APP-2018-0001 signed_scanned Decision CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER PRO TEM
RE: SEPA Appeal of a Determination of
Nonsignificance for CPA-2018-0003, a proposal to
change the land use designation from SFR to CMU
on parcel number 45333.1807
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF
APPELLANT: GALEN PAVLISKA LAW, AND DECISION
RESPONDENTS: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
and WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS.
FILE NO. APP-2018-0001
I. SUMMARY OF DECISION
Hearing Matter: Appeal of a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS)made pursuant to the State
Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment(CPA), CPA-2018-0003,
proposing to change the land use designation from Single Family Residential (SFR)to Corridor Mixed
Use (CMU) on parcel number 45333.1807.
Summary of Decision: Appeal denied.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural Matters
1. The site is identified as tax parcel number 45333.1807. It is generally located west of the Y
intersection of East Sands Road and South Bowdish Road. The site is situated in the Southwest
'/a of Section 33, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County,
Washington.
2. The applicant, Whipple Consulting Engineers, has a mailing address of 21 South Pines Road,
Spokane Valley, Washington, 99206. The site owners, Dennis and Melissa Crapo, have a mailing
address of 2602 North Sullivan Road, Spokane Valley, Washington, 99216.
3. Pursuant to Revised Code of Washington(RCW) Section 36.70A.130(2)(a), proposed updates to
the Comprehensive Plan shall only be processed once per year. Spokane Valley Municipal Code
(SVMC) 19.30.010(B) provides that Comprehensive Plan map amendments are Type IV
applications and processed pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140. SVMC 17.80.140(E)requires all
applications be reviewed concurrently on an annual basis. Applications for Comprehensive Plan
amendments received prior to November 1st of the current calendar year shall be included in the
annual review.
4. On October 26, 2017, the City of Spokane Valley(City)received a CPA application to change
the Comprehensive Plan land use designation on parcel 45333.1807 from SFR to CMU and a
corresponding zoning map change. The application was received timely and included in the 2018
annual CPA review. The proposed amendment was designated as CPA-2018-0003.
Findings of Fact,Conclusions of Law,and Decision File No.APP-2018-0001 1
5. In conjunction with the application, the Applicant submitted a completed SEPA Checklist
pursuant to chapter 43.21 C RCW(SEPA) and chapter 21.20 SVMC. The completed SEPA
Checklist specifically identified the proposal as a non-project action, and the supplemental sheet
for non-project actions (Part D) was completed.
6. Environmental review of CPA-2018-0003 was conducted pursuant to Title 21 SVMC, chapter
43.21C RCW, and chapter 197-11 Washington Administrative Code (WAC). On February 2,
2018, the City's Building and Planning Division issued a DNS pursuant to SVMC 21.20.070.
The DNS was published in the Spokane Valley Herald on February 2, 2018, and posted on the
subject property. Pursuant to SVMC 21.20.070(B) and SVMC 1 7.90.040(A),the appeal period
for the DNS ran from February 2, 2018, to February 16, 2018.
7. On February 16, 2018, Albert Merkel, appellant's representative, appealed the DNS on behalf of
Galen Pavliska, appellant. The appeal was submitted timely. The mailing address for Albert
Merkel is 3927 South Sunderland Drive, Spokane Valley,Washington, 99206. The mailing
address for Galen Pavliska is 11321 East Sundown Drive, Spokane Valley, Washington, 99206.
8. On February 21, 2018, the Hearing Examiner notified the parties via mail that the date of the
hearing would be Thursday, March 15, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. in the City Council Chambers at
Spokane Valley City Hall, 10210 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington, 99206.
9. On February 28,2018, the Hearing Examiner's assistant notified the City that Mr. Hubert,
Spokane County Hearing Examiner, had a conflict of interest on this matter and was referring the
matter to Brian McGinn, City of Spokane Hearing Examiner, as pro tem under an interlocal
agreement.
10. The City circulated the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner on March 8, 2018.
11. On March 13, 2018, Mr. Merkel requested a continuance,which was granted, and the hearing
was rescheduled for 1:30 p.m. on March 22, 2018.
12. On March 14, 2018, the applicant, via legal counsel,notified all parties that he was not available
on March 22. The hearing was subsequently rescheduled for Tuesday, March 27, at 9:00 a.m. in
the City of Spokane Valley Council Chambers.
13. On March 27, 2018, the Hearing Examiner Pro Tern conducted a site visit.
14. On March 27, 2018, the Hearing Examiner Pro Tern conducted a hearing on the SEPA appeal.
15. The following persons appeared in a representative capacity and presented legal arguments
concerning the subject of the appeal:
Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Nathan G. Smith,Attorney at Law
City of Spokane Valley Kutak Rock
10210 E. Sprague Avenue 510 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 800
Spokane Valley,WA 99206 Spokane,WA 99201
Albert Merkel Brian Kistler,Attorney at Law
3927 S. Sunderland Dr. Kutak Rock
Spokane Valley,WA 99206 510 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 800
Spokane,WA 99201
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision File No.APP-2018-0001 2
16. The following persons testified as fact witnesses at the hearing,under an oath administered by
the Hearing Examiner Pro Tem:
Martin Palaniuk,Planner Todd Whipple
City of Spokane Valley Whipple Consulting Engineers
10210 E. Sprague Avenue 21 S. Pines Road
Spokane Valley,WA 99206 Spokane Valley,WA 99206
Albert Merkel Ray Wright, Traffic Engineer
3927 S. Sunderland Dr. City of Spokane Valley
Spokane Valley,WA 99206 10210 E. Sprague Avenue
Spokane Valley,WA 99206
17. The appeal hearing was conducted in accordance with SVMC Sections 21.20.150(E) and
17.90.050 and 17.90.060, and the Hearing Examiner Scheduling Rules and Rules of Conduct set
forth in Appendix B of the SVMC.
18. The Hearing Examiner Pro Tem takes notice of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan,
Title 17 SVMC General Provisions, Title 19 SVMC Zoning Regulations, Title 21 SVMC
Environmental Controls, and other applicable development regulations.
19. The following exhibits were submitted at the hearing and admitted into evidence by the Hearing
Examiner Pro Tern:
• Exhibit 1: Appeal submittal and attachments
• Exhibit 2: Notice of Appeal Public Hearing
• Exhibit 3: CPA-2018-0003 Application
• Exhibit 4: Agency comments
• Exhibit 5: DNS Legal Notice
• Exhibit 6: DNS Posting
• Exhibit 7: PowerPoint Presentation, City of Spokane Valley
• Exhibit 8: PowerPoint Presentation, Appellant
• Exhibit 9: Determination of Nonsignificance, CPA-2018-0004
20. Exhibits 1 through 6 are part of the City's Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner. Exhibits 7
through 9 were submitted during the hearing.
21. The record includes the electronic recording of the hearing by Hearing Examiner Pro Tern staff,
Exhibits 1 through 9, the documents in the File No. APP-2018-0001 and in File No. CPA-2018-
0001 at the time of the hearing, the sign-in sheet for the hearing, and the items taken notice of by
the Examiner.
Description of Site
22. The site is a vacant, 5.85-acre parcel located southwest of Chester Creek and Dishman Mica
Road in the Forest Meadows neighborhood. The Union Pacific Railroad(UPRR)runs adjacent to
the parcel along the northeast boundary. The railroad right-of-way is approximately 150 feet
wide with the railroad tracks situated in the center and Chester Creek along the south side of the
tracks and adjacent to the site. A commercial use consisting of a self-service storage facility is
located on the northeast side of the railroad right of way.
Findings of Fact,Conclusions of Law,and Decision File No.APP-2018-0001 3
23. The self-service storage facility is situated between the railroad right-of-way and Dishman Mica
Road. Bowdish/Sands Road crosses over Dishman Mica Road into the site area and provides
access to the site along the east boundary. Single-family homes in the Forest Meadows 1st
Addition subdivision are located along the west boundary of the parcel. Single-family homes in
the short plat SHP-09-10 have been recently constructed along the south boundary of the site.
The subject parcel is Lot 7 of this short plat.
24. Short plat SHP-09-10 was approved in April 2011. The plat divided 7.66 acres into six single-
family residential lots and a single drainage easement. At the time of the plat, an environmental
review was undertaken due to the presence of critical areas on the site. A mitigated DNS
(MDNS)was made on March 16, 2011, and noticed as required. The determination was not
appealed.
25. According to the National Wetlands Inventory(NWI), the project site included Freshwater
Emergent (PEM1F) and Freshwater Forested/Shrub (PSS1C) wetlands. Biology, Soil &Water,
Inc. (BSW), located at 3102 N Girard Road, Spokane Valley, Washington, 99212, conducted a
comprehensive Critical Areas study and submitted a report, dated August 12, 2010. The BSW
study conducted numerous test holes to determine soil type and hydrologic characteristics of the
site. The study concluded that the wetland area mapped in the NWI as a PEM1F wetland was not
a wetland. It also concluded the area mapped as a PSS1C wetland on the NWI map as somewhat
excessively drained soils was not a wetland. The study further concluded hydrologic conditions
on the site do not meet the wetland criteria.
26. A "Type F" stream is located along the north boundary of the property within the UPRR right-of-
way. The actual location of the south Bankfull Width of Chester Creek was surveyed in the field
and plotted on the subject site plan map included as a part of the BSW report. See Exhibit 11,
CPA-2018-0003 Staff Report to the Planning Commission.
27 According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps,
dated July 6, 2010, a significant portion of the site lies within the 100-year floodplain. A narrow
strip of land running along the north boundary of the property is located within the floodway and,
therefore, cannot be developed. See id.
28. The final plat of SHP-09-10 includes a drainage easement across the west 15 feet of Lot 4 of the
plat to allow the flow of drainage from Sundown Drive onto the subject parcel. As part of the
plat,the entirety of Lot 7, the subject parcel, was designated as a blanket drainage easement to be
used for storing and treating stormwater. The plat dedication language states that no
modifications can be made to the boundaries of the drainage easements without the approval of
the City and that engineering calculations would be required for any modifications to the blanket
drainage easement consisting of Lot 7, the subject parcel. See id.
Surrounding Comprehensive Plan,Zoning, and Land Uses
29. The land to the north and east is designated Corridor Mixed Use in the Comprehensive Plan.
That land is zoned CMU and contains the UPRR track and right-of-way, commercial, and
residential uses.
30. The land to the south and west is designated as Single-Family Residential in the Comprehensive
Plan. That land is zoned SFR and contains single-family residences.
Findings of Fact,Conclusions of Law,and Decision File No.APP-2018-0001 4
Issues Raised in the Appeal
31. The appeal filed by the appellant/appellant's representative on February 16, 2018, included the
following contentions:
• "Environmental Checklist submitted by the Whipple Consulting Engineers (hereafter
Applicant) clearly demonstrates that this SEPA application is related closely enough to a
greater planned proposal to build on the proposed site such that all action should be in effect
considered a single action, and as per WAC 197-11-060 must be evaluated on the same
environmental document. If the project intends to use a "Phase Review," it is not listed
within the SEPA decision."
• "The Environmental Checklist is insufficient in detail to encompass the scope of the
combined action. The applicant has listed to [sic] many unknowns and dependencies on
incomplete plans to meet the requirements in WAC 197-11-060."
Analysis of the Appeal Issues
32. The appellant's first contention on appeal is that the Environmental Checklist explicitly reveals
that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment is "closely related" to a specific development
project. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-060(3)(b), proposals or parts of proposals that are closely
related must be evaluated in the same environmental document. The appellant maintains that the
applicant is violating this policy against"piecemeal" decision-making because the applicant has
separated the non-project step (comprehensive plan amendment/rezone) from the project step
(development application), even though the applicant has a specific project in mind.
33. In support of this claim,the appellant points to several statements in the Environmental Checklist.
For example, the applicant notes that once the CPA and zone change are approved, the applicant
intends to "immediately implement and develop a project consistent with the revised zone."See
Exhibit 1 (Environmental Checklist¶A(7), p. 2). The appellant argues that because the applicant
intends to "immediately"pursue a project, the development plan must be known to the applicant
and is certainly ready to be implemented. Testimony of A. Merkel. The appellant further notes
that the Environmental Checklist identifies a variety of authorizations and permits (e.g. plat
approval, building permits, approval of storm drain plans, etc.) that must be obtained in support
of a development project. See Exhibit 1 (Environmental Checklist¶A(10), p. 2). From this
information, the appellant concludes that"a larger project is immediately envisioned and thus by
WAC 197-11-060, all environmental considerations must be evaluated at the same time for the
overall unified singular action."See Exhibit 1 (Appeal Application, Part II, ¶4).
34. The Hearing Examiner Pro Tem does not agree with the appellant's interpretation of WAC 197-
11-060(3)(b), or its application to this case, for a variety of reasons. Initially, it should be
emphasized that the only proposal under consideration is a CPA and rezone. A change in the
land use designation and zoning will permit the property to be developed in a myriad of ways. If
the change is approved, the property could be developed with projects in a range of categories,
including light industrial, commercial, and multifamily. Testimony of M Palaniuk, E. Lamb, & T
Whipple. No application for a specific project has been prepared by the applicant or submitted to
the City. Testimony of T Whipple &M Palaniuk. As the City argued,there is no specific
proposal to evaluate in conjunction with the proposed change to the land use designation or
zoning. Testimony of E. Lamb.
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,and Decision File No.APP-2018-0001 5
35. The Environmental Checklist clearly establishes that there is no specific project to consider at
this stage, despite the appellant's arguments to the contrary. The checklist is replete with
references to"future work" or a"future project"that may be pursued after the land use
designation and zoning are changed. See e.g. Exhibit 1 (Environmental Checklist¶¶
A(14)(a)(i)(2), B(1)(e)-(f) & (h), B(2)(a), B(3)(a)(2)-(4), pp. 3-7). This future project is expressly
dependent"[u]pon successful implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone
Change..."See Exhibit 1 (Environmental Checklist¶A(7), p. 2). Similarly, the permits and
authorizations can only be sought"[o]nce the site is rezoned..."See Exhibit 1 (Environmental
Checklist¶A(10), p. 2). Given this circumstance, the applicant has not yet designed a specific
project. Testimony of T Whipple. And it would be impractical to do so prior to the City's
decision on the requested CPA. See id.
36. As the city planner explained, the proposal was evaluated as a non-project action. Testimony of
M Palaniuk. For a non-project action, such as a rezone, the City must address the probable
impacts of any future project action the proposal would allow. See Spokane County v. Eastern
Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 176 Wn. App. 555, 579, 309 P.3d 673 (2013).
To satisfy this standard,the City considered the highest and best use of the property in question,
keeping in mind that the property may be developed for any use allowed under the proposed land
classification. Testimony of M. Palaniuk. It was for this reason that the trip generation letter, for
example, was prepared using the mixed use commercial and multi-family project as the
hypothetical. Testimony of M Palaniuk& T Whipple. In making its evaluation,the City
considered the applicable law, the information in the checklist,the information available from
SEPA documentation prepared for a prior project, as well as the comments gathered about the
proposal. Testimony of M Palaniuk. Taking this all into account,the review process followed by
the City was consistent with the type of review that is required under SEPA for non-project
actions.
37. WAC 197-11-060(3)(b) is meant to discourage "piecemeal" environmental review. The SEPA
policy is intended to address the situation in which a project is artificially broken into multiple
pieces, causing an environmental review that is isolated to smaller components instead of
addressing the overall project. The Hearing Examiner Pro Tern concludes that the proposal in
question does not transgress this policy, for several reasons.
38. First, this proposal is a classic non-project action, i.e. a change to a land designation and rezone.
Despite the appellant's arguments to the contrary, there is no project being proposed. Thus, there
is no proposal or part of a proposal that was improperly omitted from the environmental review.
The appellant was unable to identify the various project components that should have been
considered as a"single course of action"within the meaning of WAC 197-11-060(3)(b). Stated
another way, the appellant could not, without resorting to speculation, identify a specific project
that must be considered in conjunction with the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and
rezone. Because there is only one element to this proposal, i.e. the non-project action, the City
did not engage in an improper,piecemeal review of the proposal.
39. Second, the Hearing Examiner Pro Tern agrees with the City that a future project has not been
sufficiently identified to warrant environmental review at this stage. It should be acknowledged
that SEPA calls for environmental review as soon as "the principal features of a proposal and its
environmental impacts can be reasonably identified."See WAC 197-11-055(2). The SEPA
policies go on to explain when a"proposal" exists:
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,and Decision File No.APP-2018-0001 6
"A proposal exists when an agency is presented with an application or has a goal and is
actively preparing to make a decision on one or more alternative means of
accomplishing that goal and the environmental effects can be meaningfully evaluated."
See WAC 197-11-055(2)(a) (bold-face added; italics in original). It is undisputed that no
application has for specific project has been presented to the City. As relevant here, then, a
proposal subject to environmental review only exists if(a)the city has a goal and is actively
preparing to make a decision, and(b) the environmental effects can be meaningfully evaluated.
See id.
40. The Hearing Examiner Pro Tem concludes that there is no specific goal for the property,nor is
there active preparation to make a decision on any particular project. There is no information in
this record suggesting that any future project is under active consideration, or that any process is
underway to evaluate any specific development for the property. Moreover, there is insufficient
information regarding any specific project to allow for meaningful evaluation under SEPA. The
Hearing Examiner Pro Tem does not believe that a meaningful review can take place, at the
project-level, without having an identified project to consider.
41. Third, it would be premature to require an environmental review of an anticipated project,under
the circumstances of this case. This is not to suggest that full environmental review is never
appropriate for purely non-project proposals. See King County v. Washington State Boundary
Review Board, 122 Wn.2d 648, 663, 860 P.2d 1024 (1993) (requiring an Environmental Impact
Statement [EIS] to be prepared to support land annexations even though there were no existing
proposals to develop the annexation properties). Rather, the rationale for requiring the
consideration of project-level impacts is not present in this case.
42. In cases where full environmental review was required despite the non-project nature of the
proposal, the details of the project and the anticipated environmental effects were considered
well-known. For example, in King County v. Washington State Boundary Review Board, the
Court considered a city's proposal to annex 783 acres of rural territory, effectively classifying
that land for future urban development. With respect to the impacts from such a reclassification,
the Supreme Court concluded:
"There is also no doubt the development discussed in the environmental checklists will
have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Such development would have a
major impact on water drainage and quality, environmentally sensitive wetlands and
wildlife habitat, open spaces, and the adjacent rural communities. Appellants do not
contest that development would have such effects and, on the record in this case, the
potential adverse effect of this development may be presumed."
See e.g. King County v. Washington State Boundary Review Board, 122 Wn.2d at 665 (emphasis
added).
43. Another illustrative case is Lands Council v. Washington State Parks Recreation Commission,
176 Wn. App. 787, 309 P.3d 734 (2013). In that case, the Court of Appeals concluded that the
parks commission violated SEPA by failing to prepare an EIS to support its decision to re-
classify approximately 279 acres as "Recreation" in order to facilitate the future development of
a ski lift and seven ski runs on Mount Spokane. See id. In making its decision, the parks
commission acknowledged that an EIS and a supplemental EIS would be required when it
Findings of Fact,Conclusions of Law,and Decision File No.APP-2018-0001 7
submitted a detailed development proposal. See id., at 804. In addition, when Mitigated DNSs
were issued in support of its decisions,the parks commission knew the proposed number of ski
runs,knew the proposed configuration and location of the runs, and otherwise was actively
considering a well-defined proposal. See id., at 805-806.
44. The case at bar is materially different than the circumstances present in King County and Lands
Council. Unlike the situation in King County, the information before the city did not establish
that significant environmental impacts would inevitably arise from the proposed land
reclassification. And, in contrast to the circumstances of Lands Council, the city did not issue a
DNS despite knowing that the salient details of the future project action. Nor did the city council
concluded, at the time of making its threshold determination, that an EIS would be required at
the subsequent project stage. Here, the details of a future development have not been revealed or
evaluated. And, appropriately given the facts of this case, the environmental impacts of a future
development have not been determined or evaluated.
45. The appellant's second contention on appeal is that the Environmental Checklist did not include
sufficient details "...to encompass the scope of the combined action." The appellant asserts that
there are too many"unknowns and dependencies on incomplete plans," and thus the proposal
does not satisfy the requirements of WAC 197-11-060. The Hearing Examiner Pro Tem also
disagrees with this contention on appeal, for the reasons that follow.
46. The Hearing Examiner Pro Tem agrees with the City that the appellant's second contention on
appeal is not materially different that the appellant's first contention. The appellant is again
arguing that the applicant's failure to specifically identify the future development project thwarts
a holistic review of the environmental impacts pursuant to WAC 197-11-060(3)(b). For the
reasons already discussed, the Hearing Examiner Pro Tem disagrees with this assertion. However,
there are additional reasons the Hearing Examiner Pro Tern is not convinced by the appellant's
position.
47. SEPA does not mandate that a property owner who seeks to reclassify land must prepare and
submit a specific project application in conjunction with that request. The appellant's arguments,
taken to their logical conclusion, seem to suggest that a project application is always required.
Under appellant's theory, the environmental review is necessarily being conducted in "piecemeal"
in such cases because the project details are not known. The Hearing Examiner Pro Tern
disagrees with this notion. The SEPA policies clearly recognize the propriety of non-project
actions as well as phasing of projects. This suggests that environmental review is intended to be
undertaken both to the degree and at the time that it is most appropriate to the circumstances.
48. The appellant insisted that the applicant had a project"in mind" and,therefore,the specific
development plan must be considered as part of the environmental review. However, the Hearing
Examiner Pro Tern will not speculate about what the applicant may desire to do in the future.
There is no application to consider, and there is no evidence that the contours of the project have
already been identified. The fact that the applicant will pursue development plans "immediately"
upon approval of the land reclassification is not especially relevant. There no plans on the table
to consider at this time. The Hearing Examiner Pro Tern does not consider the hypothetical,
future uses of the property to be a proper basis for current,project-level review.
49. At the hearing,the appellant questioned the adequacy of the City's environmental analysis of the
CPA and rezone proposal. The Hearing Examiner Pro Tem declined to consider such claims
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,and Decision File No.APP-2018-0001 8
because the appellant did not properly raise the adequacy of the City's environmental analysis in
its appeal. Instead, the appeal concerns a discrete, legal question, i.e. whether the City
improperly engaged in piecemeal review in violation of WAC 197-11-060(3)(b). The appellant's
concise statement of facts and statement of errors are both specifically directed at the claim that
"piecemeal"review took place. The Hearing Examiner Pro Tern's review, therefore, was limited
to this issue.
50. In the request for relief, the appellant requested an order requiring the applicant to reimburse
appellant for all costsl of appeal. At the hearing,the appellant clarified that this request also
applied to the City, not just the project applicant. The appellant did not cite to any legal authority
which would authorize the Hearing Examiner Pro Tern to grant an award of the costs on appeal.
The Hearing Examiner Pro Tem is not aware of any such authority. As such, the request for costs
on appeal must be denied.
Based on the above findings of fact, the Hearing Examiner enters the following:
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Any finding of fact above that is a conclusion of law shall be deemed such, and any conclusion
of law below that is a finding of fact shall be deemed such.
2. The appellant, Galen Pavliska, and appellant's representative, Albert, Merkel, failed to establish
by a preponderance of the evidence that the DNS dated February 2, 2018,was clearly erroneous.
3. The Hearing Examiner Pro Tem lacks the authority to order the reimbursement of costs on
appeal.
4. The appeal should be denied, pursuant to SVMC 18.20.030 (Power and Duties of Hearing
Examiner).
IV. DECISION
Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Examiner Pro Tem
hereby denies the SEPA appeal. The appellant's request for costs on appeal is also denied.
DATED this 17`h day of April, 2018
The appeal did not specifically reference attorneys' fees. To the extent a request for attorneys' fees was intended,that
request would also be denied.The Hearing Examiner Pro Tem does not have jurisdiction to order the payment of attorneys'
fees.In addition,an award of attorneys' fees cannot be made in the absence of a contract, statute,or recognized ground in
equity.Both the jurisdiction and the grounds for awarding attorneys'fees are lacking in this case.
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,and Decision File No.APP-2018-0001 9
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING
EXAMINER PRO TEM
Brian T. McGinn, WSBA#24110
NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Pursuant to SVMC Section 17.90.010 and RCW Chapter 36.70C, the decision of the
Hearing Examiner on the appeal of an administrative determination or interpretation is final and
conclusive unless within twenty-one (21) calendar days from the date of issuance of the
Examiner's decision, a party with standing files a land use petition in Superior Court pursuant to
RCW Chapter 36.70C. Pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.70C, the date of issuance of the Hearing
Examiner's decision is three (3) days after it is mailed.
On April 18, 2018, a copy of this decision will be mailed by regular mail to the Applicant,
Appellant, and to the City Community & Public Works Department. The date of issuance of the
Hearing Examiner's decision is, therefore,April 23,2018, counting to the next business day when
the last day for mailing falls on a weekend. THE APPEAL CLOSING DATE IS MAY 14, 2018.
The complete record in this matter,including this decision, is on file during the appeal
period with the Office of the Hearing Examiner, Third Floor, Public Works Building, 1026 West
Broadway Avenue, Spokane,Washington, 99260-0245; and may be inspected by contacting Kim
Thompson at(509)477-7490.
The file may be inspected during normal working hours, listed as Monday-Friday of each
week, except holidays, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.After the appeal period, the
file may be inspected at the City of Spokane Valley Department of Community Development,
10210 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206; by contacting Lori Barlow at
(509) 921-1000. Copies of the documents in the record will be made available at the cost set by the
City of Spokane Valley.
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,and Decision File No.APP-2018-0001 10