Loading...
20070404 Appeal Comment Ltr 042108LAW OFFICES CORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL, MALANCA, PETERSON £~ DAHEIM LLP TACOMA OFFICE 1201 PACIFIC AVENUE. SUITE 2200 SEATTLE OFFICE POST OFFICE BOX 1157 r ONE UNION SQUARE TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98401-1 1 5 7 I ~ 600 UNIVERSITY, SUITE 2100 _ ,i_ SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101.4185 ~__ 1253) 620-6500 ~ FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565 1206) 676-7500 FACSIMILE (206) 676.7575 ,R 2 ~~ REPLY TO TACOMA OFFICE ~ 20U8 WILLIAM T. LYNN ATTORNEY AT LAW DIRECT (253) 620-6x16 (206) 676-6416 E-MAIL Iyf1 f1W®gth-Ia W.CORI April 21, 2008 Brent F. Dille Grant Beck Ciiy .~iiorne;y Community Development Director City of Yelm City of Yelm 105 Yelm Avenue W. 105 Yelm Avenue W. Yelm, WA 98597 Yelm, WA 98597 RE: Creek Road Mixed-Use Project 7-0404 SEPA No. 07-0404 Appeal Dear Gentlemen: We are writing on behalf of the owners of the above-referenced project which is now the subject of a SEPA appeal filed by the owner's agent, Sound Engineering, ]nc. The issue raised by the SEPA appeal is a mitigation measure that declares the property is a "mapped high ground water hazard" area and requires that the bottom of the filtration facility be elevated 6 feet above the base flood elevation. We believe this measure is contrary to law, and would like to resolve the issue short of an appeal hearing if possible. We are willing to meet should that be useful. We believe this matter is conclusively resolved by reference to Yelm Municipal Code 14.08.120 on "Frequently Flooded Areas". Subsection A of that section defines "Frequently Flooded Areas'' as those identified on the flood insurance maps as such, and those areas '`mapped by Thurston County as high ground water flood hazard area". No portion of our client's property is mapped on the flood insurance map, nor is designated as a high ground water flood hazard area on Thurston County's maps. In short, the provisions oI~ YMC 14.08.120 do not apply to the subject property. Mitigation No. 4 challenged in the SEPA appeal states that the property has "mapped high ground water hazards". That is not true. The adopted map is absolutely clear and beyond dispute. The mitigation measure goes on to impose two specific requirements, asix-foot separation from the bottom of the pond to the base flood elevation, and a 50-foot setback. These two requirements both have their origin in YMC 14.08.120.G. However, that section does not apply here. In fact its title is "Performance Standards -General requirements in High Ground Water Hazard Areas". The provisions simply d~ not apply to the subject property. [ 1410817 v l .doc] April 21, 2008 Page 2 Nor is there any factual basis to conclude that the property has high ground water, notwithstanding the adopted mapping. The property owner has recently submitted to the City additional information from the project Geotechnical engineer establishing that the ground water elevation is substantially more than six feet below the bottom of the infiltration facility. The letter also noted that the moist soils noted in the test pits were a result of perched water and not a sign of ground water. The City has adopted a standard for frequently flood areas and high ground water hazard areas. Since that standard does not apply to the subject property, we believe that the mitigation measure imposed by the City and chailenged in the above-referenced appeal is contrary to law. We request that the City simply acknowledge its error and withdraw the mitigation measure. As noted, we would be willing to meet with you to discuss this matter and, if necessary, to bring our ground water expert. Very truly yours, William T. l1~ WTL:fto cc: Tim Holderman Brad Biggerstaff Steve Berg Mike Avila [1410817 vl.doc]