29_-_2021-08-04_George_SimonFrom:George Simon
To:Lori Barlow
Cc:Frank & Jill Cobb
Subject:PAINTED HILLS DEVELOPMENT - Public Hearing Request
Date:Wednesday, August 4, 2021 1:02:23 PM[EXTERNAL] This email originated outside the City of Spokane Valley. Always use caution when openingattachments or clicking links.
Hello Ms. Barlow,
Due to the complexity of the DEIS for the proposed Painted Hills Residential
Development, I am requesting that a public hearing be held.
An article regarding the proposed development in the July 29th Business Journal
reads: The development company submitted an updated draft environmental
impact statement early this year that laid out multiple development scenarios
that CEO Dave Black contends “answers any questions that would ever come
up on that development.”
I find the above remark from Dave Black outside of reality. I know I have many
concerns and questions after reviewing much of the DEIS that remain unanswered.
I’m sure other residents, and even you have unanswered questions as well. I believe
a public hearing would provide a welcome avenue for enlightenment of all parties.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
George Simon
George Simon
3952 S Eagle Ln
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
August 4, 2021
Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
City of Spokane Valley
10210 E Sprague Ave
Spokane Valley, Washington 99206
Subject: Public Comment on the DEIS for the Painted Hills Residential Development
Dear Ms. Barlow:
My concerns for this development are many, but in this letter I will only focus on one: Responsibility for
the flood mitigation plans associated with the development.
As I understand the plan, the water that currently percolates through the 99 acres of land is to be
channeled to the very northern end of the development and return to the aquifer via a drywell gallery
that may cover the area of approximately one acre. Furthermore, it has been stated that frozen ground
will not affect the ability of the water to drain through the dry wells.
To me that assumption is questionable. I have special concern regarding this, as my home and those of
my neighbors is adjacent to this infiltration gallery. The homes at the Greens that border the proposed
development have a basement slab elevation of 2011.5 feet, while the high-water level has been 2009
feet. We have never been considered in a flood plain, but if there is a failure of the infiltration gallery
(even outside of a 100 year event) we could be facing risk of flooding.
More disturbing is the notion that a Homeowners Association will have the managerial and fiscal
resources to be successful in the maintenance and operation of a complex flood mitigation system. I
pose the following questions to you and the city:
• The plan speaks of a bond. How large is this initial bond? Is it also designed to cover losses to
those that could be impacted by the failure of such a flood mitigation system? Or even the
premiums on liability insurance?
• What happens if the HOA fails to adequately fund the reserves? According to the plan they are
to provide the Spokane Public Works Department the general status of the sinking fund
annually. What will the City do if the funding appears inadequate?
• What are the required credentials of the contractor? What if the designated contractor fails to
succeed at their duties? Who enforces the necessary next steps?
• What happens if upon the inspection by the City, necessary corrections are not addressed, what
is the City’s scope of authority and plans for remedy?
• The plan says that the City would not be responsible, but according to the plan the city is
involved in substantial oversight of ongoing O & M. If you are providing oversight, how do you
deal with non-compliance with a residential development at full build out?
• So who is ultimately responsible? A possibly ineffective or insolvent HOA?
• I thought that the city has previously denied the possibility of an HOA taking on such a
responsibility. Is this not a fact?
• I was also under the impression that FEMA would not allow an HOA to take on such
responsibility. Correct?
I worked in The Washington State Department of Health’s Drinking Water Program for nearly 20 years.
Much of my time was spent in the compliance program. There were and continue to be situations where
HOA organizations could not successfully manage a drinking water system, either due to lack of fiscal
resources (inadequate budgeting, or customers not paying their bills), technical knowledge, or
ineffective contract operators. Can you imagine an HOA not being able to ensure that they have the
basic necessity of safe drinking water? And yet the developer is confident that these potential
homeowners in the Painted Hills Residential Development can take on the responsibility of a complex
flood mitigation system and thrive.
The following is a quote from the most recent DEIS, page 35: “One potential adverse impact that could
result from the removal of the FEMA floodplain designation from the Painted Hills site or off-site
properties could be that the implementation of the flood management system provides a sense of
security to potential homebuyers, encouraging them to purchase a home on a site believed to be safe
from flooding. In the unlikely event that the flood control infrastructure fails, these homeowners could be
temporarily displaced until the system failure is remedied and flood damage repaired.”
If the site would be removed from FEMA’s floodplain designation, there wouldn’t be any flood insurance
available, so who is paying for the flood damage? Once again, the developer is trying to place a huge
burden on future homeowners living in this development, and for their neighbors as well. And what is
my recourse if my property floods? Where does my compensation come from? And I wonder to what
extent potential buyers will be informed of their collective responsibility.
Another quote from the DEIS, page 39: “Individual elements of the proposed flood management system
have the potential to fail under extreme circumstances. However, if properly maintained, the likelihood
of failure of any on element is small”.
Please note that everything should be just fine if properly maintained. And whose responsibility is that
again?
This DEIS is contains several statements that talk about the potential for failure of the flood
management system. Since there is not a governmental agency that will be responsible for this project
in perpetuity, I feel it is too great a risk. Why would the City of Spokane Valley approve a development
on a flood plain and as a result place their residents, their homes, and belongings at risk? We as a
community cannot say yes to such an endeavor just so that a determined developer has a satisfactory
return on investment, while he sings his noble refrain about providing much needed housing in the
Valley. Going in to this project, the developer knew what he was buying. The city does not owe him a
return on his investment, nor should we build more houses at locations that are unfit and pose a
potential risk to many, because there is a need. Site suitability for construction should be a primary
determination for development, not just the need that we are all aware of.
Respectfully,
George Simon
3952 S Eagle Lane