now it is included within the code. The ordinance would require the additional protection if the applicant submitted the site plan today. At the time of submittal a gap existed in the City ordinances. Review is based on Thurston County regulations and the Salmon Creek Interim Regulations. Condition 3B refers to an elevation of 335 feet, but such is not a regulation. It is an attempt to help the applicant determine the groundwater. The flood elevation must be determined. The aerial photograph determined the high groundwater and the applicant must install the system six feet above the map elevation which results in the 335 foot guideline. Measure 3C requires separate water infiltration. No capacity exists for additional stormwater from the road in the development across West Road. Concerning approved alternate systems, DOE allows alternate systems under stringent conditions and the City has allowed such systems where they are very large and where there is financial backing, reporting, and maintenance. The school has the same system the applicant desires, but meets the requirements of the City. These types of systems are not appropriate in a binding site plan where lots can be owned by various businesses or as an association. Concerning the policy background, he reviewed past projects and the condition has a scientific background as the entire City has been identified as an aquifer recharge area. A policy of the old Critical Areas Ordinance requires treatment of projects located on a critical aquifer. Emergent technology is not listed in the 1992 DOE Manual adopted by the City. ROBERT TAUSCHER, professional engineer, appeared and introduced Exhibit “5”, a confirmation that wetlands do not exist on the property. Concerning emergent technology policy, the DOE web page shows approval under the general use level. Concerning vortex, he can’t see an extra reporting requirement to DOE which produced Exhibit “6” which defines the criteria of the system. He designed the engineering for the school and DOE required no additional reporting. Maintenance of the system requires a vactor truck and a condition could require a contract with a provider. Also, vortex itself provides maintenance. The maintenance must occur about every four months. The maintenance is site specific and a program is set up for each site. The only cost is that of the vactor truck. The roof runoff can be taken and directed to the infiltration galleries. It can stay out of the treatment element. An alternative is a swale, but such would reduce the number of buildings. Another alternative is a wet pond which would also cause the loss of a lot. A ground cartridge unit is also an alternative, but it requires the same maintenance. ERLING BIRKLAND appeared and testified that he has no questions or concerns with the staff report except for the storm drainage issue. In many jurisdictions they can provide a bond to ensure maintenance of the system. They can accommodate these requirements. The City needs to address other technology then dumping water in a hole. MR. BECK reappeared and testified that other options do exist such as a wet pond above or below ground. Wet ponds below ground do not consume surface areas. The vortex raises the elevation of the storm drainage as the City desires. The applicant can provide over winter monitoring to provide assurance of the groundwater level. MR. TAUSCHER reappeared to introduce Exhibit “7” addressing the Salmon Creek requirements. Other options do exist, but they are trying to keep the cost of development down. They looked at the best cost effective method. Other jurisdictions accept their proposed method. The Examiner then left the record open to November 22, 2005, for the applicant and the City to further discuss the SEPA issues and for the City to respond to the applicant’s submittals. No one spoke further in this matter and the hearing was concluded. NOTE: A complete record of this hearing is available in the City of Yelm Community Development Department FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION: FINDINGS: 1. The Hearing Examiner has admitted documentary evidence into the record, heard testimony, and taken this matter under advisement. Notice of the date and time of the public hearing was posted on the site, mailed to owners of property within 300 feet of the project site, and mailed to the recipients of the Notice of Application and SEPA Determination on October 24, 2005. Notice of the date and time of public hearing was published in the Nisqually Valley News in the legal notice section on October 21, 2005. 3. The City of Yelm Responsible Official issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance on August 12, 2005. An appeal was filed. 4. The applicant has a possessory ownership interest in a rectangular, five acre parcel of property located at the northeast corner of the intersection of West Road SE and NE 103rd Avenue within the City of Yelm. The parcel abuts West Road for 430 linear feet and varies in depth between 577 and 474 feet. The southern tip of the parcel touches NE 103rd Avenue. The applicant requests binding site plan approval to allow creation of six commercial building pads and site plan approval for one, 5,600 square foot structure. 5. Improvements on the site include two single family residential dwellings and accessory outbuildings, all of which will be removed. The site plan shows access provided via a single road extending northeast from West Road and terminating in a cul-de-sac near the north property line. Three building pads and associated parking areas are located on each side of the internal road. The site plan shows Type 3 landscaping along the West Road frontage and Type 2 landscaping along the balance of the perimeter. A portion of the northeastern property line extends closer than 200 feet from the centerline of Yelm Creek, but no improvements are planned for said area. The area within the shoreline jurisdiction will consist of Type 2 landscaping. 6. The site is located within the Commercial (C1) zone classification of the Yelm Municipal Code (YMC). Section 17.26.010 YMC provides that the purpose of the C1 classification is to identify appropriate areas for the location of business centers to serve the needs of the community for convenience goods and services such as food, drugs, household supplies, automobile servicing and other related uses. Section 17.26.030 YMC sets forth 69 uses allowed outright in the C1 classification. 7. Section 17.26.060 YMC requires for the C1 classification a minimum parcel size of 5,000 square feet and setbacks from side property lines of ten feet, rear property lines of 20 feet, and front property lines of 15 feet. Section 17.26.090 YMC limits the height of buildings to 40 feet and Section 17.26.110 YMC sets forth off-street parking requirements. The site plan will comply with all bulk regulations of the C1 classification. 8. All abutting parcels are located within the C1 classification; and parcels to the south across 103rd Avenue and to the east along 103rd Avenue are improved with commercial uses. The abutting parcel to the west is improved with a single family residential dwelling. Improvement of the site as proposed fits well with the existing commercial uses and future uses as contemplated by the comprehensive plan and development regulations. 9. Conditions of approval require the applicant to improve the street frontage of West Road SE to a commercial collector standard which requires an 11 foot wide travel lane, five foot wide paved shoulder, vertical curb, planter strip with street trees, a five foot wide sidewalk, and streetlighting. The applicant must also pay the transportation facility charge of $750.00 per new p.m. peak hour trip and meet the parking requirements set forth in Chapter 17.72 YMC. Compliance with said conditions will ensure that the plat makes appropriate provision for streets, roads, alleys, and other public ways. 10. The City of Yelm will provide both domestic water and fire flow as well as sanitary sewer service to the site. The applicant must pay the connection fee for both water and sewer. 11. The northeast corner of the site extends approximately 20 feet into the shoreline jurisdiction of Yelm Creek, but no development will occur therein. Wetlands associated with Yelm Creek measure more than 200 feet from the property line, and therefore the site meets all buffer requirements for the creek and associated wetlands. 12. The applicant must comply with all landscaping and screening requirements set forth in Chapter 17.80 YMC to include perimeter landscaping and landscaping necessary to provide visual relief and shade in parking areas. At the time of civil plan review the applicant must present a detailed final landscape and irrigation plan for approval. 13. The Yelm Design Guidelines place the site in a Mixed Use District. Design guidelines require a development to define the street edge with building, landscaping, or other features and to provide direct access to the building from the frontage. Larger developments must increase pedestrian and vehicular circulation, reduce negative impacts to adjacent properties, and upgrade the overall visual quality of the City. Street corners require substantial landscaping, a decorative screen wall, pedestrian access, and architectural cover treatments. The site plan does not presently provide for enhancing the corner of West Road and 103rd Avenue, but must do so prior to final approval. The applicant proposes to landscape around the west, north, and east property lines. Sidewalks circulate through the site and from West Road SE into the site, and pedestrian access exists to all building pads. The pedestrian circulation and building design and details must meet all criteria set forth on pages 8-10 of the staff report. Compliance with code requirements will ensure that the site plan review for the first building satisfies all criteria set forth in Section 17.84.020(C) YMC. 14. Prior to obtaining binding site plan approval the applicant must establish that the request satisfies the criteria set forth in Section 16.32.065 YMC. Findings on each criteria are hereby made as follows: A. The site plan shows areas in the southern corner and along the northeast property line retained in open space and perimeter landscaping along all four property lines. Taxes will support parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds. As found hereinafter, constructing the storm drainage system in accordance with the requirements of the SEPA mitigating measures will ensure that the binding site plan makes appropriate provision for drainage ways. Required improvements to streets, the payment of the transportation facility charge, and the connection to public water and sewer will ensure that the binding site plan makes appropriate provision for streets, roads, alleys, other public ways, potable water supplies, and sanitary waste. The sidewalks circulating through the site and from West Road will ensure safe walking conditions and a safe location for a transit stop if desired in the future. B. The binding site plan will serve the public use and interest by providing an attractive location for a commercial use consistent with the zoning and comprehensive plan designation as well as surrounding uses. C. Public facilities impacted by the businesses are adequate and available. D. As previously found, the City will provide sanitary sewer service for the project as well as water service. SEPA APPEAL 15. On August 12, 2005, the City Responsible Official (RO) issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance following review pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). On September 2, 2005, Erling Birkland on behalf of 3B&C LLC (appellant) timely filed an environmental appeal challenging mitigating measure no. 3 which reads as follows: Civil plan submission shall include an updated preliminary stormwater plan that meets or exceeds the standards of the 1992 Stormwater Manual as adopted by the City of Yelm. The stormwater plan shall include the following elements: Alternative technologies are not accepted. The elevation of the bottom of the infiltration gallery shall be a minimum of six feet above the elevation of the high groundwater area as identified by Thurston County (approximate elevation 335), and must be 50 feet horizontally, or 2 feet vertically away from the High Ground water area, which ever distance is less. Separate water quality treatment for roof runoff shall be provided. The stormwater system shall be designed to accommodate stormwater generated by required frontage improvements. 16. The appellant desires to use an alternative technology for the treatment of stormwater prior to infiltration. The appellant proposes a vortechnics unit manufactured by Stormwater 360, Inc. which it asserts meets or exceeds many of the traditional means of removing pollutants. The appellant further asserts that the City has allowed the vortechnics unit in recently constructed schools. However, according to the RO, the City has rarely allowed the use of emerging stormwater treatment technology systems such as the vortechnics unit within the City. The City has allowed Yelm Community Schools to use such technologies because the district has the maintenance staff and financial resources to maintain the system and complete status reports. In the present case, the applicant proposes a relatively small, five acre project which will through the binding site plan process have six different owners of different sections of the parcel. A condominium type ownership is not appropriate to test emerging technologies, especially considering that the site is located atop a critical aquifer. 17. Concerning Mitigating Measure No. 3(b) the appellant asserts that the City did not disclose the required 335 foot groundwater elevation during the presubmission conference. Section 17.84.050 YMC entitled “Preliminary Site Plan” provides: Prior to applying for site plan review, a developer may file with the SPRC (Site Plan Review Committee) a summary site plan, which shall contain in a rough and approximate manner all of the information required in the site plan application. The purpose of a summary plan is to enable a developer filing the plan to obtain the comments of the SPRC as to the applicability of the intent, standards and provisions of this chapter to the plan. Section 17.84.020(C) YMC requires the SPRC to review a site plan as follows: C. The SPRC shall review a site plan and approve, or approve with conditions, site plans which conform to the standards, provisions and policies, of the site as expressed in its various adopted plans including the applicable sections of the shoreline master program for the Thurston region…. The YMC does not contemplate that the presubmission review requires the City to identify all standards, provisions, and policies which will apply to a proposed plan. According to Section 17.84.050 YMC, the applicant need only provide a “summary site plan” which contains “in a rough and approximate manner all of the information required in a site plan application”. The notes from the preapplication meeting specifically advise an applicant of that fact: These comments are preliminary in nature and not intended to represent final comments and/or requirements for the City of Yelm. Until a complete application is made, the Community Development Department can only attempt to inform the applicant of general requirements as they appear in the form presented by the applicant at the time of submission. Thus, lack of disclosure of the 335 foot elevation during the presubmission conference does not prohibit its imposition. In its appeal the appellant questions how the City determined the 335 foot elevation and what datum it used to derive the elevation. The appeal notes that the 1992 DOE Stormwater Manual adopted by the City requires three feet of separation between the bottom of an infiltration facility and the seasonal high groundwater. The appellant also notes that the City has not formally adopted the Salmon Creek standards which require six feet of separation within the Yelm Creek area. However, the City has identified high groundwater in the area and has also determined that a minimum of six feet of separation is required between the bottom of an infiltration facility and said high groundwater table to provide adequate protection for the critical aquifer. The City Critical Areas Ordinance, amended subsequent to the filing of a completed application, now requires the six foot separation. The City also required the same six foot separation for the Wal-Mart Supercenter site. While Mitigating Measure 3(b) refers to an elevation of 335 feet such elevation is not a standard or regulation, but an attempt to assist the applicant in determining the height of the groundwater. The applicant must determine the flood elevation and install the system six feet above said system which results in the 335 foot estimate. According to RCW 43.21C.060, a portion of the SEPA statute, SEPA supplements existing authority of all governmental agencies and allows decisionmakers to go beyond their traditional criteria (ordinances) and exercise SEPA given authority to make land use decisions based upon environmental considerations. The RO in evaluating the environmental impacts of the binding site plan application determined that existing ordinances did not provide adequate environmental protection for the groundwater due to an elevated winter water table, and therefore imposed a greater standard than required by ordinance pursuant to SEPA authority. 20. Our Courts have explained the purpose of SEPA review as follows: SEPA is a procedural statute designed to ensure that local governments consider the environmental and ecological effects of major actions to the fullest extent. SEPA’s purpose is to provide decisionmakers with all relevant information about the potential environmental consequences of their actions and to provide a basis for a reasoned judgment that balances the benefits of a proposed project against its potential adverse effects. Des Moines v. Puget Sound Regional Council, 98 Wn. App 23 at 36; (1999). In fulfilling its responsibilities under SEPA, the RO reviews the environmental checklist and supporting documents and issues a threshold determination as to whether any probable significant adverse environmental impacts will result from the proposed development. Before requiring mitigating measures the RO must first consider whether the development regulations of local, state, or federal jurisdictions and enforcement thereof would mitigate an identified significant impact (WAC 197-11-330; 197-11-660). The RO followed these procedures in issuing the MDNS in the present case, but found that existing City storm drainage standards would not provide sufficient aquifer protection. The RO therefore imposed mitigating measures pursuant to SEPA authority requiring the six foot vertical clearance standard. Thus, the RO has authority to impose the Salmon Creek standards even though not adopted by the Yelm City Council to mitigate a probable significant adverse environmental impact. 21. The appellant asserts that the drainage manual does not require the treatment of roof runoff prior to infiltration and questions the adoption of such standards by the City. The appellant also questions measure 3(d) which requires the stormwater system to accommodate stormwater generated by required frontage improvements on West Road based upon the existence of a stormwater collection system within West Road. The RO imposed these measures because no capacity exists for additional stormwater in the development on the southeast side of West Road. These issues can be resolved through providing additional capacity for existing systems or providing capacity on or off site. The appellant must accommodate stormwater generated by frontage improvements. 22. RCW 43.21C.075 entitled “Appeals” provides that where an agency authorizes an environmental appeal under SEPA as does the City, the agency: (d) Shall provide that procedural determinations made by the responsible official shall be entitled to substantial weight. Our Washington Supreme Court interpreted the “substantial weight” requirement in Wenatchee Sportsman v. Chelan County, 141 Wn. 2d 169 (2000), as follows: A decision to issue an MDNS may be reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard…A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the record is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed…For the MDNS to survive judicial scrutiny, the record must demonstrate that environmental factors were considered in a manner sufficient to amount to prima facia compliance with the procedural requirements of SEPA and that the decision to issue an MDNS was based on information sufficient to evaluate the proposal’s environmental impact. 141 Wn. 2d 169 at 176. The Examiner is not left “with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed”, especially considering adoption of the required standards by the new critical areas ordinance. Applying the “substantial weight” criteria, the City’s environmental analysis provides sufficient information to identify the proposal’s probable significant environmental impacts, and the MDNS adequately mitigates said impacts to less than substantial. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to consider and decide the issues presented by this request. 2. The applicant has established that the request for binding site plan approval and site plan review approval satisfies all criteria set forth in the Yelm Municipal Code. 3. The appellant has not shown that the responsible official was clearly erroneous in the issuance of the MDNS and in the imposition of Mitigating Measure No. 3. The environmental appeal should therefore be denied. 4. The request for binding site plan approval and site plan review approval should be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The conditions of the Mitigated Determination of Non-significance are hereby referenced and are considered conditions of this approval. 2. Parking shall be provided in accordance with the City of Yelm Development Guideline standards based on one space for every 300 square feet of gross floor area. 3. The applicant shall connect to the City water system. The cost to connect shall include a fee of $1,500.00 per Equivalent Residential Unit (900 cubic feet per month), subject to change. The number of ERU’s will be calculated on water usage based on engineers calculations. 4. The civil plan submission shall include fire flow calculations and demonstrate that the fire flow requirements of the International Fire Code have been met at the site. The civil plan submission shall include a fire access plan showing all required fire lanes and a striping plan for fire lanes. All fire hydrants installed as part of the development shall include hydrant locks approved by the Development Review Engineer and the Public Works Director. 5. The applicant shall connect to the City S.T.E.P. sewer system. The cost to connect shall include a fee of $5,417.00 per ERU with a $145.00 inspection fee per connection, subject to change. The number of ERUs required will be determined by approved water consumption calculations submitted as part of the civil plans. Sewer connection fees are paid at building permit issuance. Approved grease interceptors or oil interceptors shall be provided on all side sewers serving areas which include the potential for introduction of oils and greases into the sewer system. All S.T.E.P. tanks shall be designed to the specifications of the City of Yelm Development Guidelines, including a maximum depth to the tank invert of 6 feet below finish grade. 6. Upon completion of the onsite installation pursuant to the City’s Development Guidelines, the S.T.E.P. sewer equipment, appurtenances and lines shall be conveyed to the City, and an easement provided for maintenance. 7. The applicant shall design and construct all stormwater facilities in accordance with the conditions of the Mitigated Determination of Non-significance. A final stormwater report shall be included in the civil plan submission. 8. The civil plans shall include a complete detailed landscape plan in accordance with Chapter 17.80 YMC, including provisions for irrigation and for maintenance of landscaping. 9. Landscaping is required. Type II landscaping is required along the perimeter property lines and adjacent to buildings. Type III landscaping is required with all frontage improvements. Type IV landscaping is required in all parking areas. Type V landscaping is required in all above ground stormwater facilities. 10. Building elevations shall be consistent with the Yelm Design Guidelines for the mixed use district. 11. The corner of West Road and 103rd Avenue shall include corner enhancements consistent with the Design Guidelines for the mixed use district that include the following elements: Landscaping enhancements A structural element designed to enhance the intersection and create an attractive entry. The landscaping plan shall include the plan for corner enhancement. 12. Refuse collection and trash compaction areas shall be designed to contain all refuse generated on site and deposited between collections. Deposited refuse shall not be visible from outside the refuse enclosure. Screening shall be of a material and design compatible with the overall architectural theme of the associated structure, shall be at least as high as the refuse container, and shall in no case be less than six-feet in height with a gate enclosure. The fence shall be a solid material such as wood or masonry, and shall be designed per the City of Yelm Development guidelines. Building plans shall include architectural details of the enclosure. DECISION: The request for site plan approval to allow creation of six commercial building pads and site plan approval for a 5,600 square foot commercial building at a site located at the northeast corner of West Road SE and 103rd Avenue SE within the City of Yelm is hereby granted subject to the conditions contained in the conclusions above. The environmental appeal challenging the imposition of Mitigating Measure No. 3 in the MDNS is hereby denied. ORDERED this 22nd day of December, 2005. _____________________________________ STEPHEN K. CAUSSEAUX, JR. Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED this 22nd day of December, 2005, to the following: APPELLANT: 3B&C, LLC Erling Kirkland P.O. Box 875 Yelm, WA 98597 OTHERS: Robert Tauscher Jerome W. Morrissette 1700 Cooper Point Road SW Olympia, WA 98501 City of Yelm Tami Merriman 105 Yelm Avenue West P.O. Box 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 CASE NO.: BSP-05-0197-YL and SPR-05-0160-YL WEST COMMERCIAL ROAD NOTICE 1. RECONSIDERATION: Any interested party or agency of record, oral or written, that disagrees with the decision of the hearing examiner may make a written request for reconsideration by the hearing examiner. Said request shall set forth specific errors relating to: Erroneous procedures; Errors of law objected to at the public hearing by the person requesting reconsideration; Incomplete record; An error in interpreting the comprehensive plan or other relevant material; or Newly discovered material evidence which was not available at the time of the hearing. The term “new evidence” shall mean only evidence discovered after the hearing held by the hearing examiner and shall not include evidence which was available or which could reasonably have been available and simply not presented at the hearing for whatever reason. The request must be filed no later than 4:30 p.m. on January 4, 2006 (10 days from mailing) with the Community Development Department 105 Yelm Avenue West, Yelm, WA 98597. This request shall set forth the bases for reconsideration as limited by the above. The hearing examiner shall review said request in light of the record and take such further action as he deems proper. The hearing examiner may request further information which shall be provided within 10 days of the request. 2. APPEAL OF EXAMINER'S DECISION: The final decision by the Examiner may be appealed to the city council, by any aggrieved person or agency of record, oral or written that disagrees with the decision of the hearing examiner, except threshold determinations (YMC 15.49.160) in accordance with Section 2.26.150 of the Yelm Municipal Code (YMC). NOTE: In an effort to avoid confusion at the time of filing a request for reconsideration, please attach this page to the request for reconsideration.