Resolution 07-021 Affirming Findings & Conclusions on Landworks Appeal CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 07-021
A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION OF THE SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF
REZONE FROM THE UR-3.5 ZONE TO THE UR-7* ZONE; PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
PONDEROSA ESTATES NORTH, IN THE UR-7* ZONE; AND SEPA APPEAL OF
MITIGATED DETERiMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (MDNS) DATED AUGUST 30TH,
2007, FILE NOS. REZ-23-04/SUB-15-04/APP-03-07; APPLICANT LANDWORKS
DEVELOPMENT LLC,AND APPELLANT PONDEROSA PROPERTIES HOA.
WHEREAS, the Spokane County Hearing Examiner issued a decision on August.30, 2007 in the above-
captioned matter entering specific Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and a Decision which held:
"Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law above, the subject applications for a
preliminary plat and rezone are hereby denied. The SEPA appeal submitted by the Ponderosa
Properties Homeowner's Association is hereby denied."
WHEREAS, On September 13, 2007 a timely appeal was filed by Landworks Development LLC
alleging that:
I. The Hearing Examiner erroneously concluded in conclusions of Law Number 5 that the
preliminary plat does not make an appropriate provision for ingress and egress out of the Ponderosa in the
case of a large-scale disaster and that the proposal will worsen access problems.
2. The hearing Examiner erroneously concluded in Conclusions of Law Number 6 that the
preliminary plat proposal does not bear a substantial relationship to the health, safety and welfare and that
the rezone relaxes development standards for the preliminary plat.
3. The Hearing Examiner erroneously concluded in Conclusion of Law Number 7 that the
proposal will have an adverse significant impact on safe public access out of the Ponderosa area.
4. The Hearing Examiner erroneously concluded in Conclusions of Law Number II that the City
Planning Division should have required the applicant to conduct a field investigation and consult with
WDFW [Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife] to determine whether the project would have
impacts to deer; and
WHEREAS, the appellant in its appeal documents attached six pages of information which appear to
contain both an explanation of the appeal and new facts not a part of the record below. Respondent.
Ponderosa Properties Homeowner's Association objected to the same; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Spokane Valley Ordinance 05-021 the record of the hearing was timely
prepared by the Hearing Examiner and transmitted to the City Clerk. The City Clerk subsequently
provided a copy of the record to each individual council member and the City Attorney and made the
record available to the parties and public. The Council on October 23, 2007 scheduled a hearing date for
the closed record appeal hearing for November 19, 2007; and
WHEREAS, on November 7. 2007 the Appellant requested a continuance of the hearing date. The
respondent opposed the same. The council, after hearing argument from both parties, continued the
matter until November 27,2007;and
WHEREAS, prior to the hearing on November 27, 2007 the appellant requested to supplement the record
before the council. The respondent opposed the same. The Council determined that the appellant had
failed to meet any of the criteria set forth in ordinance 05-021 and denied the request; and
Resolution 07-02i Adopting Appeal Findings, Conclusions of Law and Decision Page 1 of 2
•
WHEREAS, both parties timely submitted memorandum in support of their respective positions to the
council, copies of which were provided to the council members; and
WHEREAS, a quasi judicial public hearing was held on the appeal pursuant to Spokane Valley ordinance
05-021; and
WHEREAS, the council deliberated at the close of the hearing.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section I. To the extent that the submitted appeal documents contained facts outside of'the record before
the Hearing Examiner, the same shall not be considered;
Section 2. The appellant failed to meet its burden of proof that established that one or more of the
following standards arc met:
1. The examiner engaged in unlawful procedure or failed to follow a prescribed process, unless
error was harmless;
2. The decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such deference as is
due the construction of a law by a local jurisdiction with expertise;
3. The decision is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the entire
recorded;
4. The decision is clearly an erroneous application of the law to the facts; or
5. The decision is outside the authority of the Examiner.
Section 3. In that the above standards are not met, the decision of the Hearing Examiner is affirmed.
Section 4. The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision of the Hearing Examiner entered in
the above matter on August 30, 2007 are hereby adopted in their entirety and by this reference attached
hereto and incorporated herein.
Section 5.This resolution shall be effective upon adoption.
Adopted this 11th day of December, 2007.
ATTIS,
A- 4,4 trtew.LUitadL.
Ciry Clerk Christine Bainbridge I Mayor Diana Wilhite
Approved as to form:
Office of the City Attorr
Resolution 07-021 Adopting Appeal Findings,Conclusions of Law and Decision Paee 2 of 2
•
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY BEARING EXAMINER
RE: .Rezone from the UR-3.5 Zone to the .LTR-7* )
Zone; Preliminary Plat of Ponderosa Estates )
. North, in the U'R-7* Zone; and SEPA )
Appeal of Mitigated Determination of ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
Nonsignifucance (IvIDNS); ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
) AND DECISION
Applicant: Landworks Development LLC )
Appellant: Ponderosa Properties HOA )
File Nos. REZ-23-04/SUB-15-04/APP-03-07 )
• I. SUMMARY OF DECISION
•
..Hearing Matter: Consolidated applications for a rezone from the UR-3.5 zone to the UR-7*
zone, and for a preliminary plat in the UR.-7* zone; and SEPA appeal of MDNS issued for
applications. -
•
Summary of Decision: Deny applications, based on inadequacy of public emergency/fire access •
for-project. Deny SEPA appeal.
• U. FINDINGS OF FACT .
Background Information
1. The subject applications seek approval of a zone reclassification from the Urban Residential-
3.5 (UR-3.5) zone to the Urban Residential-7* (UR-7*) zone, for 14.6 acres of a 15.2-acre site; .
and approval of the preliminary plat of Ponderosa Estates North, to subdivide the site into 45 lots
for single-family dwellings, and approximately 2.9 acres of common open space; in the UR 7' •
zone.
2. The site is situated in the North 1/2 of Section 32, Township 25N, Range 44 EWM of
Spokane County, Washington. The site is addressed at 3310 S. Ridgeview Drive, Spokane
Valley, Washington.
3. The site is currently referenced as County Assessor's tax parcel nos. 45321.9113 and
45322.9115. The property is legally described.as Tract 3 of Short Plat No. SP-945-94, per short
plat recorded in Book 11, Page 57 of Short Plats, records of Spokane County Auditor.
4. The applicant is Landworks Development LLC, c/o Bruce Howard, 721 N. Pines Road,
Spokane Valley, WA. 99206. The site owner is Ponderosa Properties LLC, do Bryan Walker,
721 N. Pines Road, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 -
•
. HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision RBZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 1 '
r-,.
5. On November 5, 2004, the applicant submitted complete applications to rezone 14.6 acres
of the site from the UR-3.5 zone to the TJR-7`' zone, and to subdivide the 15.2-acre site into 49
lots for the development of single-family dwellings. The .6 acres of the site not included in the
rezone application are already zoned UR-7 `.
6. On March 7, 2007, the applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat map; which reduced
the number of lots to 45, and constitutes the preliminary plat map of record for the project.
7. On April 20, 2007, the City Cot Lini pity Development Department-Planning Division("City
Planning Division") issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) for the rezone
and preliminary plat applications.
8. On May 4, 2007, the Ponderosa Properties Homeowner's Association timely appealed the
MDNS to the Hearing Examiner. Such association is composed of the owners of eight (8)
acreage parcels that abut or lie near the site on the west, north and northwest.
9. On May 24, June 4, June 15 and June 19 of 2007, the Hearing Examiner held a consolidated
public hearing on the applications and the appeal of the MDNS.
10. On July 20, 2007, the Hearing Examiner addressed a letter to th.e•persons participating in
the public hearing; advising that the Examiner desired to reopen the record to consider certain
documents necessary for a proper adjudication of the matter, and requesting that any objections to .
or comments on the documents be submitted by July 27, 2007. The Examiner received no
response to the letter.
11. The Examiner's letter dated July 20, 2007 erroneously referred to the appeal number
assigned to the current MDNS appeal as "A.PP-02-07"; and erroneously stated that a drainage
easement recorded on November 3, 1994 was recorded on "November 3, 2004".
12. The Examiner conducted a site visit on May 23, 2007, and also visited the site after the
public hearing.
13. The notice of hearing requirements for the applications, and the appeal of the MDNS, were
met by the City Planning Division and the parties.
14. The following persons testified at the public hearing(s):
Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner Stacy Bjordahl
Spokane Valley Planning Dept Attorney at Law
11707 E. Sprague, Suite 106 1100 US Bank Building
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 422 West Riverside Avenue
Spokane, WA 99201-0300
•
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 2 •
•
•
Tamara Murock. Karin Divens
Attorney at Law WDFW
7 S. Howard, Suite 220 2315 N. Discovery Place
Spokane, WA 99201 Spokane Valley, WA 99216
Ron Ornan Richard Behan
4337 S. Farr 3626 S. Ridgeview Drive
Spokane, WA 99206 Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Dorothy Trechter Margaret Mortz
3504 S. Ridgeview Drive 3420 S. Ridgeview
Spokane, WA 99206 Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Russ Shane, Captain Susan Schmidt
Spokane County Sheriff's Office 3808•S. Sundown Drive
1100 W. Mallon Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Spokane, WA 99260
Janice Cooperstein Marilyn Finley
9716 E. 45th Avenue 3415 S. Sundown Drive
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Larry Rider, Assistant Chief Walt Edelen
Spokane Valley Fire Department 210 N. Havana .
10319 B. Sprague Spokane, WA 99202
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
John Holman Henry Allen
Spokane Valley Engineering Division Spokane Valley Engineering;Division
11.707 E. Sprague, Suite 106 11707 E. Sprague, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Mike Magruder Shawn Taylor
3315 S. Ponderosa Lane 3209 S. Ponderosa Lane
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Steven Tolliver Eberhard Schmidt
3117 S. Bascetta Lane 3808 S. Ponderosa Lane •
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Mike Connelly, City Attorney • Buck Finley
11707 E. Sprague, Suite 106 3415 S. Sundown Drive
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Spokane, WA 99206
HE Findings,.Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 3
•
•
Dave Olson Chuck.Hafner
8808 E. 44`h Avenue 4710 S. Woodruff
Spokane, WA 99206 Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Gail Stiltner Tracey Fish
10119 E. 44th Avenue 3421 S. Ridgeview Drive
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Nancy Deming Gabe Gallinger
3911 S. Woodruff Court 721 N. Pines Road
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 •
Lisa Dickenson John Boyd
818 W. Riverside, Suite 631 4024 S. Forest Meadow Drive
Spokane, WA 99201 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 •
Steve McNutty Larry Dawes
4106 S. Hollow Court 725 W. Chelan
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Spokane, WA 99205
David Noll Tia Lesser
3606 S. Schafer Road 3404 S. Ridgeview Drive
Spokane, WA 99206 • Spokane Valley, WA 99206
•
Todd Whipple
2528 N. Sullivan
Spokane Valley, WA 99216
15. The Hearing Examiner heard the proposal pursuant to Chapter 10.35 of the City of Spokane
Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), the City Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure, and the City
Local Environmental Ordinance.
B. Items in Record
•
16. The Hearing Examiner takes notice of the City of Spokane Valley Interim Comprehensive
Plan, Comprehensive Plan, Interim Zoning Code, Phase 1 Development Regulations, Interim
Subdivision Ordinance, Interim Application Review Procedures for Project Permits,
Environmental Ordinance, Interim Critical Areas Ordinance, Critical Areas maps, Guidelines for
• Stormwater Management, Standards for Road and Sewer Construction, and Municipal Code;
other applicable development regulations; and prior land use decisions in the area
17. The record includes the documents in File Nos. REZ-23-04/SUB-15-04 and APP-03-07 at
the time of the public hearing(s), the documents and testimony submitted at the public hearing, the
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 4
1 .
r
Examiner's letter to the parties dated July 20, 2007, the documents referenced in the Examiner's
letter dated July 20, 2007, and the items taken notice of by the Examiner.
18. On August 13-14, 2007, the Hearing Examiner received correspondence from Mice
Thompson, Chief of Spokane County Fire District 1, and Ozzie Knezovich, Spokane County
Sherif;i, regarding Fire District 1 Resolution 2007-284, as it relates to the current project. Such
items are excluded from the record, for the reasons cited in the Examiner's emails to Chief
Thompson and Sheriff Knezovich dated on.August 14-15, 2007.
C. Description of Site
19. The site is approximately 15.18 acres in size, irregular in shape and undeveloped. The
topography of the site ranges from relatively flat to rolling, with a maximum slope of
• approximately 37%; and generally slopes from west to east.
20. Ponderosa Lane, a private road, extends westerly through the south end of the site from
Woodruff Road, within an existing 60-foot easement, and curves to the north through abutting
• property to the west. Ponderosa Lane is paved to a width of 20 feet, and is gated west of the •
culverts underlying the road on the site.
21. A wetland area of approximately 12,000 square feet is located in the northwest portion of
the site; and extends west of the site along a seasonal stream. The site slopes moderately upward
from the wetland toward the south border of the site; which area of the property is covered by
grasses, shrubs and scattered mature pine trees.
22. The site slopes more steeply upward between the wetland and the north property line; at a
slope ranging from 15-40%; and with mature pine trees and exposed granite bedrock found on
most of the slope. A seasonal stream/drainage way extends easterly into the wetland from the
land lying west of the site. •
•
23. A small ridge or manmade embankment, several feet in height, extends southeasterly from
the southeast toe of the northwest slope on the site, east of the wetland; and traps water reaching
the wetland from the south and west.
24. The northeast portion of the site is relatively flat in topography, contains a small grove of
pine trees and scattered pine trees in its western portion, and generally consists of an open grass-
covered field in its eastern portion.
25. A seasonal stream/drainage way extends northeasterly into the site; at its southeast corner,
passes under Ponderosa Lane through four 36-inch culverts, extends northerly through the site
and adjacent land to the east, and widens out before reaching the south side of the wetland.
Scattered mature pine trees, native vegetation.and noxious weeds are found along the
stream/drainage way leading to the wetland.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 5
26. A seasonal stream/drainage way extends easterly from the wetland, through a narrow breach
in the embankment, continues easterly through the north portion of the site, crosses the east
border of the northeast part of the site, and flows through culverts underlying Bascetta Lane. The
west part of the seasonal stream/drainage way meanders through and alongside a narrow grove of
pine trees and native vegetation; while the east part extends through an open field before reaching
Bascetta Lane.
27. On April 27, 1994, Spokane County approved a preliminary short plat to divide the site into
three(3) tracts of land. The final short plat was recorded on October 28, 1994. See decision in
County File No. SHP-945-94, and final short plat map. Two (2) of the short plat tracts, located
directly east of the south portion of the site, respectively, are not part of the current site.
D. Description of Preliminary Plat
28. The preliminary plat map of record illustrates 45 single-family lots, ranging from 6,289
square feet to 20,207 square feet in size; and five (5) common open spaces tracts, totaling
approximately 2.89 acres in area. The average lot size in the preliminary plat is approximately
9,400 square feet.
29. The density (net) of the preliminary plat is approximately 3.36 dwelling units per acre. This
is determined by dividing the number of dwelling units (45 units) by the difference between the
gross area of the site (1.5.1.8 acres) and the sum of the areas in the preliminary plat reserved for
4 public and private roads, exclusive of private driveways (1.8 acres). See definition of"density" in
Section 14.300.100 of the City Interim Zoning Code; as amended in the former County Zoning
Code by County Resolution No. 3-0022, prior to incorporation of the City.
30. The Staff Report and the preliminary plat map incorrectly calculate the density(net) of the
preliminary plat; by erroneously subtracting the area of the preliminary plat reserved for critical
areas, or common open space, respectively, from gross acreage, in determining the net acreage of
the preliminary plat for the calculation of density (net).
31. The preliminary plat map illustrates the extension of Ridgeview Drive to the north boundary,
as a public road; an internal public road (33'd Court) and an internal private road (34fh Lane)
extending east from the extension of Ridgeview Drive, each terminating in cul-de-sacs; an internal
• private road (Woodruff Lane) extending north from Woodruff Road for some distance, before
terminating in a cul-de-sac; and four (4) internal private driveways, each serving 2-3 lots, that .
connect to the internal public or private roads.
•
32. The preliminary plat map illustrates two (2) segments of a 40-foot wide drainage channel.
easement in the south end of the site; which easement was dedicated to Spokane County and
recorded in 1994 when tb.e site was short platted.
33. The southerly segment of the 40-foot wide drainage easement extends from the south
border to the east border of the south end of the site; from a 30-foot wide drainage easement
located off-site to the south. The northerly segment of the on-site drainage easement extends
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision R> Z-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 6
•
from the east boundary of the site, from a point lying approximately 120 feet north of the
southerly segment, to a point lying near the south finger of the on-site wetland.
34. The common open space in the preliminary plat accommodates the wetland, most of the 75-
foot wide buffer specified for the wetland, a portion of the south segment of the 1994 drainage
easement, the north segment of the 1994 drainage easement, a proposed drainage channel
extending from the proposed extension of Ridgeview Drive northeasterly to the east boundary of
the northeast part of the site, and proposed stormwater ponds/drainage facilities. •
35. The preliminary plat map illustrates an encroachment of approximately 3,750 square feet to
4,000 square feet on the wetland buffer, by two private drivels ays; based on the scale illustrated
•
on the map.
•
E. Critical Areas located on Site
36. The current City Critical Areas maps were adopted at the time the City was incorporated on
March 31, 2003. Such maps illustrate a DNR Type 5 seasonal stream extending easterly into the
on-site wetland from adjacent land lying to the west. See Exhibit#25; and colorized maps
• produced on 1-14-04.
•
37. Such maps illustrate an area of"open water" at the location of the on-site wetland; and
illustrate an erodible soils geo-hazard in the south, northwest portion and southeast corner of the
north portion of the site. The northwest portion of the site contains slopes exceeding 30%, which
feature represents a geo-hazard under the City Critical Areas Ordinance.
38. Such maps do not illustrate any priority wildlife habitat or 100-year fioodplain areas on the
site.
39. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW) maps, which are used by local
governments to identify priority habitats and species on their critical areas maps, currently indicate
the presence of Elk priority wildlife habitat in the south portion of the site. The City .
Comprehensive Plan shows the same habitat designation, on a map dated June 19, 2006. See
Comprehensive Plan, map 8.3.
40. The City Comprehensive Plan shows the site, and the entire City area, in a"critical aquifer
recharge area" of"high" susceptibility to groundwater contamination.
41. The "hydrolayer" maintained by the 'Washington State Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), which maps DNR stream types on forested land throughout the state, currently illustrates
a DNR Type "F" (Type 3) stream extending northerly into the site and the on-site wetland from
• the south; and also extending easterly from the wetland through the northeast portion of the site,
and beyond to Chester Creek.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REG-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 7
••
•
42. The DNR hydrolayer also shows a DNR Type `its" (Type 5) stream extending easterly into .
the on-site wetland, from the land lying west of the site, and merging into the DNR Type "F"
stream at the point it turns east on the site.
43. On Jane 8, 1994, a wetland delineation report was submitted for the previous short plat of
the site to Spokane County; prepared by wetland specialists Michael Folsom and Robert Quinn.
The report delineated the wetland located on the site, and a portion of its extension along the
stream/drainage lying west of the site, as a category III wetland; and recommended a 50-foot
wide buffer for the wetland. The wetland delineation and 50-foot wetland buffer are illustrated on
the final short plat map recorded for the site in 1994.
•
44. On March 11, 2005, Larry Dawes, the applicant's wetland/wildlife biologist consultant,
submitted a report for the current project which reaffirmed the 1994 wetland delineation report
prepared for the site. The report also concluded that the streams/drainage ways passing through
. the site do not constitute DNR stream types entitled to protection under the City Interim Critical
Areas Ordinance.
45. On January 8, 2006, Larry Dawes submitted a wetland buffer mitigation plan to mitigate an
encroachment of approximately 2,600 square feet on the 75-foot buffer required for the on-site
wetland, by the roadway system illustrated on the original preliminary plat map submitted on
November 5, 2004, The mitigation plan was not updated for the preliminary plat of record
submitted on March 7, 2007.
F. Land Use Desiaaations for Site, Surrounding Conditions
46. The site, and neighboring land lying to the east and south, are located in the City and
designated in the County Urban Growth Area(UGA). Such land is zoned UR-3.5 by the City
Interim Zoning Code; except for the .6-acre portion of the site currently zoned UR-7*, and some
land zoned UR-7* lying approximately 500 feet south of the site.
47. The land lying north and west of the site is situated in the unincorporated area of Spokane
County, located outside the UGA boundary, and zoned Rural Conservation(RC) by the County
Zoning Code.
• 48. The County's RC zone imposes a minimum lot size of 20 acres and a maximum residential
density (net) of one (1) dwelling unit per 20 acres; unless lots are clustered in an approved rural
cluster development. In a rural cluster development, lots as small as one (1) acre are permitted,
provided the overall density (net) of the development does not exceed one (1) dwelling unit per
10 acres in size, 70% of the development is retained in open space, and other rural cluster
• standards are met.
•
49. In 1991, the County reclassified the zoning of the site, and neighboring land located to the
• east and south, to the UR-3.5 zone of the County Zoning Code; except for the portion of the site,
and the land to the south currently zoned UR-7*, which land was reclassified in the same zoning
fly Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 8
•
action to the Semi-Rural Residential-5 (SRR-5) zone; all pursuant to the Program to Implement
the Spokane County Zoning Code.
50. In 2002, the County adopted UGA boundaries, a new comprehensive plan, and the County •
Phase I Development Regulations to implement the new comprehensive plan. The County's new
comprehensive plan designated the entire site, and neighboring land lying east and south of the
site, in the Low Density Residential category; and designated the land lying west and north of the
site in the Rural Conservation category.
51. The County Phase I Development Regulations reclassified the .6-acre portion of the site
zoned SRR-5, and the above-referenced land to the south, to the UR-7* zone of the County
Zoning Code; retained the UR-3.5 zoning of the site and neighboring land located to the east and
south; and reclassified the zoning of the land lying west and north of the site to the Rural
Conservation (RC) zone. - . .
52. On March 31, 2003, the City was incorporated; which included the site and the land lying
east and south of the site. Upon incorporation, the City adopted by reference the County
Comprehensive Plan, County Zoning Code, County official zoning maps, County Phase I
Development Regulations and other County development regulations; with certain revisions.
• 53. The City Interim Comprehensive Plan and City Phase I Development Regulations,
respectively, retained the comprehensive plan designations and zone classifications adopted by the
County Comprehensive Plan and Phase I Development Regulations. The site is designated in the
Low Density Residential category of the City Interim Comprehensive Plan. •
54. On May 10, 2006; the City implemented its current Comprehensive Plan, which contained
new land use categories, policies and text. See City Ordinance No. 06-010. The City Phase I
Development Regulations were updated to specify the zones in the City Interim Zoning Code that
iniplemented the new land use categories in the Comprehensive Plan, for rezone purposes. See
City Ordinance No. 06-011.
55. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site and neighboring land in the City in the Low
Density Residential category, with a few exceptions for land reserved for public/quasi-public uses:
The City is in the process of adopting new area-wide zoning to implement the Comprehensive
Plan.
56. The site and other neighboring land in the City are located in the Aquifer Sensitive Area
(ASA) Overlay zone of the City Interim Zoning Code.
57. The land lying south and southeast of the site is developed with residential subdivisions
containing urban-sized lots 10,000 square feet or larger in size. The land lying to the east and
southeast, east of Bascetta Lane, consists of cultivated fields mostly owned by Redeemer
Lutheran Church.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 9
58. The unincorporated land lying west and northeast of the site consists of single-family homes
on parcels five (5) acres in size or greater. The unincorporated land lying directly north of the site
consists of a 10-acre parcel of undeveloped farmland
59. A Union Pacific railroad line, located within a 100-foot wide railroad right of way, parallels
the west side of Dishmzan-Mica Road in the area; lies approximately 1,000 feet east of the site; and
experiences light rail usage. At-grade, signalized crossings of the railroad are located along
Schafer Road and Bowdish Road, south of Distilann-Mica Road_
60. At-grade, u.n-signalized crossing of the railroad are located at the west end of 28th Avenue,
approximately one-fourth(1/4) mile north of the site; and along 24th Avenue, further to the north
and west of Dishman-Mica Road. A private road extends westerly from the railroad crossing at
28th Avenue for some distance. See ofd site basin map for revised conceptual drainage plan,
FIRM floodplain map; County Assessor map for the S '/ of Section 29, and testimony submitted
at public hearing.
61. Redeemer Lutheran Church is located southeast of the site, along the west side of Schafer
Road southwest of the railroad line.
62. Ponderosa Elementary School is located approximately one-fourth (1/4) mile southeast of
the site, at the northeast corner of the intersection of Cimmaron Drive and Woodruff Road.
Sidewalk is located along the school frontage with such roads.
63. A fire station operated by County Fire District 8 is located approximately 1.2 miles
southeast of the site, at the southwest corner of the intersection of 44th Avenue and Bates Road
County Fire District 8 generally covers the area lying south of 44th Avenue. County Fire District
1, also referenced.as the "Spokane Valley Fire Department", generally covers the area lying north
of 44`h Avenue.
64. The current City Arterial Street Plan designates Dishman-Mica Road (northwest of Schafer
Road/University Road) and 32nd Avenue as Principal Arterials; Dishman-Mica Road(southeast of
Schafer Road/University Road), University Road and Bowdish Road (north of Dishman-Mica
Road) as Minor Arterials; and Schafer Road, Bowdish Road(south of Dishman-Mica Road),
Sands Road, Bates Road and Holman Road as Collector Arterials. All other city roads in the
Ponderosa area are considered Local Access streets. See Comprehensive Plan, map 3.1.
65. The public roads in the vicinity are paved and curbed, but lack sidewalks; except for the
existing sidewalk located along the east side of Woodruff Road between the site and Ponderosa
Elementary School, and the sidewalks lying adjacent to the school. Bascetta Lane consists of a
16-foot wide paved private road, located within.a 60-foot wide private easement.
66. The I nd lying west and southwest of the site, and the City boundaries, rises up to Brown's
Mountain and Tower Mountain, and features mountainous terrrain. The Iller Creek Conservation
Area is located approximately one (1) mile southwest of the site. The Dishman Hills Natural Area
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 - Page 10
is located less than one (1) mile northwest of the site, on mounta'nous land lying west of
Dishman-Mica Road and south of Appleway Avenue, .
67. Chester Creek is located between the railroad and Dishman-Mica Road in the area, and is
most evident south of Schafer Road. City floodplain maps designate the area along both sides of
the railroad in the area, west of Dishman-Mica Road, in a 100-year floodplain. The floodplain
reaches west to Bascetta Lane, approximately 500 feet southeast of the north portion of the site.
68. City Critical Areas maps designate Chester Creek as a Type 4 stream; and show the creek
terminating a few hundred feet north of Schafer Road, along the east side of the railroad line, in a
possible wetland area straddling both sides of the railroad. The current DNR hydrolayer
designates Chester Creek as a Type "F" stream along the west side of the tailroad line in the area,
for considerable distances to the north and south. .
69. The seasonal stream/drainage way that enters the site from_the southwest extends upstream
through the subdivision lying south of the site, within a 30-foot wide drainage easement; and has
been modified.from its natural state. See existing site plan of record submitted on 11-05-04 in
. current file. This includes an extension under Sunderland Road, approximately 500 feet south of
the site, through four (4) 36-inch culverts.
79. The seasonal stream/drainage way continues upstream to the south, through undeveloped
farmland, until it reaches the "Phillips farm"; which lies north of 44ih Avenue, southeast of the
terminus of Sunderland Road and 42nd Avenue. The stream/drainage branches out upstream into
two tributaries, one extending south across 44``'Avenue into the filler Creek area, and one
generally staying north of 44th Avenue.
71. City Critical Areas maps designate the southerly stream/drainage as a Type 4 stream, but
show no typed stream lying north of the culverts passing under Sunderland Road. The DNR
hydrolayer shows the southerly stream/drainage, downstream all the way to the site; and its two
upstream tributaries; as Type "F" streams.
72. City Critical Areas maps show a short Type 4 stream flowing southeasterly into the
southerly stream/drainage, north of the point where the stream/drainage divides near 44th Avenue.
The DNR hydrolayer shows such water body as a Type "Np" stream, and as extending further
uphill to the southwest.
G. 1991 Firestorm .
3. in October of 1991, a significant wildfire/firestorm event occurred in various parts of
Spokane County; including a 3-mile long by 1-mile wide area located in the south Ponderosa area.
This resulted in the destruction of 14 homes in the south portion of the Ponderosa area, along
Ferret Drive. The fire threatened the destruction of 105 additional homes in the south end of the
.. nderosa area and the nearby Painted Hills area; with the fire reaching as far north as 48`x'
Avg,.-ue.
RE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ.-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 11
. t
74. The Ponderosa firestorm occurred during the day, on a weekday when many residents were
still at work; and was caused by a downed power line on Brown's Mountain. The fire grew to
1,587 acres in only four (4) hours, and forced the evacuation of over 2,500 residents in the
Ponderosa area to Dishman-Mica Road. Residents received'word to leave their homes 1.5 hours
after the fire started, and 30 minutes later flames raced up a slope to reach the first homes that
were damaged. See Exhibit #40, p. 1,232-1,233, 1,236 and 1306.
•
H. Development Projects in Ponderosa Area reviewed after 1991 Firestorm,
75. In 1992, the Spokane Board of County Commissioners denied a proposed rezone and
preliminary plat for the south portion of the site, and abutting land to the west; due to
"...unmitigated traffic impacts". This occurred despite the sponsor proposing construction of
another access out of the area, to improve public access out of the Ponderosa area in times of
emergency. See Exhibit #34, exhibit 6A, finding of fact#18 of Board decision in File No. PE-
1695-92/ZB-3-93. -
76. ,I.n 1993, the Board of County Commissioners denied a proposed rezone and preliminary plat •
(Broadrrnoor Estates No. 2), for the south 5.2 acres of the site zoned UR-3.5, and 10 acres
abutting to the west zoned SRR-5; for the purpose of developing 17 lots for single-family
dwellings in the UR-3.5 zone. The Board's denial was based on major concerns for public safety
arising out of the 1991 firestorm event; including public egress out of the area and timely
•
emergency response to the area.
•
77. The Broadmoor Estates No. 2 decision found that the circuitry of the road system in the
Ponderosa area before it reached Dishman-Mica Road, via either Schafer Road or Bowdish Road,
rendered public access to and from the area inadequate; the property and the Ponderosa area were
prone to further wildfire emergencies; and approval of the project would only exacerbate the
problems with access and emergency response. See Exhibit #34, exhibit 6A, Board decision in
City File No. PE-1695-92✓ZE-3-93 and preliminary plat map.
78. In 1994, the County Planning Department approved a preliminary short plat to divide the
site, and certain adjacent land to the east, into three (3) tracts. The County Engineering
conditions adopted by the decision noted that previous land use actions had identified the
alignment of Ridgeview Drive as the future connection to 24th Avenue, due to the 1991 firestorm
in the area, and other similar traffic concerns; and found that such connection would help alleviate
such concerns and provide additional circulation to the Ponderosa area.
79. The 1994 short plat decision for the site required the sponsor to enter into a written,
recorded agreement to preserve a corridor for the extension of Ridgeview Drive, at such time as
requested by the County Engineer, or in conjunction with a future land use action; but did not •
• require the dedication of Ridgeview Drive through the short plat. See City File No. SP-945-94,
decision dated 4-27-94, County Engineering condition#18. The final short plat recorded in 1994
did not provide for the extension of Ridgeview Drive through the site, or divide such area of the
site into lots.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 'Page 4l t
•
r
80. In 1995, Spokane Board of County Commissioners conditioned the development of 25
parcels of land located in the southeast portion of the Ponderosa area, at the south end.of
Ponderosa Drive (divided through the certificate of exemption process), on the extension of a
paved private road from Pierce Road southerly to Hallett Road; in order to provide access from
• such development to Dishman-Mica Road, in the event of a wildfire, See Exhibit #35; including
reference to County Resolution No. 95-0573A. Such access was never constructed
81. Between 1993 and 2000, Spokane County approved certificate of exemptions to create the
5-acre and 10-acre tracts lying west, north and northwest of the site. All such divisions relied on
the extension of Ponderosa Lane through the site and the tracts lying west of the site. See appeal
application, exhibit "C".
82. In.2001, the Spokane County Hearing Examiner required the preparation of a supplemental
environmental impact statement (SEIS) for the preliminary plat/PUD of Mica View Estates. Such
project proposed to divide 54 acres of land located in the southeast portion of the Ponderosa area,
approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the site, into 83 lots for single-family dwellings, in the UR-
3.5 zone. Such property is located between Ponderosa Drive and the elevated railroad right of
way of the Union Pacific Railroad, west of Dishman-Mica Road. See Exhibit#35, at exhibit#9;
and County decisions in File No. PE-1746-94IPUDE-1-94.
83. The SETS requirement for the Mica View Estates project was basedin part on County Fire
District No. 8's opposition to such project, unless a new public access road was extended to
Dishmman-Mica Road_ The district was concerned that the road system serving the Ponderosa area
was unable to safely handle a major evacuation such as the 1991 firestorm event, including getting
residents out of the area and emergency vehicles into the area; and that increased development
would worsen the situation.
84. The SE1S requirement for the Mica View Estates project was also based on the need to
evaluate the feasibility of constructing and funding the extension of a public road under the
adjacent railway line, to Dishman-Mica Road, in.the event the average daily traffic capacity of
Bates Road was exceeded; as well as to consider the feasibility of constructing an at-grade
crossing of the railroad line, for emergency/fire access, northeast of such project between Sands
Road and Dishman-Mica Road.
85. In 2002, a 12-foot wide, paved road was extended across the railroad line, at grade, near the
Mica View Estates project, approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the site; from Sands Road to
Dishman-Mica Road, between 47th Avenue and 48th Avenue. The primary purpose of the crossing
was to provide access for fire/emergency vehicles. Such crossing is gated and locked at both
ends, and signed as a restricted.railroad crossing.
86. County Fire District 8 has keys to the locked gates at such railroad crossing, and is
authorized to access the road during emergency conditions and for training purposes. Such
access is currently regarded by Fire District 8 as an ingress point for second response units,
coming from the Valleyford fire station located several miles southeast of the site. The access can
potentially be used for limited emergency evacuation of the Ponderosa area, should other access
BE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 13
•
•
routes out of the Ponderosa area become blocked or congested. See Exhibit#41, p. 170; Finding
of Fact#36 in decision dated 8-5-06, in County File No. PE-1940-04; and Finding of Fact #94 in
decision dated 4-11-03, in County File No. PE-1.746-94IPUDE-1-94; and Exhibit#34,
87. On April 11, 2003; the County Hearing Examiner approved the preliminary platfPUD of
Mica View Estates, after finding that such project made appropriate provision for fire and
emergency access into and out of the Ponderosa area; based primarily on the additional at-grade
railroad crossing constructed near the project between Sands Road and Dishman-Mica Road. A
final plat was recorded for such project on July 28, 2005; which provided for the extension of
Bates Road southwest to Gertrude Drive.
88. The Mica View Estates decision required the sponsor; prior to final plat approval, to work
with Fire District 8, the County Sheriff, the County Engineer and neighboring property owners to
develop an emergency evacuation plan for such project and the Ponderosa area.
•
89. The Mica View Estates decision required the sponsor of such project to set aside the
amount of 5500 per lot, in an escrow account, payable to Spokane County on demand. This was
for the exclusive purpose of constructing a railroad crossing in the vicinity of the plat, at an
undetermined location; and was directed at alleviating impacts to Bates Road in the event that the
average daily traffic capacity of Bates Road was exceeded. The decision also required the plat
sponsor to provide updated traffic counts along Bates Road, prior to the approval of the 57th lot,
with the possibility of ofd site mitigation being required depending on the results.
90. On June 28, 2005, the Hearing Examiner approved the preliminary plat of Inverary, to
divide 2.9 acres located along the east side of Schafer Road, near Dishman-Mica Road along the
east side of the railroad; into 30 "divided duplex" lots (30 total units). The property is zoned
Urban Residential-12 (UR-12) zone. The project has received final plat approval, and includes
the installation of sidewalk along the frontage of the development with Schafer Road. See
decision in File No. ZF-46A-90/SUB-05-05.
91. On August 5, 2005, the County Hearing Examiner approved the preliminary plat of
Ponderosa.Ridge; to subdivide 27.7 acres of land located approximately two-thirds (2/3) of a mile
southeast of the site, at the southeast corner of the intersection of 44th Avenue and Schafer
Branch Road, into 100 lots for single-family dwellings, and 17.5 acres of common open space; in
the UR-3.5 zone of the former County Zoning Code. See decision in File No. PE-1940-04. Such
decision is currently on appeal before the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division UI; after
the Examiner's decision was affirmed by Spokane County Superior Court.
92. The Ponderosa Ridge decision found that fire access for the project was adequate; based
largely on the fire evacuation analysis included in the traffic impact analysis (TIM, and submitted
by the sponsor's traffic engineer, Todd Whipple; expert testimony provided by the sponsor's fire
safety consultant, Claude Wells; and favorable review of the evacuation analysis by Spokane
County.
PM Findings; Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 14
•
93. The Ponderosa Ridge project required the plat sponsor to assist County Fire District 8 in
developing an emergency evacuation plan for such project, if requested by the fire district. The
decision also required that common areas be maintained in a manner that resisted the ignition and
spread of fire; at least 30 feet of green space to be preserved around homes to buffer them from
the threat of fire; covenants be established to restrict parking on st-eets, so as not to hinder access
by emergency vehicles; and covenants be established that required home construction to be of fire
resistive roofing and siding materials.
94. The Ponderosa Ridge decision deleted a condition of approval requested by County
Engineering that would have required the plat sponsor to contribute a$500 per lot fee for the
construction of a new railroad crossing in the vicinity of the project. This was based on findings
that County Engineering had no current plans for a railroad crossing, had not established where
and when the crossing would be constructed, provided no estimate of the cost or feasibility of
constructing the crossing, and provided no basis for calculating the applicant's proportionate
share of constructing the crossing; and based on the resulting conclusion that there was not a
sufficient regulatory basis under SEPA, RCW 58.17.110, and the impact fee provisions contained
in chapter 82.02 R.CW to impose the requested per lot fee on the plat sponsor.
95. On August 9, 2007, the City Hearing Examiner was scheduled to hear an application for the
preliminary plat/PUD of Ponderosa PUD, to subdivide 17 acres of land lying directly east of
Ponderosa Ridge project, along the south side of 44th Avenue, into 81 lots for single-family
dwellings and 10.3 acres of common open space; at a density (net) of 3.9 dwelling units per acre;
along with a PUD Overlay zone request; in the LIR-7* zone. Such project is functionally related
to the Ponderosa Ridge project, and involves the same applicant. See File No. SLT13-07-04/PUD-
04-04
•
96. The Hearing Examiner has served as the Spokane County Hearing Examiner since 1996; has
served as the hearing examiner for the City of Spokane Valley since the City was incorporated in
2003; and issued the final decisions for the Mica View Estates, Ponderosa Ridge and Inverary
projects in the Ponderosa area.
I. Issues raised by_Neighboring Property Owners and Public Agencies
97. The SEPA appeal filed by the Ponderosa Properties HOA contended that the project would
have probable, significant adverse impacts on the association's land due to potential flooding,
stormwater, drainage, and erosion impacts; and would significant adverse impacts on wildlife
habitat using their land and the site, the wetland on the site, and the riparian area associated with
the streams on the site.
98. The SEPA appeal alleges that the City Planning Division did not properly apply the City
Interim Critical Areas Ordinance to the preliminary plat. This includes errors in the wetland and
stream analysis subainitted by the applicant's wetland specialist/wildlife biologist; conflicts with the
habitat management plan applicable to the appellants' property lying west of the site; and alleged
errors in the conceptual drainage plan submitted by the applicant's drainage engineer.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 15
•
99. Neighboring property owners expressed opposition to the project based on the above
concerns; as well as concerns regarding housing density, lot sizes, impacts on neighborhood
character, inadequate public and emergency access for the preliminary plat and the Ponderosa area
in the event of wildfire, traffic safety and capacity, pedestrian safety, school capacity, mitigation of
geo-hazards on the site, the justification for rezoning the site, loss of aquifer recharge, impacts on
water pressure, and other concerns.
100. The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Spokane County
Conservation District, the Washington State Department of Ecology(WDOE), and the County
Soil Conservation Service raised concerns such as the typing of the DNR streams designated on
the site, delineation of the wetland, impacts to riparian and wildlife habitat, groundwater quality
impacts, loss of aquifer recharge, and potential on-site flooding and floodplain impacts.
•
101. The Central Valley School District requested mitigation for the project, in the form of
sidewalks within the development, and provision for safe waiting and bus boarding for students
bussed to other districts along the perimeter of the site. The district also requested that the City
evaluate the adequacy of the roadways in the Ponderosa area for ingress, egress and traffic
associated.with Ponderosa Elementary School; with regard to the added traffic generated by the
project and other new developments in the Ponderosa area.
102. The Spokane Tribe of Indians, and the State Office of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation, requested that an archaeological survey be performed for all areas of the site
proposed for development, and for all construction and staging areas; based on various factors.
J. A..licable Interim Com.rehensive Plan Policies
103. Policy UL.9.1 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that residential densities
(net) in the Low Density Residential category range from 1-6 dwelling units per acre. Policy
UL.9.2 recommends that the County seek to achieve an average residential density(net) in new
development of at least four(4) dwelling units per acre, through a mix of densities and housing
types. Policy ULL.8.1 recommends that mixed-income development be provided for in residential
areas.
104.. The density (net) of the preliminary plat, at 3.36 dwellings units per acre, is significantly
• lower than the density(net) of six (6) dwelling units per acre permitted in the U R-7* zone; and
less than the density(net) of 4.35 dwelling units per acre permitted in the UR-3.5 zone; but is
•
logical considering the common open space reserved on the site for critical areas and stormwater
management, and location of the site on the periphery of the UGA.
105. Policy UL.5.4 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan encourages the preservation of healthy,
attractive native vegetation, where appropriate, during land development; or the use of
appropriate native plant materials in site landscaping.
106. Policy UL.2.12 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that the site characteristics
of residential development, including existing trees, be enhanced and preserved through sensitive
NE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 16
•
site planning tools. Policy UL.2.15 encourages the planting of street trees in residential
subdivisions.
107. Policy H.3.2 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that the City ensure that the
design of in fill development preserves the character of the neighborhood.
108. Policies CF.6.3 and CF.7.2 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommend that the City
prohibit the extension of water or sewer service to new development that will degrade the level of
service below minimum level of service standards.
1.09. Policy UL.7.10 of the interim Comprehensive Plan states that the phasing of land
development shall.be consistent with the established levels of service for the provision of public
facilities and services within the UGA. Policy UL.7.12 states that new development within the '
UGA shall connect to public sewer.
110. Policies UL.2.20 and T.4a.12 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan encourage new residential
developments to be arranged in a pattern of connecting streets and blocks, to allow people to get
around easily by foot, bicycle, bus or car. Such policies indicate that cul-de-sacs or other.closed
street systems may be considered appropriate where topography or other physical limitations
make connecting systems impractical, and under certain other circumstances.
111. Policy T.3e.1 of the Interun.Comprehensive Plan.recouilnends that the transportation
network provide safe and convenient bicycle and walking access between housing, recreation,
shopping, schools, community facilities and mass transit access points; and that obstructions and
conflicts with pedestrian and bicycle movement be minimized.
112. Policy UL.2.11 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan promotes the linkage of developments
with open space, parks, natural areas and street connections. Policy UL.2.14 recommends that
separated sidewalks be required on public roads developed in new residential subdivisions
113. Policy T.3e.4 of the interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that the City promote hard
surface walkway systems, including but not limited to, concrete, asphalt and brick, as an
alternative to sidewalks that are separate from roads; if they fit in with the characteristics of the
neighborhood and private maintenance is assured.
114. Policy T.4a.13 and Policy UL.2.21 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan encourage the
development of local access roads that are curvilinear, narrow, or use other street designs .
consistent with safety requirements, to discourage through traffic in neighborhoods; provided the
design fits into the surrounding street systems and aids in implementing specific land use designs.
•
115. Policy T.4a.4 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that private roads be allowed
inside residential developments as a principal means of access; provided adequate measures are in
place to assure safe travel, emergency access and permanent private maintenance.
liE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REG-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 17
116. Policy T.4a.2 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that the capacity of existing
roads be maximized to reduce the need for new or expanded roads; through the use of
signalization, improved signage and other means.
117. Policy T.4a.9 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan states that adequate access to and
circulation within all developments shall be maintained for emergency service and public
transportation vehicles. Policy T.6.2 of the Comprehensive Plan advocates safe and effective
traffic control or grade separation at railroad at-grade crossings.
118. Policy CF.12.2 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that provision be made in
residential.and commercial developments for road access that is adequate for residents, fire
district ingress and egress, and water supply for fire protection.
119. Policy CF.12.3 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that defensible space be
provided between structures and adjacent fuels, and that fire-rated roofing materials be used on
buildings in forested areas.
120. Policy CF.I 2.6 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that comprehensive
emergency management plans consistent with all elements of the Interim Comprehensive Plan be
identified and implemented.
121. Policy T.2.2 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that transportation
improvements needed to serve new development be in place at the time new development impacts
occur, or that a financial commitment, consistent with the County's Capital Facilities Plan, be
made to complete the improvement within six (6) years.
122. Policy T.10.5 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan states that impact mitigation fees and user-
based fees shall be considered as a source of funding for all transportation improvements required
because of new development.
123. Policy T.10.6.of the Interim Comprehensive Plan states that transportation impact fees shall
be based on cumulative impacts from land uses within a traffic basin, with a proportionate share
allocated based on a reasonable relationship between trips generated by any proposed land use
and the improvements required.
124. Policy P0.3.3 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that new development
mitigate a portion of its direct impacts on the availability of parks, open space and recreation
facilities; using methods such as the dedication of land, donation of labor, donation of equipment
and materials, or entering into an agreement with.the County to provide for payment of a fee.
•
125. Policy CF.9.6 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan encourages the expansion of school
facility capacity at a comparable rate with that of private residential development and
•
demographic trends. Policy CF.9.7 recommends that the adequacy of school facilities be
•
considered when reviewing new residential development. •
PIE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 18
•
126. Chapter 10 of the interim Comprehensive Plan contains numerous policies protective of
designated critical areas; including wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife
conservation areas, frequently flooded areas and geologically hazardous areas. Such policies are
implemented through the City Critical Areas Ordinance, Floodplain Ordinance, Guidelines for
Storrnwater Management, and ASA Overlay zone.
127. Policy NE.10 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan states that the cumulative effects of land
use activities on critical areas should be considered in land use decisions. Policy NE.24.3
recommends that development proposals and their design consider the retention and maintenance •
of critical fish and wildlife habitat areas, and provide buffers to protect corridors and water
habitats.
•
128. Policy NE.26.4 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan states that activities allowed within
designated priority wildlife habitat and conservation areas should not compromise the quality or
function of the habitat; and that compatible uses therein may include rangeland, forest production, •
open space and passive recreation.
1.29. The Interim Comprehensive Plan contains numerous policies protective of areas with a
critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water in the county, to prevent impacts from
contaminants. Policy NE.17.4 recommends that changes in land use be evaluated for both
positive and negative impacts on groundwater quality, especially in moderate and highly
susceptible critical aquifer recharge areas.
130. Policy NE.17.5 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that development having a
significant negative impact on the water quality of an aquifer provide measurable and attainable
mitigation for the impact. Policy NE.21.2 recommends that additional studies be conducted,
where appropriate, to better define the extent of contamination, physical extent, water capacity,
background water quality and the rate of flow of water in county aquifers.
131. Policy NE.32.2 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that residential
development in geo-hazard areas minimize the disruption of existing topography and vegetation;
and incorporate opportunities for phase clearing and grading. Policy NF.32.3 reconii.uends that
construction in such areas minimize the risk to the natural environment or structures, and not
increase the risk to the site or adjacent properties that may be potentially affected.
132. Policy NE.32.5 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that site alteration,
grading and filling in geo-hazard areas be the minimum necessary to accomplish approved designs
and plans. Policy N'E.32.8 recommends that development not be allowed in such areas without
appropriate mitigation.
133. Policy.NE.32.7 5 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan states that construction and
development in geo-hazard areas should have negligible effects on the quality and quantify of
affected surface and groundwater; and that mitigation measures acceptable to the appropriate
regulatory agency should be provided.
BB Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 19
•
134. Policy NE.32.10 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that land use regulations
consider density transfers, bonus density, nature belt preservation and other innovative techniques
to retain geo-hazard areas whenever possible; and to facilitate implementation of the goals and
policies for such areas. Policy NE.14.8 contains similar recou„nendations for wetlands.
135. Policy NE.14.2 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that land use decisions
and activities be consistent with existing wetland regulations. Policy NE.15.11 recommends that
new development and land use activities that would significantly impact native or other
appropriate vegetation, cause substantial erosion or sedimentation, or adversely impact aquatic
life or the biophysical capabilities within a wetland habitat be avoided.
136. Policy NE.15.8 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that the existing surface
water quality and quantity of wetlands be protected, where new development would impact a
wetland or wetland buffer. Policy NE.15.6 recommends protection of the water quality and
quantity within wetlands, by preventing overuse of surface and groundwater beyond recharge
capabilities.
137. Policies NE.15.4 and NE.15.1 0 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommend that new
development and land use activities design roads, trails and other circulation systems and facilities
to protect wetlands from erosion; and reduce the amount of soil, silt and pollutants entering
wetland areas.-
138. Policy NE.15.5 of the Interim_Comprehensive Plan recommends that native and/or
appropriate vegetation be restored and enhanced in wetlands and their buffer areas. Policy
NE.1 5.12 recommends the protection of wetlands that provide critical habitat for priority wildlife •
species. Policy NE.14.5 recommends that the greatest wetland protection be provided to
wetlands of the greatest functions and values. •
139. The Open Space Corridors map contained in Chapter 9 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan
designates lands useful for recreation,wildlife habitat, trails and connection of critical areas. Such
map illustrates an expansive open space corridor in the mountainous area lying west, northwest,
and southwest of the site (i.e. Dishman Hills, Brown's Mountain and Tower Mountain area). The
map also illustrates a narrow open space corridor extending east and southeast from such
expansive corridor area through the north half of the site to Chester Creek, and continuing to the
east and southeast along Chester Creek. The map further illustrates a narrow open space corridor
extending a short distance to the north and a longer distance to the northeast.
•
140. Policy P0.5.8 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that open space areas and
corridors be identified and designated throughout the City. P0.5.18 recommends that open.space
designations be implemented through zoning and other development regulations. Policy P0.6.2
recommends that development proposals be reviewed to evaluate opportunities for multiple use of
proposed open space. Policy P0.5.19 promotes the inclusion of functional open space within
residential PUD developments.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 .Page 20
141. Policy NE.22.2 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan states that special studies and/or
conditions of approval for development proposals may be required, if necessary, to mitigate storm
water runoff and other pollution sources, in the Chester Creek drainage area and other problem
drainage areas.
•
142. The Interim Comprehensive Plan, at pages CR-1 and CR-2, defines "cultural resources" as
those buildings, structures, sites or associations that are left behind by a group of people and are
generally over 50 years old. This includes historic structures and landscapes engineered and built
by man; properties held in spiritual or ceremonial honor by a cultural group or tribe; properties
that retain a historical association with an event or period, even though they no longer show
evidence of man-made structures; and archaeological sites, battlefields, rock carvings,
pictographs, trails, village sites, fishing sites, trading sites, and religious and ceremonial sites. •
143. Policy CR.1.1 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that cultural resources,
such as archaeological and historic sites, be identified and evaluated to determine which should be
preserved. Policy CR.1.5 recommends that the review of land use actions be sensitive and give
consideration to the protection of cultural resources.
•
K. Relevant Zoning Standards
144. The City Phase I Development Regulations, prior to being amended in May of 2006,
required all zone reclassifications to be consistent with the implementing zones specified in such
regulations for the land use designation that applies to the subject property under the Interim
Comprehensive Plan. The implementing zones for the Low Density Residential category of the
City Interim Comprehensive Plan, in which the site is designated, are the UR-3.5 and UR-7*
zones. •
145. The UR-3.5 zone, which zone applies to 96% of the site, is intended to promote areas of
primarily single-family residences in an urbanized neighborhood setting. Such zone permits
single-family homes, duplexes, and various other uses; and provides for a maximum residential
density (net) of 4.35 dwelling units per acre, a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet for a single-
family dwelling, and a minimum lot fi-ontage of 80 feet.
146. The UZ-7 zone, the zone that would apply to the entire site if the current rezone application
is approved, is intended to add to the variety of housing types and densities in urban areas, and to
provide standards for the orderly development of residential property in a manner that provides a
desirable living environment that is compatible with surrounding land uses and assures the
protection of•property values. The UR-7 zone permits the same uses as the UR-3.5 zone, as well
as multi-family dwellings and certain other more intensive uses.
147. The City Phase I Development Regulations limit new residential development in the Low
Density Residential category of the Interim Comprehensive Plan, on land rezoned to the UR-7
under such regulations, to a density(net) of six (6) dwelling units per acre. Such zoning is
referred to as the "UR-7*" zone. The UR.-7 zone otherwise permits a density of seven (7)
.dwelling units per acre.
•
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision .REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 21
148. The minimum lot area and minimum lot frontage for a single-family dwelling in the UR-7
zone are, respectively, 6,000 square feet and 65 feet. The maximum building height in both the
UR-7 zone and the.UR.-3.5 zone is 35 feet/2.5 stories.
149. The UR-7 zone requires the installation of a 6-foot high sight-obscuring fence, wall or solid
landscaping along the border of any UR-7 zone that abuts land zoned "...RR-10, SRR-5, SRR-2,
SR-1/2,UR.-3.5 or RS_.."; except adjacent to public rights of way, and except in the front yard
where the fence cannot exceed a height of three(3) feet. •
150.. The RR-10, SRR-5, SRR-2, SR-1/2 and RS zones are found in the former County Zoning
Code, but are not found in the City Interim Zoning Code or the current County Zoning Code.
See Section 14.618.365 of City Interim Zoning Code. The City Planning Division conditions
recommended for the proposal require the installation of 6-foot high screening along the north,
south, east and west property lines; except where abutting a roadway.
151. The applicant indicated at the public hearing that the purpose of the proposed rezone was to
take advantage of the smaller lot sizes and reduced lot frontages permitted in the UR-7 zone,
compared to the UR-3.5 zone; and not to increase density or reduce lot sizes. See testimony of
Stacy Bjordahl.
L. Transportation Concurrence and Road Impacts
152. The City has adopted the 2001 County Standards for Road and Sewer Construction by
reference; with the reference to "County" in such standards replaced with "City". Such standards
are referenced below as the "City Road Standards".
153. Section 1.03(1-8) of the City Road Standards sets forth guidelines that a project sponsor's
traffic engineer is required to consider in planning transportation systems for a proposed
development. The guidelines in Section 1.03(1-7) recommend the provision of adequate vehicular
and pedestrian access to all parcels of land, minimizing through traffic movements and excessive
speeds on local access streets, logical street patterns, minimizing vehicular and pedestrian-vehicle
conflict points, considering traffic generators in designing a street system in a proposed
development, prohibiting new residential lots from directly accessing Urban Principal and Urban
Minor Arterials, and consideration of bordering arterial routes.
154. Section 1.03(8) of the City Road Standards requires that a proposed subdivision provide an
additional access road into the development to serve fire district vehicles, if the development has
the cumulative effect of creating a total number of lots, parcels or tracts served by an access road
equal to or greater than 50 lots, in a"setting"where the housing density ranges from 2.0 to 11
dwelling units per acre; equal to or greater than 30 lots, in a "setting"where the housing density
ranges from.25 to 1.99 dwelling units per acre; or equal to or greater than 20 lots, in a "setting"
where the housing density ranges from 0.0 to .25 dwelling units per acre. The location of the
additional access road must have the concurrence of the fire district.
•
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 22
155. Section 1.03(8) of the City Road Standards also provides that an additional access road may
be required into the development to serve fire district vehicles, if the local fire district concludes
that the location and layout of the development causes a concern for safety, regardless of the
other criteria in the section. See 2001 County Road Standards, Section 1.03(8).
•
156. Section 3.03 of the City Road Standards vests City Engineering with broad discretion in
selecting the roadway section to be applied in constructing new city roads and improving existing
city roads, based on numerous factors. This includes consideration of such factors as the
functional classification of the road, density and zoning in the area, terrain, cost relationship of
road improvements, traffic volume, terrain, density of existing development, proposed or existing
zoning, existing roads in the ir,,,,,ediate area and surrounding developments; and other public
. health, safety and welfare considerations.
157. Section 1.08 of the City Road Standards authorizes City Engineering to approve deviations
from such standards for a proposed development; subject to receiving written evidence from the
developer that the proposed deviation does not conflict with a condition of approval, is based on
sound engineering principles and meets requirements for safety, function, appearance and
maintainability. City Engineering may apply conditions to the approval of design deviations.
158. The City has adopted Level of Service "D" (LOS D) as the minimum acceptable level of
service for signalized road intersections, and Level of Service `E" (LOS E) as the minimum
• acceptable level of service for un-signalized intersections; for transportation concurrency purposes
under the City Phase I Development Regulations.
159. The City Road Standards require the construction of curb and sidewalk along the public
road frontage of new developments located within urban land use zones. Where sidewalks are •
required, they must be separated from the curb, and adjacent planting strip or drainage swale;
unless a design deviation is approved by City Engineering based on local conditions.
160. The City Engineering conditions of approval recommended for the project require the
applicant to improve Ridge-view Drive and 33`d Court in the preliminary plat to public road •
standards; by installing 30 feet of asphalt pavement; and by installing curb, gutter, separated
sidewalk and a roadside drainage swale on both sides of the pavement.
161. City Engineering conditions of approval require the private roads in the project to be
designed in accordance with the City Road Standards. Such standards require the installation of
pavement and curbs, but not sidewalks, for private roads. The City Road standards also require
the reservation of a minimum 10-foot wide maintenance and utility easement on both sides of the
private road; unless a design deviation is approved.. The record does not disclose whether the
applicant plans to install sidewalk along the private roads in the preliminary plat.
162. The City Engineering conditions of approval require the private driveways in the project to
be designed in accordance with the City Road Standards; which standards authorize up to three
(3) lots to be served by a private driveway. The applicant plans to pave the driveways.
RE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 23
•
161 The applicant submitted a traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the current project prepared by
Todd Whipple, a qualified professional traffic engineer, on March 4, 2005. The TIA was based
on the 49 dwelling units proposed in the original preliminary plat map submitted in November of
2004. The TLA does not include a fire evacuation analysis.
164. The TT.A stated that it included sight distance evaluations for the intersections of Schafer
Road and Sundown Drive, Sundown Drive and Ridgeview Drive, and Cimmaron Drive and
Ridgeview Drive. However, the TIA did not include such evaluations; other than to observe that
the intersection of. Schafer Road and Sundown Drive had some sight distance issues on its west
leg. See TIA, pages 7 and 9.
165. The TIA concluded that the project would have no traffic iTnpacts to the City's public
transportation system that would require mitigation by the applicant.
166. Pursuant to a letter dated April 8, 2005, City Engineering advised Todd Whipple that the
TIA met all City requirements; except for certain sight distance evaluations identified during the
traffic scoping process, that the City had asked the applicant to perform.
167. On May 23, 2005, City Engineering certified in writing that transportation concurrency
existed for the proposal.
•
168. Todd Whipple, in a letter dated July 22, 2005, advised the City Planning Division that he
had completed traffic work for the project and supplied City Engineering with final traffic
information. The additional submittal by Whipple may have included sight distance evaluations;
but if so, the information was not made part of the City Planning Division file for the project, or
the record.
169. The TIA focused on the peak hour traffic impacts of the project on the level of service
(LOS) at four (4) area intersections scoped by City Engineering; i.e. the signalized intersection of
Dishman-MIca Road and University Road/Schafer Road; and the un-signalized intersections of
Schafer Road and Sundown Drive, Schafer Road and Cimmaron Drive, and Woodruff Road and
Cimmaron Drive.
170. The TI.A.considered the cumulative impacts of the project and other traffic in the area at the
time of project build-out in 2010.. This included existing traffic; traffic from projects in the
Ponderosa area submitted prior to the current project, i.e. the Ponderosa Ridge, Ponderosa POD
and Mica View Estates projects; and a 1% increase in ambient traffic growth intended to capture
future traffic from all other sources.
171. The TLA. establishes that the study intersections will comfortably remain at an acceptable
level of service during the AM and PM peak hours, for normal traffic flows, at the time of project
build-out in 2010; including consideration of cumulative traffic impacts. This included LOS A at
the intersection of Woodruff Road and Cimmaron Drive, and LOS C or better at the other study
intersections.
•
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 24
172. The TIA did not consider the traffic generated by the 30 duplex units being developed in the
Inverary final plat (File No. ZE-46A-90/SUB-05-05), located along Schafer Road near its
intersection with Dishman-Mica Road; because the application for such project was submitted
after the current application, and was required to consider the traffic from the current project and
the background projects considered in the current TIA.
173. The TIA submitted for the Inverary project considered the cumulative traffic impacts that
would be generated by such project, the current project, and the background projects considered
in the current TIA; and concluded that the level of service at the signalized intersection of
Dishman-Mica Road and Schafer/University Roads would not be degraded below LOS C, an
acceptable level of service, at the time of anticipated project build-out in 2010. See Hearing
Examiner decision in File No. ZE-46A-90/SUB-05-05.
174. Neighboring property owners raised various concerns regarding steep grades and poor sight
distance along Ridgeview Drive, Sundown Drive, other nearby streets, Cimmaron Drive near
Ponderosa Elementary School, and Schafer Road at various road intersections lying southeast of
the site. •
• 175. Janice Cooperstein, an area resident and project opponent, submitted a copy of a June 6,
2005 report from Robert Bernstein, a qualified professional traffic engineer from the Seattle area;
which report had been submitted by neighboring property owners during the proceedings on the
Ponderosa Ridge project, in.County File No. PE-1940-04. Cooperstein also submitted a
transcript of Bernstein's testimony from the Ponderosa Ridge proceedings. See Exhibit #40, p.
733-742; and Exhibit#41, p. 262-293. •
176. Robert Bernstein concluded, in such report and testimony, that the road network in the
Ponderosa area was not designed or intended to safely accommodate traffic flows generated by
dense suburban developments; based on the roadway system not meeting current standards for
street width, surface, drainage, grade and sight distance; the lack of safe pedestrian paths and
sidewalks; inadequate arterial access; and insufficient street connectivity. The report found sight
distance to be inadequate for general traffic and school busses at the intersection of Cimmaron .
and Schafer, and that the intersection would be made more unsafe by the increased traffic from •
the Ponderosa Ridge and Ponderosa PUD projects.
177. Todd Whipple responded in detail to Bernstein's contentions in a letter to the County
Hearing Examiner dated June 8, 2005, in File No. PE-1940-04 (Ponderosa Ridge). See Exhibit
#40, p. 1564-1569. This included Bernstein not citing any accident data to show that the road
network was unsafe; and Whipple relying on accident data to conclude that the road network was
safe in its current condition, and with increased traffic from development.
178. Todd Whipple, in a letter submitted on December 17, 2004 for the Ponderosa Ridge project,
indicated that the roads in the Ponderosa area, including City streets, were constructed years ago
under different versions of the County road standards. The letter found that all the roads in the
area had 12-foot travel lanes; many of the roads had shoulders or were wider than current
standards required; all the roads in the area met grade requirements, or permitted deviations for
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 25
•
grade, at the time they were constructed; and the roads bad ample capacity to accommodate the
increased traffic for development. See Exhibit#40, p. 363-373.
179. The TIA for the current project listed accident data for the four (4) study intersections, for a
2.5-year period of time between 2002 and June of 2004; indicated that no fatalities had occurred
at the study intersections during this time period. The TIA found no accident history during this
time period for the un-signalized intersections of Schafer/Sundown and CimmaronfWoodruff.
The TIIA recited accident figures for the signalized intersections of Dishman-Mica and
Schafer/University, and Cimmaron and Schafer, during such time period, but drew no conclusions
from such data.
180. There is no competent traffic engineering evidence in the record establishing that the
cc' ent rate at area road intersections exceeds current standards; the project will result in current
standards being exceeded; or there is a need for the applicant to mitigate sight distance, grades or
safety concerns at such intersections to accommodate normal traffic generation.
181. The project, as conditioned, meets the transportation concurrency requirements of the City
Phase I Development Regulations.
M. Adequacy of Provisions for Emergencv/Fire Access and Safety .
(1) Conditions of approval recommended by County Fire District 1 staff
182. Spokane County Fire District 1 staff submitted various versions of conditions of approval
for the project, between December 2, 2004 and May 14, 2007; as the design of the preliminary
plat was revised over time.
183. The Staff Report submitted by the City Planning Division incorporates some of the
conditions recommended by Fire District 1 staff on March 16, 2007, as conditions of approval for
the project. This includes the installation of two (2) new fire hydrants inside the project, the
posting of"fire apparatus access roads 20-26 feet wide and turnarounds" as "Fire Lane-No
Parking" lanes, and the submittal of a detailed water plan showing hydrant location and size prior
to final plat approval. Since the two (2) private roads in the project each have a width of. 28 feet,
the fire lane posting would not be required for such roads.
184. The Staff Report also incorporates the conditions recommended by Fire District staff on
May 14, 2007, as conditions of approval for the project. Such conditions advise that 31 lots in
the preliminary plat rely on Ridgeview Drive as the only means of egress; and recommend that
either the number of-lots accessing Ridgeview Drive be reduced to 30 lots, a second means of
egress be provided (out of the preliminary plat), or that the homes developed on the 31 lots be
protected by an approved sprinkler system.
185. The conditional second access requirement recommended by Fire District 1 staff, for the 31
lots in the preliminary plat served by Ridgeview Drive, is based on Appendix D of the 2003
International Fire Code (IFC); which was adopted by the City under SVMC #10.15.010. See
reference to "Appendix D IFC 2003" in letter dated 8-1-06 from Fire District 1 to City of
•
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 26
Spokane Valley, item 1; and City Ordinance No. 04-010, which took effect on 7-01-04. Copies
of City Ordinance No. 04-010, and Appendix D of the 2003 MC, have been placed in the record_
186. Section D107 of Appendix D states that developments with more than 30 single-family
dwellings "... shall be provided with separate and approved fire apparatus access roads, and shall
meet the requirements of Section D104.3."
187. Section D104.3 of Appendix D states that where two (2) access roads are required, they
shall be placed a distance apart not less thin one-half(1/2) the length of the "...maximum overall
diagonal dimension of the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line between
accesses."
188. Section D107.1 of Appendix D states that where there are 30 or fewer dwelling units on a
single public or private access way, and all dwelling units are protected by approved residential
sprinkler systems, "...access from two directions shall not be required."
189. The applicant indicated that it would reduce the number of lots in the preliminary plat
accessing Ridgeview Drive to 30 lots, to comply with the Fire District 1 conditions. See
testimony of Stacy Bjordahl.
190. Section 0107 of Appendix D in the 2003 IFC appears to have the same focus as the second
access road requirements for subdivisions set forth in Section 1.03(8) of the City Road Standards
(referenced above), i.e. to provide adequate access into a proposed subdivision for fire vehicles.
191. Application of the table in Section 1.03(8) of the City Road Standards depends on the
"setting" of the subdivision, in terms of density. It is unclear whether this concerns just the
density of the subdivision, or is also intended to consider the density of neighboring development.
192. The housing density of the project, and the urban residential subdivisions located to the
south, and east of the south portion of the site; exceeds 1.99 dwelling units per acre. Such
density, if applicable, would not require a second access road for the 31 lots accessing Ridgeview
Drive in the preliminary plat.
•
193. The housing density of neighboring land located to the west and north, and east of the north
portion of the site, generally ranges from .1 to .2 dwelling units per acre. Such density, if
applicable, would require a second access for the 31 lots accessing the extension of Ridgeview
Drive in the preliminary plat.
194. Section 1.03(8) also requires a secondary access road into a proposed subdivision, for fire
vehicles, where the fire district determines there is a safety concern, based on the location and
layout of the development; regardless of the table.
195. Neighboring property owners contended that Section 1.03(8) of the City Road Standards
applies to the cumulative number of lots accessing the road(s) located outside a proposed
•
•
BE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04,APP 03-07 Page 27
•
subdivision, added to the number of lots in the proposed subdivision generating traffic along such
road(s). See Exhibit #48, submitted by Janice Cooperstein.
196. Neighboring property owners contended that the project has only one (1) effective access
route out of the area, i.e. Ridgeview Drive, to Sundown Drive to Schafer Road; traffic along any
other egress route (e.g. traveling south on Ridgeview to Cinirnaron) is circuitous, and initially
leads away from Schafer Road before ultimately discharging to Schafer Road; and since well over
100 homes in the vicinity use Sundown Drive to access Schafer Road, Section 1.03(8)justifies or
requires a third (3'i) public access route out of the area to Dishman-Mica Road.
197: Section 1.03(8) of the City Road Standards appears intended to apply to the number of lots
that access a road within a proposed subdivision; and becomes ambiguous or impossible to apply
once an access road leaves a development, and begins connecting to other access roads that also
lead away from the development for a significant distance. For example, Ridgeview Drive
connects with Sundown Drive 120 feet south of the site; and connects to Woodruff Road, via 36th
Avenue, within 280 feet of the site.
198. Section 1.03(8) of the City Road Standards, and Section D107 in Appendix D of the IFC,
appear intended to ensure adequate access roads for fire/emergency vehicles into a proposed
housing development; based on such factors as the number of lots proposed, the geographic size
of the development, and the design of the lots and road system in the subdivision.
199. Section 1.03(8) of the City Road Standards, and Section D107 in A.ppendix.D of the IFC,
are not intended to address area-wide firelemergency access issues that may also affect the
residents in the development.
(2) Preparation of fire evacuation analysis for Ponderosa Ridge/Ponderosa PUD projects
•
200. In July of 2004, Spokane County Fire District 8 staff submitted conditions of approval for
the Ponderosa Ridge/Ponderosa PUD projects, located in the southwest portion of the Ponderosa
area.. Such conditions required that access roads comply with the County Road Standards,
common areas be kept in a manner to resist the ignition and spread of fire, and a minimum of 30
feet of green space be left to buffer homes from the threat of fire.
201. County Fire District 8 also conditioned the approval of.such projects on the completion of
an evacuation study "...to be conducted by Fire District 8 and other applicable agencies". Fire
District 8 recommended that the traffic study for such projects cover the need for an evacuation
and the capability of the road system existing the Ponderosa area to handle 5,000 to 6,000
vehicles, in a set period of time; covenants be established to restrict parking on streets so as not to
hinder emergency vehicles, and home construction be of fire resistive roofing and siding materials.
See Exhibit #40, p. 1,311.
202. To facilitate preparation of the evacuation plan, Lieutenant Tim Archer of Fire District 8
prepared a `Ponderosa Neighborhood Emergency Overview", dated July of 2004; and a draft
•
HE Findings; Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 28
•
"PPonderosa Evacuation Plan", dated August of 2004. See Exhibit #40, p. 1,296-1,314; and
Exhibit #41, p. 497, lines 10-12.
203. Todd Whipple, a professional traffic engineer retained by the sponsor of the two projects,
prepared a fire evacuation analysis for the Ponderosa area; with the assistance of Lieutenant
Archer.
204. Todd Whipple considered the documents prepared by Lieutenant Archer; two additional
documents provided by Archer, i.e. the Fire Storm '91 Case Study and the 2000 Urban Wildland
Interface Code; and other reference documents. See Exhibit #40, p. 1,217-1,247. Whipple also
conducted discussions with Lieutenant Archer and others to refine the analysis. Whipple did not
consult with County Fire District 1, or local law enforcement. See Exhibit #41, p. 168-175.
205. Lieutenant Archer reviewed and commented on the fire evacuation analysis drafted by Todd
Whipple, and favorably received the final draft of the analysis. See Exhibit it #40, p. 179-180.
206. County Engineering submitted a letter regarding the two projects on December 15, 2004;
indicating it had reviewed the fire evacuation analysis, found that the assumptions for the
evaluation were conservative in nature and acceptable levels of service would be maintained, and
accepting the results and recommendations for the evaluation. This was generally corroborated
by testimony from County Engineering at the hearing held on the Ponderosa Ridge project. See
Exhibit #40, p. 898; and Exhibit #41, p. 155-165.
•
207. On.December 7, 2004, City Engineering requested that Todd Whipple obtain written
approval of the fire evacuation analysis from.Cal Walker, City Police Chief, and from Bill Walkup,
Chief of Fire District 8. This was based on a recommendation received from TRANSPO, a traffic
engineering consultant retained by the City to review the TIA. See Exhibit #40, p. 374-377 and
2245.
208. On January 27, 2005, City Engineering advised Todd Whipple.by telephone that it was
negating its requirement for approval of the fire evacuation analysis by the City police chief and .
the chief of Fire District 8; subject to the fire evacuation analysis being removed from the version
of the TLk submitted for the Ponderosa PUD project. See Exhibit #48, letter dated.2-3-05 from
Todd Whipple to John Hohman.
•
209. Oh January 28, 2005, Whipple finalized the TLA for the two projects, and incorporated the,
•
fire evacuation analysis into the TIA. See portion of TIA in Exhibit #40, p. 417-461. The TIA is
entitled "Ponderosa PUD", but to avoid confusion is referenced hereafter as the "Ponderosa
Ridge TLA.".
210. On April 8, 2005, Chief Walkup of County Fire District 8 sent a letter to Chuck Hafrier, an
area resident, responding to concerns raised by Hairier regarding the fire evacuation analysis.
Chief Walkup advised that the district did not have adopted written evacuation plans for specific
neighborhoods, the responsibility for evacuation rests primarily with law enforcement agencies,
Lieutenant Archer and other fire district personnel were not qualified to participate in an
FIE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 29
• evacuation analysis, and Whipple should have been directed to work with law enforcement
agencies in developing an evacuation analysis for the Ponderosa. The letter also advised that Fire
District 9 and Fire District 1 had learned several lessons from the 1991 firestorm; and did not
envision evacuating the entire area in the event of another firestorm event, but rather having
citizens shelter in place or move to an area of refuge in the event of wildfire. See Exhibit #40, p.
2,221-2,223. The letter was placed in the file for the current project, by Todd Whipple, on July
•
27, 2005.
211. On April 20, 2005, the Board of Fire Commissioners for Spokane County Fire District 1
submitted a letter to City Engineering, noting that there were several large proposed
developments in the Ponderosa area, the area still has a significant risk of another major wildfire,
the existing two (2) roads into the area may be inadequate for the ingress of fire equipment and
the egress of citizens in the event of a major wildfire, and widening the access roads or adding a
third(3'i) access might reduce the risk. The letter requested that the various proposals in the area
be reviewed as a whole, and take into account the total impact the developments would have on
. the ingress and egress roads to the area. The letter was placed in the file for the current project
on April 28, 2005.
212. On April 22, 2005, the Board of Fire Commissioners for County Fire District 8 submitted
written comments to the City Planning Division and the County Planning Department; which
recommended that a comprehensive look be taken at the cumulative impacts from development in •
all areas of the district, with respect to ingress and egress during emergency situations. See
Exhibit #40, p. 1739. The letter was placed in the file for the current project on May 23, 2005.
213. On May 20, 2005, County Fire District 1 staff submitted conditions of approval to Spokane
County for the two projects; which did not comment on the fire evacuation analysis or fire access
issues affecting the greater.Ponderosa area. See Exhibit #40, p. 44, Finding of Fact#146.
214. During the June 8-9, 2005 public hearing held on the Ponderosa Ridge project, Marina
Sukup, Director of the City Community Development Department, objected to inclusion of the
fire evacuation analysis in the TJA. Sukup testified that County Fire Districts 1 and 8 had not
accepted the evacuation study; wildfire evacuation in the Ponderosa area needed to be considered
as part of a natural hazard mitigation plan that the City and Spokane County were required by
federal law to formulate, with the assistance of the local fire districts and water district; such
mitigation plan had not yet been formulated; and the evacuation study was deficient in several
respects. See Exhibit#41, p. 71-76, 90-97, 112 and 533-548.
2)5. On August 5, 2005, the County Hearing Examiner approved the Ponderosa Ridge project,
as discussed above.
(3) Fire access concerts for current project
216. The conditions of approval submitted by County Fire District 1 staff for the current project,
between December 2, 2004 and May 14, 2007, did not comment on fire access issues affecting the
Ponderosa area as a whole.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision RBZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 30
217. The City Planning Division did not require a wildfire risk assessment or fire evacuation
analysis during its review of the current project, or its environmental impacts. This is despite the
concerns raised by the Fire District 1 Board of Fire Commissioners on April 20, 2005, and by the
Fire District S Board of Fire Commissioners on April 22, 2005, regarding the cumulative effects
of developments in the Ponderosa area on fire/emergency access in the Ponderosa area.
218_ The application, environmental checklist, and MDNS issued for the current project were
provided to County Fire District 1; but'were not circulated to the City Police Chief, the County
Sheriffs Office or County Fire District S. The Examiner takes notice that the City Police Chief is
appointed by the City Manager, but is a member of the County Sheriff's Office along with other
City police officers.
219. Spokane County is currently in the process of preparing a natural disaster mitigation plan;
with the assistance of the fire districts, Law enforcement agencies and other emergency response
agencies in the county. The Ponderosa area was selected as the first area to be studied for
emergency evacuation, by the agencies involved in formulating the plan. See testimony of
Richard Behm_
220. Russ Shane, a captain for the Spokane County Sheriffs Office, testified at the May 24, 2007
public hearing session held on the current project that the Sheriff's Office was iii the process of
preparing an evacuation plan for the Ponderosa area, at the request of area residents, to deal with
a natural disaster such as the 1991 firestorm; but could not provide a date when the evacuation
plan would be completed.
221. Captain Shane was present during the 1991 firestorm that affected the Ponderosa area, and
confirmed that Schafer Road was closed to public ingress at Dishman-Mica Road at various times
during the 1991 firestorm, to allow fu-elemergency vehicles into the area and public egress from •
the area.
• 222. Larry Rider, Assistant Chief of County Fire District 1, testified at the May 24, 2007 public
bearing session held on the current project that the district was very concerned about the
cumulative impacts of residential construction in the Ponderosa area on wildfire safety, without
provision for a third (31'1) public access in and out of the area; particularly as projects are built
farther and farther from Schafer Road, like the current project. Rider advised that any evacuation
of the area for a firestorm event would likely overrun Schafer Road.
•
223, Assistant Chief Rider expressed concern regarding the dead-end character of the internal
roads in the project; notwithstanding the conditions of approval for the project recommended by
County Fire District 1 staff, which Rider indicated he had not been aware of before the hearing.
224. Assistant Chief Rider also expressed concern about when the 3'd public access road for the
Ponderosa area would be installed; and what provisions were being made by the current project,
and other recent developments approved or proposed in the Ponderosa area, to ensure
construction of a 3'h access. Rider emphasized that if dead end roads at the urban wildfire
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 31
interface, such as the current project, continued in the Ponderosa area without the provision of a
3`d access route "...there is going to be a catastrophe, sooner or later."
225. On June 4, 2007, the Board of.Fire Commissioners for County Fire District 1 formally
adopted Resolution No. 2007-284; which specifically recommended to the City and County
Building Departments "...that no further development be allowed in the Ponderosa Neighborhood
until a third (3'6) public ingress/egress be constructed". See Exhibit#50.
226. Resolution No. 2007-284 found that the 1991 firestorm event demonstrates that the
Ponderosa area is in a wildland interface area that is susceptible to major fire events, the
Ponderosa area continues to develop residential subdivisions which generate more vehicle traffic
with only two (2) public ingress and egress roads, each additional development in the Ponderosa
area has cumulative effects on ingress and egress, access by fire apparatus would be hindered
while resident vehicles congest the roadways trying to evacuate from another fire like the 1991
firestorm, and a third(3"d) public ingress and egress would help alleviate emergency congestion in
the event of disaster.
•
227. On June 4, 2007, Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich addressed a letter to the
Spokane Valley City Council, in support of Resolution 2007-284 adopted by County Fire District
1; and concurring with the fire district that no further development be allowed in the Ponderosa
•
neighborhood until a third (3') public access is constructed.
228. Fires in the Ponderosa area typically arise out of the wooded areas located to the south and
west, and can also be sparked along the railroad tracks that parallel the west side of Dishman-
Mica Road to the southeast. Major fire incidents occurred in the Tower Mountain area in 1984,
_ and the Brown's Mountain area in 1985; in addition to the 1991 firestorm. See Exhibit#40, p.
1,300; and Exhibit #41, p. 451-452.
229. A forested, steep draw is located west of the site and the properties abutting Ponderosa
Lane. See testimony of Susan Schmidt, and photos in.Exhibit#29, at exhibit H. The fire
evacuation analysis contained in the TIA submitted for the Ponderosa Ridge project warns that
there are many reasons to expect a serious fire event could occur again within the Ponderosa
neighborhood. .
•
230. Evacuation of the Ponderosa area for the 1991 firestorm was complicated by poor visibility,
multiple fires and fire-spotting, and the overwhelming of public resources initially devoted to the
fire. Public safety personnel could not tell how fast the fire was corning and exactly where it was
coming from. Firefighting efforts were hampered by residents not heeding the recommendation of
fire officials, and direct orders by County Sheriff deputies responsible for the evacuation. Lack of
defensible space around homes; roadways and restricted driveways, and roads located along
hillsides and ridges limited response and operational choices to firefighters. See Exhibit#40, p.
1306, and p. 1217 to 1247; and email dated 12-6-04 from Colleen Ancel.
(4) Flaws in fire evacuation analysis included in the Ponderosa Ridge TIA
11E, Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 32
•
231. Janice Cooperstein, an area resident opposed to the current project, submitted a copy of the
appellate briefs submitted to the Court of Appeals, regarding the pending appeal of the Ponderosa
Ridge project; and portions of the transcripts and record from the public hearing conducted by the
County Hearing Examiner on the Ponderosa Ridge project. Cooperstein also testified, and
submitted written materials challenging the fire evacuation analysis contained in the TLk
submitted for. the Ponderosa Ridge project. See Exhibit#s 39-42, 46 and 48.
232. The briefs submitted to the Court of Appeals address numerous issues regarding the fire
evacuation analysis that were not considered during the public hearing on the Ponderosa Ridge
project. Such issues focus on a compact disc (CD) submitted during the Ponderosa Ridge project
hearing, which contains software engineering data used in the fire evacuation analysis.
233. The Ponderosa Ridge TIA was placed in the County's project file before the Ponderosa
Ridge hearing, but not the CD. Todd Whipple provided a copy of the CD to County Engineering
before the bearing, to facilitate its review of the evacuation analysis on behalf of Fire District 8.
Whipple also submitted a copy of the CD at the public hearing held on the Ponderosa Ridge
project. See Exhibit #41, p. 183-187; and Exhibit 40, p. 545A.
234. The CD could not be opened by the Hearing Examiner using normal software, and was not
reviewed by the County Hearing Examiner in reaching a decision on the Ponderosa Ridge project.
See Exhibit #42, p. 18 of Opening Brief of Appellant. The printable CD results, obtained by
applying traffic engineering software, are referenced in the appellate briefs as "exhibit#545A".
See Exhibits #39-42, and 48.
235. The CD was not provided to City Engineering, or its engineering consultant, TRANSPO;
their review of the fire evacuation analysis, contained in the same TIA, for the Ponderosa PUD
project. This was despite TRANSPO's specific request for the outputs from the traffic model
used to formulate the fire evacuation analysis, which CD results were not included in the technical
appendix of the Ponderosa Ridge TIA. See Exhibit#48, letter dated 11-5-04 from TRANSPO to
City Engineering; and p. 5 of letter dated 11-16-04 from Todd Whipple to City Engineering.
236. Janice Cooperstein also submitted a letter dated July 18, 2006 from Robert Bernstein, a
professional traffic engineer, which letter commented on the software data on the CD compiled
for the fire evacuation analysis. Cooperstein stated that she was a math major in college, was
experienced in market research, and had reviewed traffic studies before. See Exhibit#48.
237. The fire evacuation analysis created an evacuation model using "Synchro 6" software; which
is traffic engineering capacity software that uses procedures contained in the AASHTO Highway
Capacity Manual; which traffic studies must comply with. Such software relies on modeling the
peak traffic hour (AM and/or PM), based on traffic counts taken during the peak hour, for normal
traffic studies.
238. The fire evacuation analysis also utilized a "SimTraffic" module in the Synchro 6 software
to simulate traffit flow along the route of ingress and egress; using logarithms, inputting traffic
volumes and intersection levels of service, and inputting delay associated with the level of service
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 33
•
calculations. The traffic simulation can be viewed visually, but is not reproducible on paper.
However, the CD contains printable SimTraffic data that was used to create the simulation. See
Exhibit#41, p. 182-187; and Exhibit#40, p. 456.
239. The fire evacuation analysis in the TIA claimed to have studied the complete evacuation of
the 1,281 existing homes in the Ponderosa, at the rate of two (2) vehicles per home, within a 30-
minute timefrazne; with all traffic leaving the Ponderosa area in 30 minutes through two (2) exits,
i.e. the intersections of Dishman-Mica Road with University/Schafer Road and Bowdish Road.
The analysis assumed that Schafer Road, Bowdish Road, Sands Road, 441 Avenue and Van
Marter Road would be major routes of evacuation. See Exhibit #40, p. 454-458.
•
240. The fire evacuation analysis concluded, based on the software traffic modeling, that the
greatest traffic congestion during a 30-minute evacuation of the Ponderosa area would occur at
the Dishman-Mica/Schafer intersection; emergency-assisted traffic control would be needed at
. both Dishman-Mica intersections during the evacuation; and depending on manpower and the fire
danger, the intersections of Bowdish/Sands Roads and Cirrimaron Drive/Schafer Road should also
have emergency personnel directing traffic. See Exhibit #40, p. 456-457.
241. The Ponderosa Ridge TIA states, in answers to questions raised by area residents (but not in
the fire evacuation analysis section), that "...the roadway system within the greater Ponderosa
area, even with only two access points to Dishman-Mica, can handle the evacuation of the entire
Ponderosa's 1,200 to 1,400 residential units (existing and new), with.two (2) cars leaving from
each house within a 30-minute time frame..."; subject to emergency personnel controlling the
signals at the two main intersections located along Dishman-Mica Road. [Emphasis added]. See
Exhibit #40, p. 433-434.
242. The Synchro 6 report prepared for the fire evacuation analysis initially input an average
hourly traffic volume of 2.444 vehicles per hour(vph) exiting the Ponderosa area northbound
through the two Dishman-Mica intersections. This included 1,392 vph exiting the intersection of
Dishman-Mica/University, and 1,052 vph exiting the intersection of Dishman-Mica/Bowdish. See
Exhibit#39, Synchro 6 report/fire study, p. 1 and 4 (see NEUNBT/NER movements for
Dishman-Mica/Schafer intersection, and N UNF3T/NBR movements for Dishman-Mica/Bowdish
intersection).
243. The initial traffic volume input of 2,444 vehicles was stated on an rts eg hourly basis, since
the Synchro 6 model operates on a"peak hour"basis. The inputs recognize that all evacuating
vehicles must exit the area in a 30-minute portion of the 1-hour modeling period, with no vehicles
evacuating during the remaining 30 minutes. In other words, the "traffic count" for the "peak
hour" in the 1-hour model was 2,444 vehicles, with all 2,444 vehicles being evacuated in the initial
30 minutes of the peak hour.
• 244. The initial input of 2,444 vehicles in the Synchro 6 model assumes there are only 1,222
existing residences in the Ponderosa area (i.e. 2,444 vehicles divided by 2 vehicles/home). This is
59 homes and 118 vehicles less than the 1,281 existing residences, and the 2,562 vehicles, the
evacuation analysis in the Ponderosa Ridge TIA stated it was analyzing.
FEB Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 34
•
•
245. The initial input of 2,444 vehicles also does not include the 362 vehicles from the 1 S 1
proposed homes (i.e. 2 vehicles per home) in the combined Ponderosa Ri.dge/Ponderosa PLO
projects that would also need to be evacuated, if such projects were approved. •Thss should have
been part of the analysis, since the TIA was prepared for both the Ponderosa Ridge and
Ponderosa PUD projects.
•
246. Tb,e initial traffic volume inputted into the Synchro 6 model for the two intersections
combined should have been 2,924 vehicles. generated by a total of 1,462 homes (i.e. 1,281
existing homes + 181 proposed homes; x 2 vehicle, per home). This is a 1.6% discrepancy from
the 2,444 vehicles actually inputted.
247. Peak hour traffic studies generally assume there is a peak 15 minutes of traffic flow during
the peak hour (AM or PM); based on a conservative assumption that the peak 15 minutes for one
traffic mocenieut within the intersection is the same peak 15 minutes for all traffic movements
within the intersection. Such 15-minute "analysis period" is used to evaluate the traffic flow,
delay and level of service at an intersection, for each traffic movement and for the intersection as a
whole, during the peak 15 minutes of.the 1-hour modeling period- This will determine the
maximum traffic impact to an intersection or roadway during the peak hour. See Exhibit 448,
letter dated 11-16-04 from Todd Whipple to City Engineering-
248. In normal traffic studies, the ynchro 6 software applies a "peak hour factor" (phi) to the
average hourly traffic flow, to determine the hourly traffic flow during the peak 15 minutes of
traffic. The peak hour factor (phi) is defined as the ratio of the average 1-hour traffic flow rate to
the hourly now rate during the peak 15,minutes of the 1-hour period; and can vary for each
intersection or roadway- The lower the phf, the higher the hourly traffic flow rate is during the
peak 15 minutes; compared to the average 1-hour flow rate. See Exhibit #48, letter dated 7-8-
06 from Robert Bernstein, p. 2.
•
249. The evacuation analysis necessarily-assumed that all the traffic is evacuated or flows at a
constant hourly rate over a 30-minute period of time. Since this leaves no traffic to be evacuated •
dunning the remaining 30 minutes of the 1-hour modeling period, the hourly traffic flow rate during
the "peak 15 minutes." of the 1-hour modeling period is the same as that during the entire 30-
minute evacuation period.
250, To reflect the hourly traffic flow rate represented by evacuating a total of 2,444 vehicles
during the 30-minute (112) hour evacuation period, a "peak hour factor" (phi) of.5 was divided
into the initial traffic flow inputs for the intersections analyzed in the Synchro 6 model. .
251. A phf of,5 in a normal.traffic study assumes that one-half(112) of the hourly traffic will
occur during the peak 15 minutes of the 1-hour period; and equates to an hourly traffic flow rate
• during the peak 15 minutes that is double the average hourly flow rate for the 1-hour period- See
Exhibit 448, letter dated 7-1 -06 from Robert Bernstein, p. 2. •
•
•
•
H Findings, Conclusions and Decision ,RF - 3-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 35
•
•
252. Application of the .5 phf to the initial traffic input of 2,444 vph for the two intersections
produced an "adjusted flow"rate of 4,888 vehicles per hour in the Synchro 6 model. Such
adjusted hourly flow rate still represented the evacuation of only 2,444 vehicles in 30 minutes (1/2
hour). See Exhibit #39, Synchro 6 report/fire study, p. 1-2 and 4-5; and Whipple calculation in
Exhibit#40, p. 371. •
253. The adjusted flow rate that should have been inputted into the Synchro 6 model(after
applying the .5 phf) is 5,848 vehicles per hour(i.e. based on the 2,920 vehicles generated by the
1,460 existing and 181 proposed homes, divided by the .5 phf). This flow rate is 16%higher than
the 4,888 vph adjusted flow inputted; and equates to the evacuation of 2,924 vehicles in 30
minutes. See Exhibit#42, Opening Brief of Appellant, p. 21-22; and Reply to Brief of
Respondents, p. 12.
254. Todd Whipple, during the Ponderosa Ridge proceedings, testified that he had "essentially
• doubled" the traffic flow (i.e. 4 vehicles per home) considered in the fire evacuation analysis, by
using a .5 phf. This statement is misleading and wildly inaccurate; since the adjusted flow rate of
4,888 vehicles per hour inputted into the Synchro 6 model, after applying the .5 phf, is still
equivalent to only 2.444 vehicles being evacuated in 30 minutes, the assumed evacuation period.
Whipple also made several factual errors in his testimony, stating at one point that there were
1,800 existing houses in the Ponderosa to evacuate; and that he considered the evacuation of
7,200 vehicles in a 30-minute period of time. See Exhibit #41, p. 174-183.
255. Application of a.5 phf in the Synchro 6 model was simply a means of determining the
hourly traffic flow rate during the 30-minute evacuation period; for a software model that is
designed only for peak hour traffic studies. It did not "double" the volume of traffic evacuated
from the Ponderosa area within 30-minutes, as claimed, but left it the same.
256. To simulate the evacuation, the Synchro 6 model maximized intersection "green time" for
the exiting northbound movements at the two intersections; by adjusting the traffic signals to
allow approximately two-thirds (2/3) of the light cycle time at the Dishman-Mica/Bowdish
intersection, and approximately three-fourths (3/4) of the light cycle time at the l)ishn3an/Schafer
intersection, to be used for exiting traffic. The remaining light cycle time was used to allow some
cross traffic, and some resident traffic into the area, at the intersections. See Exhibit #39,
Synchro 6 Report for Fire Study, p. 1-2 and 4-5.
257. The evacuation analysis assumed that resident traffic allowed back into the area equaled
10% of the exiting traffic, and that emergency personnel would use the emergency access that
• crosses the railroad tracks near 48th Avenue and Dishman-Mica. See Exhibit #40, p. 372 and 456-
457; Exhibit #41, p. 177-178; Exhibit #42, Appellant's Opening Brief, p. 20, note 22.
258. Under the AASHTO Highway Capacity Manual, the "ideal flow" rate for an intersection is
1,900 passenger cars per hour per lane; while the "ideal flow" rate for a single roadway lane
ranges from 2,100 to 2,400 cars per hour per lane. See Exhibit #40, p. 367.
BE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 36
•
259. The Synchro 6 report for the fire study reduced the "ideal flow" rate for the signalized
intersections of Dishmnan-Mica/Schafer and Dishrnan-Mica/Bowdish to a"saturated flow" rate, to
account for delay caused by individual road and driver factors. See Exhibit#42, Opening Brief of
Appellant, p. 19, note 20; and Exhibit#42, Reply to Brief of Respondents, p. 12.
260. The Synchro 6 report calculated a"saturated flow" of 1,658 vehicles per hour and 1,608
vehicles per hour for the northbound through and left-turn movements at the intersection of
Dishpan-Mica/Bowdish, respectively. The Synchro 6 report calculated a"saturated flow" rate of
1,642 vehicles per hour and 1,608 vehicles per hour for the northbound through and left-turn
movements at the intersection of Dishman-Mica/Schafer, respectively. See Exhibit#39, p. 1 and
4 of Synchro 6 Report.
261. The Synchro 6 report showed an overall intersection signal delay time of 407 seconds (6.8
minutes), resulting in a drastically failing LOS F, at the intersection of Dishman-Mica/Schafer.
This included a delay of 103.3 seconds for northbound traffc.approaching the intersection [the
ICU level of service D shown in the report is not relevant].
262. The Synchro 6 report showed an overall intersection delay time of 186.6 seconds (3.1
minutes), and a significantly failing LOS F, at the intersection of Dishman-Mica/Bowdish. This
included a delay of 133.3 seconds for northbound traffic approaching the intersection [the ICU
level of service D shown is not relevant]. See Exhibit#39, Synchro 6 report/fire study, p. 1-2 and
4-5.
263. The delay time shown in the Synchro 6 report for northbound traffic at the intersection of
Dishman-Mica/Bowdish was significantly greater than that shown for northbound traffic at the
intersection of Dishman-Mica/Sch.afer; since there is only one (1) intersection lane available for
evacuation at the Dishrnan-Mica/Bowdish intersection.
264. LOS F, at a signalized intersection, is equivalent to a delay of over 80 seconds. LOS D, the
minimum acceptable LOS at a signalized intersection under the City Road Standards, cannot
exceed a delay time of 55 seconds. See Exhibit #39, p. 464.
265. The fire evacuation.analysis logically assumed that during a full-scale fire evacuation,
emergency personnel would take over and manually control choke points such as the intersections
of Dishman-Mica Road with Schafer and Bowdish Roads; in order to maximize egress from the
area
266. Todd Whipple testified during the Ponderosa Ridge project hearing that based on the need
for manual control of the two Dishman-Mica intersections during an evacuation, he allocated even
more green time to exiting traffic at the two intersections; and arrived at a conclusion that existing
traffic in.the Ponderosa could be safely evacuated in 30 minutes. See Exhibit#41, p. 176-178.
The Synchro 6 report does not reflect or quantify this additional green time, or explain how the -
final conclusion was•reached that the Ponderosa could be safely evacuated in 30 minutes with
manual control of the two intersections.
•
•
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 • Page 37
267. During his testimony at the public hearing on the current project, Todd Whipple indicated
the main iralue of the fire evacuation analysis was to assist Fire District 8 in determining what
intersections would be the most congested during an evacuation and require emergency
assistance, and that there was no applicable engineering standard to apply to determine what was
a safe evacuation.
268. Whipple also testified at the current hearing that the "level of service" results indicated by
the Synchro 6 report were irrelevant to an emergency fire evacuation; queue length and delay at
the affected intersections were the primary factors he considered in the Synchro 6 report, in
determining the choke points during an evacuation and how many vehicles could be evacuated
during a certain period of time; and he ultimately relied on the Synchro 6 report and "engineering •
judgment" to reach a conclusion that the Ponderosa area could be safely evacuated.
•
269. The Ponderosa Ridge TIA indicatess that there are two (2) lanes available for northbound
traffic movements at the intersection of Dishrnan-Mica Road and Schafer/University Roads; a
through/right-turn lane, and a left-tum lane with 150 feet of storage length. The MA indicates
that there is only one (1) lane available for northbound .movements at the intersection of Dishman-
Mica Road and Bowdish Road, a through/left-turn/right-turn lane. See Exhibit #40, p. 178.
270. The two intersections together have an "ideal" flow rate of 5,700 vehicles per hour (i.e.
1,900 vph times 3 intersection lanes); or 2,850 vehicles per 30 minutes. Such ideal flow rate per •
30 minutes is 70 vehicles less than the 2,924 vehicles per 30 minutes that should have been
considered for evacuation through the two intersections.
271. The combined "saturated" flow for the two intersections is no more than 4,908 vehicles per
hour; calculated by adding 1,642 vehicles.per hour plus 1.,608 vehicles per hour for the Dishman-
Mica/Schafer intersection, plus 1,658 vehicles per hour for the Dishman-Mica/Bowdish
intersection, shown by the Synchro 6 report. This equates to a combined saturated flow for the
two intersections of only 2,454 vehicles Der 30 minutes. This is 470 vehicles less than the 2,924
vehicles thatneeded to be evacuated in 30 minutes; a 16% discrepancy.
272. The plat sponsor for the Ponderosa Ridge project contended in its Court of Appeals brief
that the "ideal" traffic flow for an intersection should be used to evaluate the capacity of the
subject intersections; while under manual emergency control during a fire evacuation. The
opponents of the project contended in their briefs that the more realistic "saturated" flow rate
should be used. .
273. The plat sponsor for the Ponderosa Ridge project, in its Court of Appeals brief, objected to
use of the "saturated flow" rate; on the basis that there would be fewer light cycles at the
intersections for egressing traffic, reducing the delay caused by driver reaction time compared to
normal stop and go traffic.
•
• 274. The fire evacuation analysis assumed that the two intersections, even under manual control
- during a fire evacuation, must still allow some resident traffic into the area See Exhibit 40, p.
456; and Exhibit#41, p. 559-560. Thus, the "ideal flow" rate at the two intersections cannot be
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision RE•Z-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 38
achieved. The traffic model already assumes that delay will not result from such potential human
factors as stalled vehicles, traffic accidents, lost visibility due to smoke, fallen trees, etc.
275. The plat sponsor for the Ponderosa Ridge project also suggested in its appellate brief,
without direct support from the Ponderosa Ridge record, that the two Dishman-Mica
• intersections, under manual control during a fire evacuation, would each operate like a"street
link"; with an ideal capacity ranging from 2,100 to 2,300 vehicles per hour per lane, and no
inbound or cross traffic allowed at the two intersections. See Exhibit 342, Brief of Respondents,
p. 16, note 10.
276. The functioning of the two intersections as "street links", even with no cross traffic or
inbound traffic, appears highly u vilely considering such factors as the northbound turning
movements that need to be made at each intersection, the left turn pocket at the intersection of
Dishman-Mica Road/Schafer is only 150 feet long, the single lame available to northbound traffic
along Schafer Road immediately south of the left turn pocket, the management of exiting traffic
on City streets once it passes through the two intersections, etc. See Exhibit #39, Synchro 6
report/fire study, p. 1; and Exhibit #42, Reply to Brief of Respondents, p. 10-12.
•
277. The Synchro 6 report shows a northbound left storage lane at the intersection of Dishman
and Bowdish Road that is 100 feet in length. Since there is no protected northbound left-turn lane
along Bowdish Road at such location, the opponents of the Ponderosa Ridge project contended
that inclusion of this additional lane created an error in the Synchro results regarding the volume
of traffic that could be passed through.such intersection in 30 minutes. See Exhibit#42;
Appellant's Operning Brief, p. 22.
278. The plat sponsor for the Ponderosa Ridge project, in its appellate brief, appeared to concede
that there was no northbound left-turn storage lane at the Dishman-Mica/Bo• dish intersection;
but instead argued there was a "de facto additional right turn lane at Bowdish"; without
describing its configuration, length, or effect on traffic flow. See Exhibit #42, Brief of
Respondent, p. 17.
279. The Ponderosa Ridge DA., in describing the Dishman-MicalBowdish intersection, states
that the northbound approach at the intersection has only one (1) approach lane; and mentions a
"defacto right turn lane" only with regard to the right through lane for the southbound approach
to the intersection,which is not relevant. See Exhibit#40, p. 428. The Synchro 6 report does not
show a northbound right turn lane. See Exhibit#39, Synchro 6 report/fire study, p. 4, lines 3-4.
280. It is not clear from the record to what extent the erroneous inclusion of a 100-foot long
northbound left-turn lane at the Dishman-Mica/.Bowdish intersection, into the Synchro 6 report,
resulted in overstating the capacity of the intersection to pass northbound traffic.
281. The pages from the Synchro 6 report submitted by Janice Cooperstein contain the report for
only one (1) urn-signalized intersection along the evacuation routes leading to Dishman-Mica
Road, at Schafer/Sundown,.
•
•
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 39
•
282. The Synchro 6 report shows an adjusted hourly flow of 2.428 vph, for the northbound traffic
through movement at the an-signalized intersection of Schafer Road and Sundown Drive. Traffic
turning northbound onto Schafer Road from Sundown Drive adds 84 vph to the northbound
traffic along Schafer Road, yielding a northbound traffic flow through the intersection of Schafer
Road and Mercy Court of 2.712 vph. See Exhibit#39, Synchro 6 report/fire study, p. 23 and 1.
Such traffic flows at the two intersections substantially exceed the ideal traffic flow through the
intersection of 1,900 vph, by 22% and 30%, respectively.
283. The adjusted hourly flow rates inputted for northbound traffic along Schafer Road, and
passing through the un-signalized intersections along Schafer Road south of Dishman-Mica Road,
do not include the i nkmown Schafer Road share of the 236 vph contributed by the 59 existing
homes in the Ponderosa area not tabulated in the Synchro report (i.e. 59 homes x 2/vehicles per
home x 2 half-hours/hour).
284. The adjusted hourly traffic flows inputted for northbound traffic along Schafer Road in the
Synchro 6 model also fail to include the traffic contributed to Schafer Road by the 181 proposed
homes in the Ponderosa Ridge/Ponderosa PUD projects.
285. The Ponderosa Ridge MA found that 75% of the traffic generated by the proposed homes in
the Ponderosa Ridge/Ponderosa PUD projects will ultimately access Schafer Road, and 25% will • .
ultimately access Bowdish Road. This represents the evacuation of an additional 271 vehicles, or
542 vehicles per hour. along Schafer Road(i.e. 181 homes x .75 x 2 vehicles/home x 2 half-hours)
See Exhibit#39, Synchro 6 Fire Study report, p. 1 and 23; and Exhibit#48, letter dated 11-16-04
from Todd Whipple to City Engineering, p. 8, question 6.
286. The additional 542 vph of evacuating traffic generated by the proposed homes onto Schafer
Road must all pass through the intersections of Schafer/Sundown Drive and Schafer/lvlercy Court
to reach Dishman-Mica Road. See Exhibit #40, p. 453. This increases the adjusted hourly flow
at such intersections, for the northbound through movement, to 2,970 vph and 3.254 vph, •
respectively. This is without adding in any traffic from the 59 homes not accounted for in the •
Synchro 6 report. These adjusted rates compare to an ideal traffic flow for the northbound
through movement at these intersections of only 1,900 vph; a discrepancy of 35% and 42%,
respectively.
287. The Synchro 6 report shows a"saturated flow" of only 1,676 vph for the northbound
through movement at the intersection of Schafer Road and Sundown Drive. This is 43% less than
the adjusted traffic flow of 2,924 vph calculated for such intersection above. This represents a
total of 624 vehicles (2,924 vph— 1,676 vph x %2 hr) that cannot pass through the intersection,
applying the "saturated flow" rate.
288. The un-signalized intersections along Schafer Road obviously cannot operate as a
continuous "street link", even under manual operation by emergency personnel; because traffic
from the side streets located south of Schafer Road must be allowed to turn northbound onto
Schafer Road, in order to evacuate the area.
•
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision RBZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 40
289. The fire evacuation analysis intentionally did not study lane or corridor capacity impacted by
the evacuation traffic; assuming that controlled intersections created the largest constriction
points. See Exhibit#40, p. 456. The ideal hourly flow rate for a roadway is considered to be
2,100 to 2,400 vph per lane, as stated above.
290. There is one (1) lane of northbound traffic along Schafer Road and one (1) lane of
northbound traffic along Bowdish Road. This includes a distance of several hundred feet along
Schafer Road between Dishman-Mica Road and the points to the south where the nearest
secondary roads merge into such roads.
291. The two (2) lanes combined for Schafer Road and Bowdish Road can accommodate an
"ideal" flow rate of 4,200 to 4,800 vph, or 2;100 to 2,400 vehicles per 30 minutes. This is a
range of 524-824 vehicles less than the 2,924 vehicles that need to be evacuated northbound
along such roads in 30 minutes, before reaching Dishman-Mica Road. This is a discrepancy of
18-28%.
292. The "saturated flow" rates for the Schafer Road and Bowdish Road roadway are not •
included in the Synchro results; but, if applicable, would be somewhat reduced from the "ideal
flow" rate, and allow even fewer vehicles to be evacuated in 30 minutes.
293. The northbound hourly traffic rate indicated by the Synchro 6 report for the last leg of
northbound traffic along Schafer Road, between Mercy Court and Dishman-Mica, is 2,784 vph.
If the additional hourly traffic flow rate of 543 vph for the proposed homes is added to this rate,
the adjusted hourly traffic rate along the last leg of Schafer Road is 3.327 vph. If just one-fourth
(1/4) of the 236 vph contributed by the 59 existing homes excluded from the Synchro 6 report are
also added in (equal to 59 vph), the adjusted hourly flow along the last leg of Schafer Road,
would be 3.386 vph. These adjusted flow rates of 3,327 vph and 3,386 vph compare to an "ideal
flow" rate along Schafer Road of only 2,100 to 2,400 vehicles per hour.
294. The flow rate of 3,327 vph calculated above equates to evacuating 1,663 vehicles in 30
minutes, while the flow rate of 3,386 vph calculated above equates to evacuating 1,693 vehicles in
30 minutes; for northbound travel along the last leg of Schafer Road. This is far more vehicles
that must be evacuated in 30 minutes, along the last leg of Schafer Road, than is possible under
the ideal flow rate for a roadway of 2,100-2,400 vph; which would allow only 1,050-1,200 . __
vehicles to be evacuated in 30 minutes. This represents a 26-38% discrepancy, and a range of
430-643 vehicles that cannot be evacuated in 30 minutes along the last leg of Schafer Road;
comparing the range of actual flow rates to the range of ideal flow rates.
295. The large discrepancy between the actual traffic flow required to be evacuated and the ideal
flow possible, for northbound traffic evacuating along Schafer Road, also occurs south of Mercy
Court; to lesser degrees. A similar discrepancy can be calculated along Bowdish Road, between
Sands Road and Dishrnan-Mica Road; but to a somewhat smaller degree, since Bowdish Road
would carry a smaller percentage of the combined evacuating traffic than Schafer Road.
•
•
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 41
296. The Synchro 6 report inputs an adjusted hourly traffic flow of 2,104 vehicles per 30
minutes) at the intersection of Dishman-iyi_icaBowdish. If the hourly traffic from 45 of the 181
proposed homes (based on 25% of the vehicles from the 181. homes accessing the intersection)
not considered in the Synchro 6 report are added to this volume,.i.e. 181 vph (181 homes x .25 x
2/vehicles per home x .5 hr x 2), the hourly traffic flow at the intersection would be 2.285 vnh.
297. if just one-fourth (1/4) of the hourly traffic flow from the 59 homes not considered in the
Synchro report (equal to 59 vph) was also added to the hourly traffic flow at the Dishman-
MicalBowdish intersection, the potential hourly traffic flow impact at such intersection would be
2.344. These adjusted hourly volumes of 2,285 vph and 2,344 vph substantially exceed the ideal
hourly flow rate for this 1-lane intersection of 1,900 vph; a 20% discrepancy.
298. The above analysis indicates that a significant percentage, perhaps one-third (1/3), of the
combined traffic from the 1,281 existing homes in the Ponderosa area, and the 181 proposed
homes in the Ponderosa Ridge/Ponderosa PUD projects, cannot be evacuated within 30 minutes
to Dishman-Mica Road; even assuming manual control of the intersections, and ideal flow rates-
for the roadways and intersections evacuating the traffic. The above analysis also shows no basis
for County Engineering's conclusion that "acceptable levels of service" could be maintained
during the fire evacuation scenario.
299. The above analysis also strongly suggests that if one(1) of the main exit routes to Dishman-
Mica Road became blocked for any length of time during a firestorm event, a majority of the
vehicles from the 1,281 existing homes and 181 proposed homes in the Ponderosa area could not
be evacuated to Dishman-Mica Road within 30 minutes.
300. The fire evacuation analysis does not include consideration of the 90 additional vehicles
from the current project (45 homes x 2 vehicle/home) that would access Schafer Road during a
complete evacuation of the Ponderosa area; or the vehicles from 60 vehicles from the 30 housing
units in the Inverary final plat project currently being developed along Schafer Road, near its
intersection with Dishman-Mica Road. This is an additional 150 vehicles, from 75 homes, added
to Schafer Road for evacuation during the 30-minute period; or 300 vehicles per hour.
301. If the traffic from the 81 homes proposed in the Ponderosa PUD project, for which no
decision has been entered, was excluded from consideration in the fire evacuation analysis, this
would be roughly offset by inclusion of the traffic from the current project (45 homes) and from
the Inverary project (30 homes) in the evacuation analysis.
302. The SimTraffic simulation in the fire evacuation analysis shows a much smaller percentage
of traffic that can be evacuated from the Ponderosa area in 30 minutes, using the two .
intersections, than the Synchro results; i.e. only 1,908 vehicles per hour, or 954 vehicles per 30
minutes. See Exhibit#39, SimTraffic Report, p. 2 and 3; and Exhibit#42, Reply to Brief of
Respondents, p. 12, note 8.
303. Robert Bernstein, in his July 18, 2006 letter, indicated that it was inappropriate to use the
Synchro and SimTraf is software packages to analyze conditions during an emergency
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 42
evacuation; and found their use in the evacuation analysis to not be meaningful, and also
misleading.
304. Robert Bernstein, in such letter, also criticized the fire evacuation analysis for not
considering traffic from the residences proposed in the Ponderosa Ridge and Ponderosa PUD
projects, and other future development; and for not making available any formal documentation of
the analysis and simulation model results, connecting the summary text in the TIA with the
computer data files on the CD.
305. Robert Bernstein stated, in such letter, that the Synchro results suggested that the
Ponderosa neighborhood could not'be evacuated in 30 minutes; and that the SimTrafic simulation
does not show that the area can be evacuated in 30 minutes.
306. The plat sponsor for the Ponderosa Ridge project indicated in its Court of Appeals brief that
the SimTraffic simulation assumed that the traffic signals at the two intersections were functioning
normally and were not under the control of emergency personnel(unlike the Synchro results);
resulting in the simulation showing considerable congestion at the two intersections compared to
the Synchro results. See Exhibit #42, Brief of Respondents, p. 18.
307. Based on the above facts, the SimTraffic module results do not establish that the Ponderosa
area can be evacuated during a 30-minute time frame.
308. Todd Whipple testified during the current proceedings that the debate over the fire
evacuation analysis was essentially moot; because County Fire District 8 had advised that a mass
evacuation of the area was unlikely in the event of another firestorm event, and the district would
more likely employ a strategy of shelter in place or moving to a safe location.
309. The documents prepared by Lieutenant Archer of County Fire District 8 in 2004 indicated
that wildland fire research is now closely examining the issue of evacuation versus shelter in place
alternatives; emergency fire commanders need to seriously consider the advantages of not
evacuating residents, based on topography, fire behavior and history, many wildland fires will not
require a full-scale evacuation, and residents can be given instructions on protecting themselves at
home. See Exhibit #40, p. 1,296-1,314. •
310. Claude Wells, a retired Deputy Chief of County Fire District 9, testified as a fire consultant
for the plat sponsor at the Ponderosa Ridge hearing. See Exhibit#41, p. 445-553. Wells was
involved in the 1991 firestorm on the north side of Spokane, and had some involvement with fire
that occurred in the Ponderosa in 1984. Wells indicated that he had reviewed the documents
provided to Todd Whipple by Lieutenant Archer of County Fire District 8, and the fire evacuation
analysis summary contained in the Ponderosa Ridge TIA, in preparing his testimony.
311. Claude Wells testified during the Ponderosa Ridge proceedings that some progress had been
made in Spokane County since the 1991 firestorm, in preventing and managing fires occurring at
the urban wildland interface. This included the adoption of second access requirements for new
subdivisions, fire access road requirements for private roads and driveways, and additional water
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 43
•
supply requirements for new developments under local codes; and haviig the same dispatch
center for all local law enforcement agencies, and one dispatch center for all local fire authorities.
312. Claude Wells testified during the hearing on the Ponderosa Ridge project that, based on his
understanding of the fire evacuation analysis prepared by Todd Whipple, which concluded that the
entire Ponderosa area can be safely evacuated in 30 days, the evacuation of the Ponderosa area
during a wildfire event would not be a significant problem. See Exhibit #41, p. 477. Such
testimony is undermined by the significant flaws in the fire evacuation analysis, as discussed
above. •
313. Both Todd Whipple and Claude Wells testified during the Ponderosa Ridge hearing that
mass evacuation of the Ponderosa area during a firestorm event was only one scenario; and that
other possible scenarios included a rolling evacuation over a period of time greater than 30
minutes, and/or sheltering in place. Neither witness gave serious consideration to one or both of
the main exits to Dishnnan-Mica Road being blocked by any length of time, by fire crossing the
road; or other circumstance, in expressing their opinions; although they conceded this was a
possibility. See Exhibit #41, p. 445-565.
314. The 2000 Urban Wildland Interface Code, published by the National Fire Protection
Association, is intended to establish a set of minimum standards to reduce the loss of property
from fire in vegetation spreading to buildings. Such standards, if adopted, would require that two
(2) access roads be provided to directly serve the land containing a permitted use. This standard
addresses access at the point of the use, similar to Appendix D of the 2003 IFC and Section
1.03(8) of the County Road Standards; but does not address area-wide wildfire access issues
affecting a proposed development, such as those presented in the Ponderosa area.
315. Robert Bernstein, in his testimony and report submitted on behalf of neighboring property
owners during the proceedings on the Ponderosa Ridge project, found that emergency access in
the Ponderosa was inadequate both for emergency services response to calls and for emergency
evacuation of the Ponderosa community.
316. Bernstein's findings were based on the area's physical isolation due to being surrounded by
a railroad and impassable terrain, the presence of only two (2) existing public access roads out of
the area to Dishman-Mica Road and one additional limited emergency access, the potential for
random events that may block one of the access routes during an evacuation, the new
development constructed or proposed in the Ponderosa area since the 1991 firestorm, the
potential for having to evacuate the area during a firestorm event during non-work hours when
more residents would need to be evacuated than during the 1991 firestorm, the substandard
condition of the road network in the Ponderosa area, the need for evacuation routes of adequate
capacity on multiple escape routes that may be necessary, and the need for redundancy in the
system of evacuation to ensure that escape is not cut off in the case of closure or blockage of one
or more routes. See Exhibit #40, p. 733-742; and Exhibit 41, p. 262-293.
317. The opinions expressed by Robert Bernstein, County Fire District 1 and the County Sheriff,
regarding the need for additional public access routes out of the Ponderosa area, before additional
BB Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ 23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 44
development is approved in such area, find strong support in a 2005 article published in the
Natural Hazards Review, by Associate Professor Thomas Cova of the University of Utah, a
specialist in the area of natural and technological hazards. See Exhibit#37.
318. The article by Professor Cova addresses public safety for fire-prone communities in the
urban-wildland interface. This includes the consideration that evacuation, voluntarily or by order
of emergency authorities, where there is time to evacuate, is usually safer than the more "risky"
alternative of having to shelter in place; in circumstances where there is insufficient time or an
inability to evacuate. This is coupled with the difficulty of deciding whether to evacuate or shelter
in place; which depends on the quality of the shelter, road network geometry, wind speed and
direction, visibility, travel demand, water availability and other factors that are difficult to assess
and synthesize under pressure.
319_ The Cova article emphasizes the need to evacuate a community in a maximum 30-minute
• time period, in an area having a high wildfire hazard; to consider potential bottlenecks or
blockages that may occur along coinin nity exit routes during an evacuation; and to consider the
number of community exits available for the number of homes in the area. Professor Cova cited
the example of a neighborhood in the Oakland-Berkeley area, having 337 homes and four (4)
exits,where a 1991 fire blocked the two (2) primary exits in its first 30 minutes; leaving the
remaining residents with two (2), narrow uphill exits for evacuation, and resulting in a number of
fatalities.
320. Professor Cova in his article recommended a minimum of four(4) exiting roads for
wildland-urban interface communities having over 601 households. The Ponderosa area has over
two (2) times this number of households, and only two (2) public exits out of the area.
321. Scott Engelhard of County Engineering testified during the hearing on the Ponderosa Ridge
project that such agency was continuing to look for a new public road access from the Ponderosa
area across the railroad tracks to Dishman-Mica, either at-grade or separated, after searching for a
number of years; but that nothing concrete had been firmed up. Engelhard advised that such
situation was based on the difficulty of negotiating the purchase of necessary land from private
property owners, securing the necessary funding, identifyiiii the location of the crossing, the
resistance of the railroad to a new crossing, and getting approval for the crossing from the
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. See Exhibit#41, p. 41-46; and also see
letter dated 7-22-05 from Todd Whipple to City Community Development Department, in current
project file, p. 3.
322. Based in part on the above considerations, the County Hearing Examiner did not impose a
$500 per lot fee requested by County Engineering to .fund construction of a railroad crossing in
the vicinity of the Ponderosa Ridge project; in approving the Ponderosa Ridge project. See
Exhibit#40, p. 45 Findings of Fact#s 154-155.
323. The ILA for the current project indicates that creation of a north access from the current
site to 281 Avenue, to provide a third(3`d) public access for the Ponderosa area, does not appear
feasible at this time; due to private land ownerships lying between the site and 28th Avenue, the
1-fE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 45
likely need to improve the existing railroad crossing at 28t Avenue, and the railroad's opposition
to any new at-grade railroad crossings for vehicular travel. See TIA, p. 9. This comment appears
directed at the possible extension of a road from the Ridgeview Drive, at the north end of the
current preliminary plat, north and east to 28th Avenue. Such extension would pass through
private land located outside the City.
\1. Priority Wildlife'Habitat. Qasification of DNR Streams on Site
•
324. In 1996, Spokane County adopted the County Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). In 1997,
the County amended certain portions of the ordinance.
325. The 1997 amendments to the County CAO included significant changes to Section
11.20.060 of the ordinance, relating to fish and wildlife habitat and species conservation areas.
See County Resolution No. 97-0652; including attachments.
326. The 1997 amendments; in pertinent part, provided protection for certain priority wildlife
habitats,and species located within the Urban Impact Area (UIA) designated by the County, which
had previously been protected only if located outside the UTA. This included white-tailed deer
winter range, elk, and urban natural open space priority wildlife habitats.
327. The 1997 amendments, in pertinent part, removed the requirement of a 25-foot riparian
buffer along DI\NR.Type 5 streams "...when there is no connection to type 1, 2, 3 or 4 streams";
and increased the buffer for a DNR Type 4 stream from 50 feet to 75 feet. See County
Resolution No. 97-0652, p. 16 of Attachment "A".
328. The addition of a connection requirement for Type 5 streams in the County CAO was based
on the fact that many of the streams in Spokane Count}'had not yet been typed by DNR., and had
to be typed on a case-by-case basis; coupled with a concern over the broad definition of a Type 5
stream in WAC 222-16-030(5) at the time, as "...streams with or without well-defined channels,
areas or perennial or intermittent seepage, ponds, natural sinks and drainageways having short •
periods of spring or storm runoff." See County Resolution No. 97-0652, p. 4.
329. The County's concern over the broad definition of a Type 5 stream in former WAC 222-16-
030(5) was that the description could be applied to very small areas without riparian habitat,
especially when such areas are isolated and do not connect to other streams; that if such isolated •
areas contained hydric vegetation, they would be classified as wetlands and protected as such
under the County CAO; and that if such areas were isolated, they were unlikely to have significant
riparian habitat and would not affect larger streams where habitat is present. See County
Resolution No. 97-0652, p. 4 and 6.
330. Section 11.20.060.D of the County CAO specified buffers for DNR Type 1-5 streams, as
they were defined in WAC 222-16-030; with the additional requirement for Type 5 streams that
they must connect to a Type 1-4 stream before a 25-buffer can be required. Section 11.20.060.D
also provided a brief description of each stream, based on the version of WAC 222-16-030 in
place in. 1996-97.
BE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page '46
•
331. The City, at the time of incorporation in 2003; adopted the County COA by reference, as
amended in 1997. This is the City CAO in effect at the present time. The City also adopted the
County Critical Areas maps in place at the time of incorporation, by reference, as the City Critical
Areas maps. See Exhibit #25; colorized Critical Areas maps in project file produced on 1-14-04;
and testimony of Karen Kendall.
332. WAC 222-16-030 was amended effective 1998; but made no changes to the definitions of
DNR Type 3, 4 or 5 streams, in pertinent part. In 2001, WAC 222-16-030 was amended to
include a new "permanent" type of water typing, i.e. DNR Type "S", "F", "Np "Ns" streams;
and the DNR Stream Types 1-5 classifications were moved to WAC 222-16-031, as "interim"
water typing systems.
333. The 2001 amendments significantly revised the definitions of DNR Type 3-5 streams, in
pertinent part; and provided that the "interim" stream typing system under WAC 222-16-031
would remain in effect until the fish habitat water type maps described under the new typing •
system under WA.0 222-16-030 were adopted by the State Forest Practices Board.
334. WAC 222-16-031 provides a water type conversion table which, in pertinent part, equates a
Type "F" stream to Type 2-3 streams, a Type "Np" stream with a Type 4 stream, and a Type .
"Ns" stream with a Type 5 stream.
335. Further amendments to WAC 222-16-030 and WAC 222-16-031, taking effect on July 1,
2005 and December 16, 2006, altered the definitions of a Type 4/"1p" stream and a Type 5/"Ns"
stream.
336. The current definition of Type 3 and 4 streams under WAC 222-16-031 do not match the
general description of such stream types under Section 11.20.060.D.of the City CAO; since there
is no reference to a channel width being greater than or less than "10 feet" or "2 feet", or to the
stream affecting the quality of a Type 1-3 stream. The current definitions also differ from the
description of such stream types under the version of WAC 222-16-030 that was in effect in
1996-1997.
337. The current definition of a Type 5/"Ns" stream is more restrictive than the definition of a
DNR Type 5 stream under the 1996-1 997 version of WAC 222-16-030; by requiring such streams
to have a "defined channel", be "...physically connected by an above-ground channel system..."
to a Type 1-4 stream, and not be located downstream from a DNR Type 4 stream.
338. The current definition of a Type 4/"Np" stream is "...all segments of natural waters within
the bank-full width of defined channels that are perennial nonfish habitat streams..."; with
"perennial streams" defined as "...flowing waters that do not go dry at any time of a year of
normal rainfall and include the intermittent dry portions of the perennial chat nel below the
uppermost point of perennial flow."
IIE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 47
339. The definition of a Type 4/"Np" stream, under the WAC regulations in place when the .
current application was submitted in 2004, provided a means of identifying the uppermost point of
perennial flow at the point along the seam channel where the contributing basin was a certain
size (at least 300 acres in Eastern Washington). This criterion has been eliminated from the
•
current definition.
340. The term"intermittent streams" has been consistently defined by WAC 222-16-030 and
WAC 222-16-031 to mean"...those segments of streams that normally go dry."
341. Section 11.20.060.A of the City Critical Areas Ordinance identifies and describes the
priority habitats and species in Table 11.20.060A, advises that they are adopted from the
Washington State Priority Habitats and Species Program"...as now or hereafter amended...",
and advises that such program will be revised periodically as species and habitats are changed.
342. Section 11.20.030.D of the City CAO advises that the City Maintains maps of critical areas,
to provide information to the public and to aid in the administration of the CAO; and requires the
City to add to, correct and update such maps when new or additional information is available.
343. Section 11.20.030.D of the City CAO provides that the City's critical areas maps are not
regulatory in nature, such maps will be used to identify the possible existence of critical areas, and
the maps, "...in conjunction with site visits and other information, will be used as a basis for
requiring field investigations such as wetland reports, fish and wildlife habitat management plans,
geo-technical studies and hydrogeologic reports." •
344. Section 11.20.030.D of the City CAO provides that in the event of conflict between the
information shown on a map and the information shown as a result of a field investigation, the
information provided by a field investigation shall prevail. See CAO, Section 11.20.030.D.
345. Section 11.20.030.D of the CAO provides that omission of a development site from a
particular critical areas map will not exempt the site from complying with the provisions of the
CAO; and provides that when an interpretation is needed regarding the existence of a particular,
critical area, the City Department of Community Development is required to make such
determination according to the criteria and characteristics contained in.the CAO, and consultation
with an agency or agencies of expertise as deemed appropriate by such department. .
346. The City did not update its Critical Areas maps after incorporation; although the new City
Comprehensive Plan contains maps of various critical areas (except DNR streams) that were
updated in 2006.
347. The current version of WAC 222-16-030 makes the State DNR responsible for preparing
. "fish habitat typing maps" for the "forested areas of the state"; based on the permanent typing
system set forth in such regulation, and using a model intended to diferentiate between fish
habitat and non-fish habitat streams. DNR is required to update such maps every five (5) years
based on certain protocols; with some allowance for interim changes based on use of an on-site
•
•
HE Findings, Conclusions,and Decision R.EZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 48
•
"interdisciplinary team", and for a dispute resolution process that involves DNR, WDOE, the
contesting parties, etc.
348. In March of 2006, DNR updated its hydrolayer for the area, using "statistical modeling
techniques that did not include any actual field observations". See email from Eric Lamb dated 8-
15-06, with reference to conversation with Jill Jones of DNR on 8-14-06. This resulted in
designation of a Type "F" stream on the site, in the south and east drainages; and a Type "Ns"
stream flowing into the wetland from the west.
349. The applicant submitted a request to modify the water typing of the site, in accordance with
WAC 222-16-030; but DNR made no ruling on the request.
350. DNR lacks authority to make stream classifications bn.non-forest lands, or where DNR has
reached agreement with a local government allowing it to approve forest practice conversions that
change forest land to a different use. On this basis, DNR agreed that the City has the authority to
type the streams for the curr=ent project, not DNR. See Exhibit#29, letter dated 5-3-07 from
Robert Anderson to Shawn Taylor; and testimony of Karin Divens.
351. Larry Dawes met with Bernard Jones of the State DNR, and others, on the site on
September 12, 2006; to observe whether the stream on the site was a Type "F" stream, as
indicated by the DNR hydrolayer. Jones and Dawes concluded from the site visit that there was
no defined stream channel on the site consistent with a Type `F" stream; although Jones
acknowledged that DNR had no jurisdiction to determine the stream typing for the site. See
Exhibit#36; and testimony of Larry Dawes.
352. On January 23, 2007, the City concluded that DNR did not have authority to retype the
stream, the City had the authority to determine water typing for the site under the numerical
typing system adopted in the City CAO, and the City had not adopted the new DNR,mapping or
the permanent water typing system set forth in WAC 222-16-030.
353. The City determined that there were no Type 1-5 streams requiring a buffer on the site
under the City CAO; based on the City Critical Areas maps, and the September 12, 2006 site visit
by Larry Dawes and Bernard Jones. See letter dated 2-2-07 from Karen Kendall to Bruce
IIoward, and revised SEPA checklist.
354. The County's 1994 decision approving a preliminary short plat for the site, and certain
adjacent land lying to the east, found that the plat area was designated as white-tailed deer winter
range; but did not require protection for such habitat. Such lack of protection was apparently
based on virtually the entire plat area being designated outside the County UTA at the time, at a
time when the County CAO did not protect such habitats when located inside the UTA. See
decision in File No. SP-945-94, Finding of Fact #19.
355. The 1994 short plat decision did not mention the existence of any DNR. streams designated
on the site by the County Critical Areas maps; but did require that the natural drainage course in
the south portion of the site be preserved for storrnwater purposes. This was done through the
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page. 49
reservation of 40-foot wide drainage easements on the final short plat map. See decision in File
• No. SP-945-94, County Engineering condition #11.
356. During normal rainfall years, surface water from the southerly stream/drainage flows
through the south end of the site and adjacent land to,the east, spreads out and infiltrates into the
ground before it reaches the wetland_ During normal rainfall years, surface water does not
overflow the wetland through the breach in the embankment.
357. During high water years, surface water in the southerly stream/drainage way generally
makes it all the way to the wetland; overflows from the wetland to the south through a narrow
breach in the embankment, ponds up, discharges to a shallow ditch/drainage way that extends
easterly through the northeast portion of the site, fans out somewhat from the sides of the ditch,
and infiltrates into the ground before reaching the east boundary of the northeast portion of the
site. See Exhibit #29, photographs in exhibit G and H.
358. During certain high water years or flood events, surface water flows in and alongside the
ditch/seasonal stream all the way east to Bascetta Lane; where it passes off-site through two 18-
inch culverts underlying Bascetta Lane, and may overflow Bascetta Lane. The surface water then
fans out in the open fields to the east; and either infiltrates into the ground or flows all the way to
Chester Creek, where it also infiltrates into the ground. This occurred as recently as 2006. See
Exhibit#29, photographs in exhibit H.
.359. The 1994 wetland report submitted for the 1994 short plat found that the wetland located
on the site "...in rare years of high runoff overflows to the east through a narrow cut in the
berm...", and that "...[e]ast of this point the runoff rapidly disappears by infiltrating to the porous
sands and gravels". See 1 994 wetland report, p. 2 and attached map.
360. The 1994 wetland report characterized the overflow channel leaving the wetland as a "small
seasonal stream" that. "..drains eastward into the valley floor of the Chester Creek drainage
system..."; and noted that the "...valley floor is composed of thick sands and gravels and both
Chester Creek and the eastward draining tributary system disappears (become effluent) at this
• location in the valley". See 1994 wetland report, p. 1.
361. The 1994 wetland report also noted the presence of an "intermittent stream channel" that
originates at the south end of the site, is located in a dense growth of ponderosa pine, drains to
the north, disappears to the north before reaching the wetland basin, contains valuable wildlife
habitat, and functions as an area of groundwater recharge and biofiltration of winter runoff in its
own immediate drainage system. See 1994 wetland report, p. 8.
362. In approximately 2000, a habitat management plan was prepared for seven (7) of the
acreage tracts lying west and northwest of the site, by Larry Dawes. The operative part of the
• plan was recorded with the County Auditor in 2000, in connection with the sale of the tracts, and
is included in the record. See appeal application, exhibits "B and"C". The analysis portion of the •
habitat management plan was not made part of the record.
•
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 50
•
r
363. The habitat management plan included reservation of an easement for a"wildlife habitat area
and travel corridor" in a forested draw lying west of the site where the concentration of white-
tailed deer was considered the heaviest; i.e. the portion of the 5-acre tract ("Lot 4") located west
of the north one-half(1/2) of the north part of the site, lying west of Ponderosa Lane; and the
south 90 feet of the 5-acre tract ("Lot 3") lying west of the south one-half(1/2) of the north part
of the site, lying west of Ponderosa Lane.
364. The habitat management plan also included reservation of an easement for a 50-foot wide
travel corridor/noise buffer strip along the west boundary of"Lot 4" and"Lot 5" located west of
the site, west of Ponderosa Lane.
365. The habitat management plan concluded that the stream located on"Lot 4" and"Lot 5"
west of the site did not qualify as a DNR,Type 5 stream; and was not entitled to be protected by a
riparian buffer under the County Critical Areas Ordinance, since it did not connect to a DNR
Type 1, 2, 3 or 4 stream.
366. The habitat management plan, nevertheless, provided for protection of the stream and the
riparian habitat located alongside; through reservation of an easement for "riparian area
protection" on the south 90 feet of"Lot 3", and on the north 25 feet of"Lot 4", located between
Ponderosa Lane and the site; and within the easement area reserved for a wildlife habitat area and
travel corridor on the portions of"Lot 3" and "Lot 4" lying west of Ponderosa Lane.
367. Karin Divers, Area Habitat Biologist for the Washington State Department of Fish and
Wildlife indicated in her testimony and correspondence that she had been to the site at least three
(3) times, and walked the channel of a Type "Np" stream located on the site all the way south and
upstream to a"perennial" spring, located behind (uphill from) the Phillips farm. The off-site basin
map for the revised conceptual drainage plan for the project shows a spring or springs in this
general location.
368. Divens testified that she had previously located the source of another "perennial" spring,
located some distance south of 44`h Avenue in the Iller Creek area, which feeds the tributary of
the southerly stream that crosses under 44`'h Avenue. The presence of such springs was verified
by Walter Edelin of the County Soil Conservation Service. Divens also testified that the stream
flowing into the site from the west should be classified as a Type `Np" water, rather than. a Type
"Ns" or Type 5 water.
369. Karin Divens' first visit occurred in approximately February of 2005, at the same time Chris
Merker of the State Department of Ecology was visiting the site for wetland verification
purposes. See Merker email dated 3-7-05, Exhibit#37, M:ortz letter to Karen Kendall dated 2-7-
05 (with attached photos), and Karin Divens letters to City dated 4-21-05 and 6-7-05.
370. Karin Divens also visited the site in January of 2007; when she walked the stream up to the .
spring source behind the Phillips farm, along with local property owners and a representative from
the State DNR. This occurred during frozen ground conditions. See Divens email dated 5-03-07.
Divens also testified that she visited the site once in the summer, when it was "hot and dry". She
RE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 51
did not provide the month or year when this occurred, but the year would have to be either 2005
or 2006.
371. The annual rainfall in 2005 in the Spokane area was below normal; but was above normal in
2006, and is above normal so far in 2007. See testimony of. Larry Dawes.
372. Karen Divens testified that the spring source behind Phillips farm was readily apparent
during both the summer visit and frozen ground conditions. Divens also indicated that she had
spoken to the Phillips and some other residents about what happens during high water years, and
what the spring does year round; which conversations were consistent with her classification of
the stream as a Type "Np".
373. Karin Divens testified that during normal water years drainage flows down the stream from
the perennial spring; essentially disappear; into the ground around the intersection of Sunderland
and Cimmaron, where the stream channel has been artificially widened north of such point;
resurfaces; flows into a "drainage Swale" located on the site, north of the culverts crossing
Ponderosa Lane, and portions of a natural drainage channel; and goes subsurface before reaching
the wetland on the site.
374. Karin Divens testified that during high water years, the stream flows all the way down the
channel from the perennial spring to the site, through the site to the wetland; and may continue
some distance east of the wetland toward Chester Creek before going subsurface on the site.
375. Karin Divens testified that there was evidence of"scour" along portions of the channel lying
between Ponderosa Lane and the wetland, but not all the way to the wetland. This included the
portion of the drainage way/stream located on the Margaret Mortz property, which abuts the
south end of the site on the east. See Exhibit#37. Divens indicated that the natural channel had
been modified on the site when the swale was installed to control flooding or convey stormwater.,
•
but that such alteration shouldn't change the classification of the stream from`Np".
376. Karin Divens testified that the defined channel in the south end of the site was less than 10
feet in width, and there was no "superdefined channel"; but advised that the "ordinary high water
. mark" along the defined.channel was wider than 10 feet, and illustrated the capability of having
•
More capacity for flow.
377. Margaret Mortz provided photos showing trees and other natural vegetation growing along
the channel of the seasonal stream crossing her property, and the wide and deep path of the
channel. See Exhibit#37. Mortz indicated that the channel was approximately eight (8) feet wide
on her property; but did not distinguish whether this was created by the high water flows that
occurred along the drainage/stream twice since 1997, or ordinary annual flow.
378. Larry Dawes's report dated March 11, 2005 found that an intermittent drainage way was
located on the site; all drainage from the site disappeared into the deep sand and gravel deposits
occulting in the lowest elevational contours of the site before reaching Chester Creek; and
lL Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 52
Chester Creek also disappeared into the deep sands and gravel near the site. This was based on a
site investigation conducted on August 31, 2004.
379. Larry Dawes's report found that the drainage ways on the site did not meet the definition of
a Type 5 stream under the interim typing system set forth in WAC 222-16-031, because the
drainage ways were not physically connected by an aboveground channel system to a DNR Type
1-4 water. •
380. Larry Dawes testified that he should have typed the drainage ways on the site in accordance
with the version of WAC 222-16-030 in place before its amendment in 2001, as modified by the
City CAO; instead of using the new typing system under the current version of WAC 222-16-030.
381. Larry Dawes testified that the drainage ways on the site did not fit the definition of a Type 4
stream under the pre-2001 version of WAC 222-16-030, or the definition of a Type 4 or Type •
"Np" water under.the more current versions of WAC 222-16-030 or WAC 222-16=031; because
there was not a"defined channel" or "scouring" associated with an"ordinary high water mark" on
the site; although there was evidence of a'flood channel created during high water years.
382. Larry Dawes testified that it was impossible to determine whether any portion of a
"perennial stream" upstream from the site went "dry at any time of a year of normal rainfall.",
within the definition of a Type 4 or Type 'Tip" stream under the more current versions of WAC
222-16-030 or WAC 222-16-031. Dawes based such conclusion on the lack of a period of
normal rainfall in the area recently, and that continual checking would have to occur to verify
whether the perennial stream went dry any time during the year.
383. Larry Dawes indicated that seasonal low water usually occurs around the 18C of October, but
could occur anytime between August and October. Dawes testified that Karin Devins'
observation of the spring during the summer months, such as July or August, did not establish that
the spring did not go dry at any time of that year.
384. Margaret Mortz, a statistician, provided some statistical evidence that the time period of
July through October in a given year was a reasonable period to.measuu e low spring flows in .
Eastern Washington; and logically contended that evidence of perennial flow "during a year of
normal rainfall" could be determined by observing perennial flow during a year of less than normal
rainfall. See Exhibit#57.
385. :During his testimony, Larry Dawes provided ample evidence of his training, qualifications
and experience to do DN.R.water typing. Dawes testified that Karin Divens of the WDFW, Chris
Merker of WDOE and Walter Edelin of the County Soil Conservation Service did not have the
biological or hydrological background or training to perform stream typing.
386. Karin Divens, Chris Merker and Walter Edelin were not present to rebut such remarks; but
each have some experience and qualifications that allow them to comment on aspects of DNI7
water typing. However, based on the record, such professionals are not as well qualified, trained
and experienced as Larry Dawes in DNR water typing.
I Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 53
387. Larry Dawes testified that he assumed Bernard Jones of DNR was qualified to perform
water typing, based on Jones statement that he is responsible for doing water typing in the field on
forestlands for DNR. Jones' training in the field of biology and hydrology were not substantiated
in the record. See testimony of Dick Behm
388. The record indicates that in approximately 2000, the drainage channel in the south end of
the site was modified through the use of heavy equipment; generally within the recorded drainage
easements in such area. This was done by Spokane County, the past site owner or the current site
owner. See testimony of Margaret Mortz and Stacy Bjordahl, and Exhibit#37.
389. The 2000 modification to the drainage channel may conceivably have occurred as a result of
a 100-year storm event that occurred in the area in April of 2000; when stormwater flowed
through the drainage way/stream on the site all the way to the wetland, and then east to Chester
Creek. See testimony of Dick Behm.
390. White-tailed deer, as many as 16 at a time, travel daily from Brown's Mountain through the
Wildlife an.d riparian corridor designated on the land lying west of the site; and east through the
wetland and along its easterly outlet to the alfalfa/farm fields lying east of Bascetta Lane, and to
Chester Creek. See, e.g. Exhibit #29, in exhibit "G"; Exhibit #37; exhibit "A" attached to SEPA
appeal; and letter dated 12-6-04 from Denny and Tracy Fish..
391. Karin Divens of.the WDFW responded to the notice of application mailed out by the City
Planning Division, in a letter dated.December 6, 2004. Divens commented only on the adequacy
of the buffer for the on-site wetland, advised that she would defer to the expertise of WDOE on
such issue, and recommended that a habitat management plan be prepared for the wetland if it was
determined that greater protection for the wetland was needed.
392. Karin Divens testified that the effect of the current project on the habitat management plan
adopted for the acreage lots developed west of the site should be evaluated, since the plan
provided for a travel corridor for white-tailed deer from such land to the wetland area located on
the site. She also found the riparian corridors on the site to be valuable for wildlife.
393. Karin Divens indicated in ber April 21, 2005 letter that the stream on the site is important
for groundwater and aquifer recharge,wetland recharge, and connectivity to Chester Creek; and
that riparian corridors are extremely important for wildlife and birds. Chris Merker of WDOE
voiced similar opinions, in his March 7, 2005 email.
394. Larry Dawes provided un-rebutted testimony that the site does not appear to provide
priority wildlife habitat, or serve as a migration corridor, for elk; in responding to the designation
of elk priority wildlife habitat on the south portion of the site by current-WDFW maps.
395. Larry Dawes did not evaluate the site for its value as priority wildlife habitat or a migration
corridor for white-tailed deer. Dawes testified that fencing the site would prevent deer from
passing through the site to access the alfalfa fields and Chester Creek lying to the east, deer would
be more likely to use the easterly drainage channel proposed by the preliminary plat than the
TIE Findings, Conclusions and Decision R.EZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 54
•
. private roads in the project, the proposed drainage channel was not wide enough to accommodate
deer travel to the east, and if the deer could not pass through the site they would have to find
ways to go around the site to access the fields and creek area to the east.
396. The passage of white-tailed deer through the wetland area on the site and east toward
Chester Creek would he impeded by the private driveways and public road in the preliminary plat
that border the wetland on three (3) sides, and by the perimeter screening required by the City
Planning Division along the site borders. The environmental checklist submitted for the project
indicates that deer migrate through the site from Brown's Mountain to the alfalfa fields located
east of the site. Also see letter dated 7-22-05 from Todd Whipple, page 2.
397. The County Critical Areas Ordinance requires the City Planning Division to consult with.the
WDFW, or other appropriate authority, to determine whether a development proposed in a
priority wildlife habitat is likely to have a significant adverse impact on such habitat; and if so, to
require the preparation of a habitat management plan for the development.
M. Provisions for Wetlands
398. Section 11.20.050.A of the City CAO requires the City Planning Division to verify the
accuracy of the wetland delineation,submitted by an applicant for land development by consulting
with WDOE, or other agency of expertise; and render adjustments to the delineation as
appropriate.
399. The City Planning Division conditions of approval for the project.require the applicant to
submit an updated delineation for the wetland on the site. This was requested by WDOE, based
on its policy that a wetland report completed more than.five (5) years ago is obsolete in both
methodology and currency, and based on the 2004 modifications to the State wetland ratings •
manual adopted for Eastern Washington. See emails dated 3-7-05 and 4-19-05 from Chris
Merker.
400. Larry Dawes indicated in his March 11, 2005 letter that the 1994 wetland delineation for the
site was probably based on the 1989 version of the ratings manual; which was less rigorous than
the 1987 manual Dawes advised was the current standard. Dawes indicated that if the wetland
was delineated under the 1987 manual, in 2005, the wetland might be smaller than delineated in
1984; particularly since rainfall data showed that the annual precipitation in 2004 and 2005.was
farther below normal than it was in 1993 and 1994. Dawes contended that the 1994 wetland
delineation stood in perpetuity, upon its approval by the County; and the wetland should not have
to be re-delineated.
•
401. The 1994 wetland delineation states that the 1987 manual was used to delineate the on-site
wetland, not the less rigorous 1989 manual assumed by Larry Dawes. In addition, Larry Dawes
testified that the average rainfall in 2006 and 2007 was above normal, meaning the wetland could
be larger if delineated currently.
•
•
1-lB Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 55
•
•
402. WDOB contended that the 2004 ratings manual should be used to evaluate the Wetland,
based on the language in Section 11.20.050.B of the City CAO adopting the subject rating manual
"as amended".
403. The City Planning Division conditions of approval require the applicant to implement the
buffer mitigation proposed in Larry Dawes' letter dated January 8, 2006. Such plan proposes to
mitigate a 2,600-square foot encroachment on the buffer, on the east and west sides of the
wetland, by the road system shown on the preliminary plat map submitted in.November of 2004.
404. The proposed buffer mitigation includes a buffer enhancement plan, consisting of planting
native vegetation between the areas of buffer impact and the wetland, to increase the buffer
function around the impact area; and also includes extension of the required 75-foot buffer to the
south, to add an increased buffer area of 10,030 square feet, with a stormwater feature placed
somewhere in the increased buffer area.
405. The mitigation plan appears to generally comply with the criteria set forth in the City CAO
relating to reducing and/or averaging the standard buffer width for a wetland, based on the
discussion in Dawes' letter dated January 8, 2006.
406. The current preliminary plat map illustrates a larger encroachment of 3,750 square feet to
4,000 square feet on the wetland buffer by the proposed private roads, based on the scale
illustrated on the map. The proposed mitigation and replacement area may still be adequate, but
the mitigation plan should be amended to address the increased buffer encroachment:
N. Adequacy of Conceptual Drainage Plan
•
407. The City adopted the 1998 edition of the Spokane.County Guidelines for Stormwater
Management by reference, as amended by City Ordinance No. 05-013, as drainage regulations for
new development. Such regulations are referenced below as the "Guidelines"
408. The Guidelines generally restrict the quantity of water leaving a development site, that
dri?ins into a critical drainage or flood prone area, to the pre-development leveL The Guidelines
prohibit drainage from being diverted in the development and released to a downstream property
at points not receiving drainage prior to the development; and prohibit flow from being
concentrated onto downstream properties where sheet flow previously existed.
409. The Guidelines require the drainage report submitted for a development to include a
downstream analysis, to ensure that the drainage plan does not aggravate an existing drainage
problem or create a new problem; in terms of magnitude, frequency or duration. Development in
and around a 100-year floodplain must comply with the City's floodplain ordinance.
410. The Guidelines require drainage facilities to be designed for various 24-hour storm events.
On-site runoff facilities must be designed for a 10-year (24-hour) storm event. Where off-site
. runoff contributes to a drainage facility, a 50-year storm event must be designed for. Where a
detention system(a stormwater storage facility with a surface discharge) is proposed, the rate of
runoff cannot exceed the pre-development rate for the 2-year, 10-year and 50-year storm events.
HIE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 56
• runoff cannot exceed the pre-development rate for the 2-year, 1 0-year and 50-year storm events.
A detention facility must have an emergency overflow structure that is designed to accommodate
a 100-year storm event, generated under development conditions.
411. The Guidelines require that drainage infiltration systems be designed to consider the effect
that ground seepage from the facility will have on the groundwater elevations both on-site and on
nearby down-gradient properties. This includes consideration of seasonal variations, such as
frozen ground conditions and seasonal high ground water, which may affect functional use of the
drainage systems.
•
412. The Guidelines require the submittal of a geotechnical site characterization study when the
subsurface disposal of stormwater is proposed, to demonstrate soil infiltration suitability.
Marginal soils are typically not given"credit" for infiltration in the drainage analysis.
413: The Guidelines require that when runoff from a portion of a development site does not flow •
through the detention facility, and is not retained anywhere else on site, the "bypass area" must
drain into the same channel as where the detention pond drains and cannot exceed the pre-
development level.
•
414. The Guidelines require that any natural draws or channels on a development site that are
used to convey stormwater to be placed in easements in the final plat. The easements must be
wide enough to contain the runoff from a 50-year storm event, plus a 30% freeboard.
415. The Guidelines require the Soil_Conservation Service (SCS) Method to be used for drainage
basins greater than 10 acres, such as the current circumstances. This includes inputting the 24-
hour precipitation for the various design storms to calculate the amount of runoff from a
particular drainage basin, using the "isopluvial maps" contained in the Guidelines.
416. The Guidelines require stormwater design to be coordinated with consideration of any
wetland areas. The City Critical Areas Ordinance authorizes stormwater facilities to be located in
a wetland buffer, if sited and designed so that the buffer area as a whole preserves wetland -
functions and values, taking into account the scale and intensity of the development.•
417. Dick Behrn contended for the SEPA appellants that the design storm precipitation levels
calculated for the Ridgeview Tributary in the 1997 Chester Creek study should be used to.
calculate runoff flows for the project, instead of the precipitation levels required to be inputted
•
under the SCS method. This is based on the Chester Creek study showing that the Brown's
Mountain area receives 25% more precipitation in snow and rainfall than Spokane International
Airport, which rainfall levels are used to generate the precipitation levels inputted into the SCS
method_
418. Dick Behrn and the SEPA appellants also contended that the three (3) 36-inch culverts
shown on the current conceptual drainage plan developed basin map were inadequate; based on
the installation of four(4) such culverts under Ponderosa Lane on the site, and under Sunderland
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 57
Road south of the site, respectively. Behm indicated that such culverts had been installed several
years ago to deal with a 10-year design storm event.
419. The original conceptual drainage report submitted for the project on January 5, 2005 used
the flows from the hydrological study contained in the Chester Creek Watershed Plan, for the
"Ridgeview Drive Tributary", to estimate drainage flows entering the site from the 2-year, 10-
year, 50-year and 100-year storm events. See letter dated 1-5-05 from Todd VWrhipple to City
Engineering, regarding preliminary drainage report.
420. On September 22, 2005, City Engineering advised the sponsor's engineer that it was
inappropriate to use the flows derived from the Chester Creek study. See letter dated 9-22-05
from Sandra Raskell to Craig McPhee.
421. On December 23, 2005, Todd Whipple, the applicant's engineer, submitted a letter to City
Engineering that included a complete evaluation of the upstream off-site basins contributing
drainage to the on-site wetland, using the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) method required to be
used by the City Guidelines for Stormwater Management. Whipple noted that the flows derived
from the SCS method appeared to be considerably larger than the flows from the Chester Creek
study, including a 100-year storm discharge of 97 cfs under the SCS analysis, and only 60 cfs
from the Chester Creek study.
422. On February 1, 2007, the applicant submitted a revised conceptual drainage plan
("conceptual drainage plan") for the project prepared by its engineering consultant, Gabe
Gallinger of Landworks Engineering, Inc. The conceptual drainage plan was accepted by City
Engineering, as being consistent with subject to the submittal of a final drainage report and plans
that conform to such regulations, prior to final plat approval.
423. Dick Behm indicated that the a new floodplain maps for the Chester Creek area were close
to being issued, which maps would significantly reduce the area of the floodplain. This suggests
that revisions have been made to the 1997 Chester Creek hydrological study, including the
calculation of reduced flows reaching the floodplain.
424. The revised conceptual drainage plan also calculated the basin flows for the project based on
the SCS method required by the Guidelines for Storrmvater Management. There is not a
sufficient basis in the record to require use of the precipitation levels contained in the 1997
Chester Creek study, or to find that the proposed culverts leading out of the wetlands are
insufficient to convey the required design storm flows.
425. The SEPA appellants and other residents contended that the proposed narrowing,
redirecting, berming and reducing the level of infiltration and storage capacity of the natural
drainage channel located in the south end of the site, for the conceptual drainage plan, in
conjunction with the inadequate culvert sizing, would cause flooding during large storm events to
properties abutting the south end of the site.
•
f Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ.-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 .• Page 58
•
to the east as it currently does, at the pre-developed flow and rates, and in the same location.
Pond A, located in the extreme southeast corner of the site, appears to serve a similar treatment
and infiltration function as the existing Swale area in the drainage channel lying directly north of
Ponderosa Lane.
427. Since the on-site wetland, and the portion of the proposed drainage channel located directly
south of the wetland are at a lower elevation than the abutting properties to the east, stormwater
from the drainage way located west of the site that flows into the wetland area will not be
•
diverted to such abutting properties.
428. Under the conceptual drainage plan, the two (2) 18-inch culverts underlying Bascetta Lane
will likely be inadequate to accommodate flows from a 50-year or. 100-year storm event from off-
site and on-site flows directed through the site, and allow stormwater to overflow the road; as in
the existing circumstances. However, the conceptual drainage plan will actually reduce the peak
runoff rate and volume of the drainage reaching Bascetta Lane. See testimony of Gabe Gallinger. •
429. The conceptual drainage plan appears to preserve the hydrology of the on-site wetland and
adequately treat stormwater generated from impervious surfaces developed on the site.
430. The conceptual drainage plan took frozen ground conditions into account, in terms of the
placement of stormwater facilities. See testimony of Gabe Gallinger.
431. Dick Behan contended that the extension of Ridgeview Drive in the preliminary plat
appeared to extend through the breach in the embankment, based on a personal measurement he
made. This is not apparent from the elevations shown on the preliminary plat map; which was
based on a survey of the site, and should be given more weight. See testimony of Gabe Gallinger.
This is also not apparent from the current DNR hydrolayer.
0. Mitigation of Geo-Hazards and Drainage Impacts
432. The applicant submitted a geo-hazard evaluation report for the site prepared by ALLWEST
Testing and Engineering, a qualified engineering fum, on November 4, 2004. Such firm also
submitted a supplemental geotechnical evaluation on June 30, 2006.
433. Eberhard Schmidt, a retired geologist, raised a concern over the proposed construction of a
private driveway at a grade of 28% over a length of 45 feet in the northwest corner of the
preliminary plat; in the area of Lot 6, Block 3. The geo-hazard addressed house construction in .
such area of the site; but not the private driveway, which should be addressed.
434. The November 4, 2004 geo-hazard report otherwise adequately identifies and discusses the
geo-hazards presented by site development, and recommends adequate mitigating measures to
deal with such geo-hazards. The preliminary plat map does not illustrate the geo-hazards on the
site, as required by the subdivision.ordinance.
P. Public Sewer and Water. Concurrence
•
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 59
435. The Spokane County Division of Utilities certified the availability of public sewer to the
proposal. Spokane County Water District #3 certified the availability of public water to the
proposal. The conditions of approval recommended by the Spokane Regional Health District,
and County Utilities, require the proposal to be served with public sewer and water.
436. The proposal meets the sewer and water concurrency provisions of the City Phase 1
Development Regulations.
Q. Other Coucurrencv Issu es
437. The City Phase 2 Development Regulations do not require direct concurrency for parks or
schools. City Parks did not consent on the project.
. 438. Central Valley School District indicated it had capacity to serve the future students in the
project. The project should make provision for safe waiting and bus boarding for secondary
students, as requested by the school district.
R. Provision for Cultural Resources
439. City Planning conditions of approval recommended for the project require a cultural survey
of the site to be completed prior to final plat approval, in consultation with the affected tribes and
the State DHAP.
Based on the above findings of fact, the Hearing Examiner enters the following:
111. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Pursuant to RCW 58.17.033, a preliminary plat application must be considered under the
zoning ordinance, development regulations and comprehensive plan policies in place at the time a
fully completed application for the preliminary plat is submitted to the reviewing authority. The
fully complete date for the current application was November 5, 2004.
2. To be approved, the preliminary plat must comply with applicable zoning standards and
other development regulations; make appropriate provision for the public health, safety and .
general welfare; serve the public use and interest; and make appropriate provision for open
spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, other public ways, potable water supplies, transit stops,
sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds, critical areas,
fire/emergency access, sidewalks for children who reach school by walking, and other relevant
facts and planning features. See RCW 58.17.1 10, County Subdivision Ordinance and County
Hearing Examiner Ordinance.
•
3. RCW 36.70B.030 requires that a comprehensive plan and development regulations adopted
by local government under the State Growth Management Act (GM.A) serve as the foundation for
project review; and that where standards for development are specified in local development
regulations, or in the absence of applicable development regulations, are addressed in a
HE Fin.dings,.Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 60
•
p.
comprehensive plan,-such regulations, or the comprehensive plan, respectively, are determinative
of the standards of development for the land use action.
4. Under Washington case law, where the comprehensive plan of a local government conflicts
with zoning regulations or other development regulations, the zoning and other development -
regulations are controlling.
5. The preliminary plat does not make appropriate provision for the public health, safety and
welfare; or serve the public use and interest; considering the inadequacy of public egress out of
the Ponderosa area in the event of a wildfire or other large-scale disaster, and that the proposal is . .
likely to worsen such access problems. See Policy T.4a.9 and T.6.2 of City Interim
Coi.nprehensive Plan, and Section 1.03(1) of City Road Standards.
6. The proposed rezone should be denied; since the purpose of the rezone is to relax
development standards for the preliminary plat, the preliminary plat does not bear a substantial
relationship to the public health, safety and welfare, and the preliminary plat is inconsistent with ..
the Interim Comprehensive Plan.
7. The proposal is likely to have a significant, probable adverse impact on safe public access
out of the Ponderosa area, in the event of a wildfire event or similar disaster that requires the area
to be evacuated. However, since such issue was not raised in the current SEPA appeal, the
Examiner cannot require the issuance of a Determination of Significance for the project; even
though this might be a preferable choice to denying the project.
8. The streams on the site must be typed in accordance with the version of WAC 222-16-030
that took effect on January 1, 1994; as modified under Section 11.20.060.C.2.e of the City
Interim.Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) to eliminate the buffering requirement for Type 5 streams
when there is no connection to a Type 1-4 Water.
9. The streams on the site do not constituteta Type 4 Water under the above regulations
because they do not connect downstream to a Type 3 Water. The streams do qualify as a Type 5
Water under. former WAC 222-16-030; but have no buffering requirement under Section
11.20.060.C.2.e of the CAO, because they do not connect to a Type 1-4 stream. "Connect"
should be construed to mean a physical connection by an aboveground channel.
10 Even if the strearris were evaluated under the current version of. WAC 222-16-030 or 222- -
16-031, they would not qualify as a Type Np or Type 4 Water. This is because portions of the
stream located between the site and the potential perennial water source located upstream are dry,
or go subsurface, during the entire year of normal rainfall. See definition of"ordinary high water
mark". Such streams do no constitute a Type Ns or Type 5 Water under such current regulations,
because they do not physically connect to a Type S, For Np water by an aboveground channel
system.
The City Planning Division should have required the applicant's wildlife biologist to conduct
d investigation of the site, and consulted with the WDFW, to determine whether the project
0
HL Findings, Conclusions and Decision RFZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 61
would have a significant adverse impact on the deer population in the area, and the requirement
for a habitat management plan. This is in light of the riparian corridor established for white-tailed
deer by the habitat management plan approved for the adjacent lots to the west; ample evidence
that a sizeable population of deer use the site on a daily basis to migrate between Brown's
Mountain, the on-site wetland, feeding grounds to the east and Chester Creek; and the adverse
• impacts of the project on such migration. This could be required under the City CAO, without
having to issue a Determination of Significance.
12. The project generally complies with the wetland, geo-hazard and riparian buffer
requirements of the City CAO; and the City Guidelines for Stormwater Management.
13. The project will not have a significant adverse impact on the elements of the environment
referenced in the appeal; provided compliance with the City CAO is required. The SEPA appeal
should be denied.
14. The City should update the description of its DiNR stream types, and Critical Areas maps,
based on best available science. This includes consideration of the permanent typing system in the
current version of WAC 222-16-030, the DNR.hydrolayer, and WDFW's current database
designating priority wildlife habitat and species.
15. The preliminary plat complies with the concurrency requirements set forth in the County
Phase 2 Development Regulations.
•
16. Denial of the subject applications, and denial of the SEPA appeal, are appropriate under
Chapter 10.35 of the City Municipal Code, the City Local SEPA Ordinance, the City Interim
Subdivision Ordinance, and Chapter 58.17 RCW.
IV. DECISION
Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law above, the subject applications for a
preliminary plat and rezone are hereby denied
The SEPA appeal submitted by the Ponderosa Properties Homeowner's Association is
hereby denied. •
DATED this 30th day of August, 2007
CITY HEARING EXAMINER PRO TEM
Michael C. Dempsey, WSBA 3 J
FIE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07. 'Page 62
NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION Aivl)NOTICE OF RIGHT TO AP:1':I AL
Pursuant to Section 10.35.150 of the City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), as
amended, the decision of the Hearing Examiner on a combined application for a zone
reclassification and preliminary plat is final and conclusive unless within fourteen (14) calendar
days from the Examiner's written decision, a party of record aggrieved by such decision files an
appeal with the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Avenue,
in Spokane Valley, Washington; in accordance with all the requirements of SVMC#10.35.150.
This decision was mailed by certified mail to the Applicant, and by first class mail to other
parties of record, on August 30, 2007. THE APPEAL CLOSING DATE IS SEPTEMBER
1.3, 2007.
• The complete record in this matter, including this decision, is on file during the appeal
period with the Office of the Hearing Examiner, Third Floor, Public Works Building, 1026 West
Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington, 99260-0245, (509) 477-7490. The file may be
inspected during normal working hours, listed as Monday- Friday of each week, except holidays,
between the hours of 8:30 a.ni and 5:00 p.m. After the appeal period, the file may be inspected
at the City of Spokane Valley Department of Community Development, Division of Current
Planning, 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA. Copies of the documents in the
record-will be made available at the cost set by City of Spokane Valley Ordinance.
Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130, affected property owners may request a change in valuation
For property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
•
•
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-23-04 SUB-15-04 APP 03-07 Page 63