Loading...
APP-2020-0004 SUB-2019-0004 Decision Final.pdf Page 1 of 32 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER Re: Application by Whipple Consulting Engineers on behalf of Viking Builders, LLC, for Riverbend at Mission Subdivision to divide one parcel into 25 residential lots on approximately 4.67 acres in an R-3 zone ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION File Nos. SUB-2019-0004 & APP-2020-0004 I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL AND DECISION Proposal: The Applicant seeks approval of a subdivision to create 25 residential lots on approximately 4.67 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 SEPA appeal is sustained. The condition imposed in the MDNS was clearly erroneous and is invalid. The preliminary plat is approved, with revised conditions. II. BACKGROUND/FINDINGS OF FACT A. General Information Applicant: Ray Kimball Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. 21 South Pines Road Spokane Valley WA 99206 Property Owner: Viking Builders, LLC 19425 East Broadway Avenue Spokane Valley WA 99016 Property Location: The property is located south of the intersection of Corbin Lane and Mission Avenue, approximately 1,200 feet west of Flora Road. The property is situated in the NE ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 18, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Legal Description: The full legal description of the property is set forth in the Riverbend at Mission Preliminary Plat, which is included in the record as Exhibit 6. The site is designated as Tax Parcel No. 55182.0108. Zoning: Single-Family Residential Urban District (R-3) Comprehensive Plan Map Designation: Single-Family Residential (SFR) Page 2 of 32 Environmental Review: An MDNS was issued by the City of Spokane Valley on April 3, 2020. On April 16, 2020, the Applicant filed an appeal of the MDNS. This decision concerns both the underlying application for subdivision approval and the appeal of the threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Site Description: The site is 4.67 acres and currently vacant. The site is irregular in shape, but the shape does not present especially difficult challenges to development of the site. There are no structures on the site. The terrain is generally flat with slopes up to 8%. There are trees, grass, weeds, and shrubs on the property. There are no streams, wetlands, or other water features on the site. The parcel has 180 feet of frontage on Mission Avenue. Surrounding Conditions: The property is surrounded on all sides by land that is zoned R-3. To the west and south of the site are single-family residences on larger lots, approximately 1 to 2.5 acres in size. To the east are single-family residences and the Riverbend Elementary School. To the north is Mission Avenue and an area developed with single-family homes. Project Description: The subdivision will divide one parcel into 25 residential lots on approximately 4.67 acres (the “Project”). The residential lots will have an average size of 6,572 square feet. The site has approximately 180 feet of frontage on Mission Avenue, which will provide access to the site. Two new local access streets (Corbin Road and Maxwell Avenue) will be extended through the subdivision and built to public street standards. Mission Avenue was recently improved through a City Capital Improvement Project (CIP) to include asphalt paving, curb, sidewalk, stormwater infrastructure, and landscaping, completed in April 2019. No right-of-way (ROW) dedications or frontage improvements are required along Mission Avenue to support this proposal. B. Procedural Information Approval Criteria: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan (“CP”) Chapter 4 – Land Use; Title 19 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) - Zoning Regulations; Title 20 SVMC – Subdivisions; Title 21 SVMC – Environmental Controls; 2009 City of Spokane Valley Street Standards (SVSS); 2008 Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual (SRSM); and Spokane Regional Health District (SRHD) regulations. Hearing Date: June 3, 2020 Notice of Application: Mailed: December 6, 2019 Publication: December 6, 2019 Notice of Public Hearing: Mailed: May 19, 2020 Posted: May 13, 2020 Published: May 15 & 22, 2020 Site Visit: June 1, 2020 Page 3 of 32 Testimony: Karen Kendall, Planner City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Taudd A. Hume Parsons Burnett Bjordahl Hume LLP Steam Plant Square, Suite 225 159 S. Lincoln Spokane, WA 99201 Erik J. Lamb, Deputy City Attorney City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Todd Whipple Whipple Consulting Engineers 21 S. Pines Road Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Jeremy Clark, Senior Traffic Engineer City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Ray Kimball Whipple Consulting Engineers 21 S. Pines Road Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Chris Breiland Fehr & Peers 1001 4th Avenue, Suite 4120 Seattle, WA 98154 Preliminary Plat Exhibits: Staff Report, including: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Comprehensive Plan Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial Map 5. Application Submittal 6. Preliminary Plat Map of Record 7. Notice of Application Materials 8. SEPA Determination & Concurrency 9. SEPA Checklist 10. Trip Generation and Distribution Letter (TGDL) 11. Notice of Public Hearing Materials 12. Agency Comments 13. Staff Report PowerPoint Presentation 14. Additional Comments from the Washington State Department of Health (WSDOH) 15. Avista’s Response to Request to Applicant’s Request to Move Utilities to ROW 16. Applicant’s Rebuttal to Avista’s Response SEPA Appeal Exhibits: 17. Appeal Application dated April 14, 2020 18. City’s Motion Requesting Briefing Schedule date May 12, 2020 19. Hearing Examiner’s Order Setting Briefing Schedule dated May 13, 2020 20. Appellant’s Prehearing Brief dated May 20, 2020 Page 4 of 32 21. City’s Prehearing Brief dated May 27, 2020, including: A Declaration of Chris Breiland dated May 27, 2020 B Declaration of Jeremy Clark dated May 26, 2020 C Declaration of Ryan Kipp dated May 26, 2020 22. Hearing Examiner’s Hearing Agenda issued May 28, 2020 23. City’s Motion and Supplemental Declaration dated June 2, 2020 III. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS A. SEPA Appeal 1. Background Facts On September 26, 2019, the Applicant’s Traffic Engineer issued its original TGDL for the Project. See Exhibit 10 (Letter of T. Whipple September 26, 2019). The TGDL confirmed that the proposal was to subdivide approximately 4.67 acres into 25 residential lots. See id. The TGDL states that the Project will produce 25 PM peak-hour trips. See id, p. 3. The TGDL states that approximately 30% of the PM peak-hour trips will travel to or from the east via Mission Avenue, intersecting with Barker Road. See id, p.4. This is equivalent to approximately 7.5 trips of the 25 total during the PM peak-hour. The remaining 70% of the trips (approximately 17.5 trips) will travel to or from the west via Mission Avenue, intersecting with Flora. See id. Of the 70%, 30% (approximately 7.5 trips) will travel to the south on Flora, and 40% (approximately 10 trips) will continue west on Mission Avenue. See id. After presenting his analysis of the anticipated traffic, the Applicant’s Traffic Engineer concluded: While the project trips will add to the traffic volumes of the transportation system, these trips will have a minimal impact on the existing transportation system. Therefore, we recommend that the project complete frontage improvements on Mission Avenue and be allowed to move forward without further traffic analysis. See id, p.5. On December 18, 2019, the City’s Traffic Engineer sent an e-mail requesting changes to the TGDL. See Exhibit 10 (Letter of B. Goodmansen December 31, 2019). The City’s Traffic Engineer requested, among other things, that the TGDL include language acknowledging that “…this development is part of the South Barker Corridor Study area and qualifies to participate in a voluntary impact fee of $1,486 per PM peak hour trip rather than complete a TIA.” See id. On December 31, 2019, the Applicant’s Traffic Engineer issued the second TGDL for the Project. See Exhibit 10 (Letter of T. Whipple December 31, 2019). The second TGDL states that the Project will produce 27 PM peak-hour trips, two more trips that originally described. See id, p. 3. Page 5 of 32 The TGDL then reiterates that approximately 30% of the PM peak-hour trips will travel to or from the east via Mission Avenue. See id, p.4. In other words, approximately 8 PM peak-hour trips will travel to or from the east on Mission Avenue. The remaining 70% of the trips (approximately 19 trips) will travel to or from the west via Mission Avenue, intersecting with Flora. See id. Of those trips, 30% (approximately 8 trips) will travel to the south on Flora; and 40% (approximately 11 trips) will continue west on Mission Avenue. See id. The Applicant’s Traffic Engineer revised his recommendation in the second TGDL. As requested by the City, the Applicant’s Traffic Engineer acknowledged that the Project is part of the South Barker Corridor Study area and qualifies to participate in a voluntary impact fee of $1,486 per PM peak hour trip. See id, p.5. The Applicant’s Traffic Engineer then concluded as follows: While the project trips will add to the traffic volumes of the transportation system, these trips will have a minimal impact on the existing transportation system. Therefore, we recommend that the project pay the $11,888 voluntary impact fee, in lieu of a traffic study, complete frontage improvements on Mission Avenue and be allowed to move forward without further traffic analysis. See id, p.5. The Applicant’s Traffic Engineer disagreed with the City’s request for a mitigation payment. See Testimony of T. Whipple & R. Kimball. The Applicant’s Traffic Engineer revised the TGDL in an effort to accommodate the City’s position. See id. On January 7, 2020, the City’s Traffic Engineer advised the Applicant that the TGDL should be revised to account for the following: The South Barker Corridor Study fee applies to all developments within the study area. As a result, the expected fee is $1,486 for each of the 27 trips generated during the PM peak hour; or $40,122. See Exhibit 10 (Letter of B. Goodmansen March 13, 2020). The Applicant responded that the City should “dictate the appropriate fee in the MDNS.” See id. The communications from the City’s Traffic Engineer sparked the disagreement between the Applicant and the City, and resulted in about a 2 ½ month delay of the Project. Testimony of R. Kimball. The language in the TGDL, recommending payment of the mitigation fee, came from the City Traffic Engineer. See id. This language was included in the final TGDL because the Applicant believed the City would not allow the Project to move forward “unless we agreed to their level of voluntary mitigation.” Testimony of T. Whipple. However, the Applicant also determined that they would seek review of the requirement by appealing the SEPA. Testimony of R. Kimball. On March 13, 2020, the Applicant’s Traffic Engineer issued the third and final TGDL for the Project. See Exhibit 10 (Letter of T. Whipple March 13, 2020). The analysis in the TGDL did not change. However, the recommendation paragraph was revised to state as follows: Page 6 of 32 While the project trips will add to the traffic volumes of the transportation system, these trips will have a minimal impact on the existing transportation system. This development is within the South Barker Corridor Study area and qualifies to participate in a voluntary mitigation fee of $1,486 per PM peak-hour trip. Therefore, we recommend that the project pay the appropriate voluntary impact fee, in lieu of a traffic study, complete frontage improvements on Mission Avenue and be allowed to move forward without further traffic analysis. See id, p. 4. On April 3, 2020, the City of Spokane Valley issued the MDNS for the Project. See Exhibit 8. The MDNS provides that any appeal of the determination is due within fourteen (14) days of the date of issuance. See id. As a result, the last day to appeal the MDNS was April 17, 2020. On April 14, 2020, the Applicant appealed the MDNS to the Hearing Examiner. See Exhibit 17. In the appeal, the Applicant contended that (1) the traffic mitigation fee is excessive and disproportionate to the impact; and (2) the alternative requirement to conduct a Traffic Improvement Analysis (TIA) is beyond the requirements of the SVSS. See id. On June 3, 2020, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing to consider both the SEPA appeal and the underlying application for a preliminary plat. 2. The Riverbend at Mission Subdivision does not (a) generate 20 or more peak hour trips through an arterial intersection; or (b) result in traffic impacts to a local access intersection. Therefore, a TIA is not required pursuant to the SVSS. The MDNS requires the Applicant to complete a TIA for the proposed subdivision. In lieu of completing the TIA, the Applicant may elect to pay the voluntary mitigation fee calculated by the City. Short of making that payment, however, the TIA must be completed or the plat will be denied for failing to satisfy the SEPA condition. The first issue on appeal, then, is whether the TIA requirement is proper. The Hearing Examiner agrees with the Applicant that the TIA is not required under the terms of the SVSS1. The Hearing Examiner is convinced the City clearly erred in imposing that condition. 2.1 The Applicant is not required to prepare a TIA under the terms of Section 3.4.1(a) of the SVSS. Section 3.4.1(a) of the SVSS provides that a TIA is required for: Projects adding 20 or more peak-hour trips to an intersection of arterial streets, within a one-mile radius of the project site as shown by the trip generation and distribution letter… See SVSS 3.4.1(a). 1 The SVSS were adopted by reference into the SVMC. See SVMC 22.130.040. Page 7 of 32 The Hearing Examiner concludes that a TIA is not justified under the terms of SVSS 3.4.1(a). See Exhibit 20, p. 4. The Project generates 27 PM peak-hour trips. See Exhibit 10 (Letter of T. Whipple March 13, 2020, p. 3). Approximately 30% of those 27 trips will travel to/from the Barker corridor, east of the Project. See id, p. 4. In other words, approximately 8 PM peak trips will travel to or from the site to the Barker Road Corridor. The only intersection of arterial streets that is on the distribution route and within one mile of the Project is Barker and Mission. However, the Project does not add more than 8 trips to that intersection. As a result, Section 3.4.1(a) does not apply to this case. The City conceded as much during the hearing. Therefore, if a TIA is required for this project, the justification must be derived from Section 3.4.1(b). 2.2 Section 3.4.1(b) of the SVSS does not require the Applicant to prepare a TIA for the Project. Section 3.4.1(b) of the SVSS provides that a TIA must be prepared for: Projects impacting local access intersections, alleys, or driveways located within an area with a current traffic problem as identified by the City or previous traffic study, such as a high-accident location, poor roadway alignment or capacity deficiency. See SVSS 3.4.1(b). Section 3.4.1(b) does not identify a numeric trip threshold that triggers a TIA requirement. As relevant here, that provision states that a TIA is required for projects impacting local access intersections located within an area with a current traffic problem. In its briefing, the Applicant conceded that the Barker Road Corridor is an area with a “current traffic problem.” See Exhibit 20, p. 4. At the hearing, however, the Applicant’s traffic engineers took a difference position, contending no “current” deficiency existed. See Testimony of T. Whipple & R. Kimball. The Hearing Examiner disagrees. By the time the Applicant advanced this argument, the point had already been generally conceded. In any event, the South Barker Corridor Study was commissioned to address the capacity issues of Barker Road. The study considers traffic problems and the improvement needed to address those problems. The Hearing Examiner concludes that the Barker Road Corridor is an “area with a current traffic problem,” which was both “identified by the City” as well as delineated in a “previous study,” as contemplated by Section 3.4.1(b). Whether the Project actually contributes to those deficiencies or should share in the costs of a remedy is a separate matter. The City of Spokane Valley contended that the TIA was required because the Project impacts three local access intersections on the Barker Road Corridor. See Exhibit 21, p. 6. The City’s Senior Traffic Engineer2 explained that a “local access intersection” occurs 2 Originally, Mr. Clark was a traffic engineer with David Evans & Associates, working for the City of Spokane Valley under contract. See Exhibit 21B. During the pendency of this matter, Mr. Clark was hired by the City as its Senior Traffic Engineer. See Exhibit 23. Page 8 of 32 when a non-classified street intersects with another non-classified street or a classified street. See Exhibit 21B (Dec of J. Clark ¶ 8). There are three such intersections on Barker Road south of Mission Avenue: Maxwell, Sinto, and Sharp. See id. The Project will result in 8 PM peak-hour trips traveling east to the intersection of Barker Road and Mission Avenue. See id, ¶ 7. Of those 8 trips, approximately one-third will head south on Barker Road. See id. In other words, about 3 trips will travel south and cross the intersections Maxwell, Sinto, and Sharp. The City’s Senior Traffic Engineer opined: Any additional trip upon a roadway creates an impact on that roadway and the streets intersecting that roadway. When a trip is added to a congested roadway segment, such as Barker Road between Mission Avenue and I-90, it adds both time and difficulty to individuals attempting to turn onto Barker Road from one of the local streets and/or driveways lining Barker Road. See id, ¶ 9 (emphasis added). Based upon both the TGDL and the Barker Road Corridor Study, the Senior Traffic Engineer concluded that “…there would be impacts on local access intersections within an area of an identified traffic problem.” See id, ¶ 10. These points were reiterated in the testimony of the Senior Traffic Engineer as well as the contract traffic engineer who prepared the study. See Testimony of J. Clark and C. Breiland. At the hearing, the City further contended there are 8 trips impacting Barker, not just 3, because all 8 trips affect the intersection of Barker and Mission. Even if this case only concerned 3 trips, the mitigation condition is still proper, the City argued. The City pointed out that mitigation fees were upheld in Town & Country for an even lower percentage of trips. See City of Federal Way v. Town & Country Real Estate, LLC, 161 Wn.App. 17, 252 P.2d 382 (2011). In any case, the City emphasized that the study provided a comprehensive analysis of the corridor and an appropriate model to charge developers for all 27 trips within the study area. See Testimony of C. Breiland. The collection of the mitigation fee in this manner, the City insisted, is consistent with the conclusions reached in Trimen. See Trimen Development Co. v. King County, 124 Wn.2d 261, 877 P.2d 187 (1994). The Applicant, on the other hand, contended that the proposed subdivision had no impact on any local access intersections, alleys, or driveways on the Barker Road Corridor. See Exhibit 20, p. 4; Testimony of T. Whipple & R. Kimball. The Applicant emphasized that only 8 trips travel east on Mission to intersect with Barker Road, and of those 8 trips, only 3 trips turn south to intersect with any local access intersections. According to the Applicant and its engineers, there is no measurable impact from such a small number of trips, under standard traffic analysis. The Applicant also emphasized that the City has not adopted an impact fee ordinance. Thus, the cases upholding mitigation fees collected pursuant to a formally adopted impact fee ordinance are not applicable. The Hearing Examiner agrees with the Applicant, for a range of reasons. Initially, the Hearing Examiner emphasizes that he does not agree with the premise advanced by the City that “any additional trip” on a roadway qualifies as an “impact” that triggers the requirement for a TIA. Under this reasoning, a single trip crossing a local access intersection, even if that trip had no detectible effect on the capacity of the intersection, Page 9 of 32 has a de facto “impact” that mandates a full TIA. The Hearing Examiner does not believe such a conclusion is consistent with the terms or intent of the SVSS. The term “impact” is not defined in the SVSS or the municipal code, by the Hearing Examiner’s review. Looking to a common dictionary, the verb “impact” can be defined3 to mean “to have a direct effect or impact on…” However, the word impact cannot be considered in isolation from its context. This case is about traffic impacts, which in most cases are tied to an analysis of the capacity or safety of the existing transportation infrastructure, and how the additional trips affect that capacity or safety. This is evident from the language of Section 3.4.1(b) itself, which provides examples of the traffic problems that are germane, i.e. high accident counts, poor roadway alignment, or capacity deficiency. However, as the Applicant noted, this record does not contain any evidence of a high-accident location or poor roadway alignment. The City did not contend that either of these conditions were present. The material issue in this case, therefore, is roadway capacity. The City contended that Barker is impacted by 8 trips, not just 3, because those trips impact the intersection of Barker and Mission. The Hearing Examiner disagrees. Section 3.4.1(a) governs the TIA requirement for an intersection of arterials, such as Barker and Mission. However, Section 3.4.1(a) does not apply because the 8 project trips are below the minimum threshold to require a TIA. This was conceded by the City at oral argument. Because the trips to Barker and Mission cannot give rise to the TIA requirement, the TIA can only be required based upon the trips turning south on Barker, and crossing the “local access intersections.” The Applicant protested that the addition of only 3 trips could not possibly support further analysis, let alone a mitigation fee. The City disagreed, citing to Town & Country for the proposition that Washington courts have upheld mitigation fees for an even lower percentage of trips than the 3 trips described in the TGDL. The Hearing Examiner does not find the City’s argument to be persuasive, in part because its contention relies on percentages instead of trip counts, and this obscures the impact analysis. In Town & Country, the proposed plat would result in 27 additional trips to one location and 27 to 32 trips to another location. See City of Federal Way v. Town & Country Real Estate, LLC, 161 Wn.App. 17, 27 n.13, 252 P.2d 382 (2011). Federal Way demonstrated that those additional trips would contribute to failing levels of service at those locations if the city did not construct traffic improvements. See id., at 56. Here, only 3 trips occur, and those trips are shared among three intersections. There is no evidence that these 3 trips diminish the roadway capacity at Sharp, Maxwell, or Sinto, the local access intersections identified by the City’s Senior Traffic Engineer. In fact, the author of the City’s study conceded that the addition of 3 trips would not have any impact at this time. Testimony of C. Breiland. In Town & Country, the Project resulted in a material number of trips that contributed to failing LOSs at specific locations that were acknolwedged to need improvements to handle the extra load. There is no such evidence in this case. Under the circumstances, Town & Country supports the Applicant’s position, rather than the City’s. 3 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impact#:~:text=%5C%20im%2D%CB%88pakt%20%5C-,impacted%3B%20impacting,from%20Merriam%2DWebster%20on%20impact. Page 10 of 32 The City repeatedly emphasized that the traffic impacts of the Project arise from the 27 PM peak-hour trips, not just the trips that travel to or from Barker. The preparation of a TIA, the City explained, would ensure that all the traffic impacts of the Project were identified and addressed, whether affecting Barker or not. While the City’s position certainly has some merit, the record of this case does not support its claim that a TIA is either required by the SVSS or necessary to address the potential impacts of the Project. The TGDL provided the necessary information for the City to identify the potential impacts of the Project. The TGDL states that the Project results in 27 PM peak-hour trips. Eight of those trips travel to/from Barker Road, as discussed above. The remaining 19 trips travel west on Mission, with 8 trips turning south on Flora and 11 trips continuing west on Mission. The Applicant’s Traffic Engineer testified that the Project would have no impact on any of the intersections within the area. Testimony of T. Whipple. He confirmed that there are no LOS deficiencies on the other parts of the transportation system that are utilized by the Project. See id. He further testified that the City did not assert that there were any traffic deficiencies anywhere other than Barker. See id. At the hearing, the City’s engineers did not contradict Mr. Whipple’s contention that, outside of Barker, the Project caused no impacts. For example, the City did not present any evidence that the 19 trips from the Project caused any measurable impact on any road or intersection in the area. The City did not contend that those roads or intersections had current deficiencies that would be exacerbated by the Project. The City did not claim that the intersection of Mission and Flora, for example, was either a “local access intersection” or that the capacity of that intersection was negatively impacted by the Project. Nor did the City claim that Mission, west of the Project, had an insufficient LOS to accommodate the Project. Perhaps more importantly, the City provided no specific information regarding the alleged impacts to the “local access intersections” on Barker. The City identified only three “local access intersections” that were impacted by the Project, namely: Sharp, Maxwell, or Sinto. There was no information establishing that these intersections suffered from diminished capacity, or that the addition of 3 trips would exacerbate that problem. Instead, the City insisted that adding any trips to the system created an impact and should be subject to mitigation payments, applying the methodology of the South Barker Corridor Study. However, the study does not appear to support the claim that the proposed subdivision actually impacts those particular intersections. The South Barker Corridor Study was prepared, in relevant part, to identify potential traffic improvement projects on Barker Road between Mission Avenue and the City’s southern boundary. See South Barker Corridor Study, 2/7/2020, p. 3. However, none of the “local access intersections” that are allegedly impacted by the Project are the subject of such transportation improvements. Sharp, Maxwell, and Sinto are not among the 10 intersections specifically addressed within the study area. See South Barker Corridor Study, 2/7/2020, pp. 3 & 10 (Figure 3). In addition, as the Applicant’s Traffic Engineer pointed out, in accordance with City standards, an LOS E is acceptable for unsignalized intersections, while and LOS F is permitted “if peak hour traffic signal warrant is unmet.” See South Barker Corridor Study, 2/7/2020, p. 8. In any event, there is no evidence suggesting that the Project causes these intersections to operate at an unacceptable level. Page 11 of 32 At the hearing, the City raised a new claim that the Project also impacted the intersection of Barker and Boone Avenue. The City pointed out that Boone Avenue is operating at a LOS F and cannot support additional traffic. The Hearing Examiner is not convinced by this argument, for at least three reasons. First, the City’s arguments and declarations did not identify Boone as one of the “local access intersections” triggering the TIA requirement. The Applicant’s Traffic Engineer testified that the City never mentioned Boone intersections previously. Testimony of T. Whipple. This was not refuted by the City. The Hearing Examiner is reluctant to give the contention significant weight, under the circumstances. Second, the Applicant’s Traffic Engineer testified that 3 trips would not have a measurable impact on the intersections along Barker, including Boone. Testimony of T. Whipple. The study’s author argued that 3 trips were measurable, but he conceded that such a small number would be “lost in the noise,” and could not be individually tracked. Testimony of C. Breiland. He also conceded that the 3 trips would not have any impact at this time. See id. He did maintain that those trips would have a “cumulative” impact, over time, which supported a mitigation payment given the study’s methodology, but that is a separate issue. Third, the South Barker Corridor Study does not support the claim that the Project will impact Boone Avenue. It is true that, according to the study, Boone Avenue operates at a LOS F. See South Barker Corridor Study, 2/7/2020, p. 11 (Figure 4). However, as Mr. Kimball argued, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is currently making improvements4 to the interchange, which includes measures to address the deficiency at Boone Avenue. See South Barker Corridor Study, 2/7/2020, pp. 13-15. Once those improvement are completed, Boone Avenue will operate at an LOS E. See South Barker Corridor Study, 2/7/2020, p. 15 (Figure 5). This is an acceptable level of service for an unsignalized intersection, as discussed above. Certainly, 3 trips will not move the needle on the LOS, let alone drop it sufficiently to warrant specific mitigation. 2.3 The final TGDL does not constitute an admission that the Project has impacts on the Barker Road Corridor or that the mitigation fees were appropriate. The City emphasized, at various times, that the Applicant’s Traffic Engineer signed and sealed the final TGDL, which acknowledged that the Project was subject to the mitigation fee set forth in the study. As a result, the City argued, the Applicant admitted that the Project resulted in impacts that justify the fee specified in the MDNS. The Hearing Examiner disagrees. The original TGDL concluded that no mitigation, other than frontage improvements, was needed for this project. The Traffic Engineer’s opinion never changed. The language relied upon by the City as an “admission” was drafted by the City. The City insisted on its inclusion in the letter. Only when it became clear that the City would accept nothing less than the full payment for all 27 trips, per the study, was this language inserted. Testimony of T. Whipple. At that point, the Applicant decided to seek relief on appeal, rather than 4 The costs of the WSDOT interchange project are being paid from some other source. Those costs are not the subject of the mitigation fees discussed in the South Barker Corridor Study. Page 12 of 32 continue to stall the Project arguing about the mitigation demand. Testimony of T. Whipple and R. Kimball. The City did not refute this description of the sequence of events, and the three TGDL versions and communications between the parties appear to corroborate this understanding. See Exhibit 10. The Hearing Examiner concludes that the TGDL does not constitute an “admission.” The TGDL merely incorporates the condition required by the City—the same condition that is included in the MDNS. The Applicant timely appealed that condition and, therefore, has the right to adjudicate the issue. The City did not cite to any authority concluding that the Traffic Engineer’s signature and seal on the TGDL constitutes a binding “admission” or a waiver of the right to appeal the matter. And, it is clear that neither the Applicant nor its engineers actually agreed with the City that the mitigation fee was proper. It would be form over substance, in the Hearing Examiner’s view, to rule otherwise. 2.4 The MDNS condition requiring the preparation of a TIA for this subdivision was clearly erroneous. The Hearing Examiner concludes that the City’s decision to require the Applicant to prepare a TIA was clearly erroneous. Section 3.4.1(a) does not apply because the number of trips traveling to or from Barker and Mission is insufficient to trigger a TIA. The Applicant’s TGDL establishes that only 3 trips actually traverse through a “local access intersection,” and those trips are spread across three intersections, four if Boone is also considered. This number of trips is too small to qualify as an “impact” within the meaning the SVSS. There is no evidence that adding 3 trips to the corridor will have any discernable effect on the capacity of that part of the transportation system. Therefore, the TIA requirement of the MDNS is invalid. 3. The voluntary mitigation fee is not reasonably necessary to address the impacts of the proposed subdivision. Pursuant to SEPA and Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 82.02.020, the alternative condition authorizing payment of a voluntary mitigation fee is invalid. In this appeal, the Applicant contends that the traffic mitigation fee is excessive and disproportionate to the impacts of the Project. The Applicant argues that, under SEPA and RCW 82.02.020, a mitigation fee must be proportional to the actual impacts of the Project. The Applicant claims that the City failed to properly identify those impacts or the SEPA policies that support the mitigation fee. According to the Applicant, the City’s mitigation fee is not based upon direct impacts, but rather is akin to a fee calculation made under the auspices of an impact fee ordinance. However, the City of Spokane Valley has not adopted an impact fee ordinance, and cannot legally collect fees using a methodology that assumes such an ordinance exists. The Appellant asserts that all the cases cited by the City in support of its methodology were impact fee cases that have no application here. The City responds that the MDNS merely requires a TIA. As an alternative to preparing a TIA, the Applicant may elect to pay a voluntary mitigation fee. The voluntary mitigation fee, the City notes, is based upon the traffic impacts of the Project, as described by the TGDL, as well as the policies referenced in the MDNS and other environmental documents. In addition, that fee is purely voluntary, since the Applicant can elect to either prepare the TIA or pay the fee. With respect to the impacts, the City cites case law supporting its argument that the cumulative impacts of a project are a proper basis for SEPA mitigation measures. Page 13 of 32 The City further contends that none of the cases it cites concern impact fee ordinances. The cases cited by the City, it maintains, are grounded in SEPA and demonstrate that the City’s reliance on the South Barker Corridor Study to justify its fee calculation is well supported by the law. 3.1 The City sufficiently set forth the SEPA policies in support of the MDNS, consistent with the statute and the SEPA rules. Therefore, the MDNS is not flawed or invalid on that basis. The Applicant contended that the City failed to identify the specific, adverse environmental impacts of the Project, as required by RCW 43.21C.060 and Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-660. See Exhibit 20, p. 4. The City also failed to cite the SEPA policy that was the basis for the MDNS condition, argued the Appellant. See id. The City responded that it sufficiently identified both the environmental impact at issue as well as the SEPA policies that supported the MDNS condition. See Exhibit 21, p. 8. The Hearing Examiner ultimately concludes that the impacts of the Project are not adequately identified by the City. The reasons for that conclusion are discussed throughout this decision, and need not be reiterated here. Instead, this part of the decision will focus on the Applicant’s second argument, i.e. that the MDNS is fatally flawed because the City did not reference the supporting SEPA policies in the MDNS. With this contention, the Hearing Examiner cannot agree. The City sufficiently identified the SEPA policies underlying its determination to impose mitigating measures. The MDNS cites to WAC 197-11-350, the provision governing the imposition of mitigating measures when issuing a DNS. See Exhibit 8 (MDNS). The Lead Agency Checklist Review states that the Project was evaluated for compliance with SVMC 21.20, the ordinance adopted to implement SEPA. See Exhibit 8 (Lead Agency Checklist Review 4-3-2020); see also SVMC 21.20.010. These references are sufficient to satisfy the intent of WAC 197-11-660. The rule requires that the City identify the relevant SEPA policies in making its decision. The City complied with that admonition. As the City noted, Washington courts agree with this conclusion. In Brinnon, for example, the Court of Appeals held that a reference to a city ordinance that incorporated SEPA’s legislative purposes was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of WAC 197-11-660. See Brinnon Group v. Jefferson County, 159 Wn.App. 446, 484, 245 P.2d 789 (2011). In this case, the City referenced its environmental ordinance when making the decision to impose mitigation measures. And that ordinance incorporated the legislative purposes declared in RCW 43.21C.020. See SVMC 21.20.150(D). Therefore, the conclusion reached in Brinnon applies to this case as well. 3.2 The mitigation fees are “voluntary,” within the meaning of applicable case law. This does not mean, however, that the fee is reasonably necessary to address the direct impacts of the development. The Applicant asserts that once the TIA requirement is removed from the equation, its only choice is to either pay an excessive mitigation fee or be denied. This, the Applicant asserts, cannot be considered “voluntary” and, therefore, the condition is invalid. The Hearing Examiner disagrees. Page 14 of 32 In Trimen, the developer made a similar argument, contending that Trimen’s payment of mitigation fees was not “voluntary” within the meaning of RCW 82.02.020. See Trimen Development Co. v. King County, 124 Wn.2d 261, 270, 877 P.2d 187 (1994). The Court concluded otherwise, explaining that the word “voluntary,” as used in the statute, “means precisely that the developer has the choice of either (1) paying for those reasonably necessary costs that are directly attributable to the developer’s project or (2) losing preliminary plat approval.” See Trimen, 124 Wn.2d at 271 (quoting Cobb v. Snohomish County, 64 Wn.App. 451, 457-58, 829 P.2d 169 (1991)). In other words, the Court rejected the exact argument advanced by the Applicant, i.e. that a choice between payment and project denial cannot be voluntary. Having said that, the issue here is not whether the mitigation fee is “voluntary,” in the common sense meaning of the word. Nor is this a case, like Trimen, where the developer actually paid the fee in full, without protest, and then later complained that the fee was paid under duress. Instead, the material question here is whether the mitigation fee is valid and is reasonably necessary to address the direct impacts of the Project. 5 Characterizing the fee as “voluntary” does not resolve that question, in the Hearing Examiner’s view. 3.3 The mitigation fee is not supported by the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Trimen Development Co. v. King County, 124 Wn.2d 261, 264, 877 P.2d 187 (1994). The City argued that the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Trimen sanctioned the methodology for calculating mitigation fees set forth in the South Barker Corridor Study. The City argued that this case did not concern an impact fee ordinance, but rather supported the imposition of a voluntary mitigation fee. The Applicant, on the other hand, insisted that the case was inapplicable because it concerned an impact fee ordinance. The Hearing Examiner believes an extended discussion of Trimen is necessary to resolve this controversy. In 1981, pursuant to former RCW 58.17.110, King County enacted an Ordinance No. 5596 (codified as KCC 19.38). See Trimen Development Co. v. King County, 124 Wn.2d 261, 264, 877 P.2d 187 (1994). The ordinance had two purposes: (1) to equitably distribute the costs of providing parks, open space, and recreational facilities needed as a result of population increases from subdivisions; and (2) to mitigate any adverse impacts on neighborhoods without adequate parks, open spaces, and recreational facilities when approving new residential development. See Trimen, 124 Wn.2d at 264-65. The ordinance mandated that every final plat was contingent upon the dedication or reservation of adequate open space to serve its residents, or the payment of a fee in-lieu of such dedication or reservation. See Trimen, 124 Wn.2d at 265. The ordinance applied to any subdivision within a defined “park service area.” See id. The amount of land required for dedication or reservation was determined by a formula that considered the gross land area of the subdivision and the zone of the area. See id. The mitigation fee was calculated based on the assessed value of the equivalent amount of land that would have been reserved or dedicated. See id. The collected fee would then be used to acquire or develop 5 It could be argued that a mitigation fee is “involuntary” by definition, if the requested mitigation fee is not reasonably necessary as a direct result of project impacts. Even if that is accepted, the validity of the project condition is still determined by whether the fees are reasonably necessary or not. Thus, the analysis would be the same. Page 15 of 32 parks, open spaces, or recreational facilities within the “park service area” where the subdivision was located. See id. Pursuant to KCC 19.38, as a condition of plat approval, King County required the developer, Trimen Development Company, to either (1) dedicate or reserve land for open space, or (2) pay a fee in lieu of a dedication or reservation of land. See Trimen Development Co. v. King County, 124 Wn.2d 261, 877 P.2d 187 (1994). On appeal, Trimen contended that this condition levied an unauthorized tax in violation of RCW 82.02.020. See Trimen, 124 Wn.2d at 264. The Washington Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the condition was lawful and consistent with RCW 82.02.020. In its action, Trimen contended that KCC 19.38 imposed an unauthorized tax and was invalid on its face under RCW 82.02.020. See Trimen, 124 Wn.2d at 268-69. Trimen argued, among other things, that King County failed to identify a direct impact of its plat in order to justify the mitigation measure it imposed. See Trimen, 124 Wn.2d at 270. In particular, Trimen contended that King County failed to conduct a site-specific analysis to support the plat condition, an omission that violated RCW 82.02.020. See id., at 274. The Court acknowledged that no site-specific analysis was undertaken. Despite this fact, the Court concluded that the plat condition was “reasonably necessary” as a result of Trimen’s development. See id., at 273. In reaching this conclusion, the Court stated that King County had conducted a comprehensive assessment of park needs. See id., at 274. The resulting report indicated that there was a 107-acre deficit of park lands in the area serving Trimen’s development. See id. The report also confirmed that there would be a 300-acre deficit by the year 2000, based upon the projected population. See id. The results of the report informed KCC 19.38, which in turn set forth the basis for the plat condition imposed upon Trimen. The Court explained: Trimen’s proposed subdivisions, with an expected occupancy average of 3 people per each of 112 potential residential units, created a need for an additional 2.52 acres of park land. The dedication or reservation of open space requirement of KCC 19.38, calculated at a reduced, negotiated figure of 5 percent, would have resulted in a 2.096 acres of park and open space land. We conclude therefore that the fees imposed in lieu of dedication were reasonably necessary as a direct result of Trimen’s proposed development. See Trimen, 124 Wn.2d at 274. King County’s fee in lieu of dedication was calculated based on zoning, projected population, and the assessed value of the land to be dedicated or reserved. See id., at 275. Thus, King County’s plat condition was specific to the site. See id. The Court concluded that King County correctly assessed the direct impact of Trimen’s developments on the demand for neighborhood parks, and imposed a fee reasonably necessary to address those impacts. See id., at 275. The Hearing Examiner concludes that Trimen clearly supports the Applicant’s position in this appeal. The case concerned a facial challenge to an impact fee ordinance. That ordinance required every subdivision to contribute an equitable share to the cost of acquisition and development of parks in a defined area. Unlike the circumstances of Trimen, the City has not adopted an ordinance to implement the methodology of the South Barker Corridor Study. It was not even clear that the study was beyond the draft stage. Page 16 of 32 The posture of this appeal, therefore, is materially different than the situation in Trimen. There are other important differences as well. Trimen is not a SEPA case. The impact fee ordinance in Trimen was adopted under the authority of RCW 58.17.110. SEPA is not analyzed or mentioned in that case. As a result, Trimen does not lend support to the City’s contention that its mitigation fee methodology is endorsed by SEPA. At this point, it must be acknowledged that Trimen does not involve a GMA impact fee ordinance. It is an impact fee ordinance of another stripe. The ordinance in Trimen was adopted prior to the 1990 amendments to RCW 82.02.020. See Trimen, 124 Wn.2d at 268 n.4. The 1990 amendments added RCW 82.02.050-090, which thereafter governed the adoption of impact fee ordinances. See id. The 1990 amendments also modified RCW 58.17.110 to incorporate the requirements of RCW 82.02.050-090. See id., at 269 n.5. Trimen, in short, was decided under former law. If that ordinance was adopted today, it would be required to follow the proscriptions of RCW 82.02.050-090. The same is true for the City of Spokane Valley, should it decide to formally adopt the methodology of the South Barker Corridor Study. Trimen is not a traffic impact case. The case does not suggest that a city can charge mitigation fees for all the trips within a defined area, based upon a cumulative impact theory or the general benefits of public improvements. The case concerns park mitigation fees, which are distinguishable to at least some degree. The fee calculation turns on a different set of factors, like population, assessed values, and land utilization. The correlation between these factors and the fees imposed appears to be more direct, in addition to being formally set forth by ordinance. Finally, Trimen supports the conclusion that the City’s mitigation fee is not reasonably necessary to address the direct impacts of the proposed subdivision. In Trimen, the Court found that the proposed subdivision “created a need” for additional park land. The fees imposed were limited to addressing that impact. In this case, the MDNS does not calculate the fees based upon the direct effects of that traffic upon any particular element of the transportation system. Instead, the mitigation fee is calculated based upon the theory that any trip causes a de facto burden on the transportation system, on a cumulative basis over time, and therefore all trips are subject to a fee allocating the costs of capital improvements. In short, Trimen does not endorse this theory. 3.4 The mitigation fee is not supported by the Court of Appeals’ reasoning in City of Federal Way v. Town & Country Real Estate, LLC, 161 Wn.App. 17, 252 P.2d 382 (2011). The City’s reliance on Town & Country is understandable. In that case, the Court of Appeals held that a plat condition requiring a mitigation payment was lawful under RCW 82.02.020 and SEPA. See City of Federal Way v. Town & Country Real Estate, LLC, 161 Wn.App. 17, 252 P.2d 382 (2011). Similar to the situation here, the case concerned a plat condition that required the developer to either (1) construct the necessary transportation improvements, or (2) pay a mitigation fee for the pro-rata costs of those improvements. See Town & Country, 161 Wn.App. at 27. However, as the Hearing Examiner has already touched upon, the specific analysis in that case actually supports the Applicant. In Town & Country, the developer’s traffic engineer concluded that the proposal would have zero impact on the transportation system. In response, Federal Way conducted its Page 17 of 32 own traffic study.6 See id., at 25-26. The city focused on level-of-service failures (LOSFs) that would occur, due to the traffic from the plat, in the subsequent, six-year period. See id., at 25-26. Federal Way developed “transportation improvement plans” (TIPs) for the locations that would experience capacity failures, i.e. the LOSFs. See id., at 26. The City’s study included only the TIPs affected by a 10-trip threshold. See id. Federal Way established that the proposed plat would direct 27 or more trips to each of two different locations slated for traffic improvements. See id., at 56. Federal Way demonstrated that those additional trips would contribute to failing LOSs at those locations if the city did not construct traffic improvements. See id. To address the capacity failures at those locations, Federal Way requested a mitigation payment of $266,344.7 See id., at 27. The circumstances of this case do not resemble the facts in Town & Country. Here, the City did not identify specific locations whose LOS would be compromised due to the traffic from the Project. The City did not specifically connect the requested fee to the actual impacts caused by the trips generated. The City did not conduct its own analysis to refute the Applicant’s Traffic Engineer’s conclusions in the TGDL. The City’s analysis contains no minimum threshold, resulting in fees for even a single trip through an intersection. In summary, the City did not follow the approach endorsed by the Court of Appeals in Town & Country. The Hearing Examiner concludes that Town & Country undermines, rather than supports, the City’s methodology for calculating mitigation fees. Because the City did not establish that the mitigation fee is reasonably necessary as a result of the direct impacts of the Project, the Hearing Examiner concludes that the fee condition is clearly erroneous. 3.5 The mitigation fee alternative was clearly erroneous because the fee was not reasonably necessary as a result of the direct impacts of the project. The MDNS presented the Applicant with a choice: either complete a TIA or pay the mitigation fee. The Hearing Examiner has already concluded that the TIA requirement was invalid. The question, then, is whether the mitigation fee can be legally imposed as a stand-alone condition. The Hearing Examiner’s analysis, set forth above, demonstrates that the mitigation fee is not based upon evidence demonstrating that the traffic from the Project has any particular effect on the capacity of the transportation system. The Applicant’s Traffic Engineer provided its TGDL, calculating both the trips and the distribution of those trips. The Applicant’s Traffic Engineer concluded that there were no impacts from the Project. The City did not respond by identifying the specific impacts that arise from the Project, or by highlighting any omissions in the Traffic Engineer’s analysis or conclusions. On this record, there is no evidence that the traffic from this project causes any measurable impacts on the transportation system, on the Barker Road Corridor, or otherwise. For a voluntary mitigation fee to be valid, the fee must be reasonably necessary 6 To be clear, Federal Way actually conducted two traffic studies. However, only the second study was relied upon to justify the requested mitigation payment. Therefore, the discussion in this decision is limited to the second study. See Town & Country, 161 Wn.App. at 25-26. 7 Federal Way later reduced the requested amount to $250,123. See Town & Country, 161 Wn.App. at 27. However, for whatever reason, the mitigation payment imposed on the plat was the amount first requested. See id. Page 18 of 32 to address the direct impacts of the Project. That link is clearly absent in this case. The Hearing Examiner, therefore, concludes that the mitigation fee provision in the MDNS is clearly erroneous and is invalid. The condition cannot be sustained, even if it is presented as a discretionary option available to the developer. 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 project site is zoned R-3, Single-family Residential Urban District. The Applicant seeks approval of a low-density residential development, consistent with this zoning category. A residential development must also satisfy the minimum lot size, density, setback, maximum lot coverage, and building height requirements of the applicable zone. The minimum lot size in the R-3 zone is 5,000 square feet. Lots greater than 10,000 square feet permit a duplex. The proposed lots range in size from 5,000 to 12,304 square feet. The proposal meets the minimum lot area requirements for single-family and two-family development. The maximum allowed density in the R-3 zone is six dwelling unit per acre (DUs/acre). This development proposes to subdivide 4.67 acres into 25 residential lots for a gross density of 5.35 units per acre. Therefore, the proposal is within the density range allowed in the R-3 zone. 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, p. 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. Thus, the project generally advances both the long-term and short-term goals for the Page 19 of 32 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, p. 5. 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, Corbin Road and Maxwell Avenue, new streets internal to the plat, will be designed and built as local access streets with curb, gutter, swale, and sidewalks. See Staff Report, p. 6. Street improvements exists along Mission Avenue. See id. The developer will design and construct a new linear park north of Lot 1 and modify as necessary the existing drainage facility located west of Corbin Road. See id. 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 transit stop on Route 95 is on Flora Road, approximately a quarter mile west of site. 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. 5. 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 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. Page 20 of 32 Greenacres Park is located southeast of the subject parcel. See id. The Centennial Trail is located approximately a half a mile west of the site. 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. 5. Riverbend Elementary School is located approximately 500 feet east of the site, Greenacres Middle School is located one-half of a mile south from the site, and Central Valley High School is located 1.5 miles south 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). Sidewalks exist along Mission Avenue. The construction of new sidewalk along the two new public streets are required as part of this action. 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. 6. 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. 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. 6. 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. 7. There are no threatened or endangered species of plants or animals on the site. See Exhibit 9 (SEPA Checklist ¶¶ B(4)(c) & B(5)(b)). The site is not located within a designated floodplain. See Staff Report, p. 7. The site is flat and does not contain any geologically hazardous areas. See Staff Report, p. 7. A review of the SEPA checklist confirms these facts and does not reveal any additional causes for concern. See Exhibit 9. On April 3, 2020, the City of Spokane Valley, as the lead agency, issued an MDNS for this project. See Exhibit 8. Thus, the City has determined that the project does not have significant impacts on the environment, although the City believed that mitigation measures were necessary. The MDNS was appealed, and the Hearing Examiner has determined that the proposed MDNS condition is invalid. What remains, therefore, is a determination that the project has no significant environmental impacts, and no mitigation measures are proper or necessary. Page 21 of 32 Based upon the foregoing, the Hearing Examiner concludes that this criterion for approval is satisfied. 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 March 17, 2020, the Spokane Valley City Engineer issued a Certificate of Transportation concurrency for the project. See Exhibit 21. The Certificate states sufficient roadway capacity exists, or will exist, to accommodate the 27 PM peak hour trips generated by the subdivision. See id. However, the certificate was issued subject to mitigation measures, which were incorporated into the MDNS. Those mitigation measures have been invalidated on appeal. The Hearing Examiner concludes, for the reasons stated in his analysis of the appeal, that traffic concurrency is satisfied without the proposed mitigation. On or about October 15, 2019, Consolidated Irrigation District #19 issued a Certificate of Water Availability for the project. See Exhibit 5. The certificate indicates that water will be provided from the existing 8-inch water main located 50 feet from the site on north side of Mission Avenue. See id. The water system has a current 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 October 8, 2019, SCES issued a Certificate of Sewer Availability for the project. See Exhibit 5. The certificate indicates sewer is available to the site and 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. 8. Pockets of denser 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 Page 22 of 32 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. Pedestrian and street improvements are present along Mission Avenue and will be improved along the new interior public streets. 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 25 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. 9. 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. 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 is clearly erroneous. The Hearing Examiner strikes the MDNS condition, and remands the matter to the City of Spokane Valley with directions to issue a Determination of Nonsignificance for this project. 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 revised conditions (note that the MDNS conditions have been removed): SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING DIVISION: 1. The approved preliminary plat shall have a maximum of 25 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 Director at Page 23 of 32 least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the expiration of the preliminary plat approval. 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 (WAC 332-130). 5. Pursuant to SVMC 20.30.050 (Expiration of Preliminary Approval), 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 notes on the face of the plat: a. 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. The addresses shall be designated on the final plat: Lot Address Lot 1 1525 North Corbin Road Lot 2 1517 North Corbin Road Lot 3 1511 North Corbin Road Lot 4 1503 North Corbin Road Page 24 of 32 Lot Address Lot 5 1427 North Corbin Road Lot 6 1421 North Corbin Road Lot 7 1415 North Corbin Road Lot 8 1409 North Corbin Road Lot 9 1403 North Corbin Road Lot 10 17502 East Maxwell Avenue Lot 11 17508 East Maxwell Avenue Lot 12 17514 East Maxwell Avenue Lot 13 17520 East Maxwell Avenue Lot 14 17526 East Maxwell Avenue Lot 15 17604 East Maxwell Avenue Lot 16 17610 East Maxwell Avenue Lot 17 17616 East Maxwell Avenue Lot 18 17617 East Maxwell Avenue Lot 19 17611 East Maxwell Avenue Lot 20 17605 East Maxwell Avenue Lot 21 1404 North Corbin Road Lot 22 1410 North Corbin Road Lot 23 1416 North Corbin Road Lot 24 1422 North Corbin Road Lot 25 1428 North Corbin Road 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, drainage calculations, traffic studies, shared access driveway plans, etc.). Plans shall conform to the SVSS or as amended, the 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 a preliminary plat decision has been issued and an application for a Land Disturbance permit has been received. All documents (plans, reports, etc.) shall be submitted through the Building Department Permit Center located at 10210 E. Sprague Avenue. 3. Mission Avenue is designated as a 3-Lane Minor Arterial. Street and frontage improvements are already constructed so improvements will not be required. 4. The following determines the ROW and border easement dedications for a 3-Lane Minor Arterial Street per SVSS Std. Plan R-122. All information is estimated from the Spokane County Assessor’s Office. The project Applicant is responsible for verifying all values listed below. a. Existing half ROW width is 30 feet. b. Required half ROW width is 30 feet. i. ROW dedication is not required. c. A Border Easement is not required. Page 25 of 32 5. The internal streets shall be designated and designed as local access public streets per Typical Street Section R-120. Any ROW and/or border easement dedications shall be designated on the final plat language and map. Where Maxwell Avenue ends near the west plat boundary, the ROW and border easements shall continue to the plat boundary. 6. The proposed Corbin Road crosses a City-owned parcel containing drainage facilities for Mission Avenue. The developer shall accommodate all necessary modifications to the existing drainage facilities and maintain the existing functionality, such as treatment and storage volumes and maintenance access. All modifications to the drainage facilities shall be approved by the City of Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department prior to the final plat recording, respectively. 7. The City-owned parcel contains a pocket park with landscaping improvements that were installed with the Mission Avenue drainage facilities. The pocket park will be displaced with the proposed road improvements; therefore, the pocket park and its amenities, including park benches, plantings and irrigation, shall be replaced with a linear park located in a 10-foot-wide dedicated ROW along Mission Avenue and the north side of Lot 1. A landscape plan addressing the linear park landscaping and amenities shall be submitted with the civil plans for review and approval. All landscaping modifications shall be approved by the City of Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department prior to final plat recording. 8. 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. 9. Mission Avenue is a Minor Arterial. Plat layout shall take access to Mission Avenue by the creation of Corbin Road. Lot 1 shall take access to Corbin Road only. 10. The cul-de-sac at the east end of Maxwell Avenue shall comply with SVSS Standard Plan R-130. The minimum ROW radius shall be 58.5 feet with adjacent sidewalk. 11. 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. 12. 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 (See SRSM 11.2). 13. For the General Construction Notes use those in the SVSS Appendix 4A rather than those in the SRSM Appendix 3B. Page 26 of 32 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. All new dry wells and other underground injection wells shall be registered with the Underground Injection Control program (UIC) at the Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE). WSDOE requires UIC registration 60 days prior to UIC well construction. The design and construction of UIC well(s) shall meet the requirements of WAC 173-218. Discharges to the UIC well(s) must comply with the groundwater quality requirements (for Non-endangerment Standards See WAC 173-218-080 and 173-218-090). Contact the UIC staff at UIC Program, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600, (360) 407-6143 or go to: https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Guidance-technical-assistance/Underground-injection-control-program/Register-UIC-wells-online for registration forms and further information. The City will be requiring as part of the Project Certification Package documentation of either WSDOE’s Rule Authorization approval of the UIC registration or documentation that the UIC registration was submitted 60 days prior to the submittal of the City’s project certification package for all projects with UIC’s that receive public stormwater runoff. 17. A Construction Stormwater Permit shall 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 shall apply for a permit 60 days prior to discharging stormwater. More information can be obtained from Page 27 of 32 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Permits-certifications/Stormwater-general-permits/Construction-stormwater-permit Construction 18. 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. 19. For construction affecting public ROW, forty-eight (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 ROW and provide project construction details. See SVSS Section 9.7. 20. Permits are required for any access to or work within the right-of-way of the Spokane Valley roadway system. A traffic control plan shall accompany the right-of-way obstruction permit. 21. 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. Mission Avenue was paved in 2018. Any pavement cuts in Mission Avenue shall comply with the ‘Pavement Cut Policy Waiver Request’ letter from the City Engineer dated November 12, 2019. 22. The Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) structures (such as filter fence, silt ponds, 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. 23. 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. 24. 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. 25. 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. 26. 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. Final Plat 27. ROW dedication and border easements shall be designated on the final plat map. Page 28 of 32 28. 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 VALLEY FIRE DEPARTMENT: 1. One new fire hydrant is required to be installed on the northeast corner of Maxwell Avenue and Corbin Road. a. Hydrants shall stand plumb. The traffic breakaway flange is to be set at the finished curb/grade elevation with the lowest outlet of the hydrant no less than 18 inches above the curb grade. There shall be a clear area around the hydrant of not less than 36 inches as measured from outside edge of the barrel or outlet ports, whichever is greater, for clearance of a hydrant wrench on both outlets and the control valve. b. All fire hydrants shall have a minimum of three outlets, one 4-1/2 inch inside diameter pumper outlet and two 2-1/2 inch inside diameter outlets. Threads on all outlets shall be National Standard Thread (NST). c. The pumper port shall face the street and be provided with a Storz adaptor. Where the street cannot be clearly defined or recognized, the port shall face the most likely route of approach and location of the fire apparatus while pumping, as determined by the local fire protection authority. 2. Provide water plan showing location of required hydrant and size of water main. a. An approved water plan signed by the water district and the fire department is required for any associated grading permit approval. 3. Road names as proposed coincide with established road names in the surrounding road grid. 4. Addresses shall be posted so they are visible from street during and after construction. Numbers shall be a minimum 4 inches tall and contrasting to background. SPOKANE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT: 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 and individual services will be provided to each lot prior to sale. 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.” 2. 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 historical and or estimated water usage as part of the sewer plan submittal. Prior to Page 29 of 32 plan submittal, the developer is required to contact Jenn Bruner, Chris Knudson, 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. 3. Sewer plans acceptable to the SCES shall be submitted prior to the finalization of the project. 4. 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. 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 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 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. Prior to filing the final plat, the sponsor shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of SRHD that the existing septic tank serving the original residence has been properly abandoned. 9. 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. 10. A statement shall be placed in the dedication to the effect that: Page 30 of 32 “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.” 11. The dedicatory language on the plat shall state: “Use of private wells and water systems is prohibited.” 12. 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.” AVISTA UTILITIES 1. Utilities may be placed within the 10-foot-wide dedicated ROW, along Mission Avenue and the north side of Lot 1, being set aside for a pocket park. The permission to place utilities in this location eliminates the need for an additional utility easement along the front of Lot 1. 2. A 10 foot utility easement shall be dedicated along the front of all lots on Corbin Road and Maxwell Avenue. 3. Include the following language in the plat dedication: “Easements for ‘Dry’ utilities (electric, gas, phone, fiber, cable TV) as 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 and the right to prohibit trim and/or remove trees, bushes, landscaping, without compensation and to prohibit brick, rock, or masonry 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 or border easements.” WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 1. Proper erosion and sediment control practices shall be used on the construction site and adjacent areas to prevent upland sediments from entering surface water. Refer to the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington. Page 31 of 32 DATED this 23rd day of July, 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 Page 32 of 32 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 July 23, 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 July 27, 2020. THE APPEAL CLOSING DATE FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAT DECISION IS AUGUST 17, 2020. The complete record in this matter is on file during the appeal period with the Office of the Hearing Examiner, 808 W Spokane Falls Boulevard, Spokane, Washington, 99201; and may be inspected by contacting Kim Thompson at (509) 625-6010. 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 4:00 p.m. After the appeal period, the file may be inspected 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.