Sunrise Haven history Sims, Brenda
From: Sims, Brenda
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 1998 9:51 AM
To: Grimes, Laurie; Pederson, John
Subject: Sunrise Haven - Peregoy comments
I spoke with Mr. Peregoy this morning about his comment under Wildlife (p. 8 of the attachment to his letter of
March 8, 1998.) His comment references Schedule D of the Chester Creek Clean Out Project. Mr. Peregoy had
misinterpreted the location of the Grass Meadow Wetlands as identified in the Folsom/Quinn report. The Grass
Meadow Wetlands is not the area that Mr. Peregoy thought it was. It is not the area adjacent to the proposed
Sunrise Haven. The Grass Meadow Wetlands is on the other side of the railroad tracks.
The maps attached to the Folsom/Quinn report are difficult to read and Mr. Peregoy's mistake was certainly
understandable. He appreciated my letting him know of the error. I invited him to take a look at our more
definitive maps the next time he is in the building.
Page 1
. {� � C�.�. -: .._ _ -� .� .
t � P
4034 S. Sundown Dr.
Spokane, WA 99206
(509) 926-7516
March 8, 1998
� Ms. Laurie Grimes
Assistant Planning Director
Dept. of Building and Planning
1026 W. Broadway
Spokane, WA 99260
Dear Ms. Grimes:
I am writing in regards to the proposed Sunrise Haven development in the Spokane Valley.
This project was submitted to your office in February of 1997 and was recently granted a 6
month extension. Although the developer has been working on this project for almost 2 years,
my neighbors and I only became aware of it at the end of last month.
Over the past 2 weeks, I have spent a considerable amount of time studying this proposed
development. I have reviewed the file in the Planning Office, talked with numerous people
(including many in the Public Works Department) who have information relevant to this
project, and organized a neighborhood association to study the proposal.
Through my research, I have learned the real issue is not how this will affect the quality of life
in my neighborhood (which motivated me initially), but how this will affect Chester Creek, two
large wetlands, wildlife habitat, a wildlife corridor, and flooding in the neighborhood. I have
also become aware that the developer has failed to acknowledge any of these concerns.
Consequently, I have summarized all of the inconsistencies, omissions, and needs'for further
study that I have discovered or been alerted to in a report I am submitting with this letter. I
hope this document will be of value to those involved with the planning review process in the
Public Works Department. In order that I may continue to monitor future developments, I
would like to request that my name be added to the distribution list for documents relevant to
this project.
I want to take this opportunity to thank you and your staff for your patience, willingness to
answer my questions, and efforts to help me locate information. You have all made a
challenging task much more pleasant.
Sincerely,
Robert S. Peregoy, Ph.D.
Biologist
enclosure
SUN,RISE HA VEN
Owner and Developer: Ward Leland
1520 W. 3`� Ave,, Suite 205
Spokane, WA 99204
(509) 624-3141
Land Planner & Surveyor: Stuart Deysenroth
Adams & Clark, Inc.
1720 W. 4�` Ave.
Spokane, WA 99204-1702
(509) 747-4600
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
The site proposed for Sunrise Haven is an approximately 6 acre parcel of land located at
the northeast end of Sundown Dr. just off of Schafer Rd. The property is just south of
Chester Creek and is an integral part of a large, continuous wetland ecosystem.
Important facts regarding this property include the following:
1. The property's southeast corner (identified by a survey picket) is in a wetland that
has been identified in both the county's environmental inventory (1991) and the report on
the Chester Creek Clean Out Project (identified as the Grass Meadow Wetland on pages 5
— 6 of Attachment D). This is a seasonal wetland approximately 5 acres in size. Evidence
to support the claim that this corner of the proposed development is part of the wetlands
includes plant species present (reed canarygrass and cottonwood) and soil conditions
(soils are saturated and apparently hydric).
2. The remaining eastern boundary of the proposed development (i.e. land outside of
the actual wetland) is immediately adjacent to the wetland and probably within the
wetland's buffer.
3. In addition to the Grass Meadow Wetlands which this property bisects, there is a
second wetlands (approximately 7 acres), owned by the county, which connects with the
eastern edge of the Grass Meadow Wetland. The county-owned wetlands is just north of
the Forest Meadows subdivision. This second wetlands has water present year-round.
5v� �"'� The southern and eastern boundaries of this property lie well within the 100 year
�° �'� �`'P � flood plain as delineated on FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Map. The highest area on this
���'�'� Z `� - � property is only about 10 to 12 feet above the100 year flood plain elevation. Most of the
property is less than 5 or 6 feet above the 100 year flood plain elevation.
5. The property is part of larger continuous ecosystem that supports numerous plant
and animal species and is part of the wildlife corridor between Dishman Hills and Mica
Peak.
CHRONOLOGY
1996
Land is surveyed. Developer tells one neighbor (Tia Lesser) he is planning on building his
personal residence on the land. He tells another neighbor (Bob Peregoy) that he might put
a couple of houses out there.
1997
Jan 30 Preliminary conference held. Concerns raised include:
* being in a flood plain
* need for drainage analysis
* need to mitigate school impacts
* define critical areas
� Feb 10 Preliminary Subdivision Application filed. This document summarizes the
� project and lists concerns raised by various county agencies. Most of the proposed lot
sizes are 10,000 —11,000 square feet with 80 foot frontage.
���� -}{,� Note: By comparison, homes in surrounding area are on lots of 1 S, DDO — 20, 000 sq. ft.
d � z and have 100 foot frontage. Concern - what size (value ) house would fit on such a lot?
���� • Note: When asked what effect this project would have on adjacent properties, developer
swers "None. "
Feb 10 Environmental Checklist submitted. This is required by the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Used to determine if an Environmental Impact
Statement should be required.
Concerns and notes of interest:
* Development timetable listed as 3 years.
* Approximately 23% of site will be covered with impervious structures (streets,
roofs, and driveways)
* When asked about year-round or seasonal bodies of surface water, applicant only
mentions Plouf Creek (Chester Creek) which he says is 500 to 1,200 feet away.
� He does not mention the 2 wetlands or flooding:
* When asked if any work will occur within 200 feet of such water, he says no.
This is untrue, but makes sense because applicant failed to report the other bodies
of water.
�* Applicant says no when asked if proposal lies within a 100 year flood plain:
* When answering questions about sewage and storm water disposal, applicant
mentions a Drainage Plan. This has yet to be filed with the county's engineers (per
my conversation with Bill Hemming on March 3, 1998).
* When asked about storm water runoff, applicant talks about grassy swales and
his Drainage Plan again. These are not shown in the preliminary plat map.
* Plant and animal checklists are incomplete.
Mar 7 Application declared Technically Incomplete by 7ohn Pederson (Senior
Planner) of the Public Works Department, Division of Building and Planning for the
following reasons:
* easement concerns dealing with the rental house on the dirt road
* need a licensed surveyor stamp on zoning map
* plot boundary lines bisect other plats
Note: This decision was made prior to receipt of all comments. In addition, it does not
address the major problems facing this proposed development (some of which were
raised by John Pederson in his initial meeting with the developer). These problems
include: being in a wetlands and flood plain, the Health Disiricts lot size requirements,`
the Central Yalley School Disirict's objections, and the issues raised by Bill Hemming.
This seems like a major issue because this is the only feedback, on file, that John
Pederson provided the appliccmt regarding problems with the project.
Mar 7 Spokane regional Health District responded.
* Stated topogaphy and soils in area are generally suitable for on-site sewage
disposal.
* Prior to final plat approval, soils will have to be evaluated. Plat densities and
methods of sewage disposal could be changed.
* Because of soils, a minimum gross land density would be I8, 000 sq. ft. per lot.
Mar 7 Fire District 1 responded that they thought access was adequate. They
would require a fire hydrant and a change of name from Haven Ct. to University Ct.
• Mar 10 Bill Hemming of County Engineering responded. He determined "
application was technically incomplete for the following reasons:
. *_ No Agreement to Pay Fees was submitted. Allows county to bill for
Engineering work.
* No preliminary geo-hazard evaluation submitted. Building and Plcmning can
waive this, but must justify to Engineering. Given the wetlands, f7ood plains, and
proximity to Chester Creek this report will be critical.
Mar 10 Water Resources (Brenda Sims) responded with following concerns.:
* Project located in or near a wetland — must be addressed under Critical Areas
Ordinance.
* If not in wetlands, its impact on wetlands must be addressed.
* Drainage plans must address wetlands
* Basement flooding is a problem in area (Forest Meadows?). Enough
geotechnical data needs to be provided to determine if basements should be
allowed.
Mar 11 Central Valley School District responded with the following comments;
* District asked that proposal be denied because of its impact on school
overcrowding. Enrollment is already on the increase and this would aggravate
problem.
* A number of new housing developments have been platted or are already under
construction and will contribute to overcrowding.
* If developer builds, he must mitigate impact on schools.
Mar 11 County Engineering responded by asking that technical review of project
not be suspended. Stated that development is in a 100 year flood plain and is a cause for
concern.
May 28 First American Title Insurance Co. issued a Subdivision Guarantee. Adams
and Clark were the Assured and Ward Leland was Title Holder.
1998
Jan 15 John Pederson of the Planning office wrote Stuart Deysenroth (Adams &
_ Clark) to warn him that the preliminary plat was about to expire, but that a 6 month
extension could be requested.
7an 19. Stuart Deysenroth wrote to ask for an extension. He said they were in the �
process of resolving items needed to achieve Technically Complete status. He states these
are: � .
* coordinating items with a neighbor
* minor lot and frontage, access easement issues, etc.
Note: there is no mention of the wetlands, flood plain, a conceptual drainage plan,
sewage issues, Agreement to Pay Fees, Central Yalley School District's ,;oncerns, e"tc:
Feb ?? Surveyors returned and surveyed the property's boundaries.
Feb 6— 23 Various county departments asked if an extension was okay. Only Brenda
Sims of Stormwater Utility opposed it.
Feb 24 Bob Peregoy found out about project.
Feb 25 Extension granted until August 11, 1998.
Feb 28 Neighborhood meeting held at Bob & Barb Peregoy's home. Neighbors
agreed to form a neighborhood association and, if necessary, contribute money for an
attorney
March 7 Bob Peregoy and members of the neighborhood association met with Dick
Behm (County Water Quality Assurance Board and Chester Creek Citizens Committee)
and Diedre Allen (Chester Creek Citizens Committee) to learn more about the Chester
Creek Project and the county's concern over development in areas with such a serious
potential for water problems.
ISSUES
The following is a compilation of issues relevant to the proposed Sunrise Haven
development. This list was generated from written comments various county departments
made on the initial application as well as conversations I have had with numerous people
(both inside and outside of the county Public Works Department) over the past two weeks
regarding this project. While I have tried to make the list as thorough and detailed as
possible, it is quite likely additional concerns will be raised as this project falls under closer
scrutiny in the coming months.
Pertinent Details Regarding tlte Property
.�� � 1. :The property's southeast corner (identified by a survey picket) is in a wetland that
��� � has been identified in both the county's environmental inventory (1991) and the report on
�� the Chester Creek Clean Out Project (identified as the Grass Meadow Wetland on pages 5
— 6 of Attachment D). This is a seasonal wetland approximately 5 acres in size. Evidence
to support the claim that this corner of the proposed development is part of the wetlands
includes plant species present (reed canarygrass and cottonwood) and soil conditions
(soils are saturated and apparently hydric).
2. The remaining;eastern boundary of the proposed development (i.e. land outside of
the actual wetland) is immediately adjacent to the wetlarid and probably within the :-
�,� Z wetland's buffer. `
3. In addition to the Grass Meadow Wetlands which this property bisects, there is a
second wetlands (approximately 7 acres), owned by the county, which connects with the
eastern edge of the Grass Meadow Wetland. .The county-owned wetlands is just north of
�- Z the Forest Meadows subdivision:� This second wetlands has water present year-round.
� 4. The southern and easterri boundaries of this property lie well within the 100 year:
�`�TG^'^^`j ` flood plain as delineated on FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Map. The highest area on this
`�' ��` property is only about 10 to 12 feet above the100 year flood plain elevation. Most of the
property is less than 5 or 6 feet above the 100 year flood plain elevation.
5. The property is part of larger continuous ecosystem that supports numerous plant
and animal species and is part of the wildlife corridor between Dishman Hills and Mica
Peak.
Environmental Checklist — State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA)
1. When asked about year-round or seasonal bodies of surface water, applicant only
mentions Chester Creek (Plouf Creek) which he says is 500 to 1,200 feet away. He does
not mention the 2 wetlands or flooding.
2. When asked if any work will occur within 200 feet of such water, he says no. This
is untrue, but makes sense because applicant failed to report the other bodies of water.
3. Applicant says no when asked if proposal lies within a 100 year flood plain.
4. When answering questions about sewage and storm water disposal, applicant
mentions a Drainage Plan. This has yet to be filed with the county's engineers (per my
conversation with Bill Hemming on March 3, 1998). He also talks about a stormwater
collection system, grassy swales, and drywells as described in the unseen Drainage Plan.
The preliminary plat for this project does not show any swales or collection systems.
5. Plant inventory incomplete. Most importantly, applicant fails to mention presence
of reed canarygrass and cottonwoods.
6. Animal inventory incomplete. Fails to list hawks, ducks (in wetlands this project
bisects), pheasants, quail, turkeys, _coyotes, and moose.
7. Property immediately to the east of this property is a designated Bird Sanctuary ;'
(per Mark Davis a neighbor who is related to owners of property designated as a
sanctuary).
8. The Environmental Checklist was submitted by the applicant on February 10,
1997, but it was never circulated for review. Consequently, there was no detemunation
made regarding the significance of this proposed development on the environment
►���� f� � I understand there are criteria for waiving the review of this checklist, but the wetlands,
' fTood plain, and wildlife issues associated with this project rtullify these. `
When this checklist is circulated for comments, I would like to be added to the
distribution lis�
C'ritical Areas Ordinance (effective 8-96)
1. Property bisects and runs alongside an identified wetlands.
2. This wetlands will �need to be formally delineated and rated according to the, � -
Critical Areas Ordinance` (Spokane County Critical Areas Ordinance 11.20.050 —
Wetlands). -
3. ; Buffers; as required by this ordinance, will severely restrict development on
southern and eastern edge of property.
4. While the Critical Areas Ordinance allows for wetlands replacement, the critical
role this wetlands and flood plain play in the drainage of Chester Creek will most likely
prohibit this.
5. The Critical Areas Ordinance also requires consideration of wildlife and wildlife
comdors (Spokane County Critical Areas Ordinance 11.20. 060 — Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Conservation Areas). The meadow and wetlands which this proposed
development is a part of supports the following wildlife:
white tail deer ducks (species?) turkeys
coyote hawks (species?) frogs (species)
moose pheasants (species?)
songbirds (species?) quail
�+� Many of these animals are listed in Table 11.20.060A of the Critical Areas Ordinance: In
' addition, the meadow and wetlands are part of a wildlife comdor. As I interpret this part
of the ordinance, it seems the developer will need to prepare a Habitat Management Plan �.
✓ �,b,}.�. to address these concerns.� Relevant notes concerning this area as a critical wildlife
�
habitat can be found on pages S and 6 in Schedule D of the Chester Creek Clean Out
Project
Flood Plain
1. Flood plain elevation in this area = 2004 feet.
2. Contour lines on proposed plat show land in southeastern section of plat as being
at or below this elevation. Delineation of the flood plain will be critical in this project.
The flood insurance map, and the actual elevations in this development need to be `
accurately determined.
✓�•�17
3. Although it is only anecdotal evidence, my,neighbors�and I have seen standing
� ��� water well beyond where the applicants map indicates it should be according to the 100
yeaz flood plain elevation.
4. Applicant states that sewage disposal will be through septic systems. With a flood
- plain elevation of 2004 feet, this means that septic systems could not go on ground lower
than approximately 2011 feet (bottom of drain field trenches must be 5 feet above flood
. plain elevation and trenclies are typically 18 inches deep). Referring to the contour lines
on the preliminary plat, this means over 70% of the land is unsuitable for septic systems.
5. Based on the flood plain elevation, and contour lines on preliminary plat, probably
' none of the homes built on this site could have basements. I base this on a 2004 foot flood
plain elevatioq 8 foot depth for a basement, and the law which says the bottom floor of a
dwelling must be 1 foot above flood plain. �The norm for this area of the Ponderosa
subdivision is for houses to have basements.
6. Without basements, homes in this development will be less. desirable and most
likely of lower value than homes in sunounding neighborhoods.
7. When building near a flood plain, developers are not allowed to aggravate, or
create, problems for others in the area. Given the nature of how Chester Creek uses this
field for seepage, the flood plain elevation, the proximity to wetlands, and the flooding
problems that already exist in the Forest Meadows subdivision; any stormwater
runoff/seepage or water frorri septic systems would probably cause problems. The
potential problems I have been advised on include increased flooding in Forest Meadows,
new flooding of basements in existing homes adjacent to this property on Sundown Drive,
and new or increased flooding on other properties adjacent to Chester Creek both east and
west of where this proposed development approaches Chester Creek.
8. Major engineering studies will be needed in order to address the concerns
regarding the effects this development will have on flooding.
Sewage
1. The Health District responded to the initial application by stating it would require
lots of 18,000 sq. ft. minimum without even looking at specifics of the site. Current plat
shows lots of 10,000 to 11,000 sq. ft.
2. Septic systems are probably not feasible due to flood plain elevation.
3. Water from septic systems would increase the water levels in the flood plain and
wetlands. This would likely aggravate or create flooding problems on adjoining and
nearby properties (see comment #6 under the Flood Plain concerns).
4. The sewer is not scheduled for this area until 2014.
Chester Creek Drainage Project
1. Spokane County just spent $400,000 to address flooding concerns along the
Chester Creek drainage. The project's goal was to help with 5 year floods — not 100 year
events. Substantial time and effort was also invested in studying the dynamics of Chester
Creek and studying in a scientific fashion how lands (especially wetlands) adjacent to the
creek are related to flooding all along the drainage.
2. The field in question is critical for proper drainage of Chester Creek (see pages S
and 6 in Attachment D of the Chester Creek Clean Out Project). Because Chester Creek
- does not drain into a river, the water needs places to sit. This field has been identified as
� one of those places.
3. The project's goal was not to promote development in the area.
���� � �� , �� � ���' � . _� . _ '
�
Wildlife
1. The area being proposed for development, along with adjoining lands, is a healthy �*- �,_
-�. , habitat for numerous species of animals and plants. It is also part of a wildlife corridor �� ;�
�'�I �� stretching from Dishman Hills to Mica Peak. Support for this statement can be found on t=, _.
`�� pages 5 and 6 in Schedule D of the Chester Creek Clean Out Project. �
� ,
���,;,,.�.}�2. The Grass Meadow Wetlands (properiy immediately to the east of the land in �,� - x;
question) is a designated Bird Sanctuary. I recently learned this through a conversation �_-_ .\ ,_ ,�
with a neighbor, Mark Davis, who is related to the owners of the property designated as a
sanctuary. The owners names are Knierim and Pendell. �
�, . � �_
t
Tra. f'frc � _ .
1. Sundown Drive is currently a quiet cul-de-sac with 12 houses. Adding 16 houses '
at the end of the street will significantly increase traffic in a neighborhood that over 30 '
years ago was designed as a low-traffic cul-de-sac. `�.
2. Other proposed developments within the Ponderosa subdivision have been denied
because the county felt that the lack of outlets to Dishman Mica made additional �,
d e v e l o p m e n t u n w i s e. C u n entl y, onl y Bowdish Rd and Schafer e�t to Dishman Mica and `��,
✓`•� s�-�
they are supposedly. already "ma�ced out." '�'� �'
i .��'�! �"�`�.�
Central Yatley School District �x �' ` 3 °°� �.� �; :�
� '
i. � � �
The Central Valley School District objected to this project bec � ' y ~��
� T' ,.
serve any additional students. In addition they point out that t� * '''�,��'4;
saturated with new developments either underway or already a ��.
, ,�;
L
::
Liability for Flooding
1. The possibility of basement flooding in the new homes,
flooding within e�sting homes, needs to be studied carefully.�
of problems can be found in Eaglewood (Mead), Glenrose, an
incredible costs the county and developers are incumng to re
areas, in addition to the lawsuits that have been filed or are pe �� a
incentive not to build in questionable and sensitive areas such a �, � s
- development.
2. If houses aze built in this field, and flooding problems result, the county and
developer, could face lawsuits. Considering the wealth of information I have gathered that ,
clea.rly points to the potential for problems with this development, it seems reasonable to
expect that suits would be filed.
Concerns Over Original Application
�l. I have learned over the past 2 weeks that the application for Sunrise Haven was
�Sne of man that c in to the Plannin De t'ust rior to the implementation of the
y ame S P J P
ILJGA. Several people (both inside and outside the Public Works Department) have
voiced concerns that many of these applications really should not have been filed because
they were incomplete. I don't know exactly how important this point is, but I am pursuing
it.
2. I have been told that the original application for Sunrise Haven had some major
deficiencies. Specifically, the failure to sign the Agreement to Pay Fees form, lack of a
geotechnical report, and lack of a conceptual drainage plan were pointed out as major
issues. In spite of these problems, and the failure of the applicant to address any of these
within the last year, a 6 month extension was granted.
3. How long will extensions be granted? It seems unfair to allow this project to
continue to be vested with such deficiencies and an apparent lack of effort on the part of
the applicant to address them.
4. Feedback from 7ohn Pederson to the developer regarding the initial application
failed to address any of the concerns expressed by other departments that reviewed the
application. There is no evidence in the file that the developer has acknowledged these
concerns or plans to address them.
5. This project has been mislabeled somewhere along the line. It was originally
labeled PE-1839-97, but subsequent correspondence from John Pederson listed it as PN-
1839-97: I have also seen it listed as P-1839-97. Although this might seem petty, I know
��.� F-1�,-f1�- C��-: �_e� �' <.-,�4d Mr. ���=���.1 �{v - FI-� f i„�.
that one county office I talked with had trouble tracking down information on the project
because of this mislabeling.
History
1. This field was not developed 3 5 years ago because the land owners and planners
realized this land flooded and was unsuitable for houses. This is not merely conjecture on
my part. I was told this by Mark Davis who is a member of the family that sold the land
and oversaw its development back in the 60's. With our enhanced knowledge of flooding,
Chester Creek, and other land use issues, it appears the developers 35 years ago made a
smart decision even if they didn't have all of the good science we have today. Building on
this land today would fly in the face of historical precedent and good present day science.
2. Several people who have lived in the Ponderosa area for the past 50 plus years
have shared with me their experiences of seeing the land in question flood up to, and over,
- the existing cul-de-sac at the end of Sundown Drive. This means that the land proposed
for development has flooded. I realize such evidence is anecdotal, but it does support
what the science is also telling us. It also suggests that the 100 year flood plain elevation
needs to be reevaluated and closely scrutinized.
INFORMATIONREQUIRED TOSUPPORTAPPLICATION
Based on my interpretation of the information on file regarding this project, conversations
I have had with professionals within the Public Works Department, and the various laws
and codes I have become aware of regarding development in Spokane, it seems that a
considerable amount of work remains to be done on this project. The following is a list of
reports or studies that are probably wananted due to the fact this development is
proposed for land in the Chester Creek drainage, a wetlands, a flood plain, and a wildlife
habitatJcorridor.
1. Environmental Checklist (SEPA)
2. Environmental Impact Statement (SEPA)
3. Formal wetlands delineation (Critical Areas Ordinance)
4. Formal Habitat Management Plan (Critical Areas Ordinance)
5. Determination of status of Bird Sanctuary on adjoining property.
- 6. Detailed delineation of flood plain boundaries.
7. Comprehensive Drainage Plan.
8. Deternunation of feasibility of on-site septic systems.
9. Determination of how this project will impact the Chester Creek drainage and
county-owned wetlands.
10. Study of traffic problems on Sundown Dr. and Schafer Rd.
11. Mitigate impact on Central Valley Schools.
I am neither a planner nor an engineer. However, over the past 2 weeks I have talked
with numerous planners and engineers, and most of what is in this report has come from
what these people told me. I honestly do not believe any of the above requests are
without merit. In fact, I view this list as merely a starking point. I would expect the
county's engineers and planners to probably require even more.
ORGANIZED OPPOSITION
Property owners in the area of this field and the 2 wetlands have formed a neighborhood
association. We formed on February 28`� and already have over 30 members. Our
membership continues to grow as we infonn other neighbors of the proposed
development.
We have 2 goals:
1. Stop the building of houses on this land.
2. Find a way to permanently block development of this land and maintain it as a
healthy wetland, wildlife habitat, and wildlife comdor.
We have 3 motives:
1. The field and wetland being targeted for development is critical for the Chester
Creek Drainage and is a valuable wildlife habitat and corridor that should be preserved.
_ 2. We believe there is a good chance this development will aggravate flooding
problems in Forest Meadows and possibly create new problems on Sundown Drive.
3. We all bought our houses because they were on a quiet cul-de-sac. Increased
traffic and the possibility of lower value homes being built in Sunrise haven will destroy
our quality of life and reduce our property values.
Out strategy is to work with the county and the developer as a citizen-based association as
long as we feel our concerns are being addressed. However, we have also agreed that if
our concerns are ignored or downplayed we will hire a land use attorney to represent us.
ALTERNATIVES
Rather than just oppose development on this property, we are also actively seeking
realistic alternatives to present to the developer. The following is a list of such
alternatives.
1. Purchase of the land through the county's Conservation Futures Fund. Hopefully,
combine this purchase with acquisition of the adjacent land (Bird Sanctuary) which is
owned by the Knierim Pendell Trust. An application fo the Conservation Futures Fund
for these purposes is being prepared crnd will be submitted by March 18.
If all of this land could be acquired by a public agency, there is a very real possibility of
turning this whole wetlands area into a site for environmental education. I have talked
with Chris Armstrong (Environmental Education Specialist for the County's Conservation
District) about such a possibility and she not only supports it, but believes she could get
- teachers in the Central Valley School District to participate in such a project.
2. Purchase by another private individual who is committed to not developing the
land. There are cunently 2 neighbors who have expressed such an interest. Their offers,
however, would be based on the land having no development potential. Considering the
problems pointed out in this letter, this might be a reality.
3. Purchase of the property rights by an organization such as the Inland Northwest
Land Trust. This would allow a private individual to gain some return on their investment
while still using the land for some purpose other than building houses. �
4. Donation of the land to the county in return for a tax write-off.
PEOPLE CONTACTED FOR INFORMATIONAND INPUT
Laurie Grimes, Asst. Dir. of Planning.
John Pederson, Senior Planner. In charge of this project.
Brenda Sims, Stormwater Utility.
Steve Worley, Stormwater Utility. In charge of Chester Creek Drainage Project for the
county.
Bill Hemming, County Engineer.
Tammy Williams, County Engineer, Concentrates on work in flood plains.
- Steve Kirk, County Utilities — Sewers.
Chris Armstrong, Environmental Educator, County Soil Conservation District.
John Roskelly, County Commissioner.
Kate McCaslin, County Commissioner.
Phil Harris, County Commissioner.
Dennis Beach, Wetlands Expert, DOE.
Dick Behm, member of County Water Quality Assurance Board and Chester Creek
Citizens Committee
Diedre Allen, member of Chester Creek Citizens Committee
Bonnie Mager, Washington Environmental Council.
Mike Folsom, EWU. Author of report on Chester Creek Project.
Jerry Nichols, neighbor & retired county engineer.
Mark Davis, neighbor on hill south of property. His late wife's family owned the land in
this area and his sister-in-law sold the land to Ward Leland.
Dave Addy, owner, Chester Store. Active on Chester Creek Project. Knows area's
history.
Sylvia ?. Cavalier Radon (Dishman Mica Rd.) . Active on Chester Creek Project. Knows
area's history. ,