PC401b_Jake_Brooks_11-16-2018
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98101 ● 25 West Main, Suite 234, Spokane, WA 99201
(206) 264-8600 ● (877) 264-7220 ● www.bricklinnewman.com
Reply to: Seattle Office
November 16, 2018
VIA E-MAIL TO lbarlow@spokanevallye.org
Lori Barlow
Spokane Valley Building Dept.
11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106,
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Dear Ms. Barlow:
I am writing on behalf of the Painted Hills Preservation Association to provide scoping comments
on the updated Determination of Significance for the Painted Hills planned residential
development (“Painted Hills PRD”) issued on October 26, 2018. Please incorporate by reference
my previous scoping comment letter, submitted to the Spokane Valley Building Department on
September 29, 2017, as many of the significant environmental issues remain after the applicant’s
revised proposal.
The significant environmental consequences and difficulty in implementing the applicant’s
proposed project have become clearly apparent. While we appreciate the applicant’s willingness
to explore new options, the underlying issue still remains: this large residential development is
proposed to be built in a recognized floodplain that is frequently inundated with water. After being
forced to acknowledge that revising the floodplain map by utilizing levees would not work, the
applicant is now proposing another wildly impractical solution: raising the entire gradient of the
area with approximately 450,000 cubic yards of material. This new so-called “solution” will cause
a host of new significant environmental consequences, and the Environmental Impact Statement
must analyze these new issues.
I. Traffic Issues Associated with Hauling of Fill
The proposal to haul in and deposit over 300,000 cubic yards of fill will cause significant traffic
issues along the existing traffic infrastructure. The revised Determination of Significance states
that “up to 330,000 cubic yards of import material” will be brought onto the site, with “movement
of up to 450,000 cubic yards of material.” At the outset, it is important to acknowledge that this
number is merely a guess. Various factors, such as erosion, compaction, loss of fill material in
transit, and the nature of heavy construction activities could mean that a significantly higher
amount of fill is necessary to complete the proposed project.
Lori Barlow
November 16, 2018
Page 2
Hauling 330,000 cubic yards of fill will result in a massive number of dump truck trips. The
average dump truck can carry between 10 to 14 cubic yards of material.1 Accordingly, the
applicant’s proposal will result in at least 23,500 to 33,000 round-trip dump truck visits to the
site to provide the necessary fill. This figure does not include the heavy machinery that will be
necessary to complete any on-site grading, and as noted above, it is entirely reasonable to assume
that additional fill might be needed.
The Painted Hills Preservation Association has already documented how the traffic impacts from
this proposal will cause significant adverse impacts, and it has already pointed out the many flaws
and shortcomings of the applicant’s previous traffic impact studies. Adding over 30,000 dump
trucks is akin to throwing gasoline on the fire, and this proposal will only make the traffic impacts
worse. It is not yet clear what routes the dump trucks will need to take to obtain the fill, but
regardless of the route, there will be significant adverse environmental consequences caused
through the traffic impacts. Not only will traffic be ensnarled by an influx of large dump trucks,
but pedestrians (especially children at the nearby schools) and bicyclists will be placed in danger
by the large influx of dump trucks. Dishman Mica Road, which runs adjacent to the property, is
popular with cyclists, and the road has already seen fatal collisions.2 Adding large dump trucks
will only increase the danger for human health and safety.
The influx of heavy equipment will also cause significant damage to the existing road
infrastructure. Quite simply, the road system in the area is not designed for frequent heavy truck
traffic. The significant environmental impacts to the existing infrastructure must be fully evaluated
in the EIS.
II. The Effectiveness of Using Massive Amounts of Fill Material Must be Analyzed.
The applicant is proposing to utilize a staggering amount of fill to raise the gradient of the land to
avoid floodwaters. Moving over 450,000 cubic yards of fill is a massive earthmoving project, and
it inherently comes with risks and environmental consequences. The EIS must fully analyze all of
the environmental consequences that can arise.
To put the scale of the amount of fill that the applicant is proposing to use in perspective, 450,000
cubic yards is nine-and-a-half times as big as the U.S. Capitol Rotunda; five-and-a-half times as
big as the iconic Spaceship Earth sphere at the Walt Disney EPCOT Center; three-tenths as big as
the Houston Astrodome, and about one-tenth as big as the Great Pyramid at Giza.3 Not only is the
applicant proposing to move huge quantities of fill, the applicant is also proposing to place a large
residential development on top, with the hope that raising the elevation of the land will prevent the
flooding that frequently occurs in the area. The EIS must analyze the feasibility of moving such
1 https://www.earthhaulers.com/how-much-dirt-can-a-dump-truck-carry/
https://www.coopskw.com/learn-much-dirt-can-carry-kenworth-dump-trucks/
2 http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/may/23/bicyclist-who-was-struck-by-minivan-south-of-spoka/
3
https://www.bluebulbprojects.com/MeasureOfThings/results.php?amt=450000&comp=volume&unit=cy&searchTer
m=450000+cubic+yard
Lori Barlow
November 16, 2018
Page 3
large quantities of earth, the stability of the fill, the fill’s ability to withstand frequent flooding,
and the ability of the fill to support a massive residential development.
It is also unclear where the applicant proposes to obtain such large quantities of fill. Wherever the
applicant intends to obtain fill from, the possibility of soil contamination must be adequately
analyzed and disclosed.
III. The Effectiveness of the Proposed Flood Control Measures Must Be Analyzed.
The underlying problem of controlling flood waters must be analyzed and disclosed, and it is
imperative that the analysis covers not just the subject property but also surrounding properties
and areas downstream in the Chester Creek watershed. Obviously, the applicant’s proposal does
not remove the water — rather, it is an effort to displace the floodwaters to another location. The
environmental consequences of removing compensatory floodplains must be fully analyzed.
The effectiveness of the proposed flood control measures must also be analyzed for the proposed
PRD. It is imperative that the EIS analyze whether the massive quantities of fill can stand up to
repeated flooding and whether the flood control measures will be effective in preventing flooding
from occurring within the Painted Hills PRD and the surrounding residences. The applicant is
proposing a geoengineering project of extraordinary scope and scale — the environmental
consequences of this project must be fully analyzed before it is implemented.
Finally, the same concerns outlined in the September 29, 2017 letter still remain. The EIS must
address the significant adverse environmental impacts identified within that letter, as well.
IV. The EIS Must Consider Adequate Alternatives
Painted Hills Preservation Association’s September 29, 2017 scoping letter discussed the need for
reasonable alternatives at length. It is imperative that reasonable alternatives that can meet the
purpose and need of the project are analyzed within the EIS. In the draft purpose and need
statement produced on the City’s project website, it states that the project is needed to fulfill the
purpose of housing. However, the purpose and need of this project is not defined so narrowly as
to require the City to consider only alternatives that squeeze the most units possible onto the
property. The City must consider alternatives that do not require a floodplain map revision and
the massive quantities of fill necessary to obtain a floodplain map revision. To not consider
alternatives that avoid revising the floodplain map would not only be irresponsible, it would not
meet the purpose of an EIS to consider “reasonable alternatives, including mitigation measures,
that would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance environmental quality.” WAC 197-11-
400(2). There are alternatives available that would avoid the need for floodplain alteration —
Painted Hills Preservation Association has submitted one such alternative — and the City must
consider this type of alternative within the EIS.
Lori Barlow
November 16, 2018
Page 4
V. Conclusion
Painted Hills Preservation Association appreciates the opportunity to provide comments and work
with the City to help make a fully informed decision that is right for the community and the
environment. However, it is troubling that the City’s Painted Hills website page contains
documents from a “DEIS Coordination and Kickoff Meeting” that already included a draft table
of contents and draft purpose and need statement. The City should allow the scoping process to
play out fully to give the public the opportunity to help shape the direction of the EIS, as provided
in WAC 197-11-408, rather than holding a “Kickoff Meeting” two weeks before the scoping
comment period closes. Again, please incorporate by reference the scoping comments submitted
on September 29, 2017. Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Very truly yours,
BRICKLIN & NEWMAN, LLP
Jacob Brooks
JB:psc
cc: Clients