Loading...
EX#05 PLAT APPLICATION INFO PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PL-13 V1.0 Page 3 of 6 STAFF USE ONLY PART II – APPLICATION INFORMATION SHORT SUBDIVISION X SUBDIVISION BINDING SITE PLAN APPLICANT NAME: Ben Goodmansen, Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. MAILING ADDRESS: 21 S. Pines Rd. CITY: Spokane Valley STATE: WA ZIP: 99206 PHONE: 509.893.2617 FAX: CELL: EMAIL: toddw@whipplece.com bgoodmansen@whipplece.com, PROPERTY OWNER: LANZCE G DOUGLASS INVESTMENTS, LLC MAILING ADDRESS: 1402 E MAGNESIUM RD STE 202 CITY: Spokane STATE: WA ZIP: 99217 PHONE: FAX: CELL: EMAIL: SITE ADDRESS: Unassigned Address PARCEL NO.: 44052.9011 SIZE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY (SQUARE FEET): 16.95 ac +/-, 738,342 sf +/- COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-3 PREVIOUS LAND USE ACTIONS INVOLVING SITE: City Project # SUB-07-04/PUD-01-04(Withdrawn) PARCEL # OF ADJACENT LAND OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY OWNER: 44052.9230, 44052.1302, 44052.1012, 44052.1010, 44052.1004, 44052.1002, 44052.1301, 44052.1401, 44052.1111, 44052.1110, 44052.1109, 44052.1108, 44052.1107, 44052.1106, 44052.1105, 44052.1104, 44052.1103, 44052.1102, 44052.1101 SIZE OF ADJACENT LAND OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY OWNER: 14.98 +/- ac BRIEF PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Approximately 17 acres of undeveloped property with evergreen trees and field grass as predominant cover. The site is south of Locust Road. Date Submitted: Received by: Fee: PLUS #: File #: PL-13 V1.0 Page 4 of 6 PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY: SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS DUPLEXES MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS MIXED USE BUSINESS INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURED HOMES OTHER – DESCRIBE: PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS: 81 NAME OF PUBLIC ROADS PROVIDING ACCESS: 44th Avenue, 45th Avenue, 46th Avenue, 47th Avenue, Farr Road, Locust Road and S. Ponderosa Lane. HAVE YOU PROVIDED ACCESS TO ADJACENT PROPERTY THAT IS “LAND LOCKED” WITHOUT ACCESS TO PUBLIC ROAD? YES NO IF NO, EXPLAIN: There are no landlocked properties adjacent to this site. PROPOSED SOURCE OF WATER: INDIVIDUAL WELLS PUBLIC SYSTEM PRIVATE COMMUNITY SYSTEM PROPOSED MEANS OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL: PUBLIC SEWER COMMUNITY SYSTEM SEPTIC TANK AND DRAINFIELD UTILITY COMPANIES AND DISTRICTS TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO THIS PROPOSAL (PLEASE NAME): ELECTRICITY: Avista GAS: Avista WATER: Spokane County Water District #3 PHONE: Centurylink CABLE: Comcast FIRE DISTRICT: SCFD #8 District SCHOOL: Central Valley #356 OTHER: Sewer: Spokane County IS THE PROPOSAL SITE ADJACENT TO, OR DOES IT INCLUDE, A BODY OF WATER (E.G., EXPOSED STANDING IF YES, LIST: IF YES, IDENTIFY THE COMMUNITY PANEL NO. & FLOOD ZONE NO.: DOES THE SITE HAVE ANY WETLANDS (OPEN WATER, MARSH AREAS, WATER SATURATED SOILS OR WETLAND IF YES, HOW CLOSE TO THE BOUNDARY OF THE WETLAND IS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED TO OCCUR? OTHER – DESCRIBE: OTHER – DESCRIBE: WATER, POND, YEAR ROUND STREAM, RIVER OR LAKE? YES NO DOES THE SITE HAVE FLOODPLAINS? YES NO PLANTS SUCH AS “CAT TAILS”? YES NO PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PL-13 V1.0 Page 1 of 6 PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPLICATION SVMC 20.30 10210 E Sprague Avenue  Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5240  Fax: (509) 720-5075  permitcenter@spokanevalley.org PART I – REQUIRED MATERIAL **THE PLANNING DIVISION WILL NOT ACCEPT YOUR APPLICATION IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED** Pre-application Meeting Request (include copy of staff worksheet from meeting) Completed Application Form Application Fee Notice of Application Packet (17.80.110) –Adjacent Property Plat Certificate • One (1) plat certificate dated within thirty (30) days of the application filing date confirming that the title of the lands as described and shown on the short plat, subdivision, or BSP is in the name of the owners signing. Preliminary Plans • Submit ten (10) copies of the preliminary short plat, plat or binding site plan which shall be prepared under the supervision of a professional land surveyor, licensed in the State of Washington (SVMC 20.20.080), 18 x 24 inches in size for short plats; 24 x 36 inches in size for plats and binding site plans and one (1) reduced copy (8 ½ x 11) at a scale of one inch equals 50 feet or one inch equals 100 feet (if approved by the department, an alternative appropriate scale may be used) with the following: 1. Name, address and telephone number of the owner of the subject property and the person with whom official contact should be made regarding the short plat, plat, or binding site plan. 2. Title of the proposed division. 3. Location of subject property by quarter-quarter(s) of the section, township and range. 4. Legal description of the subject property with the source of the legal description clearly indicated. 5. A vicinity map at a scale of not more than four hundred feet (400’) to the inch. Except that the Community Development Director may approve an alternative scale if requested. The vicinity map shall show all adjacent parcels. It shall show how the streets and alleys in the proposed subdivision connect with existing and proposed streets and alleys in neighboring subdivisions or unplatted property. 6. North arrow, scale and boundary of the proposed short plat, plat, or binding site plan and the date map is prepared. 7. Boundaries of all blocks, lot numbers, lot lines along with their dimensions and areas in square feet. 8. Location and identification of existing utilities. 9. Location, names and widths of all existing and proposed streets, roads and access easements within the proposed short subdivision, subdivision, or binding site plan and within 100 feet thereof, or the nearest City street if there is no City street within 100 feet of the subject property. 10. All easements, including border easements, or tracts proposed to be dedicated for any public purpose or for the common use of the property owners of the short plat, plat or binding site plan. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PL-13 V1.0 Page 2 of 6 11. All existing easements that affect the subject property. 12. Location of any natural features such as wooded areas, streams, drainage ways, special flood hazard areas identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map, or critical areas as defined in SVMC Title 21. 13. Location of existing buildings, septic tanks, drain fields, wells or other improvements, and a note indicating if they will remain or be removed. 14. Whether adjacent property is platted or un-platted. If platted, give the name of the subdivision. If the proposed short subdivision, subdivision or binding site plan is the subdivision of a portion of an existing plat, the approximate lines of the existing plat are to be shown and a copy of the existing plat, along with the recording numbers of any recorded covenants and easements. 15. Topographic information at five-foot maximum contour intervals, or at two-foot intervals where overall site topography is too flat to be depicted by five-foot intervals. Delineate areas with any slopes that are greater than thirty (30) percent. 16. "Site data table" showing number of proposed lots, existing zoning, water supplier, and method of sewerage. Written Narrative – A written narrative describing the proposal including, but not limited to, the number of proposed lots, nature of surrounding properties, proposed access, zoning, utility providers, method of sewerage, and timing of phasing of the development (if any). The narrative shall also address compliance to applicable sections of the development code and other applicable regulations. SEPA Environmental Checklist for Preliminary Subdivisions and Binding Site Plans – An environmental checklist will be required for a preliminary short plat if the construction of improvements will involve more than 500 cubic yards of grading, excavation or fill, or if critical areas exist on site. (Note: Any previous environmental documents that are relevant to this project should be included and maybe adopted by reference.) Certificate of Sewer Availability (To be completed by Sewer Department) Certificate of Water Availability (To be completed by Water Purveyor and Fire Department) Applicant Advisory Statements (Water and Sewer) – If forms are not attached to packet or to verify you have the correct form, contact the Planning Counter at (509) 720-5310. The following advisory forms shall be read and signed in acknowledgement that the City of Spokane Valley does not provide sewer or water. 1. Sewer Concurrency Advisory Statement 2. Water Concurrency Advisory Statement Other Related Applications or Permits, if Applicable: A CRM Consultant Archaeological Cultural Resource Management Consultant LLC Mail: 2934 North Government, Coeur d’Alene Idaho 83815 (208) 874-2240, jderose@acrmconsultant.com www.acrmconsultant.com June 9, 2022 City of Spokane Valley Planning Department 10210 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 720-5240 planning@spokanevalley.org RE: Cultural Resources Resurvey Not Necessary for the Ponderosa Ridge-East Preliminary Plat, City of Spokane Valley, Washington To whom it may concern, Whipple Consulting Engineers (WCE) are proposing to conduct ground disturbing activities within the Ponderosa Ridge-East Preliminary Plat Project Area; positioned within the City of Spokane Valley. The 16.95-acre Project Area (parcel 44052.9011) is associated with the east extent of a 44.65-acre parcel that was previously surveyed for cultural resources September 2004. The 2004 survey report (NADB 1343838) produced by Ann Sharley, archaeologist with Eastern Washington University, did not identify any cultural resources. WCE contacted A CRM Consultant regarding whether the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) would require a resurvey of the proposed Ponderosa Ridge-East Project Area. I contacted Sydney Hanson, DAHP transportation archaeologist and SEPA reviewer via email and phone June 2, 2022 and June 7, 2022. Sydney responded via email June 8, 2022 stating that more survey was not necessary and that implementing an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) would be fine in this particular case. WCE asked that this information be conveyed to the City of Spokane Valley. Feel free to contact me should you have any addition questions or concerns. Alternatively, Sydney’s contact is listed below. Thank You! Sincerely, Jennifer DeRose, M.A., R.P.A cc: Sydney Hanson, 360.280.7563; sydney.hanson@dahp.wa.gov Short Report No.: SR 820 Page No.: 1 County: Spokane Archaeological and Historical Services, Eastern Washington University Cultural Resource Short Report Form Author: Ann Sharley Date: September 2004 USGS quadrangle (map attached): Spokane SE, Wash., 7.5', 1973, photorevised 1986 Location (Sec., T, R): Portion of Section 5, T24N, R44E, WM PROJECT DATA Agency/sponsor: Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. Contract number: n/a PROJECT DESCRIPTION Undertaking/area of potential effect: Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc., plans to develop a 18.07 ha (44.65 ac) tract of land in the Spokane Valley. During the proposed project—Ponderosa Planned Unit Development (PUD)—approximately 182 new single-family residences will be constructed and associated services installed on the currently undeveloped parcel. The project’s area of potential effect (APE) will be limited to lands comprising the 18.07 ha (44.65 ac) parcel (Figures 1 and 2). Cultural resource tasks: Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc., contracted with Archaeological and Historical Services (AHS), Eastern Washington University (EWU), to conduct a site file and literature search for the project vicinity, complete a cultural resources field survey of the project APE, and submit a professional cultural resources report documenting survey findings. LOCATION Project/locational information: The proposed project is located 5 km (3 mi) southeast of Spokane, partially within the City of Spokane Valley and partially on lands under Spokane County jurisdiction. The parcel is bounded on the north by 44th Avenue and on the west by Schafer Branch Road. Farr and Holman roads lie slightly east and south of the planned development (see Figure 1). Landowner: Privately owned Short Report No.: SR 820 Page No.: 2 County: Spokane ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND Setting/landforms/vegetation: The proposed project is located in the hills immediately south of the Spokane River Valley, an area repeatedly inundated during the late Pleistocene by the Missoula floods. These cataclysmic events scoured soils from the project vicinity, leaving bedrock—Miocene basalts and older granitic and metamorphosed sedimentary rock—exposed. At times the floodwaters ponded in the Spokane basin, allowing water-borne sands and silts to settle to the bottom. As the waters retreated, these sediments were left behind, thinly distributed over the eroded landscape (Babcock and Carson 2000; Weis and Newman 1989). Subsequent aeolian deposition added volcanic ash and loess to the fluvial sediments, parent materials for the shallow loams found in the project area today (Donaldson and Giese 1968). Historically, lands in the project vicinity supported native grasslands, bushes, and open stands of ponderosa pine trees—remnants of which are still seen today (Donaldson and Giese 1968; Franklin and Dyrness 1988). When government cadastral surveyors visited the project vicinity in April 1878, the intermittent stream through the current APE was flowing, fed by a running spring immediately southwest of the project (General Land Office [GLO] 1878). Although this stream was dry during the present survey, local residents report that it continues to flow in the springtime. By the 1870s the first Euro-American settlers had arrived in the Spokane Valley, and farms and ranches began to dot the landscape (Boutwell 1994:107). Initially most settlers selected spring-watered lands in the low hills bordering the Valley. Higher hills with thin, rocky soils and steeper slopes were less suitable for agriculture and generally remained undeveloped. Beginning in the 1960s and 1970s, the higher hills came to be valued for their panoramic views and natural settings and were increasingly selected as homesites. Today the project vicinity serves primarily as a commuter community for Spokane, valued by local residents for its scenery and rural ambiance. Ground surface conditions: Ground visibility ranged from no surface exposure in densely vegetated areas to 100 percent visibility in rodent mounds, animal trails, and areas disturbed by heavy equipment. Overall surface visibility in the APE was estimated at 10 percent. ETHNOGRAPHIC/HISTORIC BACKGROUND According to ethnographers Ray (1936) and Spier (1936), the project is located in the boundary region between Native Spokane and Coeur d’Alene peoples’ traditional territories, an area used jointly by both groups. The falls of the Spokane River, 11 km (7 mi) northwest of the APE in traditional Spokane territory, served as an important salmon fishery for Spokane and Coeur- d’Alene peoples (Ruby and Brown 1970:18; Wynecoop 1969:33). Numerous trails linked Native American villages, campsites, and fishing stations along the Spokane River with other destinations in the region. These travel routes included a major trail over Glenrose Prairie, 5 km Short Report No.: SR 820 Page No.: 3 County: Spokane (3 mi) west of the current project, and another through Saltese Flats, 10 km (6 mi) east of the project (Boutwell 1994:26, 51, 52; Glenrose Women’s Club [GWC] ca. 1978). The first Euro-Americans to pass through the Spokane region made use of these existing trails. Around 1859 transportation into the area improved as Captain John Mullan constructed the Mullan Military Road over Glenrose Prairie and through the Spokane Valley. This wagon road, connecting Fort Walla Walla with Fort Benton, Montana, created a route for miners and settlers as well as military personnel to enter the Spokane region (GLO 1874; GWC ca. 1978; Kingston 1981; Mullan 1994). The earliest settlers in Spokane claimed land parcels through squatters’ rights. In 1878, preparatory to legal land entry, the federal government's GLO conducted initial cadastral surveys of the project vicinity. Although the surveyors recorded no cultural features in the current project APE, they noted a number of roads and trails within 8 km (5 mi) of the project (GLO 1878). After cadastral surveys were completed, lands in the region were officially opened to homesteading and other types of land entry. Over the next decade, large numbers of Euro-Americans took up residence in the Spokane region, and the town of Spokane Falls was established along the river. Completion of the Northern Pacific Railroad through the area in 1881 further increased the stream of immigrants (Boutwell 1994:87). This influx of Euro-Americans displaced Native American residents, forcing them into the hills and canyons on the outskirts of the new town, and land title became an increasingly contentious issue. In 1881, in an effort to resolve these conflicts, the federal government created a reservation for Native Spokane peoples 30 km (20 mi) northwest of Spokane Falls. Although many Spokane tribal members initially resisted moving to the reservation, large numbers eventually complied as Euro-Americans gained legal title to their traditional lands (Ross 1998). In 1894 the federal government granted the current project APE, along with most odd-numbered sections in the township, to the Northern Pacific Railway Company as financial compensation for rail line construction (Bureau of Land Management [BLM] 1976, 2004). The Northern Pacific soon found a buyer for the current project parcel, perhaps the Sarah E. Fitzpatrick noted as owner of the property in a 1905 Spokane County atlas (Fidelity Abstract Company 1905). At this early date, roads already existed in the present location of 44th Avenue, Schafer Branch and Holman roads and most land in the project vicinity was in private ownership. According to historical maps, the current project APE changed hands repeatedly through the years: the property was owned by Baldwin and Pfile in 1912, Tena Brayton et al. in 1930, W. B. Cox in 1957, and divided between R. F. Nelson and the Sprow family in 1984. None of the historical maps consulted, however, show buildings or other developments on the land (Metsker 1930, 1941, 1957, 1984; Ogle 1912; U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 1950, 1986; Van Duyne et al. 1921; Washington Department of Highways 1936). Around 1889 the Oregon Railroad and Navigation Company built a line into the Spokane Valley from the south, passing 2 km (1 mi) east of the current project APE. Small towns sprang up along Short Report No.: SR 820 Page No.: 4 County: Spokane the new railroad, including Chester, 2 km (1 mi) northeast of the APE. The community of Chester served as a transportation, supply, and service center for the surrounding agricultural area, and its lumber mill and pottery plant/brickyard provided employment for many local residents (Boutwell 1994:17, 69, 121, 124; Meany 1923:45). Traditional cultural properties: During the search of Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) records in Olympia, no information was located documenting traditional cultural properties (TCPs) in the project vicinity. Previously recorded cultural resources within project area: According to OAHP site files, no previously recorded cultural sites are located within the project APE. Previously recorded cultural resources near project area: According to OAHP site files, no previously recorded cultural sites are located within 2 km (1 mi) of the project APE. CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY RESEARCH DESIGN Objectives: The objective of this study is to assist Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. in compliance with state and federal laws by location and preliminary characterization of both previously recorded and currently unidentified cultural resources within the project area. Area surveyed: Approximately 18 ha (45 ac) were surveyed for cultural resources, an area bounded on the north by 44th Avenue, on the west by Schafer Branch Road, on the south by a fenceline, and on other sides by developed private lands (see Figure 1). Methods: On August 20, 2004 an AHS archaeologist walked over the entire project APE in compass-oriented transects spaced 20 m to 30 m (66 ft to 100 ft) apart. The surveyor thoroughly examined areas of exposed sediments, including rodent mounds, animal trails, and bulldozer tracks, for evidence of past cultural activity. Shovel scrapes were conducted periodically in areas of limited ground visibility to expose the mineral soil. Global Positioning System- (GPS-) generated UTMs were used, as needed, to verify project boundaries; these data were subsequently differentially corrected in the AHS office. Additional survey documentation, including field notes and photographs, are on file at the AHS office in Cheney. A literature review, conducted for the project vicinity, included inspection of state cultural resources site files at OAHP in Olympia, General Land Office (GLO) and other government documents posted on Bureau of Land Management websites, cultural resource and natural history reports on file at AHS, and documents held by Eastern Washington University’s John F. Kennedy Library in Cheney and the Spokane Public Library in Spokane. RESULTS positive X negative Short Report No.: SR 820 Page No.: 5 County: Spokane Cultural resources recorded/observed:  building(s)  site(s)  structure(s)  historic district(s)  feature(s)  isolated find(s)  see attached  artifact(s)  object(s) Description: No cultural resources potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) were observed within the project APE. If negative, possible reasons for absence of cultural resources: While this upland area, some distance from perennial water sources, was undoubtedly visited by Native American people during their travels and food-gathering rounds, such activities often leave little physical evidence. Negative results for prehistoric cultural material, then, may be due to the type and duration of human activities conducted in the area. Thin rocky soils, steep slopes, and a lack of water made the project vicinity undesirable for farming, the probable reason for an absence of historical resources. Cultural resources in project area potentially eligible for National Register: No cultural resources potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP have been identified within the project APE. Possible effects of the proposed project on cultural resources: Since no properties potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP are identified within the project APE, no effect on NRHP-eligible cultural resources is anticipated. Unidentified buried cultural deposits, however, could be disturbed by ground-altering activities. MANAGEMENT SUMMARY No cultural resources potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP were identified within the Ponderosa Planned Unit Development area of potential effect. Since the Ponderosa PUD will not affect NRHP-eligible cultural properties, it is recommended that the project proceed as planned. In the event that cultural resources are unearthed in the APE during project activities, work should be halted in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified archaeologist contacted to assess the significance of the resource. Prior to initiation of any land-altering activities, Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc., should submit this document to appropriate review agencies for comment. Short Report No.: SR 820 Page No.: 6 County: Spokane BACKGROUND RESEARCH Sources consulted: Babcock, Scott, and Bob Carson 2000 Hiking Washington’s Geology. The Mountaineers, Seattle. Boutwell, Florence 1994 The Spokane Valley: A History of the Early Years. The Arthur H. Clark Company, Spokane. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 1976 Historic Index, T. 24 N., R. 44 E., Willamette Meridian. Website http://www.or.blm.gov/spokane/. U.S. Department of the Interior, Spokane District, Bureau of Land Management, Spokane. 2004 The Official Federal Land Patent Records Site. Website http://www.glorecords. blm.gov/. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. Donaldson, Norman C., and Laurence D. Giese 1968 Soil Survey - Spokane County, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Fidelity Abstract Company 1905 Township Maps of Spokane County, Washington. Fidelity Abstract Company, Spokane. Franklin, Jerry F., and C. T. Dyrness 1988 Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. General Land Office (GLO) 1874 Official Plat, T. 25 N., R. 43 E. Website http://www.or.blm.gov/spokane/. U.S. Department of the Interior, Spokane District, Bureau of Land Management, Spokane. 1878 Official Plat, T. 24 N., R. 44 E. Website http://www.or.blm.gov/spokane/. U.S. Department of the Interior, Spokane District, Bureau of Land Management, Spokane. Glenrose Women’s Club (GWC) Short Report No.: SR 820 Page No.: 7 County: Spokane ca. 1978 History of Glenrose Prairie. Manuscript on file, Northwest Room, Spokane Public Library, Spokane. Kingston, Ceylon S. 1981 The Inland Empire in the Pacific Northwest. Ye Galleon Press, Fairfield. Meany, Edmond S. 1923 Origin of Washington Geographic Names. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Metsker, Chas. F. 1930 Metsker's Atlas of Spokane County, Washington. Chas. F. Metsker, Portland or Tacoma. 1941 Metsker's Atlas of Spokane County, Washington. Chas. F. Metsker, Portland or Tacoma. 1957 Metsker's Atlas of Spokane County, Washington. Chas. F. Metsker, Tacoma or Seattle. 1984 Metsker's Atlas of Spokane County, Washington. Chas. F. Metsker, Tacoma. Mullan, John 1994 Report on the Construction of a Military Road from Fort Walla-Walla to Fort Benton. Ye Galleon Press, Fairfield. Ogle, George A. 1912 Standard Atlas of Spokane County, Washington. George A. Ogle & Co., Chicago. Ray, Verne F. 1936 Native Villages and Groupings of the Columbia Basin. The Pacific Northwest Quarterly 27:99-152. Ross, John Alan 1998 Spokane. In Plateau, edited by Deward E. Walker, Jr., pp. 271-282. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 12, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Ruby, Robert H., and John A. Brown 1970 The Spokane Indians. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Spier, Leslie Short Report No.: SR 820 Page No.: 8 County: Spokane 1936 Tribal Distribution in Washington. General Series in Anthropology No. 3. George Banta Publishing Company, Menasha, Wisconsin. Teit, James A. 1930 The Salishan Tribes of the Western Plateaus, edited by Franz Boas. Forty-fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, pp. 23-396. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1950 Spokane, Wash. Quadrangle. 15 Minute Series. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver or Washington, D.C. 1986 Spokane SE, Wash. Quadrangle. 1973, photorevised 1986. 7.5 Minute Series. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver or Reston. Van Duyne, Cornelius, H. C. Mortlock, A. F. Heck, and E. D. Alvord 1921 Soil Survey of Spokane County, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Soils. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Washington Department of Highways 1936 General Highway and Transportation Map, Spokane County. Washington Department of Highways, Olympia. Weis, Paul L., and William L. Newman 1989 The Channeled Scablands of Eastern Washington: The Geologic Story of the Spokane Flood. Eastern Washington University Press, Cheney. Wynecoop, David C. 1969 Children of the Sun: A History of the Spokane Indians. David C. Wynecoop, Wellpinit. A Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Ponderosa Planned Unit Development Project, Spokane County, Washington by Ann Sharley Principal Investigator: Stan Gough Submitted to Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. Short Report 820 Archaeological and Historical Services Eastern Washington University September 2004 Archaeological and Historical Services Cultural Resources Survey Cover Sheet Author: Ann Sharley Title: A Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Ponderosa Planned Unit Development Project, Spokane County, Washington Date: September 2004 County: Spokane Quadrangle: Spokane SE, Wash., 7.5', 1973, photorevised 1986 Township: T24N Range: R44E Section: Portion of Section 5 Total Pages: 10 Acres: 45 OAHP Site/Field #: N/A OAHP Use Only NADB Document No.: OAHP Log No.: My review results in the opinion that survey does does not conform with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Identification. Signed: Date: Short Report No.: Page No.: County: SR 820 9 Spokane Figure 1. Map of project area (adapted from Spokane SE, Washington USGS 7.5’ series quadrangle, 1973, photorevised 1986). WASHINGTON 0 1 kilometer 0 1 mile Project Area of Potential Effect (APE) Short Report No.: Page No.: County: SR 820 10 Spokane Figure 2. Overview of proposed Ponderosa Planned Unit Development project area. View to the southwest. SEPA CHECKLIST SVMC 21.20 10210 E Sprague Avenue  Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5240  Fax: (509) 720-5070  permitcenter@spokanevalley.org PL-22 V1.0 Page 1 of 16 STAFF USE ONLY WCE Job #2798 – Ponderosa Ridge – East PART I – REQUIRED MATERIAL **THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED** Completed SEPA Checklist Application Fee Reduced Site Plan of proposal in 8½” by 11” or 11” by 17” size Trip Distribution and Generation Letter, if requested by Development Engineering. PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NON-PROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for non-project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON-PROJECT ACTIONS (Part D). For non-project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. Date Submitted: Received by: Fee: PLUS #: File #: SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL-22 V1.0 Page 2 of 16 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable Ponderosa Ridge – East Preliminary Long Plat 2. Name of applicant: Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Todd Whipple P.E., or Ben Goodmansen E.I.T., Whipple Consulting Engineers 21 South Pines Road Spokane Valley, WA, 99206 509.893.2617 4. Date checklist prepared: February 21, 2022 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Spokane Valley, Washington 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Project to begin construction winter 2022 to spring 2023. This project may be phased due to market conditions. Phasing may include early grading, utility installation, pump station construction, portioning of the infrastructure and platting in two or more phases. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. There are no plans for future activity connected with this proposal at this time; however, the applicant has an adjoining property in the county currently in application under PE-2085-19. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. A SEPA Checklist, Concept Storm Drainage Report, Trip Generation and Distribution Letter and traffic study have been prepared or will be prepared for this proposal. The existing R-3 zoning designation was approved as part of the 2004 GMA adoption process and maintained during subsequent map revisions. All environmental documentation regarding zoning was incorporated therein. A zone change is NOT under consideration as part of this proposal. A previous preliminary plat and PUD application for this property was submitted on May 14, 2004. Previously submitted environmental information that encompasses the project site includes a SEPA checklist, habitat management plan, cultural resource survey and traffic impact analysis. These documents have been updated and resubmitted with this application. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL-22 V1.0 Page 3 of 16 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. A previous preliminary plat and PUD are pending for this application. The previous application will be withdrawn upon approval of this preliminary plat. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Permits expected to be necessary include this SEPA document, grading, building, air quality and sign permits, as well as driveway and street obstruction permits and any other permits that may be required and are as yet unknown. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) This project proposes to subdivide one parcel of 16.95 ac +/- into 81 single- family lots and 6 tracts on parcel number 44052.9011. The subject property is generally a rectangular shape with three attached rectangles to the north, east and south. This project may include a separate grading permit at a later date and may be platted in phases. The owner of the subject property also owns the adjacent parcel 44052.9230, an approximately 11.9 acre parcel to the west that is currently under application for development within Spokane County as PE- 2085-19. In addition to parcel 44052.9230, the property owner owns or controls parcel numbers 44052.1302, 44052.1012, 44052.1010, 44052.1004, 44052.1002, 44052.1301, 44052.1401, 44052.1111, 44052.1110, 44052.1109, 44052.1108, 44052.1107, 44052.1106, 44052.1105, 44052.1104, 44052.1103, 44052.1102, and 44052.1101 for a total of approximately 14.98 acres of adjacent land. Additionally, a water booster station will be constructed along the north side of 47th Avenue. This proposed booster station will be located within tract “E”. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The subject property is located at an unassigned address in the north ½ of the northwest ¼ of Section 5, Township 24 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian. The project site connects to the existing E. 44th Avenue and S. Locust Road to the north; E. 45th Avenue and S. Farr Road to the east; and E. 46th SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL-22 V1.0 Page 4 of 16 Avenue, 48th Avenue and Ponderosa Lane to the west. The parcel number for the site is 44052.9011, listed on SCOUT as vacant land. 13. Does the proposed action lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)? The general Sewer Service Area? Priority Sewer Service Area? (See: Spokane County's ASA Overlay zone Atlas for boundaries). The project site lies within the ASA, the high susceptibility area of the CARA and the General/Priority Sewer Service Areas according to Spokane County maps. 14. The following questions supplement Part A. a. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) / Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA). 1. Describe any systems, other than those designed for the disposal of sanitary waste, installed for the purpose of discharging fluids below the ground surface (includes systems such as those for the disposal of Stormwater or drainage from floor drains). Describe the type of system, the amount of material to be disposed of through the system and the types of material likely to be disposed of (including materials which may enter the system inadvertently through spill, or as a result of firefighting activities). The completed project will discharge treated stormwater as allowed by the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual (SRSM) to the underlying soils. Grassy percolation areas (GPAs) (infiltration swales) will be used for treatment and drywells for subsurface disposal of excess stormwater. The CN method from the SRSM or other allowed methods may be used in addition to the above- mentioned method. 2. Will any chemicals (especially organic solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks? If so, what types and quantities of material will be stored? No storage tanks are proposed. During construction, no chemicals will be stored on site. After development it would be expected that household chemicals will be stored above ground in appropriately sized containers of less than 5 gallons. These containers might include gasoline for mowers, fertilizer and weed abatement chemicals, paint and assorted solvents, or other chemicals typical of a single-family residence. 3. What protective measures will be taken to ensure that leaks or spills of any chemicals stored or used on site will not be allowed to percolate to groundwater? This includes measures to keep chemicals out of disposal systems. With the development, no commercial volumes of chemicals are expected to be stored onsite. During construction, refueling and oiling operations for construction equipment will occur. The contractor will maintain strict spill and remediation protocols. After development, only household volumes of chemicals are expected to be used and all spills will be cleaned up in keeping with the limited amount spilled; therefore, no protective measures are proposed. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL-22 V1.0 Page 5 of 16 4. Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used on the site in a location where a spill or leak will drain to surface or groundwater or to a Stormwater disposal system discharging to surface or groundwater? No, while there could be household chemicals stored on-site by individual landowners, spills associated with household volumes will be handled on-site by the responsible resident. Minor spills anticipated within the residences/garages will be contained generally on impervious surfaces. b. Stormwater 1. What are the depths on the site to groundwater and to bedrock (if known)? The depth to groundwater on this property is approximately 200 feet based on nearby well logs. No shallow bedrock is expected. 2. Will stormwater be discharged into the ground? If so, describe any potential impacts. Yes, treated stormwater will be discharged into the ground via proposed drywells and bio-infiltration/LID ponds or discharged at pre-developed rates to downstream channels as allowed. Per the SRSM, no impacts beyond those noted and allowed in the SRSM are anticipated. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (check one): flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The steepest slope on site is approximately 15 percent. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Per the USDA web soil survey, the soils are described as: 3121—Marble loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes. 7121—Urban land-Marble, disturbed complex, 3 to 8 percent slopes. 7121—Urban land-Marble, disturbed complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. There are no known unstable soils onsite. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Also indicate source of fill. Proposed grading will be for the streets, utilities, and building pads. The grading would involve removal of organics, preparation of street subgrade utility (wet & dry) installation, and the preparation of building pads. This will occur over the entire site. Although quantities are unknown at this time, we would anticipate the movement of approximately 20,000 cy to 30,000 cy of material onsite. No SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL-22 V1.0 Page 6 of 16 export or import is anticipated; however, if any import or export of materials is required it shall be from/to a preapproved source/destination and coordinated with the City of Spokane Valley per the Haul Route Standards, which already have appropriate documentation. Please take note that a separate grading application may be made at a later date as a phase of the noted project and should be considered a part of a consolidated permit process. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Some minor localized erosion from wind and rain may occur during construction but would be mitigated through the use of appropriate BMPs and generally remain onsite. No erosion would be expected from the proposed use of the site, once development construction has ceased, as surfaces will be stabilized by paving, concrete, building, and landscaping. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 35% to 45% of the project site may be covered with impervious surfaces. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Erosion will be reduced and controlled through the use of appropriate BMPs during construction and stabilization of disturbed soils by paving, concrete, buildings, and landscaping following construction. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction, some fugitive dust could be expected, although the intent of the permits would be to control this instance through watering, hydroseeding, or other BMPs. Additionally, there will be exhaust fumes from construction equipment, etc. At the completion of construction, air emissions may be from home appliances such as dryers and gas furnaces, exhaust from yard maintenance equipment, resident vehicles and personal entertainment activities such as barbecuing. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. There are no off-site emissions known at this time. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: All site development shall comply with Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA), construction related requirements including dust abatement measures such as watering and revegetation. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL-22 V1.0 Page 7 of 16 3. Water a. Surface: 1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. There are no surface water bodies on or in the immediate vicinity (within 200 feet) of the project site. 2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No work will take place over, in, or adjacent to any surface waters as none are within 200 feet of the site. 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. No fill or dredge material are proposed to be placed in or removed from surface waters or wetlands as none exist onsite. 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No, the proposal will not require any surface water withdrawals or diversions. 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No, the project site does not lie within a 100-year floodplain. 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No waste materials will be discharged to surface waters as the site will be connected to public sewer. b. Ground: 1. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No groundwater will be withdrawn from this site. All potable water used will be provided by the local purveyor per their existing water right. The project’s stormwater will be discharged to the underlying soils and groundwater as allowed per the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual (SRSM). A project specific storm drainage report will be provided when the project site is in the design process. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL-22 V1.0 Page 8 of 16 2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No wastewater will be discharged via septic or other onsite systems. The subject site is in the Spokane County Sewer utility service area and will be served by public sewer. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The source of runoff from this site after completion of the plat will be from the constructed elements of the plat including but not limited to homes, streets, sidewalks, driveways, lawns open spaces, etc. The intent is to convey stormwater to catchments or pond areas for treatment and then discharge the treated stormwater as required by the SRSM to the underlying soils via swales, ponds, drywells, galleries, etc. or to treat and pass-through at pre-developed rates to maintain any downstream surface water rights. This treated stormwater is anticipated to eventually reach groundwater. 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No, the project will be connected to public sewer for household waste collection. Stormwater is required to be treated per the SRSM and all future runoff will be treated in the catchment areas before infiltrating through the treatment soil and into the native soil. Any spills on site will/would be contained within project swales and will/would be easily remediated prior to any discharge below grade. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The projects connection to public sewer protects against the discharge of waste materials into the soil. The project will be developed following the requirements for stormwater as outlined in the SRSM. An increase in stormwater runoff should be expected due to the conversion of permeable lands to impermeable surfaces created by the development. That added increase will be addressed during the design and approval process with the City of Spokane Valley and any other affected agencies to control impacts from development. Any additional measures will be determined and resolved during the design process. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL-22 V1.0 Page 9 of 16 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation________________ b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? It should be expected that all existing trees, shrubs and grasses within the development area will be removed where necessary or required. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. A review of the USFW IPaC and Washington Fish and Wildlife endangered species websites (PHS) reveals that Spalding’s catchfly may be present in the vicinity of the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: No measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on site are proposed. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Sparrows/other native species, red-tailed hawks, other birds of prey mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: The Spokane Valley Habitats and Species map lists Rocky Mountain Elk and Northwest White-Tailed Deer. None are observed onsite. fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: None b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Following a review of the USFW IPaC Service and Washington Fish and Wildlife Office’s listing of critical or endangered species, we have noted that there are 21 animal species listed in Washington State. Of these, none are known to be found on site; however, the following have habitat that covers this region: yellow- billed cuckoo and bull trout. Stormwater generated onsite is not anticipated to impact bull trout habitat. Additionally, the WDFW PHS indicates that gray wolf, an endangered species, has been observed within Township 24 N, Range 44 E, though exact locations are obfuscated by the WDFW to protect the species. Due to the single-family SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL-22 V1.0 Page 10 of 16 residences and urban density adjacent to the property, gray wolves are not anticipated to reside in or utilize the site, nor will grey wolves be displaced by this development. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Spokane County is part of the Pacific Flyway migration route. An online review of the City Habitat map lists Rocky Mountain elk habitat and northwest white- tailed dear. The USFW website lists bald eagle, black tern, Cassin’s finch, evening grosbeak, lesser yellowlegs, olive-sided flycatcher and Rufous hummingbird as migratory birds that may transit the site. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: As this is a highly urbanized development within the Urban Growth Boundary, no preservation or enhancement measures will be provided that would draw animals away from habitat located outside the growth boundary. 6. Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity and natural gas will be made available to each residence for heating, air conditioning and lighting of the development. Additionally, solar, wind, and other sources of energy would be available if installed by the owner. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No, the structures will be a maximum height of 35’, or as allowed by code, which should not affect the collection of solar energy by adjacent properties. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: At this time none are proposed beyond those required by current city, state, county, and national energy code. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe We believe that no environmental health hazards would develop as a result of this project. As this is a residential development that does not propose to store large quantities of toxic or flammable chemicals, there are no large-scale health hazards anticipated to the general public. 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required. As the project does not propose to store large volumes of toxic chemicals, fuel, or hazardous waste and proposes single-family home construction. No special emergency services would be required. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL-22 V1.0 Page 11 of 16 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: No measures are proposed as during construction contractors are anticipated to follow all local, state, and federal regulations regarding the handling, and storage of hazardous and toxic chemicals stored on site, that may be used for construction purposes such as diesel fuel and hydraulic oil. b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic noise from 44th Avenue and Farr Road, and noise typical of single-family residences have been observed. This noise is not anticipated to affect the project. 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. In the short term, noises from construction equipment for both land disturbing and building construction would be generated as a part of this project. Long term noise would be typical traffic and occupant noises associated with residential areas such as lawn maintenance activities, kids, pets, etc. Construction noise is anticipated to occur during daylight hours. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Construction would be restricted to hours as allowed by code. 8. Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The current use of the site is vacant land. To the north, east, south and northwest of the site are single-family residential units. To the southwest of the site is a parcel of vacant land. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No, this site has no indications of prior agricultural use. c. Describe any structures on the site. There are no structures onsite. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No structures will be demolished with this project, as no structures currently exist onsite. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3). f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Single Family Residential (SFR). SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL-22 V1.0 Page 12 of 16 g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? There is no shoreline master program designation on this site according to the City of Spokane Valley GIS. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No, this site is not classified as an environmentally sensitive area according to the City of Spokane Valley GIS. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 219 people (81*2.7) would reside on the completed project. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? No people are anticipated to be involuntarily displaced with the project. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: No measures are proposed as no impacts are anticipated. l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: No additional measures are proposed beyond the compatibility established via a review of the City Zoning Code, as well as this SEPA and building permit process. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. 81 residential units will be provided and are anticipated to be middle income housing. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No housing units will be eliminated with this project. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: No measures are proposed as no housing impacts are anticipated. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Maximum height as allowed by code, 35’. Exteriors may be one of the following or a combination; wood, brick, aluminum, lap siding (wood/concrete/vinyl) with cultured or natural stone, windows, doors, asphalt shingles or metal roofing, those materials common to house construction within the Spokane Region. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL-22 V1.0 Page 13 of 16 b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Generally, no views will be altered with the project. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: No additional measures are proposed to reduce or control aesthetic impacts. 11. Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light and glare will be emitted from the project’s exterior building lights during nighttime hours and headlights from on-site traffic may generate light or glare. Light and glare generated from/to onsite residences will be mitigated with landscaping. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? We do not anticipate that light or glare from the completed project would impact or create a safety hazard to the adjacent or surrounding areas. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? There are no known off-site sources of light or glare that may affect the proposed project. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: There are no measures to control light and glare impacts beyond existing codes. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Nearby formal recreational opportunities include the Iller Creek Conservation Area, the Dishman Hills Conservation Area, and their associated trails. Nearby informal recreational opportunities include Ponderosa Elementary School. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. This project is not proposed to displace any existing recreation use. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: No measures are proposed to reduce or control impacts on recreation as no impacts are anticipated. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. A search of WISAARD database found no places or objects onsite or adjacent to the site. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL-22 V1.0 Page 14 of 16 b. Generally, describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. There are no known landmarks or features located on the project site found on the WISAARD site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: A Cultural Resource Survey (CRS) was completed in 2004 (Eastern Washington University SR 820) that discovered no artifacts. The study recommended that an inadvertent discovery plan be prepared noting that during construction, if any artifact or human remains are discovered the project will stop in that area and the City of Spokane Valley and the property owner will be notified. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The project is anticipated to access the urban major collector 44th Avenue to the north and the local access roads 45th Avenue to the east, 46th Avenue to the west and Farr Road to the east. The project will extend local access roads 45th Avenue, 46th Avenue, 47th Avenue, 48th Avenue and Locust Road into the development. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? This site is not served by public transit. STA route 97 is approximately 1.5 miles away from the project site at the closest intersection, 32nd and University. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? This project is anticipated to have approximately 162 garage spaces and 162 driveway parking spaces for a development total of 324 parking spaces for single-family residences. No public spaces will be eliminated. Public parking will be allowed on the public roadways. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). The project proposes to build one north-south public road and four east-west public roads. The north-south Locust Road will be extended from the northern boundary into a tract at the southern end of the property. Access to the public road system to the south is blocked by a private property and so no connectivity to the south is achievable. The east-west roads will be 45th Avenue, extending west from the existing 45th Avenue and terminating at Locust Road in a T intersection. 46th Avenue will extend from the existing 46th Avenue, through Locust Road, and will terminate in a cul-de-sac. 47th Avenue will extend west from Farr Road and will terminate at Locust Road. Finally, 48th Avenue will SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL-22 V1.0 Page 15 of 16 extend from Locust Road and will terminate at the western boundary of the property. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The project is not anticipated to use water, rail, or air transportation. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. As shown on the Trip Generation and Distribution Letter, the project is anticipated to generate 62 AM and 84 PM new peak hour trips. The project is anticipated to generate 844 new ADT to/from the site. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: No measures to control transportation impacts are proposed as this project does not anticipate to generate transportation impacts beyond an acceptable level for the City of Spokane Valley. 15. Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. This project lies within the SCWD 3 service area; however, due to the existing low-pressure zone in the area, a water booster station is required by SCWD 3 to serve fire district-acceptable fire pressures and potable water for residents. This station will be installed within a tract. For all other services, at this time and as an infill project, we do not believe that this project will negatively impact these services below an acceptable level nor beyond the services ability to self- regulate per the comprehensive plan. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. A water booster station will be installed along the north side of 47th Avenue to mitigate the increased need for water in the area and low-pressure zone. PL-23 V1.0 CERTIFICATE OF SEWER AVAILABILITY This form is only to be submitted as an attachment to a fully completed application. Project Name: _______________________________________________________________________ Parcel Numbers: _____________________________________________________________________ General Project Description: ____________________________________________________________ *Note: Planning Action Review Fee of $100.00 may need to be paid prior to the execution of this certification by Spokane County. CERTIFICATION BY SEWER UTILITY The above-named Public Sewer System is capable of and will supply sewer service to the referenced project or subdivision. 1.Is sewer currently available, with service connections provided as required, to serve the proposed development? (If yes, go to signature block; if no, go to 2a.) Yes No 2a. Is the site within the Spokane County Sewer six-year Sewer Capital Improvement Program? (If yes, go to 2b; if no, go to 3.) Yes No 2b. Will the developer design, fund, construct and provide financial surety for the necessary systems to provide Dryline Sewer and/or Double Plumbing Dry Side Sewers as required? (If no, go to 3.) Yes No 3 Will the developer design, fund, construct and provide financial surety for the necessary systems to extend sewer service to the site and provide service connections as required? Yes No This Certificate of Sewer Availability is non-transferable to other projects and shall be valid as long as the referenced project remains active and is not modified. Certified by: Print Name Title Signature Date CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION BY PLANNING AGENCY If yes to question 1, or question 2b, or question 3 above, concurrency is satisfied for sewer. Otherwise, refer applicant to the Division of Utilities. This development is exempt from concurrency for sewer service. This development (does/does not) meet the concurrency requirements for sewer service. circle one Planning Agency Representative Agency Date Ponderosa Ridge — East 44052.9011 Subdivide one parcel into 82 single-family residential lots X X Colin Depner Plan Reviewer 8.31.21 City of Spokane Valley Planning Department – Project Narrative February 22, 2022 Page 2 of 5 • 8-inch steel in 44th Avenue, • 8-inch ductile iron stub at 46th Avenue. • 12-inch and an 8-inch ductile iron stub at 47th Avenue & Farr Road • 8-inch Asbestos Concrete (AC) in Farr Road at the 45th Avenue intersection. Per conversations with Spokane County Water District #3, a booster station is required/ proposed along the proposed 47th Avenue alignment. As shown on the preliminary plat, Tract E is proposed for the booster station and for stormwater. Sizing of Tract E will depend upon design requirements from SCWD #3. Power and Dry Utilities Avista Power and Gas, Comcast, and CenturyLink have utilities in and around the development. Stormwater For this project stormwater is proposed to sheetflow from pollution generating surfaces (pgis) such as roadways and driveways and captured in roadside swales or ponds for treatment and disposal per the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual (SRSM). A review of the soils in this area and previously completed Geotechnical analysis, anticipates that disposal of treated stormwater is to be via drywells into the near surficial soils. Per the USGS web soil survey the predominant soil type for this property is NRCS 3121- Marble loamy sand, a well-drained soil. Traffic A Trip Generation and Distribution letter has been prepared for the proposed project and a recent Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) also has been completed and approved by Spokane County. Fire Access/ Emergency Services Per the SCFD #8 Board Resolution 2017-442, there are three accesses acknowledged for the Ponderosa Neighborhood and additional conditions required by resolution. These measures address and mitigate the fire evacuation plan of previous land use actions. This project accepts the requirements of the SCFD and SVFD. Development Code Project Review The proposed development is anticipated to follow the City of Spokane Valley Design Standards, Zoning and Building Codes as they are established in the City Street Standards, the City Municipal Code and the International Residential Code. The following provisions of the development codes allow for the proposal: a. Per the Zoning Code Map, the subject property is in the R-3 Zone. b. Per the Comprehensive Plan Map, the subject parcels are in the Single-Family Residential designation. City of Spokane Valley Planning Department – Project Narrative February 22, 2022 Page 3 of 5 c. Per SVMC Section 19.70.020, Residential Standards, the lots will comply with the dimensional standards shown in Table 19.70-1. This includes a minimum lot area of 5,000 sq ft. Front and flanking street yard setback will be 15 ft. minimum, rear yard setback of 10 ft. minimum, and side yard setback of 5 ft minimum. Garages will be setback 20 ft. minimum. Residential driveways and off-street parking areas shall be paved with hard surface material. d. Per SVMC Chapter 19.60 Permitted Uses, single family residences are a permitted use in the R-3 zone. e. Per SVMC Chapter 22.20, Concurrency, certificates of water and sewer availability have been submitted with the application. With regards to traffic, a Trip Generation and Distribution Letter has been submitted detailing the anticipated changes to traffic as a result of the project. f. Per SVMC Section 22.50.020, Vehicle Parking, each unit will have a minimum of two off-street parking spaces. This project anticipates four spaces per residence minimum: two garage spaces and two driveway spaces. g. Per SVMC Section 22.130.070, Development Transportation Improvements, the internal public streets will be improved and built to current City of Spokane Valley street standards. h. Per SVMC, Chapter 22.150, Stormwater Management Regulations, the project will be designed such that post-development storm water will be treated and disposed onsite by methods approved in the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual. Comprehensive Plan Project Review This proposal is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies A. Goal LU-G1. Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. B. Goal LU-G2. Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors. This project is consistent with this goal through the implementation of the policies as outlined below. 1. LU-P7. Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts associated with transportation corridors. The proposed lots will directly access Locust Road, 45th, 46th and 47th Avenues; no lots will directly connect to 44th Avenue. 2. LU-P14. Enable a variety of housing types. The subject property will create housing at a variety of lot sizes from approximately 5,149.29 to 12,430.25 sf. City of Spokane Valley Planning Department – Project Narrative February 22, 2022 Page 4 of 5 C. Goal T-2. Ensure that transportation planning efforts reflect anticipated land use patterns and support identified growth opportunities. D. Goal T-3. Strive to reduce the number of serious injury/fatality collisions to zero. This project is consistent with this goal through the implementation of the policies as outlined below. 1. T-P5. Restrict high-speed traffic from residential neighborhoods. All proposed residences will face internal local access roads, protecting the neighborhood from high-speed traffic. 2. T-P6. Work collaboratively with developers to ensure that areas experiencing new development are well served by motorized and non-motorized transportation options. This project includes a trip generation and distribution letter (TGDL), which allows the City of Spokane Valley to assess traffic needs in the area and may assign fees to the project for traffic mitigation. E. Goal H-2. Enable the development of affordable housing for all income levels. This project is consistent with this goal through the implementation of the policies as outlined below. 1. H-P3. Support the development of affordable housing units using available financial and regulatory tools. This project would create residences within an R-3 zone which allows for more affordable housing than in the adjacent R-1 zone. 2. H-P5. Enable a variety of housing types at increased densities within ½ mile of funded high-performance transit networks. This project would create residences within an R-3 zone which allows for the development of more single-family residences in proximity to Dishman-Mica Road. 3. H-P6. Preserve and enhance the city’s established single-family neighborhoods by minimizing the impacts of more dense housing typologies such as duplexes and cottage development. This project would develop single-family residences per the current R-3 zone. No duplexes or cottage developments are proposed with this project. F. Goal CF-1. Coordinate with special districts, other jurisdictions, and the private sector to effectively and affordably provide facilities and services. G. Goal CF-2. Provide public facilities and services necessary to promote Spokane Valley’s economic development goals and community priorities. This project includes a trip generation and distribution letter (TGDL), which allows the City of Spokane Valley to assess traffic needs in the area and may assign fees to the project for traffic mitigation.