- • I filed, on behalf of the neighbors the SEPA Appeal (APP-2019-0002) on 5/3/19, within the appeal deadline, and the appeal was accepted by the city as complete.
- • A hearing was scheduled as per Spokane Valley code.
- • On 6/3/2019 Mr. Erik Lamb then sent a letter to our party requesting a continuance, informing us that Spokane Valley city code was wrong and, in his opinion, we needed to continue this until the permits were issued on the underlying application. This request was in direct contravention to Spokane City Code.
- o asked that Mr. Lamb and Mr. Driscoll explain to the group of neighbors that this would o asked that Mr. Lamb and Mr. Driscoll explain to the group of neighbors that this would in no way effect the proper and timely appeal that had been filed, and specifically that if they chose not to add additional appeal issues to the appeal, it would in no way affect its validity.
- o Lamb presented this information to the neighbors the week before June 23, 2019 in o Lamb presented this information to the neighbors the week before June 23, 2019 in person. Several neighbors were present and asked specifically if choosing not to add additional items later would affect the appeal and were told categorically no.
- o neighbors agreed to the city’s request in good faith so that the city would not face o neighbors agreed to the city’s request in good faith so that the city would not face liability for illegal laws.
- • Neighbors choose not to add additional appeal items to the appeal, as the technicalities of the CLOMR are dependent on the validity of the SEPA determination.
- • Appeal was scheduled for 6/10/20.
- • City requested a pre-hearing brief from Appellant, this is not normally required. Appellant objected but was overruled by hearing examiner.
- • Appellant filed prehearing brief summarized as follows:
- o error was made in evaluating SEPA by city in that the SEPA did not evaluate the o error was made in evaluating SEPA by city in that the SEPA did not evaluate the site where the substantial fill was taken from. There is clear example of why this is inappropriate in the SEPA handbook, where it specifies:
- Page 11, section 2.3.1 “A large proposal involving actions in vastly different locations, such as material being mined at one site, then transported to and processed at another, is another example of defining the entire proposal. Appropriate environmental review would look at the impacts of all the related activities.”
- o SEPA process inherently functions through the credibility of the applicant who self o SEPA process inherently functions through the credibility of the applicant who self certifies the checklist. In this case there are several issues with that credibility that can be testified to by the neighbors, including the engineering capability to successfully raise the property out of flood plain. This is witnessed by the neighbors adjacent to the property.
- o applications are constantly piecemealing the process, by separating out the o applications are constantly piecemealing the process, by separating out the individual parts of a project into bite size pieces that can be more easily approved than if the total project was presented.
- • City filled a brief as well summarized as follows:
- o the appellant did not add any issues with the permit, the appeal should be o the appellant did not add any issues with the permit, the appeal should be dismissed. Essentially once the permits are approved the SEPA appeal no longer matters.
- § This is in direct contravention to what the neighbors were told.