Loading...
APP-2020-0005 SUB-2020-0002 Decision.pdf Page 1 of 24 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER Re: Application by Inland Pacific Development, LLC, for Willow View Subdivision to divide one parcel into 21 residential lots on approximately 3.46 acres in an R-3 zone ) ) ) ) ) ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION File Nos. SUB-2020-0002 & APP-2020-0005 I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL AND DECISION Proposal: The Applicant seeks approval of a subdivision to create 21 residential lots on approximately 3.46 acres in the Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3) zone. The Applicant also appealed Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) issued for the project. Decision: The preliminary plat is approved, with conditions. The SEPA appeal is denied. II. BACKGROUND/FINDINGS OF FACT A. General Information Applicant/ Inland Pacific Development, LLC Owner: 12720 E. Nora Avenue, Suite E Spokane Valley WA 99216 Property Location: The property lies north of and adjacent to Interstate 90 between Flora Road and Long Road, with Boone Avenue to the north and Cataldo Avenue to the south. The site is located approximately 400 feet east of the intersection of Cataldo Avenue and Tschirley Road. The property is situated in the SW ¼ and NW ¼ of Section 18, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, County of Spokane, City of Spokane Valley, Washington. Legal Description: The legal description of the property is Lot 2 recorded Short Plat 2019-0038 being a portion of Tract 20, Bacon’s Addition to Greenacres, originally recorded as plat in Volume “J” of Plats, page 15, records of Spokane County, Washington. Situate in the City of Spokane Valley, County of Spokane, State of Washington. The site is designated as Tax Parcel No. 55182.2027. Zoning: R-3 Comprehensive Plan (CP) Map Designation: Single-Family Residential (SFR) Site Description: The site is 3.46 acres and currently vacant. The terrain is relatively flat with little to no slope. The site is regular in shape, resembling a large “L.” The site is Page 2 of 24 covered with grass, weed, and shrubs. There are no water features or critical areas on the site. Surrounding Conditions: The property is surrounded on all sides by land that is zoned R-3. The surrounding properties are predominantly developed with single-family residences. Residential development has recently occurred in the vicinity of the site to include a number of subdivisions; Willow Valley, Tschirley Place, Greenacres Valley Estates, Cascade Valley, Skyline at Flora, and Basecamp subdivisions. The subdivisions are a mix of single-family and duplex homes, with an approximate density of three to six dwelling units per acre. Interstate 90 is adjacent to and directly south of the site, across Cataldo Avenue. Similar single-family subdivisions have been completed on both sides (east and west) of the property. The Willow Valley subdivision, SUB-2017-0007, which is located adjacent to and east of site was developed by Inland Pacific Development, Inc., who is the applicant for this subdivision. A commercial kennel “Happy Tails Pet Camp” is operated adjacent to the site at 17505 E Cataldo Avenue. The kennel was established in October 1978 through SPE-34-78, a special CUP. Spokane County granted the property owner approval to operate 22 kennels and to house up to 25 dogs. In April 1986, the Spokane County Zoning Adjustor granted approval of an amended special CUP that allowed the expansion of the kennel to house up to 100 dogs. The dog kennel is situated in the northeast corner of the property and is 21.6 feet from the proposed plat along the east boundary of the kennel site and 20 feet along the north boundary of the kennel site. The proposed Corbin Lane is situated along the west boundary of the plat that is adjacent to the kennel site. A 10-foot drainage easement, 20-foot paved street, and 15-foot setback from the private street will place the homes on Lot 1-5, block 1 a minimum of 66.6 feet from the kennel building. Lots 10-13, Block 1 will back to the kennel site with the homes fronting on to Desmet Avenue. The approval of SPE-34-78 and SPE-34A-78 did not include any conditions that required the kennel remain a minimum distance from a residence. Project Description: The Applicant is seeking to subdivide 3.46 acres into 21 residential lots. A private road, Corbin Lane, will extend north from Cataldo Avenue to serve lots 1-7 of Block 1. An emergency access turnaround will be required on the private street and will extend into the south 30 feet of Lot 10, Block 1. The private street will be constructed to the 2009 Spokane Valley Street Standards (SVSS) for a private street and will not require curbs, gutters, or sidewalks. Desmet Avenue will extend across the plat from the existing terminus of Desmet Avenue at the east boundary of the plat to the terminus of Desmet Avenue at the west boundary of the plat. The new local access street will provide a through connection. Desmet Avenue will be constructed as a local access street with curb, gutter, swale, and sidewalks. The swale and sidewalks will be located within border easements. The private street will have an emergency access turnaround extending north from the new Desmet Avenue to serve lots 2-4, Block 2. The private street will be built to the SVSS private street standards. Improvements will be required along Cataldo to include curb, gutter, sidewalk, and swale. Spokane County owns the right-of-way (ROW) along the south side of Boone Avenue and is not allowing a connection to Boone Avenue because of future plans for a multi-modal pathway in this area. Page 3 of 24 B. Procedural Information Approval Criteria: CP Chapter 4 – Land Use; Title 19 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) – Zoning Regulations; Title 20 SVMC – Subdivisions; Title 21 SVMC – Environmental Controls; SVMC Section 22.20 – Concurrency; SVSS; 2008 Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual (SRSM); and Spokane Regional Health District (SRHD) regulations. Hearing Date: September 2, 2020 Notice of Application: Mailed: June 12, 2020 Publication: June 12, 2019 Notice of Public Hearing: Mailed: July 28, 2020 Posted: July 27, 2020 Published: July 24 & 31, 2020 Site Visit: September 11, 2020 Testimony: Mary Palaniuk, Planner City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Casey Mason Inland Pacific Development LLC 12720 E Nora Ave, Suite E Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Erik J. Lamb, Deputy City Attorney City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Mamdough Elaarg MHE Engineering 9702 W. Masters Lane Cheney WA 99004 Aziza Foster, Rule 9 Intern City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Donna Bartlett 1108 N. Tschirley Road Spokane Valley WA 99016 Submitted Comments to the Record: Jerry Norman Via email at: jrjmnorm@hotmail.com Cody Laine 17622 E Desmet Avenue Spokane Valley WA 99016 Preliminary Plat Exhibits: Staff Report, including: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Comprehensive Plan Map 4. Aerial Map Page 4 of 24 5. Application Submittal 6. Preliminary Plat Map of Record 7. Determination of Completeness 8. Notice of Application Materials 9. SEPA MDNS Determination 10. SEPA Modified MDNS Determination 11. SEPA Checklist 12. Certificate of Transportation Concurrency 13. Notice of Public Hearing Materials 14. Agency Comments 15. Public Comment 16. SEPA Appeal 17. Staff Report PowerPoint Presentation SEPA Appeal Exhibits: 18. Hearing Examiner’s Order Setting Briefing Schedule dated August 7, 2020 19. Appellant’s Prehearing Brief dated August 19, 2020 20. City’s Prehearing Brief dated August 26, 2020, including: A Declaration of Erik Lamb dated August 26, 2020 B Declaration of Martin Palaniuk dated August 14, 2020 21. Appellant’s Presentation III. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS A. SEPA Appeal 1. Background Facts On May 27, 2020, Inland Pacific Development, LLC (the “Applicant” or “Appellant”) submitted its application to the City of Spokane Valley for the Willow View Subdivision (SUB-2020-0002). See Exhibit 5. That application was accompanied by a SEPA checklist prepared by the Applicant. See Exhibit 20B (Dec. of M. Palaniuk ¶ 3). The checklist includes questions related to “historic and cultural preservation.” See Exhibit 11 (SEPA Checklist ¶ B(13)). In the checklist, the Applicant stated that it did not know of any objects or places (on the site or next to the site) that were listed, or proposed to be listed, on any national, state, or local historic register. See Exhibit 11 (SEPA Checklist ¶ B(13)(a)(1)). When asked to describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site,” the Applicant responded “N/A.” See id. Similarly, the Applicant stated “N/A” with respect to any proposed measures to reduce or control impacts. See id. On June 12, 2020, the City circulated a memorandum, along with the SEPA Checklist and the Trip Generation Letter, to affected agencies and tribes, seeking comments on the proposed subdivision. See Exhibit 20B (Dec. of M. Palaniuk ¶ 4). Page 5 of 24 On June 16, 2020, the Spokane Tribe of Indians submitted its comments on the project. See Exhibit 14 (Letter of R. Abrahamson, dated June 16, 2020). In relevant part, the Spokane Tribe stated as follows: …as you already know the Spokane Tribal use of this area was extensive in years prior to arrival of euro-Americans, clearly this area was a place of great cultural and economic importance to our tribe, while surface evidence or artifacts and human remains may be sparse after years of non-Indian occupation and development, evidence below the surface may still be in place and artifact and human remains may be entering the site through hydrological processes and other means. See id. Given these considerations, the Spokane Tribe requested that the project be conditioned upon the completion of a cultural resources survey. See id. On July 241, 2020, the City of Spokane Valley issued an MDNS regarding the proposed subdivision. See Exhibit 9. The MDNS included two conditions: (1) payment of a voluntary mitigation fee in the amount of $34,569; and (2) submission of a cultural resources survey prepared by a qualified professional. See id. On July 31, 2020, the Applicant filed an appeal of the MDNS. See Exhibit 16. The Applicant challenged both conditions stated in the MDNS. See id. On August 3, 2020, the City of Spokane Valley issued a modified MDNS for the project, eliminating the voluntary traffic mitigation fee, but retaining the requirement for a cultural resources survey. See Exhibit 10. As a result, the only issue on appeal is whether or not the Hearing Examiner should uphold the MDNS condition requiring a cultural resources survey. 2. Arguments on Appeal Appellant’s Arguments. In its appeal, the Appellant contended that the City failed to identify “specific, adverse environmental impacts” in order to support the requirement to complete a cultural resources survey. See Exhibit 16. According to the Appellant, the Spokane Tribe and the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (WSDAHP) did not submit any evidence to substantiate an alleged impact. See id. The Appellant claimed there are no known historic or cultural features on the site, citing to its SEPA Checklist. See id. The Appellant contended that any conclusion to the contrary is based upon “remote” and “speculative” assertions. See id. The Appellant also pointed out that the Hearing Examiner has rejected the imposition of the same kinds of conditions in another case, specifically City of Spokane File No. Z19-985SCUP. See id. The Appellant argued that the Hearing Examiner should apply the same reasoning to sustain this challenge to the condition imposed on the Willow View Subdivision. See id. The Appellant suggested that the more typical condition requiring 1 The MDNS states that the date of issuance is July 17, 2020. See Exhibit 9. However, Mr. Palaniuk’s declaration states the date of issuance is July 24, 2020. See Exhibit 20B (Dec. of M. Palaniuk ¶ 9). The Hearing Examiner does not know why there are two difference dates of issuance in the record. However, the Hearing Examiner concludes that this discrepancy is not material to the issues in this appeal. Page 6 of 24 the Appellant to follow state law requirements is sufficient. See id. In the alternative, the Appellant suggested that an inadvertent discovery plan would be appropriate. See id. The Appellant supplemented the contentions in its Pre-hearing Brief. See Exhibit 19. In addition to making the above arguments, the Appellant also contended that the City failed to show that the proposed condition was necessary as a “direct result” of the impacts of the project. See Exhibit 19, p. 4. To support this argument, the Appellant argued that RCW 82.02.020 and related case-law should be applied by analogy. See id. Finally, the Appellant argued that there was a low probability for the presence of cultural or archaeological resources on the site, given the development patterns in the immediate vicinity. See id. Specifically, there are public right-of-ways to the north (Boone) and south (Cataldo and I-90), and developed single-family neighborhoods to the east and west. See id. The subdivision to the east was developed by the Appellant without being required to conduct a cultural resources survey. See id. In addition, no cultural resources were discovered during that project. See id. City of Spokane Valley’s Arguments. The City of Spokane Valley responded that the Spokane Tribe’s expertise and knowledge regarding the probable location of historical artifacts and human remains was entitled to substantial deference. See Exhibit 20, p. 5. The Spokane Tribe commented that the project was within an area significant to the Tribe and that the site may contain artifacts or human remains. See id.; see also Exhibit 14 (Letter of R. Abrahamson, dated June 16, 2020). The Appellant advised, in its SEPA checklist, that it had no knowledge of such resources on the site. See Exhibit 20, p. 5. However, the City determined that the Appellant’s lack of knowledge did not constitute a rebuttal of the Spokane Tribe’s concerns, given the Tribe’s expertise, experience, and knowledge of its own tribal history. See id. The City pointed to the strong public policy, reflected in Washington statutes, ensuring the preservation of cultural, historic, and archaeological resources. See Exhibit 20, pp. 6-7. In furtherance of that policy, the WSDHAP has created a database/map (known as “Wisaard”) of archaeological and historic resources. See id., p. 7. That map includes information about known sites as well as a “predictive model” identifying where historical or archaeological resources likely to exist. See id. The Wisaard predictive model identifies the project site as having “high to very high” potential for the existence of archaeological resources. See id. The City explained that it has significant discretion and authority to consider and weigh comments it receives, especially when there are inherent uncertainties in the potential consequences of a proposal. See Exhibit 20, p. 8. The Spokane Tribe indicated there was a probability of artifacts and human remains on the site. See id. The City was well within its discretion to weigh not only that probability, but the severity of the outcome if cultural resources were damaged or destroyed. See id., pp. 8-9. The City also emphasized that a study is an authorized and appropriate mitigation measure to address the risks posed by a development. See id. The City contests the Appellant’s reliance on a past decision of the Hearing Examiner, concerning another matter adjudicated for the City of Spokane, in which he declined to require a cultural resources survey. See Exhibit 20, pp. 9-10. The City points out that the Hearing Examiner’s prior decisions do not carry precedential value. See id., p. 9. The Page 7 of 24 City further notes that it would be inappropriate to apply a decision made in another jurisdiction, on a different set of facts, to a case within the City of Spokane Valley. See id. Finally, the City of Spokane Valley argues that RCW 82.02.020 and the related case law does not apply to this case, either directly or by analogy. See Exhibit 20, pp. 10-11. The City emphasized that RCW 82.02.020 applies when a local government imposes a “tax, fee, or charge” on development. See id., p. 10. The condition requiring a cultural resources survey does not constitute a tax, fee, or charge under that statute. See id. The City contended that the Appellant failed to explain why the cited authorities apply by analogy. See id., p. 9. The City insisted, on the contrary, that RCW 82.02.020 and the related case law are inapplicable and irrelevant. See id., p. 10. 3. Discussion of Issues After considering the arguments of the parties, the Hearing Examiner concludes that the City properly imposed the MDNS condition requiring the Appellant to prepare a cultural resources survey. The Hearing Examiner reaches this conclusion for several reasons. In order to sustain the appeal, the Hearing Examiner would need to have a definite and firm conviction that the City erred in imposing the condition. While the Hearing Examiner may have some reservations about the condition, that is not the issue. The Hearing Examiner is not convinced, based upon the circumstances of this case that the City clearly erred when it required the survey. The City makes a fair point that the Spokane Tribe is the entity with expertise and knowledge regarding tribal history, including the potential for artifacts and human remains related to that history. The Spokane Tribe commented that there was a potential for such resources to be present. Coupling that information with the Wisaard map showing that the site has a “high” or “very high” potential for archaeological resources demonstrates that there was a substantive basis for the survey condition. See Exhibit 20A (Exhibit A to Dec. of E. Lamb). The City is also entitled to a degree of deference in exercising its discretion under SEPA, as the City persuasively argued. The Appellant contended that the record actually demonstrated that there were no cultural resources on the project site. Testimony of C. Mason. Rather, it was contended, the development patterns around the site verified that no resources are present. In addition, according to the Appellant, the Wisaard map showed that archaeological sites were confined to a narrow band along the Spokane River. See Exhibit 21. Although these arguments have some merit, ultimately the Hearing Examiner is not convinced by this reasoning. The fact that the properties around the site have been developed, apparently without discovering any cultural resources, does not mean that no such resources are present on this site. The Appellant’s arguments focused on the conditions of other sites, not to establishing the lack of resources on the project site. The site is undeveloped and has not been explored for evidence of such resources. The survey will serve that purpose. The SEPA Checklist does note that the Appellant has no knowledge of such resources, and the information available to the owner must be taken in to consideration. However, the Appellant’s lack of knowledge does not prove there are no resources underground. Page 8 of 24 The Hearing Examiner does not believe that the Wisaard map provides much support to the Appellant’s argument. On the contrary, the map characterizes the southern portion of the property as have a “very high” risk of containing resources. The Appellant points out the WSDAHP maps, from a wider perspective, only show resources discovered along the Spokane River. Again, this information does not show that no resources exist elsewhere in high-risk areas, in particular on sites that have not been explored. And the fact that there are a number of resources in the vicinity, although some distance away, suggests there is reason for the Spokane Tribe’s concern. The Hearing Examiner has declined to impose survey requirements in more than one of his prior decisions. Each of those cases was decided individually, on its merits, and based upon the arguments and evidence presented. While the Hearing Examiner strives for a certain level of consistency in rendering decisions, the City is correct when it contends that these administrative decisions have no precedential effect. The principles of stare decisis do not apply to these kinds of proceedings. As a result, the Hearing Examiner renders this decision based upon the record before him, and declines to engage in a comparative analysis of an administrative decision made in a separate case, on behalf of another jurisdiction. Finally, the Hearing Examiner concludes that RCW 82.02.020 and the related case law do not apply. The statute constrains a local government from imposing a tax, fee, or charge on development, unless certain statutory requirements are satisfied. This case concerns the imposition of a development condition under the authority of SEPA, which poses a different set of legal questions. A condition requiring a cultural resources survey, on its face, is not a tax, fee, or charge. For this reason, the Appellant can only draw an analogy to RCW 82.02.020 and the related case law. However, the Appellant did not sufficiently explain how that applying that statutory scheme by analogy should control the outcome of this case. The Hearing Examiner concludes that the City was entitled to rely upon its authority under SEPA to impose the MDNS condition. B. Preliminary Plat and Land Use Application To be approved, the proposed preliminary plat must comply with the criteria set forth in the SVMC and demonstrate consistency with the CP. The Hearing Examiner has reviewed the plat application and the evidence of record with regard to the application and makes the following findings and conclusions: 1. The proposed preliminary plat complies with all applicable standards in SVMC Title 19.70 (Density and Dimensions). The property proposed for development is zoned R-3. Single-family residential uses are outright permitted in this zone. See SVMC 19.60.050 (permitted use matrix). In addition to satisfying the use limitations of the zone, any residential development must also meet the minimum lot size, density, setback, maximum lot coverage, and building height requirements of the zone. See Staff Report, p. 4. The proposed preliminary plat satisfies the development standards that are applicable at this stage. The minimum lot size in the R-3 zone is 5,000 square feet. See SVMC Page 9 of 24 Table 19.70-1. The preliminary plat satisfies this standard by designing lots that range from 5,040 square feet to 11,257 square feet in size. See Staff Report, p. 4. The proposed preliminary plat also adheres to the applicable density standards. The maximum allowed density in the R-3 zone is six dwelling units per acre. See SVMC Table 19.70-1. The applicant proposes to divide 3.46 acres into 21 residential lots. See Staff Report, p. 4. This results in a gross density of 6 units per acre, which is within the density limits of the zone. See id. The Hearing Examiner agrees with the Staff that the proposed preliminary plat complies with minimum requirements for lot size and density and is consistent with the Zoning Regulations. The other development standards, such as building height, lot coverage, and setbacks, will be addressed at the building permit stage. Therefore, this criterion is satisfied. 2. The proposed preliminary plat conforms to applicable standards of the SVMC Title 20 – Subdivision Regulations. As conditioned, the project is consistent with City plans, regulations, and design and development standards as required by SVMC 20.20.090. The Staff Report reviewed those design standards in some detail and stipulates that the project must conform to those requirements. See Staff Report, pp. 4-5. The Hearing Examiner agrees with the Staff’s analysis, which is hereby incorporated by reference into this decision. The project is consistent with and promotes the public health, safety, and welfare, and serves the public interest, as required by SVMC 20.20.100(A) and SVMC 20.20.100(K). The proposed development is consistent with the CP policies and the provisions of the R-3 zone, as discussed elsewhere in this decision. Thus, the project generally advances both the long-term and short-term goals for the land. The proposal will put undeveloped land to productive use and will provide additional housing opportunities for the community. Various permits must be obtained in order to allow the project to move forward, and thus the development must adhere to additional standards prior to proceeding. See Staff Report, pp. 4-7. There are also myriad project conditions designed to protect the public interest and ensure that the project complies with applicable development regulations. The project makes appropriate provisions for open space. See SVMC 20.20.100(B). The proposed subdivision must adhere to SVMC requirements regarding setbacks and lot coverage. Adherence to these standards will ensure that an appropriate amount of open space is incorporated into this development. See Staff Report, p. 5. The project makes appropriate provisions for drainage ways. See SVMC 20.20.100(C). All drainage from the project will be managed in accordance with the SRSM. See Staff Report, p. 5. Drainage plans will be reviewed and approved by the City. See id. The subdivision satisfies the requirements for streets and roads, alleys, sidewalks, and other public ways. See SVMC 20.20.100(D). The streets, roads, and sidewalks of the proposed subdivision will be constructed to City standards, and that requirement has been incorporated as a condition of approval. For example, Desmet Avenue, a new street internal to the plat, will be designed and built as local access streets with curb, Page 10 of 24 gutter, swale, and sidewalks. See Staff Report, p. 5. Half street improvements will be constructed along the frontage of the plat on Cataldo Avenue. See id., pp. 5-6. The private streets will also be constructed to SVSS standards. See id., p. 6. The project makes appropriate provisions for public transit. See SVMC 20.20.100(E). The routes and availability of transit service are determined by the Spokane Transit Authority (STA). See Staff Report, p. 6. The closest STA stop on Route 98 is on Barker Road, approximately a half mile from the site. See id. The route has a weekday frequency of every 30 minutes and an evening and weekend frequency of every 60 minutes. See id. There is a public, potable water supply to serve the subdivision. See SVMC 20.20.100(F). Public water supplies are regulated by the SRHD and Consolidated Irrigation District #19 (the District), the local water purveyor. See Staff Report, p. 6. The District signed a Certificate of Water Availability for the project. See Exhibit 5. According to the certificate, the water system has sufficient capacity to serve the development. See id. The subdivision will be served by a sanitary sewer system. See SVMC 20.20.100(G). A sanitary sewer system, operated by Spokane County Environmental Services (SCES), is available for this project. See Staff Report, p. 6. SCES confirmed, through a Certificate of Sewer Availability, that the sanitary sewer system will be extended by the developer to serve this project. See Exhibit 5. The project makes appropriate provisions for parks and recreation. See SVMC 20.20.100(H). The City’s adopted level of service (LOS) standard for park area is 1.92 acres of park area per 1,000 residents. There is no evidence in this record that the proposed subdivision will negatively affect the availability of parks or recreational areas. On the contrary, City Staff reported that the proposed subdivision “will not impact the City’s LOS standard for parks.” See Staff Report, p. 6. In addition, there are parks and recreational areas in the vicinity. Greenacres Park is located northeast of the subject parcel across Boone Avenue. See id. Sullivan Park, a community park, is located 1.5 miles from the site. See id. Centennial Trail can be accessed 3/4 of a mile from the site where Mission Road terminates at the Spokane River. See id. The project makes appropriate provisions for playgrounds, schools, and school grounds. See SVMC 20.20.100(I). The site is located in the Central Valley School District (CVSD). See Staff Report, p. 6. Riverbend Elementary School is located approximately 0.25 miles northeast of the site, Selkirk Middle School is located 1.5 miles from the site, and Central Valley High School is located 1.5 miles from the site. See id. CVSD was notified of this project and did not submit any comments. See id. The project addresses the need for sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school. See SVMC 20.20.100(J). The construction of a 5-foot wide sidewalk along Cataldo Avenue is required as part of this action. See Staff Report, p. 6. Sidewalks will also be constructed along both sides of Desmet Avenue. See id. The project therefore includes the walking paths required by the municipal code. The Applicant does not have control over the complete route to school and, under the circumstances, can only be expected to enhance the walking options within the project. As the Staff explained, the walking Page 11 of 24 routes to schools from this location are limited, in particular due to the obstacle created by Interstate 90. See Staff Report, p. 6. The proposed subdivision is in conformity with the applicable development standards. See SVMC 20.20.100(L). The Hearing Examiner agrees with the Staff that the proposed subdivision satisfies the applicable development codes. See Staff Report, p. 7. Neither the Hearing Examiner’s review of the matter nor the testimony or evidence presented at the hearing suggested that the project deviates from the relevant standards. In any case, compliance with the applicable development standards is a condition of approval of this project. The proposal makes appropriate provisions for other requirements found to be necessary and appropriate and for which written standards and policies have been adopted. See SVMC 20.20.100(M). The Hearing Examiner agrees with the Staff that the project, as conditioned, satisfies or will satisfy all criteria set forth by other agencies. See Staff Report, p. 7. In addition, the project includes detailed conditions that incorporate the comments of all responding agencies or departments. To the Hearing Examiner’s knowledge, the proposal does not deviate from any other standards or policies. 3. The proposal complies with SVMC Title 21 (Environmental Controls). Development of the site is not apparently limited by its physical characteristics or the presence of environmentally sensitive conditions. For example, the site does not include any wetlands, open waterways, riparian areas, urban open space, or habitat associated with any native species. See Staff Report, p. 8; see also Exhibit 11 (SEPA Checklist ¶¶ B(3)(a)). There are no threatened or endangered species of plants or animals on the site. See Exhibit 11 (SEPA Checklist ¶¶ B(4)(c) & B(5)(b)). The site is not located within a designated floodplain. See Staff Report, p. 8. The site is flat, with the steepest slope being about 1%, and does not contain any geologically hazardous areas. See Staff Report, p. 8; see also Exhibit 11 (SEPA Checklist ¶¶ B(1)(b)). A review of the SEPA checklist confirms these facts and does not reveal any additional causes for concern. See Exhibit 11. On July 17, 2020, the City of Spokane Valley, as the lead agency, issued an MDNS for this project. See Exhibit 9. Thus, the City has determined that the project does not have significant impacts on the environment that cannot be addressed with mitigation measure. The appeal period for the original determination ended July 31, 2020. The original MDNS was timely appealed. A modified MDNS was issued on August 3, 2020, removing the voluntary traffic mitigation fee as a mitigation measure. The requirement to submit a Cultural Resource Survey was retained in the modified MDNS. The Hearing Examiner has determined that the proposed MDNS condition is valid. See Part A. The Hearing Examiner agrees with the Staff’s determination that the project, as submitted and conditioned, satisfies the environmental controls set forth in the municipal code. See Staff Report, p. 8. As a result, this criterion for approval is satisfied. Page 12 of 24 4. SVMC 22.20.010 states that concurrency must be evaluated for transportation, water, and sewer. The project satisfies the concurrency requirements. Under the concurrency standards of the SVMC, adequate public facilities must be available when the service demands of development occur. See Staff Report, p. 8. More specifically, the SVMC states that concurrency must be evaluated for transportation, water, and sewer. See SVMC 22.20.010(A). On July 11, 2020, the Spokane Valley City Engineer issued a Certificate of Transportation concurrency for the project. See Exhibit 12. The certificate was issued subject to mitigation measures, which were incorporated into the MDNS. However, on July 27, 2020, a revised Certification of Transportation Concurrency was issued, removing the mitigation requirement consistent with the revised MDNS. See id. Therefore, traffic concurrency is satisfied without the previously proposed mitigation. See Staff Report, p. 8. On or about April 14, 2020, the District issued a Certificate of Water Availability for the project. See Exhibit 5. The certificate indicates that water will be provided from the existing 6-inch water main located 30 feet from the site. See id. The water system has a current Washington State Department of Health (WSDOH) Operating Permit allowing the number of new taps requested. See id. In any event, the conditions of approval require the developer to construct/provide water to each individual lot. On or about May 15, 2020, SCES issued a Certificate of Sewer Availability for the project. See Exhibit 5. The certificate indicates that the developer will design, fund, construct, and provide financial surety for the necessary systems to extend sewer to the site and provide service connections. See id. The record in this case demonstrates that transportation, water, and sewer facilities are or will be made sufficient by the developer to support the proposed development. As a result, this criterion is satisfied. 5. The proposal is consistent with the CP designation and goals, objectives, and policies for the property. The property is designated as SFR under the CP. This designation addresses a range of residential densities from one dwelling unit per acre to six dwelling units per acre. See Staff Report, p. 8. The R-1, R-2, and R-3 districts of the SVMC are intended to implement the SFR designation. See id. The proposed subdivision is a low-density residential development that is consistent with its R-3 zoning and the SFR designation under the CP. The neighborhood is characterized by single-family dwellings on varying size lots. See Staff Report, p. 9. Pockets of similarly dense single-family development have occurred throughout the immediate area. See id. The proposed development is consistent with the City’s residential development standards and existing single-family development in the area. See id. As a result, the project promotes the objectives of Policy LU-G1, which seeks to maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. Page 13 of 24 Pedestrian and street improvements will be required along the frontage of Cataldo Avenue and the new public street. See Staff Report, p. 9. In addition, the project has been conditioned to meet applicable community standards. See id. Based upon these factors, the Hearing Examiner concludes that the project satisfies the objectives of Policy LU-P8 and Goals T-P6 and T-P9, which ensure that neighborhoods are served by safe and convenient motorized and non-motorized transportation routes. By developing 21 new residential lots, the project creates additional housing opportunities to meet the needs of the community. See Staff Report, p. 9. The project, therefore, promotes the intent of Goal H-G1 and H-G2, which seek to allow a broad range of housing options and enable the development of affordable housing. The proposed subdivision, as conditioned, is also consistent with the various development standards set forth in the CP. For example, the proposal includes a stormwater system designed to protect the aquifer, consistent with Goal NR-G2; connection to public water and sewer, consistent with Policy CF-P10; coordination of new construction with various infrastructure and services, consistent with Policies CF-P13, CF-P3, and CF-P4. See Staff Report, p. 10. Considering the characteristics and design of the proposal, the Hearing Examiner agrees with the Staff that it is consistent with the CP. Therefore, this criterion is satisfied. C. Public Comments The public comments on the project, generally speaking, raised two concerns: project density and traffic impacts. See Exhibit 15. These concerns are understandable. However, the Hearing Examiner believes the project should be approved, given the development standards and policies that apply. With respect to density, the public comment was that the City of Spokane Valley does not need more houses “squeezed together on small lots.” See Exhibit 15 (E-mail of J. Norman 8-11-2020). It was suggested that the density should be no higher than 3 units per acre. See id. The property is zoned R-3, which allows a density of up to 6 units per acre. The density of the proposal is 6 units per acre, consistent with the zoning. The density standard was adopted by the City Council as a legislative act. The Hearing Examiner does not have authority to impose a lower density standard for purposes of this project. In any event, there are projects of similar densities in the vicinity of this project. This project, it seems, is consistent with the current development patterns in the area and is appropriate, in the Hearing Examiner’s view. The more difficult question to address is the concern about traffic. A property owner on Tschirley raised the concern that failing to connect Corbin Lane to Desmet will direct traffic to Tschirley Lane, creating a safety hazard for children who live and play along that road. See Exhibit 15 (Letter of D. & N. Bartlett 7-2-2020). The Hearing Examiner is especially sympathetic to this concern, but ultimately must conclude that the project is properly designed for traffic flow. This conclusion is reached for several reasons. Page 14 of 24 Initially, it should be emphasized that Tschirley is a fully developed, public road. Testimony of M. Palaniuk. Thus, that road was designed to handle the proposed traffic load. See id. There is no deficiency in that roadway. See id. There was no evidence that the capacity of the road would be exceeded or that the design of the road itself gave rise to safety problems. In reality, Tschirley has the capacity to handle traffic being routed to that location. And the plat creating the lots around Tschirley, given the plat design, contemplated a connection from the cul-de-sac to the east, at some point in time. In addition, there were good reasons for the decision against connecting Corbin Lane to the Desmet. If that connection was made, then Corbin Lane would have to be developed as a public road. Testimony of M. Palaniuk. This creates two issues. First, developing Corbin Lane as a public road would take up so much space that all seven lots along that road would be eliminated. The Hearing Examiner agrees with the City that scenario places too high a burden on the property owner. Second, developing Corbin Lane as a public road would create a new intersection of public roads at Corbin and Cataldo. Testimony of M. Elaarg. The Applicant’s engineer worked with the City on the design and confirmed that this would not be allowed because that intersection is too close to the nearest existing intersection of public roads. See id. Finally, there were no reasonable alternatives to address the traffic flow. Testimony of C. Mason. The Applicant was not allowed to connect to Boone Avenue, access to which is controlled by Spokane County. See id.; see also Testimony of M. Elaarg. Under the circumstances, the Hearing Examiner concludes that the project should be approved as designed, despite the concerns expressed about density and traffic. DECISION A. SEPA Appeal Based on the findings and conclusions above, it is the decision of the Hearing Examiner that the mitigation provision in the MDNS to conduct a Cultural Survey is valid. The appeal is denied. B. Preliminary Plat Based on the findings and conclusions above, it is the decision of the Hearing Examiner to approve the proposed preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING DIVISION: 1. The approved preliminary plat shall have a maximum of 21 residential lots unless a preliminary plat modification is approved pursuant to SVMC 20.50 (Preliminary Plat, Short Plat, and Binding Site Plan Alterations). 2. Pursuant to SVMC 20.30.060 (Extensions of Time) an application form and supporting data for time extension requests must be submitted to the Community & Public Works Department at least 30 calendar days prior to the expiration of the preliminary plat approval. Page 15 of 24 3. Pursuant to SVMC 20.20.050 (Prohibition Against Sale, Lease or Transfer of Property) any sale, lease, or transfer of any lot or parcel created pursuant to the SVMC that does not conform to the requirements of the preliminary plat approval or that occurs without approval, shall be considered a violation of Chapter 58.17 RCW, and shall be restrained by injunctive action and shall be illegal, as provided in Chapter 58.17 RCW. Each sale, lease, or transfer of each separate lot or parcel of land in violation of any provision of this ordinance shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense. 4. SVMC 20.20.080 (Professional Land Surveyor) requires the preparation of all preliminary and final subdivisions be made by or under the supervision of a professional land surveyor. The professional land surveyor shall certify on the final plat that it is a true and correct representation of the lands actually surveyed. A survey is required on all final plats. All surveys shall comply with the Survey Recording Act (RCW 58.09), Survey and Land Descriptions (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 332-130). 5. Pursuant to SVMC 20.30.050 (Expiration of Preliminary Approval), stipulates that preliminary plat approval automatically expires five years after preliminary approval is granted unless a time extension is approved for the project. If a request for an extension of time is not submitted and approved, the preliminary approval expires and the preliminary plat is null and void. 6. Pursuant to SVMC 20.40.030 (Filing Short Plat, Plat, or Binding Site Plan) the City of Spokane Valley shall record with the Spokane County Auditor’s Office the final plat, upon receipt of all required signatures on the face of the plat. 7. Pursuant to SVMC 20.80.040 (Recordation), all fees for recording shall be paid by the applicant prior to recording. 8. Submit a final plat application that complies with all submittal requirements specified in SVMC 20.40. 9. Submit a final plat containing the following note on the face of the plat: “All lots within this plat shall comply with the building setback requirements, maximum building height standard, maximum lot coverage standard, and other applicable lot development standards for the R-3 zoning district or successor zoning designation to the extent permitted by Washington State law in effect at the time of building permit application.” 10. Submit a final plat containing the following note on the face of the plat: “Residents within this subdivision may be subject to noise and odor created by the adjacent dog kennel permitted through conditional use permit file number SPE-34-78 and SPE-34A-78.” 11. The dedication for this subdivision shall be consistent with the dedication contained in SHP-2019-0038 and recorded at AFN 6902491. Page 16 of 24 12. Prior to issuance of the Engineered Grading Permit, the developer shall submit a Cultural Resource Survey report completed by a qualified professional to the Spokane Valley Community and Public Works Department. In addition to the report, the developer shall submit evidence of the acceptance/concurrence with the findings in the report from the WSDAHP and the Spokane Tribe of Indians. 13. Upon any discovery of potential or known archaeological resources at the subject property prior to or during future on-site construction, the developer, contractor, and/or any other parties involved in construction shall immediately cease all on-site construction, shall act to protect the potential or known historical and cultural resources area from outside intrusion, and shall notify, within a maximum period of 24 hours from the time of discovery, the City of Spokane Valley Community and Public Works Department of said discovery. SPOKANE VALLEY BUILDING DIVISION 1. The following addresses have been assigned for use in the subdivision. The addresses shall be designated on the final plat: Block / Lot Address Alternate Address Block 1 Lot 1 1004 N Corbin Lane Lot 2 1008 N Corbin Lane Lot 3 1014 N Corbin Lane Lot 4 1018 N Corbin Lane Lot 5 1022 N Corbin Lane Lot 6 1026 N Corbin Lane Lot 7 1028 N Corbin Lane Lot 8 17524 E Desmet Avenue Lot 9 17520 E Desmet Avenue Lot 10 17516 E Desmet Avenue Lot 11 17512 E Desmet Avenue Lot 12 17508 E Desmet Avenue Lot 13 17504 E Desmet Avenue Block 2 Lot 1 17507 E Desmet Avenue 1105 N Corbin Lane Lot 2 1113 N Corbin Lane Lot 3 1112 N Corbin Lane Lot 4 1116 N Corbin Lane Lot 5 17513 E Desmet Avenue 1106 N Corbin Lane Lot 6 17517 E Desmet Avenue Lot 7 17521 E Desmet Avenue Lot 8 17525 E Desmet Avenue SPOKANE VALLEY DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION: 1. A Professional Engineer, licensed in the State of Washington, shall prepare required engineering documents (including civil/street plans, drainage plans, Page 17 of 24 drainage calculations, traffic studies, shared access driveway plans, etc.). Plans shall conform to the 2009 SVSS, or as amended; the 2008 SRSM, or as amended; the SVMC; and all other federal, state, and local regulations, as applicable. 2. Review of civil plans and supporting documents cannot proceed until an application for a Land Disturbance permit has been received. All documents (plans, reports, etc.) shall be submitted through the Spokane Valley Permit Center located at 10210 E Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA. 3. Cataldo Avenue is designated as a Local Access street, and frontage improvements are required per SVSS Chapter 2 and are described below. Existing utilities shall be relocated to 2 feet behind the sidewalk. a. 15-foot of asphalt width from street centerline (crown) to edge of gutter. b. 2-foot wide Type “B” curb and gutter per SVSS Standard Plan R-102. c. 10-foot wide roadside swale per SVSS Standard Plan S-130. The applicant shall install seed/grass in the roadside swale and maintain the swale. d. 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk per SVSS Standard Plan R-103. 4. Cataldo Avenue ROW dedication and border easements were established per final short plat SHP-2019-0038 and AFN 6902491. No additional dedications or easements are required along Cataldo Avenue. 5. The internal street, Desmet Avenue, shall be designated and designed as a local access public street per Typical Street Section R-120. Any ROW and/or border easement dedications shall be designated on the final plat language and map. Where streets end at the plat boundary, the ROW and border easements shall continue to the plat boundary. 6. Desmet Avenue improvements shall align with the existing improvements at the east and west plat boundaries. For the western connection of Desmet Avenue, the proposed northern Type “B” curb and gutter shall align with the existing northern Type “A” curb. The southern proposed Type “B” curb and gutter shall extend with a taper to the eastern end of the existing curb return at Tschirley Road. Drainage improvements shall be provided on the south side of Desmet Avenue between the west plat boundary and Tschirley Road. 7. The private internal streets were reviewed to determine the connectivity needs and impacts of the surrounding area. Based on this review, the private streets as proposed meet the minimum requirements of SVSS Section 7.3.2. The private streets shall be designed per SVSS Chapter 7 and Standard Plan R-133. The private streets shall be offset a minimum of 5 feet from the adjacent property lines. Once onsite, the private streets may be located within 2 feet of the adjacent property lines providing that there are no topographical issues. All horizontal curves shall comply with SVSS Table 7.3. 8. The centerline for the private street accessing Desmet Avenue shall be as perpendicular as possible to the centerline of Desmet Avenue with the angle of departure not to exceed 15 degrees for the length of the 25 feet minimum tangent per SVSS 7.5.6. Page 18 of 24 9. A clear view analysis is required at the intersection of the private streets accessing public ROW. A standard driveway approach shall be installed per Std. Plan R-110 to delineate the public to private separation. 10. Lot 1, Block 1 and Lots 1 and 5, Block 2 shall take direct access from the interior private streets. Direct access to the public streets shall only be allowed with the City Engineer’s approval. 11. In accordance with the SVMC, Zoning Regulations (22.50.020 Residential Standards), all residential driveways shall be paved. Private driveways shall conform to SVSS Section 7.3.4. 12. Driveway approach design shall follow the SVSS, or as amended. If an existing approach is to be altered or abandoned, then the unused portion of the original approach shall be removed and replaced with curb, gutter, and sidewalk matching that which is adjacent. 13. All stormwater facilities are to be designed per the SRSM. Linear roadside facilities such as swales shall be located within the ROW and/or border easements when adjacent to public streets or within a tract or easement when adjacent to a private street or driveway serving more than one lot. Non-roadside facilities such as ponds (especially consolidated ponds, which are those receiving runoff from more than one lot) shall be within a tract per SRSM 11.2. 14. A maintenance agreement is required for the perpetual operation and maintenance of the on-site private streets and associated facilities including but not limited to the stormwater systems at the end of the service life of the respective components, and any other improvements that may be legally required in the future. The maintenance agreement shall be accepted and recorded prior to approval of the final plat. 15. For the General Construction Notes use those in the SVSS Appendix 4A rather than those in the SRSM Appendix 3B. 16. Show all utilities and utility easements (i.e. telephone, power, etc.). The permittee is responsible for arranging all utility adjustments, improvements, or relocations as required for completion of the project. All rigid objects shall be located out of the clear zone. The clear zone requirements can be found in the SVSS, or as amended. The permittee shall contact every utility purveyor impacted by the project and conduct the following: a. Discuss with the purveyor the proposed work including private services, utility improvements, and any relocations and adjustments as well as the costs for these activities; b. When utility relocations are required, obtain from the purveyor a written statement that they acknowledge and concur with or have alternatives for the needed work; and c. Forward a copy of the statement to Spokane Valley Development Engineering. Receipt of statements will be required prior to plan approval. Page 19 of 24 17. If sewer and/or water needs to be brought to the properties and to do this requires an Engineering design, copies of the approved sewer and water plans shall be submitted to Development Engineering. The civil plans for the project shall show the extents of pavement removal and replacement. 18. All new dry wells and other injection wells shall be registered with the Underground Injection Control program (UIC) at Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) prior to use and the discharge from the well(s) must comply with the ground water quality requirement (nonendangerment standard) at the top of the ground water table. Contact the UIC staff at UIC Program, WSDOE, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600, (360) 407-6143 or go to: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/grndwtr/uic/UIConlineregis.html for registration forms and further information. Copies of the registration for drywells, which receive public road stormwater runoff, shall be sent to Development Engineering. The City of Spokane Valley National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Number is WAR04-6507. 19. A Construction Stormwater Permit will need to be obtained from WSDOE if both of the following two conditions apply: a. Construction project disturbs one or more acres of land (area is the cumulative acreage of the entire project whether in a single or in a multiphase project); and b. If there is a possibility that stormwater could run off the site during construction and into surface waters or into conveyance systems leading to surface waters of the state. Construction site operators must apply for a permit 60 days prior to discharging stormwater. More information can be obtained from http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/construction/ 20. A pre-construction conference with Development Engineering is required prior to the start of construction. During this meeting, standards and submittal requirements for the Construction Certification will be given to the project engineer/inspector. 21. For construction affecting public ROW, 48 hours prior to construction securely post a sign at each ingress to the project area. The sign(s) shall be clearly visible from the right-of-way and provide project construction details. See SVSS Section 9.7. 22. Permits are required for any access to or work within the ROW of the Spokane Valley roadway system. A traffic control plan shall accompany the ROW obstruction permit. 23. NOTICE – The Regional Pavement Cut Policy may prevent or limit pavement cuts in the adjacent street(s). There is a three-year moratorium on pavement cuts for newly paved streets. Please contact the City ROW inspector 720-5025 for further information. 24. The Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) structures (such as filter fence, silt ponds, and silt traps) shall be installed prior to the start of site work and maintained throughout the duration of construction and until the site has stabilized. Page 20 of 24 25. All survey monuments shall be protected during construction. Any disturbed or damaged monuments shall be replaced prior to certification/final plat and/or release of surety. 26. Construction within the proposed public streets and easements shall be performed under the direct supervision of a licensed Washington State Professional Engineer/Land Surveyor. All work is subject to inspection by the City Senior Development Engineer or by his staff. 27. Upon completion of the improvements, a Construction Certification package and record drawings are required for the improvements and shall be submitted and approved prior to Final Plat approval according to SVSS Chapter 9. 28. All public improvements shall provide a Performance/Warranty Surety per SVSS Chapter 9. The City accepts Letters of Credit, Cash Savings Assignments, and Bonds for Warranty Sureties. Bonds are not accepted for Performance Sureties. 29. The existing Performance Surety for SUB-2019-0029 will be released with the issuance of the proposed civil plans. 30. ROW dedication and border easements shall be designated on the final plat map. 31. The maintenance agreement recording numbers shall be referenced on the face of the Final Plat. 32. Plat language will be determined at the time of final plat submittal. Contact Development Engineering after civil plan approval and/or prior to first submittal of final plat to obtain plat language. SPOKANE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1. As per the development regulations/zoning code of the governing authority as amended, the dedication shall state: “Public sewers shall be constructed to provide for the connection of each parcel to the County’s system of sewerage. Uses on properties within the project shall be required to connect to the sewer and pay applicable charges per the County Sewer Ordinance. Sewer connection permits shall be required. All existing uses, not currently connected to the sanitary sewer system, are required to be connected.” 2. As per the development regulations/zoning code of the governing authority as amended, security shall be deposited with the SCES for the construction of the public sewer connection and facilities and for the prescribed warranty period. Security shall be in a form acceptable to the SCES and in accordance with the Spokane County Sanitary Sewer Ordinance. 3. Applicant shall submit expressly to SCES “under separate cover,” only those plan sheets showing sewer plans and specifications for the public sewer connections and facilities for review and approval. Commercial developments shall submit Page 21 of 24 historical and or estimated water usage as part of the sewer plan submittal. Prior to plan submittal, the developer is required to contact Chris Knudson, Jenn Bruner, or Colin Depner at 477-3604 to discuss the details of the sewer plans. Once submitted, the sewer plan may require revised and or additional plat comments to be addressed. 4. Any water service for this project shall be provided in accordance with the Coordinated Water System Plan for Spokane County, as amended. SPOKANE REGIONAL HEALTH DISTRICT 1. The final plat shall be designed as indicated on the preliminary plat of record and/or any attached sheets as noted. 2. Appropriate utility easements shall be indicated on copies of the preliminary plat of record for distribution by the Planning Department to the utility companies, Spokane Valley Engineer, and the SRHD. 3. Sewage disposal method shall be as authorized by the Director of Environmental Services, Spokane County. 4. Water service shall be coordinated through the Director of Environmental Services, Spokane County. 5. Water service shall be by an existing public water supply when approved by the Regional Engineer (Spokane), WSDOH. 6. Prior to filing the final plat, the sponsor shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the SRHD that an adequate and potable water supply is available to each lot of the plat. 7. Prior to filing the final plat, the sponsor shall present evidence that the plat lies within the recorded service area of the water system proposed to serve the plat. 8. A public sewer system will be made available for the plat and individual service will be provided to each lot prior to sale. Use of individual on-site sewage disposal shall not be authorized. 9. A statement shall be placed in the dedication to the effect that: “A public sewer system will be made available for the plat and individual service will be provided to each lot prior to sale. Use of individual on-site sewage disposal systems shall not be authorized.” 10. The dedicatory language on the plat shall state: “Use of private wells and water systems is prohibited.” Page 22 of 24 11. The final plat dedication shall contain the following statement: “The public water system, pursuant to the Water Plan approved by County and State health authorities, the local fire protection district, City of Spokane Valley and water purveyor, shall be installed within this subdivision, and the applicant shall provide for individual domestic water service as well as fire protection to each lot prior to sale of each lot and prior to issuance of a building permit for each lot.” SPOKANE VALLEY FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. Hydrant spacing is adequate, no new hydrants are required. a. Existing hydrants are located on the plat to the east at the SE corner of Desmet & Viewmont and at the NE corner of Cataldo & Viewmont. 2. Turnaround appears adequate as drawn, shall be verified as part of grading review. a. Turnaround on Corbin Lane shall be verified via AutoTurn analysis of a Bus-45. 3. Private driveway/roads shall meet current driveway standards. Provide detailed plan showing turning radius of driveway and the driveway width. (Minimum 20 foot driving surface and 30 feet turning radius.) 4. Access road must meet grading requirements. (No grades greater than 10%.) 5. Fire apparatus access road/driveway and turnaround shall be posted as “No Parking – Fire Lane.” a. Access 20 to 26 ft., signs posted both sides b. Access 26 to 32 ft., signs posted one side (preferably west side of Corbin Lane) 6. Road names require approval and shall coincide with established road names in the surrounding road grid. Recommend: “N Corbin Ln” for new North-South roads. 7. Addresses shall be posted so they are visible from access road during and after construction. Numbers shall be a minimum 4” tall and contrasting to background. New street signs shall be provided at new intersections. 8. If gates are proposed a “to-scale” drawing shall be submitted. (Minimum width 20 feet.) Private driveways/roads shall meet current driveway standards. Provide a detailed plan showing turning radius of driveway and the driveway width. A minimum 20-foot driving surface and 30-foot turning radius is required. AVISTA UTILITIES 1. Include the following language in the plat dedication: “Utility easements shown on the herein described plat are hereby dedicated for the use of serving utility companies for the construction, reconstruction, maintenance, protection, inspection and operation of their respective facilities, together with the right to prohibit changes in grade over installed underground facilities, the right to Page 23 of 24 trim and/or remove trees, bushes, landscaping, without compensation and the right to prohibit structures that may interfere with the construction, reconstruction, reliability, maintenance, and safe operation of same. Serving Utility companies are also granted the right to install utilities across future acquisition areas, border easements and private roads.” WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 1. Section n B.1.f indicates minor erosion could occur at areas of soil disturbance on site. WSDOE encourages the applicant to implement and maintain Best Management Practices to prevent sediment laden construction stormwater from leaving the site, to include sediment tracked off site. Discharging without a Construction Stormwater General Permit violates RCW 90.48.160. For technical assistance or additional information, please contact Shannon Adams at (509) 329-3610 or via email at Shannon.Adams@ecy.wa.gov. 2. The project description for the Willow View Subdivision and Sections A14, B.3.c, and B.3.d indicate the use of swales and drywells to treat stormwater runoff. The applicant must register all dry wells installed to receive stormwater runoff with WDOE’s UIC Program. Registration must occur 60-days before construction of the drywell. Access this information and register online at https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Guidance-technical-assistance/Underground-injection-control-program/UIC-registration-requirements-information. 3. In addition, discharge from the well(s) must comply with the ground water quality requirement (non-endangerment standard) at the top of the ground water table. If you have questions or need further assistance, please contact Llyn Doremus, Eastern Regional Office UIC Coordinator at (509) 329-3518 or via email at Llyn.Doremus@ecy.wa.gov. 4. (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/eastern_manual/manual.html). All ground disturbed by construction activities must be stabilized. When appropriate, use native vegetation typical of the site. 5. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for the project site may be required and should be developed by a qualified person(s). Erosion and sediment control measures in the plan must be implemented prior to any clearing, grading, or construction. These control measures must be effective to prevent soil from being carried into surface water by stormwater runoff. Sand, silt, and soil can damage aquatic habitat and are considered pollutants. The plan must be upgraded as necessary during the construction period. 6. The water purveyor must ensure that the proposed use(s) remain within the limitations of its water rights. If the proposal’s actions differ from the existing water right (source, purpose, the place of use, or period of use), then the applicant must obtain approval from WSDOE, pursuant to Sections 90.03.380 RCW and 90.44.100 RCW. Page 24 of 24 DATED this 17th day of September, 2020. Brian T. McGinn City of Spokane Valley Hearing Examiner c/o City of Spokane Office of the Hearing Examiner 808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd. Spokane WA 99201 509-625-6010 hearingexaminer@spokanecity.org NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Pursuant to Chapter 17.90 of the SVMC and RCW Chapter 36.70C, the decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application for a preliminary plat and an appeal of an MDNS is final and conclusive unless within 21 calendar days from the date of issuance of the Hearing Examiner’s decision, a party with standing files a land use petition in Superior Court pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.70C. On September 17, 2020, a copy of this decision will be mailed by regular mail to the Applicant and to all government agencies and persons entitled to notice under SVMC 17.80.130(4). Pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.70C, the date of issuance of the Hearing Examiner’s decision is three (3) days after it is mailed. The date of issuance of the Hearing Examiner’s decision will be September 21, 2020. THE APPEAL CLOSING DATE FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAT DECISION IS OCTOBER 12, 2020. The complete record in this matter is on file during and after the appeal period at the City of Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department-Building and Planning Division, located at 10210 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206; by contacting staff 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. Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130, affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation.