SUB-07-04 PUD-04-04 APP-04-07 :3.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER
RE: Preliminary Plat of Ponderosa PUD, and )
Preliminary PUD Overlay Zone, in the UR-7* )
Zone; and Appeal of Mitigated Determination )
of Nonsignificance; ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
Applicant: Lanzce G. Douglass, Inc. ) AND DECISION
Appellant: Ponderosa Neighborhood Assoc. )
File No. SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 )
)
I. SUMMARY OF DECISION
Hearing Matter: Combined application for a preliminary p lat and preliminary PUD Overlay
zone, in the UR-7* zone; and appeal of the MDNS issued for application.
Summary of Decision: Reverse the MDNS, and require issuance of a Determination of
Significance (DS) under the City Environmental Ordinance.
° H. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Background Information
1. The application in the above file requests approval of the preliminary plat of Ponderosa
PUD, to subdivide 16.95 acres of land into 81 lots for single-family dwellings; and a preliminary
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay zone; in the Urban Residential-7* (UR-7*) zone.
2. The site is located along the south side of 44th Avenue, west of Farr Road; in Spokane
Valley, WA. The property is situated in the NW 1/4 of Section 5, Township 24 N, Range 44
EWM of Spokane County, Washington.
3. The site is currently referenced as County Assessor's tax parcel no. 44052.9011, and is
legally described on the preliminary plat map/PUD site plan of record.
4. The applicant, and site owner, is Lanzce G. Douglass, Inc; do Lancze G. Douglass, 1402 E.
Magnesium Road, Suite 202, Spokane, WA 99217.
5. On May 14, 2004, the application was submitted to the City Community Development
Department-Planning Division("City Planning Division).
6. On June 10, 2004, the City Planning Division determined the application to be incomplete,
based on the omission of several required items. On June 24, 2004, the City Planning Division
determined the application to be complete.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 1
7. On March 19, 2007, the applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat map/preliminary PUD
site development plan, consisting of seven(7) plan sheets. Such plan sheets represent the
preliminary plat map/PUD site plan of record.
8. On June 15, 2007, the City Planning Division issued a Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance (MDNS) for the application, pursuant to the City Environmental Ordinance. See
Exhibit 14.
9. On June 29, 2007, the MDNS was timely appealed by the Ponderosa Neighborhood
Association, c/o Janice Cooperstein, 9716 East 45th Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206. See
Exhibit 15.
10. On August 9, 2007, the Hearing Examiner held a consolidated public hearing on the
application and the appeal of the MDNS ("SEPA appeal"). The notice requirements for the
public hearing were met. The Examiner conducted site visits on August 8, 2007 and October 30,
2007.
11. The Hearing Examiner heard the application and SEPA appeal pursuant to Chapter 10.35 of
the City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), the City Hearing Examiner Rules of
Procedure, and the City Environmental Ordinance.
12. The following persons testified at the public hearing:
Micki Harnois Associate Planner
Cliff Cameron
City Of Spokane Valley P.O. Box 641
11707 E Sprague Ave Colbert, WA 99005
Spokane Valley, WA 99206-6110
Mike Murphy David Mann
Attorney at Law Attorney at Law
300 E. Pine 1424 4t11 Avenue, Suite 1015
Seattle, WA 98122 Seattle, WA 98101
Janice Cooperstein Larry Dawes
9716 E. 45th 725 W. Chelan
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Spokane, WA 99205
Jeremy Sikes Mark Wachtel
Washington State Department of Ecology Washington State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
4601 N. Monroe 2315 N. Discovery Place
Spokane, WA 99205 Spokane Valley, WA 99216
Todd Whipple Eugene Lucia
2528 N. Sullivan 9706 E. 46th
Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Spokane Valley, WA 99206
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 2
Donna Connell
Margaret Mor-tz
10108 E. Ferret Drive 3420 S. Ridgeview
Spokane, WA 99206 Spokane Valley, WA 99216
Thomas Cova Diane Fritz
60 South Central Drive, Room 270 4621 S. Fan Road
Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Judy Belous Katherine Krauss
8803 E. 44 al 10521 E. Cimmaron Drive
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Spokane, WA 99206
Van Spradley Ron Connell
9518 E. 44th Avenue 10108 E. Ferrett Drive
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Spokane, WA 99206
Claude Wells
P.O. Box 380
...E
Loon Lake, WA 99148
13. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the parties stipulated to entry of a copy of the
record and briefs submitted to the Washington State Court of Appeals (Case No. 25243-4-III), in
the appeal of the Spokane County Hearing Examiner's decision to approve the preliminary plat of
Ponderosa Ridge (County File No. PE-1940-04). The decision was issued on August 4, 2005;
and revised on August 8, 2005 and August 19, 2005. See AR 22-70. The appeal was filed by the
Ponderosa Neighborhood Association.
14. On August 10, 2007, the Hearing Examiner included Exhibit 51 (revisions to WAC
regulations) and Exhibit 52 (County Resolution No. 97-0652) in the record; as indicated at the
public hearing. See email from Hearing Examiner to legal counsel, dated 8-10-07.
15. On August 14-15, 2007, the Hearing Examiner emailed legal counsel involved in the public
hearing held on the preliminary plat of Ponderosa Estates North (City File No. REZ-23-04/SUB-
15-04), by emails, with a copy to legal counsel in the current matter, that he had received a letter
from Chief Mike Thompson of County Fire District 1, dated August 13, 2007, confirming that
Fire District Resolution No. 2007-284 applied to currently proposed developments, as well as
future projects in the Ponderosa area.
16. The Examiner also notified such parties that he had received an email from County Sheriff
Ozzie Knezovich, dated August 14, 2007, expressing support for Chief Thompson's letter. The
Examiner advised that he would not include the documents from Chief Thompson and Sheriff
Knezovich in the record for the Ponderosa Estates North project, because the record in such
matter had already been closed.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 3
17. On August 28, 2007, the applicant provided the Hearing Examiner with a complete copy of
the documents and transcripts certified to Spokane County Superior Court, regarding the
Ponderosa Ridge appeal; except for a compact disk(CD) submitted as Exhibit 545A in the record.
for such project, and a print-out of the electronic data on the CD.
18. During the current public hearing, Ponderosa Neighborhood Association submitted a print-
out of a portion of the data contained on the CD, as well as a copy of the appellate briefs
submitted by the parties to the Court of Appeals in the Ponderosa Ridge appeal. See Exhibits 3 8-
40, and 44.
19. On August 29, 2007, the Hearing Examiner sent an email to legal counsel for the parties,
asking whether they wanted to provide a complete copy of the print-out of the data contained on
the CD to the Examiner, in addition to the partial print-outs received from Janice Cooperstein at
the public hearing. The Examiner received no response to the emails.
20. On November 13, 2007, the applicant emailed the Examiner a copy of an unsigned,
unpublished opinion issued by the Washington State Court of Appeals (Division III), upholding
the County Hearing Examiner's decision on the Ponderosa Ridge project. On November 14,
2007, the Examiner emailed the parties, indicating that he would include the opinion in the current
record.
B. Items in Record
21. The Hearing Examiner takes notice of the City of Spokane Valley Interim Zoning Code,
Interim Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan, Phase 1 Development Regulations, Interim
Subdivision Ordinance, Interim Application Review Procedures for Project Permits, Interim
Critical Areas Ordinance, Environmental Ordinance, Critical Areas maps, Guidelines for
Storm
water Management, Standards for Road and Sewer Co n str uction, and Municipal Code
(SVMC); other applicable development regulations; and prior land use decisions in the area.
22. The record includes the documents in the project file at the time of the public hearing, the
documents and testimony submitted at the public hearing, the items taken notice of by the
Examiner, and the items added to the record after the public hearing by the Examiner as
referenced above. The Examiner also includes in the record two maps from the Spokane
City/County Atlas, which show the overall road network in the area; for illustrative purposes only.
See also figure 1 of habitat management plan, submitted on 10-1-04.
23. The Examiner takes specific notice of, and includes in the record, a copy of SVMC Chapter
10.15; Section 501 and 503 of the 2003 International Fire Code (IFC), and Appendix D to the
2003 IFC, adopted by reference in SVMC Chapter 10.15; the County's decision denying the
preliminary plat of Broadmoor Estates No. 2, in City File No. PE-1695-92/ZE-3-93; and the
County's decision approving a preliminary short plat in City File No. SP-945-94.
24. The record does not include the letter from Chief Thompson of Fire District 1 dated August
13, 2007; or the email from Sheriff Knezovich dated August 14, 2007.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 4
X14
25. References below to the Ponderosa Ridge appeal transcript in Exhibit 53, are annotated as
"RP ". References to the Ponderosa Ridge appeal record in Exhibit 54 are annotated as "AR
77
26. References below to the County Hearing Examiner's decision on the Ponderosa Ridge
project, found at AR 22-70, are annotated as "Ponderosa Ridge Decision ". References to
Exhibit 30, a 3-ring binder with 36 tabbed exhibits submitted by the applicant, are annotated as
"Exhibit 30, tab ".
C. Description of Site
27. The site is approximately 16.95 acres in size, undeveloped, and ranges from gently sloping
to relatively steep in topography. The site slopes down to the northwest; except along its easterly
fringe, where it slopes down to the north or northeast. The steepest slopes on the site are
approximately 20-25%, measured at 5-foot contours. A rocky knoll is located near the middle of
the east portion of the property, where the steepest slopes on the site and rock outcroppings are
found.
28. The northerly one-third(1/3) of the site consists of an open field or meadow dominated by
grasses and native vegetation. The vegetation in the southerly two-thirds (2/3) of the site is
dominated by a dense overstory of buckbrush(ceanothus shrub), along with other native shrubs
and grasses. The site also contains scattered, mature pine trees.
D. Description of Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD
29. The preliminary plat map of record illustrates 81 single-family dwelling lots, ranging from
5,874 square feet to 10,298 square feet in size. The average lot size in the preliminary plat is
approximately 6,700 square feet. The density(net) of the preliminary plat is approximately 5.5
dwelling units per acre. See definition of"density" in Section 14.300.100 of City Interim Zoning
Code.
30. The common open space in the preliminary plat/PUD totals approximately 2.3 acres, which r
represents approximately 14% of the gross acreage of the site. This includes common open space
tracts of 1.4 acres, .56 acres, .27 acres and .06 acres.
31. The preliminary plat map illustrates a system of internal private roads; with curb on both Y
sides, and a 6-foot wide concrete sidewalk on one (1) side. The map shows the internal road
system connecting northerly to 44th Avenue, and westerly to two (2) private roads in the
E
preliminary plat of Ponderosa Ridge. The map shows proposed 45th Lane extending to the east
border of the site, adjacent to the westerly terminus of 450 Avenue.
1.
ii
32. The preliminary plat map illustrates a hammerhead turnaround at the east end of proposed
47th Lane. The turnaround encroaches a short distance into the 60-foot wide portion of the site i"'.
that extends to the east for 300 feet, between the main part of the site and Farr Road. ,
r
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 5
33. The preliminary PUD site plan indicates that all common open space tracts will be reserved
for passive recreation in their existing state; with lawn for storm drainage, if necessary. The plan
also indicates the provision of"passive landscaping" for the common open space, consisting of
existing grasses; and the reservation of existing pine trees in three (3) small "tree line" areas, on
common open space Tract B of the preliminary plat.
34. The preliminary PUD site plan indicates that a planned"vantage view point" located in the
center of the site will be preserved as "a natural park area", but fails to show the location of the
view point. The vantage view point appears to refer to the knoll located on Tract B of the
preliminary plat, and the natural park area appears to refer to Tract B.
35. The preliminary PUD site plan shows the approximate locations of homes proposed on the
lots in the preliminary plat, and two (2) conceptual building plans for such housing. The site plan
references a 6-foot high sight obscuring fence, but does not show the location of or details for
such fencing.
E. Critical Areas designated on the Site
36. The City's current Critical Areas maps were adopted at the time the City was incorporated
on March 31, 2003. The maps illustrate White-tailed Deer priority wildlife habitat on the
southerly one-half(1/2) of the site. However, the maps fail to show all the types of priority
wildlife habitats in the City and their locations; including Elk habitat.
37. The fish and wildlife habitat map included in the City Comprehensive Plan, labeled as "Map
8.3" and dated June 19, 2006, illustrates White-tailed Deer priority wildlife habitat on the south
portion of the site, and Elk priority wildlife habitat throughout the site. This map also does not
show all the types of priority wildlife habitats in the City, and their locations.
38. The Ponderosa Ridge decision indicated that the Ponderosa Ridge site, and neighboring
land, contained White-tailed Deer and Elk priority wildlife habitat. See Ponderosa Ridge
Decision, FF#71-74.
F. Land Use Designations for the Site, Applicable Development Regulations
39. The "Ponderosa area" encompasses the land lying east of Dishman-Mica Road in the area;
some distance south of 28th Avenue (extended west) and some distance north of Hallett
Road/Grouse Mountain Lane, inside and outside the City. See parcel map in Exhibit 48; Exhibit
30, tab 3; and City/County Atlas map. Most of the Ponderosa area has been developed for single-
family homes, at various densities.
40. In January of 2002, Spokane County adopted Urban Growth Area(UGA) boundaries, a
new County Comprehensive Plan, and County Phase I Development Regulations; to implement
the County Comprehensive Plan. This resulted in most of the Ponderosa area being included in
the UGA.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 6
41. The County Phase 1 Development Regulations reclassified the Suburban Residential-1 (SR-
1) zoning that previously applied to the site and most of the developed land around the site; and
the Semi-Rural Residential-5 (SRR-5) zoning that applied to the land lying between the site and
Schafer Branch Road; to the UR-7* zone of the former County Zoning Code.
42. The County Phase I Development Regulations retained the small area of UR-7 zoning
located north of the site, along Locust and Fan Roads; and retained the Urban Residential-3.5
(UR-3.5) zoning located further to the north and northeast, in the Ponderosa area. See AR 130.
43. On March 31, 2003, the City of Spokane Valley was incorporated. The site, the nearby land
located to the north and south, the land lying east of the site, and the land lying further to the
northeast and southeast, are all located inside the City.
44. Upon incorporation, the City adopted the County's Comprehensive Plan, former Zoning
Code, zoning and comprehensive plan map designations, and other development regulations by
reference; with certain revisions. See finding of fact#21 above.
45. Effective August 25, 2004, the City amended certain development standards in the UR-3.5,
UR-7 and other residential zones of the City Interim Zoning Code. See Ordinance No. 04-033.
46. Effective September 8, 2004, the City Council added the Urban Residential Estate (UR-1)
zone to the City Interim Zoning Code; and reclassified the zoning of certain land neighboring the
site to the UR-1 zone on an interim basis. Such zoning has been extended several times by
ordinance. See Ordinance Nos. 04-035, 06-001, 06-019 and 07-001.
47. Effective November 24, 2004, the City amended the PUD Overlay zone in the City Interim
Zoning Code, in several respects. See City Ordinance No. 04-046.
48. On May 10, 2006, the City implemented its current Comprehensive Plan; which replaced the
Interim Comprehensive Plan, and contains new land use categories, policies and text. The City
also revised its Phase I Development Regulations to specify the zones in the City Interim Zoning
Code that implement the new land use categories in the Comprehensive Plan. See City Ordinance
Nos. 06-010 and 06-011.
49. The site is designated in the Low Density Residential category of the Interim
Comprehensive Plan, zoned UR-7*, and located in the Aquifer Sensitive Area(ASA) Overlay
zone.
50. The site is currently designated in the Low Density Residential category of the
Comprehensive Plan.
51. The City Planning Division reviewed the current application under the Interim Zoning Code,
other development regulations, and Interim Comprehensive Plan policies in place at the time the
application became complete on June 24, 2004. See Section 13.300.110 of the City Application
Review Procedures for Project Permits, and RCW 58.17.033.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 7
____
.l
G. Zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations in the Ponderosa Area
52. The land in the Ponderosa area located inside the city limits is designated in the Low Density
Residential category of the Interim Comprehensive Plan. Such land is designated in the Low
Density Residential category of the Comprehensive Plan; except for the land developed with
public/quasi-public uses, such as Ponderosa Elementary School, which is designated in the
Public/Quasi-Public category of the Comprehensive Plan.
53. The land located inside the city limits, for several blocks north and east of the site, is zoned
UR-1. The UR-1 zone imposes a maximum residential density(net) of one (1) dwelling unit per
acre, and a minimum lot area of 40,000 square feet.
54. The land lying north and east of such UR-1 zoning, inside the City limits, is almost
exclusively zoned UR-3.5. The UR-3.5 zone permits a maximum net density of 4.35 dwelling
units per acre.
55. The two (2) parcels lying between the site and Schafer Branch Road to the west are located
outside the City, designated inside the UGA, and zoned Low Density Residential (LDR) under the
new County Zoning Code that took effect on June 1, 2004. Prior to such date, such parcels were
zoned UR-7* under the former County Zoning Code. The LDR zone of the County Zoning Code
permits a maximum net density of six(6) dwelling units per acre.
56. The other land in the Ponderosa area lying west of the City limits; and the land lying south
of Holman Road in the vicinity, west of Woodruff Road extended south; are located outside the
UGA, and are zoned Rural Conservation (RC) by the County Zoning Code.
57. The RC zone of the County Zoning Code permits a maximum net density of one (1)
dwelling unit per 20 acres, and requires a minimum lot size of 20 acres; except in a rural cluster
development, where a maximum net density of one (1) dwelling unit per 10 acres is permitted, and
a minimum lot size of one (1) acre is permitted, provided at least 70% of the property is retained
in open space and other rural cluster requirements are met.
H. Surrounding Conditions
58. The 28-acre parcel that abuts the site on the west is owned by the applicant, undeveloped,
located along the south side of 44th Avenue, and located along the east side of Schafer Branch '
Road.
59. The topography of the 28-acre parcel is hilly; with some slopes ranging up to 30% in the
northwest corner and south end of the parcel, flatter slopes located in the easterly one-third(1/3)
of the parcel adjacent to the site, and an overall slope from north to south of approximately 7%.
The west and east sides of the parcel slope down moderately to a draw that contains a seasonal
stream. A number of rock outcroppings are found on the property.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-o7 Page 8
60. The 28-acre parcel is vegetated with ponderosa pine trees and aspen trees; and a wide range
of shrubs, grasses and plants. The draw on the parcel is moderately forested. The vegetation orn
the parcel, and the current site, is described in detail in the habitat management plan that was
prepared for such properties by Larry Dawes on October 4, 2004.
61. A 6-acre parcel of land lies between the middle-east portion of the 28-acre parcel and
Schafer Branch Road, less than 300 feet from the site. The west end of the 6-acre parcel is
improved with a residence. The east end is bisected by the same draw and stream that passes
through the 28-acre parcel, and is moderately forested.
62. The other land located along the west side of Schafer Branch Road, and the land lying south
of the site, generally consists of smaller acreage parcels that are improved with single-family
homes or undeveloped.
63. The land lying further west of Schafer Branch Road; and the land lying westerly of the City
limits in the area, north of 44th Avenue; generally consists of farmland and forestland on large
acreage parcels.
64. The other land neighboring the site, inside the city limits, is improved with single-family
homes on lots one (1) acre in size or greater; except for the more urban-sized lots lying north of
the site along Locust and Fan-Roads, and lying north of Cimmaron Drive. Further to the north
and east, closer to Dishman-Mica Road, the land generally consists of single-family homes on
more urban-sized lots that are zoned UR-3.5.
65. Ponderosa Elementary School is found approximately .5 miles northeast of the site, at the
northeast corner of the intersection of Cimmaron Drive and Woodruff Road. A fire station,
operated by Spokane County Fire District 8, lies approximately 1.4 miles east of the site, at the
southwest corner of the intersection of 44th Avenue and Bates Road. See Exhibit 20, p. 6-7.
66. County Fire District 8 generally services 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 44th Avenue, and the remainder of the City.
67. A railroad line borders the southwest side of Dishman-Mica Road in the area, and
experiences light daily use. At-grade crossings of the railroad tracks are located along Schafer
Road and Bowdish Road, south of Dishman-Mica Road. Chester Creek is located between the
railroad line and Dishman-Mica Road in the area.
68. Some commercial uses and zoning are found along Dishman-Mica Road, between Bowdish
is
Road and University/Schafer Roads.
69. Redeemer Lutheran Church is located along the west side of Schafer Road, near its
intersection with Dishman-Mica Road. The final plat of Inveraiy, a 30-unit, divided duplex
project, is currently being developed along the east side of Schafer Road, a short distance
southeast of Dishman-Mica Road, and across from the church.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-o7 Page 9
70. The City Arterial Street Plan designates the following streets in the area as Collector
Arterials: 44°i Avenue; Woodruff Road, south of 44°'Avenue, Schafer Road; Bowdish Road,
south of Dishman-Mica Road; Sands Road; Bates Road; Holman Road; and Thorpe Road.
71. The City Arterial Street Plan designates the following streets in the area as Minor Arterials:
32 11d Avenue; and Dishman-Mica Road, northwest of Schafer Road; as Principal Arterials.
Dishman-Mica Road, southeast of Schafer Road; University Road; and Bowdish Road, north of
Dishman-Mica Road. All other city roads in the Ponderosa area are considered Local Access
streets. See Comprehensive Plan, map 3.1.
72. The County Arterial Road Plan designates 44°i Avenue, west of the City limits, and
Mohawk Road, in the Painted Hills area, as Urban Collector Arterials; and designates Dishman-
Mica Road, south of the City limits, as an Urban Principal Arterial.
73. Schafer Road continues north of Dishman-Mica Road as University Road. The intersections
of Dishman-Mica Road and Schafer/University Road, and Dishman-Mica Road and Bowdish
Road, are signalized. See Exhibit 20, p. 8-11.
74. Schafer Branch Road is a narrow road with a gravel or light bituminous surface. The other
roads in the vicinity are paved roads, without curb or sidewalks. Schafer Branch Road dead-ends
a short distance southwest of the site, and 44th Avenue dead-ends a short distance west of Schafer
Branch Road.
75. A 5-foot wide, slightly raised, asphalt pedestrian pathway borders the west side of the
pavement on Woodruff Road, between 44°i Avenue and Cimmaron Drive. Sidewalk and curb are
located along the north side of Cimmaron Drive and the east side of Woodruff Road adjacent to
Ponderosa Elementary School.
76. The Ponderosa area generally rises up to the west and southwest to Brown's Mountain and
Tower Mountain; and features mountainous, forested terrain. The 796-acre Iller Creek
Conservation Area lies approximately .4 miles southwest of the site. The 518-acre Dishman Hills
Natural Area is located approximately 1.6 miles northwest of the site; west of Dishman-Mica
Road and south of Appleway Avenue, southwest of the City limits.
I. 1991 Firestorm in the Ponderosa Area
77. On Wednesday, October 16, 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.
78. The Ponderosa fire resulted in the destruction of 14 homes along Ferret Drive, which road is
located only one-third(1/3) mile southeast of the site. The fire threatened the destruction of 105
additional homes in the south end of the Ponderosa area and the nearby Painted Hills area; with
the fire reaching as far north as 48t''Avenue. See photos of fire in Exhibit 45.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 10
is
79. The Ponderosa firestorm occurred during the afternoon, 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 by fire. In other places, the fire raced so quickly that fire and police officials could
not organize an evacuation. See AR 1232-1233, 1236 and 1306-1307; and Exhibit 30, tab 17.
J. Development projects in Ponderosa Area decided alter 1991 Firestorm
80. On July 11, 1991, Spokane County issued a final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for
a development plan known as Mica View Estates. Such plan contemplated dividing 370 acres of
land located south and southwest of Ponderosa Drive, east of the nearby Union Pacific Railway
right of way and Dishman-Mica Road, into 340 lots for single-family homes and over 70 acres of
common open space. This included the current site, and the 28-acre parcel located west of the
site.
81. On October 15, 1991, one (1) day before the 1991 firestorm event occurred in the
Ponderosa area, the Board of County Commissioners for Spokane County orally approved the
preliminary plat/PUD of Guthrie Family Tracts. Such project proposed the division of 9.6 acres
of land located in the Mica View Estates study area, approximately one (1) mile southeast of the
site, south of Gertrude Drive, into 13 lots for single-family dwellings; along with a rezone of such
land to the SR-1/2 zone. See AR 2281-2282.
82. On December 16, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners entered a written decision
approving the Guthrie Family Tracts preliminary plat/PUD and rezone. The decision was based
on the record established at the September 17, 1991 public hearing held on such project, and did
not mention the firestorm event in the Ponderosa that began on October 16, 1991. See decision
in County File No. PE-1746-94/PUDE-1-94, FF#18-24; found at AR 2291-2323.
83. The Guthrie Family Tracts decision required the plat sponsor to set aside $500 per lot in
escrow, payable on demand by Spokane County, to construct a railroad crossing of the Union
Pacific Railroad that would allow additional vehicular access to Dishman-Mica Road. The
approval was also conditioned on satisfying the requirements of County Fire District No. 8,
during the building permit process; and the adoption of restrictive covenants, approved by the fire
district, that addressed fire protection concerns, e.g. roof type, vegetative clearance around homes
and access by fire-fighting vehicles.
iF.
84. The Guthrie Family Tracts decision found that no further development of the Mica View
Estates study area should be allowed once traffic volumes on Bates Road reached 3,000 one-way
trips per day, until a new connection to Dishman-Mica Road was constructed. This was based on
general road capacity concerns.
85. In November of 1992, the final plat of Guthrie Family Tracts was recorded with the County
Auditor. The final plat dedication required the sum of$500 to be deposited in escrow at the time
of sale of each lot within the plat, payable to Spokane County, for the construction of a railroad
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 11
1
0
crossing to provide access to the area. The dedication also referenced restrictive covenants
adopted and recorded for the final plat, which implemented the fire protection measures
recommended by Fire District No. 8.
86. On December 17, 1992, a final short plat was recorded to divide the current site and four
(4) acres of adjacent land into four(4) tracts for single-family dwellings. See City File No. SP-
716-92.
87. On July 27, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners denied the preliminary plat of
Broadmoor Estates No. 2, and a related rezone, to divide 15 acres of land located less than one
(1) mile northwest of the site, at the northerly termini of Ridgeview Drive and Woodruff Road,
into 17 lots for single-family dwellings; in the UR-3.5 and SRR-5 zones. The decision noted that
the Board had denied a previous preliminary plat/rezone proposal by the same applicant, in 1992,
based on similar fire evacuation concerns. See decision in City File No. PE-1695-92/ZE-3-93.
88. The Broadmoor Estates No. 2 decision expressed 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. The 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.
89. On April 27, 1994, the County Planning Department administratively approved a preliminary
short plat of 15.6 acres of land, including most of the Broadmoor Estates No. 2 project site, into
three (3) lots. The decision required the sponsor to enter into a recorded agreement with the
County to preserve a corridor for the extension of Ridgeview Drive through such site, for a
possible future connection to 24th Avenue; at such time as requested by County Engineering, or in
conjunction with a future land use action; based on access concerns associated with the 1991
firestorm. See decision in City File No. SP-945-94. On November 16, 1994, a final plat was
recorded for such development.
90. In January of 1995, the County Planning Department administratively approved various
"certificates of exemption"; to allow the division of approximately 150 acres located directly west
and south of the Guthrie Family Estates final plat, in the Mica View Estates study area, into a
total of 25 acreage parcels. See AR 1738. Such land currently lies outside the UGA, and is
zoned RC by the County.
91. On May 23, 1995, the Board of County Commissioners, after a public hearing, conditioned
access to the 25 certificate of exemption parcels to the County road system, at the westerly
termini of Ponderosa Drive and the southerly termini of Pierce Road, on the extension of a paved
public road from Pierce Road southerly to Hallett Road. This was for the purpose of providing
access to Dishman-Mica Road, in the event of a wildfire; and was based on the 1991 firestorm
event, and associated access concerns for the Ponderosa area. See AR 1736 and 1737 (County
Resolution No. 95-0573A). A road extension to Hallett Road was never constructed for such
parcels.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 12
I
92. On November 26, 2001, the County Hearing Examiner required the preparation of a
supplemental EIS (SEIS) for the preliminary plat/PUD of Mica View Estates. Such project
proposed the division of 54 acres of land lying directly northeast of the Guthrie Family Tracts
plat, approximately 1.2 miles southeast of the site, into 83 lots for single-family dwellings; in the
UR-3.5 zone. Such acreage lies between Ponderosa Drive and the elevated railroad right of way
of the Union Pacific Railroad, west of Dishman-Mica Road. See decision dated 11-26-01 in
County File No. PE-1746-94/PUDE-1-94, found at AR 2291-2323
93. The issuance of a SEIS for the Mica View Estates project was based on County Fire District
No. 8's initial opposition to such project, unless a new public access road was extended to
Dishman-Mica Road. The district advised that the road system serving the Ponderosa area was
unable to safely handle a major evacuation for an event such as the 1991 firestorm, including
getting residents out of the area and emergency vehicles into the area; and that increased
development would only worsen the situation. See AR 1742 and 1743.
94. The issuance of a SEIS 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.
95. In the summer of 2002, a 12-foot wide, paved road was extended across the railroad line, at
grade, from Sands Road to Dishman-Mica Road, between 47`x'Avenue and 48th Avenue. The
crossing is located a short distance northeast of the Mica View Estates project site, and
approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the current site. The primary purpose of the crossing is to
provide emergency access for fire district vehicles. Such crossing is gated and locked at both
ends, and signed as a restricted railroad crossing.
96. County Fire District 8 has keys to the locked gates at such railroad crossing, and regards
such crossing as an emergency ingress point for second response units, coming from a fire station
located several miles southeast of the Ponderosa area. The access could possibly be used for
limited emergency evacuation of the Ponderosa area, should other access routes out of the
Ponderosa area become blocked or congested. Fire District 8 considered the access as a
temporary alternative to the construction of a new public access road to serve the Ponderosa area.
See RP 170; AR 205-206, 430-431, 1303, 1741, 1754 and 2210; and Ponderosa Ridge Decision,
FF#36. Also see Exhibit 20, p. 12-14.
97. On April 11, 2003, the County Hearing Examiner approved the preliminary plat/PUD 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 emergency at-grade
railroad crossing constructed near the project between Sands Road and Dishman-Mica Road. See
AR 2291-2323.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 13
98. 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.
99. The Mica View Estates decision required the sponsor of such project to set aside the
amount of$500 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 off-site mitigation being required depending on the results.
100. On June 28, 2005, the Hearing Examiner approved the preliminary plat of lnverary, to
divide 2.9 acres located along the east side of Schafer Road, a short distance south of Dishman-
Mica Road, into 30 divided duplex lots (30 total units); in the Urban Residential-12 (UR-12)
zone. The Inveraiy project is required to install sidewalk along its frontage with Schafer Road,
and is under development as a final plat. See decision in File No. ZE-46A-90/SUB-05-05.
101. On July 28, 2005, a final plat was recorded for the Mica View Estates project, referenced
above. The final plat is located outside the County UGA, on land zoned RC by the County
Zoning Code; but is vested for development under the UR-3.5 zone of the former County Zoning
Code. The final plat, apparently now known as "Aspen Creek", is under development, and has
extended Bates Road between Ponderosa Drive and Gertrude Drive. See Exhibit 43, p.1 of"fire
flow problems in Ponderosa" discussion.
102. On August 5, 2005, the County Hearing Examiner approved the preliminary plat of
Ponderosa Ridge; to subdivide the 28-acre parcel located directly west of the site into 100 lots for
single-family dwellings, and 17.5 acres of common
open space; in the UR-3.5 zone of the former
p
County Zoning Code. See Ponderosa Ridge Decision, at AR 22-70. The Examiner's decision
was affirmed by Spokane County Superior Court; and was recently affirmed by the Washington
State Court of Appeals (Division III), subject to a potential appeal to the State Supreme Court.
103. The Ponderosa Ridge decision found that fire access for such project was adequate; based
primarily on the fire evacuation analysis included in the traffic impact analysis (TIA), 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 Engineering.
104. The Ponderosa Ridge decision required the applicant 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 in the preliminary plat 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
streets, 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.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 14
105. 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 also on the resulting conclusion that there was not a
sufficient regulatory basis under SEPA, RCW 58.17.110, or the impact fee provisions contained
in chapter 82.02 RCW to impose the requested per lot fee on the plat sponsor.
106. On June 19, 2007, the Hearing Examiner completed a public hearing on the preliminary plat
of Ponderosa Estates North; which proposed the subdivision of 15.2 acres of land into 45 lots for
single-family dwellings, in the UR-7* zone; and a related rezone to reclassify a small portion of
the property to the UR-7* zone. The hearing also considered a SEPA appeal of the MDNS
issued for such project, brought by neighboring property owners. See File Nos. REZ-23-
04/SUB-15-04/APP-03-07.
107. The Ponderosa Estates North project is located less than one (1) mile northwest of the site,
at the northerly termini of Ridgeview Drive and Woodruff Road; consists of most of Short Plat
No. SP-945-94; and includes most of the acreage that was involved in the defunct Broadmoor
Estates No. 2 project. The preliminary plat would provide for the extension of Ridgeview Drive
to the north border of such property. The Examiner had not issued a decision on such project by
the time the record closed in the current matter on August 29, 2007.
108. The Hearing Examiner has served as the County Hearing Examiner since 1996; has served
as the City Hearing Examiner for the City of Spokane Valley since the City was incorporated in
2003; issued the final decisions for the Mica View Estates, Ponderos a Ridge and Inverary projects
in the Ponderosa area; and heard the Ponderosa Estates North matter.
K. Issues raised by Neighboring Property Owners and Public Agencies
109. A large number of neighboring property owners expressed opposition to the approval of the
current project; based on traffic safety and capacity impacts along area roads, fire/emergency
access concerns, lot sizes, housing density, impacts on property values, inadequate water
pressure, impacts on wildlife and the nearby riparian stream, impacts on school capacity, potential
impacts on cultural resources, geo-hazard and drainage impacts, failure to consider impacts from
the applicant's adjacent development to the west, lack of notice regarding past changes to the
zoning in the area by Spokane County, and other concerns.
110. The SEPA appeal filed by the Ponderosa Neighborhood Association contended that the
project would have probable, significant adverse impacts on the environment; based on similar
concerns to those raised by neighboring property in opposition to the approval of the project.
This included consideration of the cumulative impacts associated with the approval of the adjacent
Ponderosa Ridge project, and other development in the area.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 15
111. The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) raised concerns such as
the improper typing of the seasonal stream on the adjacent Ponderosa Ridge site, and the
inadequacy of the habitat management plan approved for the Ponderosa Ridge project. See
Exhibit 37, letter from WDFW dated 8-3-07.
112. The Central Valley School District expressed concern for a lack of school capacity in the
district for students from new homes in the project occupied after the fall of 2008, sidewalks and
pedestrian pathway for students, a waiting area for school bus pickup, and the adequacy of the
roadway system in the area. See Exhibit 17, letters from CVSD dated 7-27-07, 3-29-06, 6-13-05
and 8-18-04.
113. The Spokane Tribe of Indians 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. See Exhibit 17, email dated 4-10-07.
L. Applicable policies of the Interim Comprehensive Plan
114. 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 City 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 UL.8.1 recommends that mixed-income development be provided for in residential
areas.
115. 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.
116. 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
site planning tools. Policy UL.2.15 encourages the planting of street trees in residential
subdivisions.
117. Policy H.3.2 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that the City ensure that the
design of infill development preserves the character of the neighborhood.
118. 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.
119. 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.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 16
120. 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.
121. Policy T.3e.1 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends 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.
122. 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
123. 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.
124. 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.
125. 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.
126. 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.
127. 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 advocates safe and effective traffic control or grade
separation at railroad at-grade crossings.
128. 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.
129. 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.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 17
130. Policy CF.12.6 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that comprehensive
p
emergency management plans consistent with all elements of the Interim Comprehensive Plan be
identified and implemented.
131. 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 City's Capital Facilities Plan, be made
to complete the improvement within six (6) years.
132. 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.
133. 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.
134. 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.
135. 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.
136. 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
Stormwater Management, and ASA Overlay zone.
137. 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.
138. 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.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 18
I
139. 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.
140. 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.
141. 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 NE.32.3 recommends 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.
142. 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 NE.32.8 recommends that development not be allowed in such areas without
appropriate mitigation.
143. 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.
144. 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.
145. 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 enormous open space corridor located west of the City limits, north of 44th
Avenue; west and southwest of Schafer Branch Road, south of 44`r'Avenue, and south of the City
limits in the area. This generally includes the Dishman Hills, Brown's Mountain and Tower
Mountain areas; and the Iller Creek Conservation Area and the Dishman Hills Natural Area.
146. The Open Space Corridors map illustrates a narrow open space corridor extending through
the 28-acre parcel that abuts the site on the west, along the route of the seasonal stream that
bisects such parcel; and linking up with the expansive open space corridor area located to the
northwest and south.
•
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 19
0
1
147. Policy P0.5.8 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that open space areas and
corridors be identified and designated throughout the City. Policy 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.
148. 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.
149. 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.
150. 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 p rotection of cultural resources.
M. Compliance with Zoning Standards
151. 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 respective property under the Interim
Comprehensive Plan.
152. The implementing zones for the Low Density Residential category of the City Interim
Comprehensive Plan, in which the site is designated, are the UR-1, UR-3.5 and UR-7* zones.
153. The UR-7 zone 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 single-family dwellings,
duplexes, multi-family dwellings, and certain other uses.
154. 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 net density of six (6) dwelling units per acre. Such zoning is referred
to as the "UR-7*" zone. The UR-7 zone otherwise permits a net density of seven (7) dwelling
units per acre.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 20
155. The minimum lot area and minimum lot frontage required for a single-family dwelling in the
UR-7 zone, at the time the current application was submitted as complete on June 24, 2004, were
respectively 6,000 square feet and 65 feet. However, under the PUD Overlay zone in effect on
such date, the minimum lot size could be reduced to 4,200 square feet, and the minimum lot
frontage for a single-family dwelling could be reduced to 50 feet. See former Sections
14.618.310 and 14.618.315 of Interim Zoning Code. The preliminary plat/PUD complies with
such standards, since the smallest lot in the project is 5,874 square feet, and the smallest lot
frontage is 50 feet.
156. The minimum front yard and the minimum flanking street yard required in the UR-7 zone,
on June 24, 2004, was 55 feet from the centerline of the road, or 25 feet from the respective lot
line, whichever distance was greater. The minimum side yard was five (5) feet per story, and the
minimum rear yard was 15 feet. See former Section 14.618.325 of Interim Zoning Code.
157. Former Section 14.704.325 of the Interim Zoning Code(PUD Overlay zone), in effect on
June 24, 2004, authorized the Hearing Examiner to approve revised setbacks in residential zones;
stating as follows: "Except when otherwise approved at time of P.U.D. hearing, minimum
setbacks of the underlying zone shall apply to exterior property boundaries. Interior yards shall
he approved on the P.U.D. site development plan. Each development will be reviewed to ensure
adequate provision of light and air for all structures."
158. The preliminary PUD plan, on page 6, requests a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet, a
minimum 5-foot setback for 2-story homes, and a 10-foot flanking street yard setback for all
proposed lots.
159. The preliminary PUD plan does not show side yard or rear yard setback lines on the
individual lots. However, the side yards shown on the plan measure from 5-8 feet; and the rear
yard setbacks measure from 42-68 feet; applying the scale on the site plan. See also Exhibit 20, at
p. 23 ("Typical lot layout").
160. The preliminary PUD plan shows the front yard and flanking street yard setback lines
measured from the edge of the roadway, even where a 6-foot private sidewalk is illustrated on the
lots adjacent to the roadway. The setback lines illustrate front yard setbacks of 20 feet for each
proposed lot; although the attached garages for lots abutting private road sidewalks are actually
shown 26 feet from the adjacent private road.
161. The preliminary PUD plan depicts setback lines for a 10-foot flanking street yard setback on
all lots. However, the setback distances, measured from the proposed homes to the edge of the
private roadway(excluding any private sidewalks that abut the road), are at least 15 feet, .
respectively; except for Lot 10, Block 2. The site plan depicts the residence on Lot 10, Block 2 a
distance of 11-16 feet from proposed 46th Lane, a flanking street.
162. The setback distances depicted on the preliminary PUD plan are consistent with the setbacks
currently applicable in the UR-7 zone, as revised on August 25, 2004; except that a portion of the
flanking street yard setback for Lot 10, Block 2 is less than the flanking street yard setback of 15
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 21
.
A
it
I
feet required by the current UR-7 zone. The PUD Overlay zone, as revised on November 9,
2004, does not allow deviations from the new setback standards of the Interim Zoning Code.
163. The minimum 11-foot flanking street yard setback shown for Lot 10, Block 2 could affect
sight distance at the adjacent intersection. Considering this, and that the flanking street yard
setback currently applicable in the UR-7 zone is 15 feet(even in the revised PUD Overlay zone),
the minimum flanking street yard setback for the lots in the project should be established at 1.5
feet. This affects only Lot 10, Block 2.
164. The maximum building height in the UR-7 zone, on June 24, 2004, was 35 feet; and is the
same under the current zoning standards. The preliminary PUD site plan does not show
maximum building heights for the proposed residences, as it should under former Section
14.704.140(2) and(9) of the City Interim Zoning Code.
165. The preliminary PUD plan shows two (2) typical architectural styles to be constructed for
the homes in the preliminary plat; including a single-story home with a vaulted ceiling, and a 4-
level residence. The plan also shows the floor plan of typical dwelling units, and the approximate
unit sizes for such home styles. See also Exhibit 20, p. 15-19, "Conceptual housing".
166. The environmental checklist, and the PUD checklist and worksheet, submitted with the
application indicate that the maximum building height in the project will be 35 feet. This is
Iconsistent with the maximum building height in the UR-7 zone, both at the time the application
became complete on June 24, 2004, and currently. The preliminary PUD plan should be amended
to state the typical building heights for the planned residences, or at least that the maximum
building height is 35.
167. The preliminary PUD plan does not specify the amount of"private noncommon open space"
in square feet for each lot, as required by former Section 14.704.140(4) of the Interim Zoning
Code. This is a minor issue; because the amounts of the private noncommon open space depicted
on the lots in the preliminary plat are well in excess of the 200-square foot minimum specified by
former Section 14.704.385 of the Interim Zoning Code, respectively. See preliminary PUD site
plan, p. 7.
168. The preliminary PUD plan states that the common open space will be maintained by a
homeowner's association. This is an authorized method of maintenance, under former Section
14.704.385 of the Zoning Code. The conditions of approval for the project attached to the Staff
Report require, or provide for, the formation of a homeowner's association to maintain the
private roads and common open space in the preliminary plat. See Staff Report, condition#10 on
page 10, and condition#20 on page 13.
169. 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, 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.
•
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 22
•
170. The RR-10, SRR-5, SRR-2, SR-1/2 and RS zones are found in the former County Zoning
Code, but not in the City Interim Zoning Code or the current County Zoning Code. See Section
14.618.365 of City Interim Zoning Code.
171. The installation of a 6-foot high site-obscuring fence along the borders of the preliminary
plat adjacent to UR-1 zoning appears warranted, considering the similarity of the UR-1 zone,
which zoning abuts the site except along its west border, to the SR-1 zone of the former County
Zoning Code; and considering the large difference in lot sizes between the project and adjoining
properties zoned UR-1. See Exhibit 25, and Exhibit 48 (parcel map of area, with overlay of initial
versions of Ponderosa Ridge and Ponderosa PUD projects). The preliminary PUD plan
references such fencing, but does not show where it would be installed.
172. The preliminary PUD plan does not illustrate the frontage improvements requested by City
Engineering along the frontage of the site with 44th Avenue; including a 5-foot sidewalk, curb,
gutter, swale, etc. See Exhibit 17 (memorandum from City Engineering dated 5-21-07).
173. The amount of common open space in the preliminary plat exceeds the 10% minimum
required by the PUD Overlay zone, and the grades and function are indicated on the PUD site
plan. The preliminary PUD site plan does not show the location of the "vantage viewing point"
that is to be preserved as a"natural park" in the common open space. This evidently refers to the
rocky knoll promontory located on common open space Tract B.
174. Except for the minor deficiencies indicated above, the preliminary PUD plan complies with
the purpose and intent of the PUD Overlay zone, and with the design criteria set forth in such
zone; as set forth in the project narrative; and otherwise complies with the requirements of the
PUD Overlay zone as it existed on June 24, 2004. See Exhibit 5.
N. Transportation Concurrency and Road Impacts
175. 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".
176. Section 1.03(1-8) of the City Road Standards sets forth guidelines that traffic engineering
consultants must consider in planning transportation systems for a proposed development.
177. Section 1.03(1-7) of the City Road Standards recommends 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.
178. Section 1.03(8) of the City Road Standards requires a proposed subdivision to provide an
additional access road into the development to serve fire district vehicles, if it has the cumulative
effect of creating a total number of lots, parcels or tracts served by an access road that is (1) equal
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 23
to or greater than 50 lots, in a "setting" where the housing density ranges from 2.0 to II dwelling
units per acre; (2) 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 (3) 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 local fire district.
179. Section 1.03(8) of the City Road Standards also requires the provision of an additional
access road into a development to serve fire vehicles, if the fire district concludes that the location
and layout of the development causes a concern for safety; regardless of the criteria("table")
specified in such section.
180. 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, the density of existing development, proposed or
existing zoning, existing roads in the immediate area and surrounding developments; and other
public health, safety and welfare considerations.
181. Section 1.08 of the City Road Standards authorizes City Engineering to approve deviations
from such standards for a proposed development; subject to the submittal of written evidence 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.
182. 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.
183. The City Road Standards require the construction of curb and sidewalk along the public
road frontage of new developments located in urban land use zones. Where sidewalks are
required, they must be separated from the curb, and the adjacent planting strip or drainage swale;
unless a design deviation is approved by City Engineering based on local conditions.
184. The City Engineering conditions of approval recommended for the project require the
applicant to improve 44th Avenue along the frontage of the site to the standards for public roads
set forth in the City Road Standards. This includes the installation of 18.5 feet of additional
asphalt pavement, curb, gutter, separated 5-foot sidewalk and roadside drainage swale. See
Exhibit 17, City Engineering memo dated 5-21-07.
185. 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. This includes a paved roadway surface
width of 28 feet, for private roads serving 21 or more lots. The private roads illustrated on the
preliminary plat map comply with such requirements.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 24
ii
I
186. On September 24, 2004, the applicant submitted a traffic impact analysis (TIA) to address
the combined traffic impact of the June of 2004 version of the current project, which proposed 79
lots; and the June of 2004 version of the Ponderosa Ridge project, which proposed 100 lots. See
TIA submitted on 9-24-04 (excluding appendices), in project file, figure no. 2; and AR 167-210.
The TIA was prepared by Todd Whipple, a qualified professional traffic engineer.
187. The TIA is referenced on its face as the "Ponderosa PUD" traffic impact analysis; because
the initial Ponderosa Ridge project proposed a PUD Overlay zone under the County Zoning
Code, and the current project includes a PUD Overlay zone.
188. The preliminary plat map of record for the Ponderosa Ridge project, submitted on April 11,
2005, proposed 100 lots and does not include a PUD Overlay zone. See Ponderosa Ridge
Decision, FF#8. The preliminaiy plat map of record for the current project, submitted on March
18, 2007, proposes 81 lots.
189. On January 28, 2005, a revised TIA was submitted for each project. Each TIA continued to
address the 179 lots in the initial versions of the combined projects. The version of the TIA
submitted for the Ponderosa Ridge project ("Ponderosa Ridge TIA") contains a 5-page
"emergency evacuation evaluation/fire prevention" analysis on page 35-39, and states the final
conclusions for the remainder of the TIA on pages 40-41. See AR 417-545.
190. The revised TIA submitted for the current project ("TIA") states that it omitted the
emergency evacuation analysis, at the request of the City; but inexplicably includes pages 3-5 of
the evacuation analysis on pages 37-39. The final conclusions for the remainder of the TIA are
stated on pages 35-36, but are erroneously repeated on pages 40-41. See Exhibit 12.
191. The TIA considered the total traffic impacts from the two projects, in conjunction with
other traffic in the area, at the time of build-out in 2010. This included adding in an "ambient"
traffic growth rate of 1% per year, over a 6-year period. The ambient rate is intended to capture
anticipated traffic growth that cannot be attributed to an identified development project that is
approved, but not yet built out.
192. The TIA also considered two "background" projects in the area. This included the 83-lot
Mica View Estates project; and 48 adjacent acreage parcels located to the south and west that
were divided years ago through the certificate of exemption process. See Exhibit 12, p. 21; and
Exhibit 12, technical appendix, "background project traffic". The 48 parcels include the
certificate of exemption parcels conditioned by County Resolution No. 95-0573A, as referenced
above. See AR 1736-1738.
193. The TIA analyzed the traffic impacts generated at area road intersections scoped by the
County and the City. The TIA estimated the level of service (LOS) at such intersections, at the
time of project build-out in 2010, would be LOS A or B; with the exception of the signalized
intersection of Dishman-Mica and Schafer/University, which was forecast at LOS C in the AM
peak hour in 2010.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 25
•
194. The TIA did not consider the traffic impacts generated by the 45-lot preliminary plat of
= Ponderosa Estates North (City File No. REZ-23-04/SUB-15-04); or the 30-unit approved
preliminary plat of Inverary (City File No. ZE-46A-90/SUB-05-05), now a final plat. This was
because the applications for such projects were submitted after the current project and Ponderosa
Ridge project, and such later projects would be required to consider the traffic impacts from the
current project and the Ponderosa Ridge project. See testimony of Todd Whipple, and AR 434.
195. The Inverary TIA considered the traffic impacts from the current project, the Ponderosa
Ridge project, the Ponderosa Estates North project, the background projects considered in the
current TIA, and ambient traffic growth. This did not include a fire evacuation analysis.
196. The Inverary TIA concluded that the level of service at the intersection of Dishman-Mica
and Schafer/University during the AM peak hour would remain at an acceptable LOS C, with.
capacity to spare; and all other intersections in the area would remain at an acceptable LOS. See
decision in City File No. ZE-46A-90/SUB-05-05, FF#71 and 74; testimony of Todd Whipple at
current hearing; and RP 190.
197. On May 4, 2007, City Engineering certified in writing that the current project complied with
that the transportation concurrency requirements of the City Phase I Development Regulations.
See project file. On May 27, 2005, County Engineering certified that transportation concurrency
requirements were met for the Ponderosa Ridge project, under the County Phase 2 Development
Regulations. See AR 875-879, particularly condition#30 on AR 879.
198. The TIA concluded that the project would have no traffic impacts to the City or County
public transportation system that would require mitigation by the applicant, including off-site
mitigation for students walking to Ponderosa Elementary School. However, the executive
summary for the TIA noted the concerns expressed by the Central Valley School District
regarding the safety of children walking to Ponderosa Elementary School, and stated that "...a
walkway will be constructed on 44t''Avenue between the site and Woodruff" See Exhibit 12, p.
1.
199. Central Valley School District requested that the applicant install a curbed sidewalk
or a hard-surfaced walking path along 44th Avenue, between Woodruff Road and the site.
A paved pedestrian pathway already exists adjacent to the west side of Woodruff Road,
between 44th Avenue and Cimmaron Drive, to the location of Ponderosa Elementary
School. See Exhibit 17, letter dated 6-13-05.
200. The Ponderosa Ridge decision required the plat sponsor to construct a 5-foot wide
asphalt pedestrian pathway on the south side of 44th Avenue, from the east edge of the
Ponderosa Ridge site to Woodruff Road, subject to certain specifications. The decision
allowed the sponsor to delay construction of the portion of the pathway lying between
Farr Road and Woodruff Road, until issuance of the 65th building permit for a single-
family home in such development.
201. The Ponderosa Ridge decision authorized the plat sponsor and the City to agree on
alternative mitigation for providing pedestrian access along 44t''Avenue to Woodruff
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 26
Road, considering pedestrian access requirements that may be imposed by the
current project.
0
202. The Ponderosa Ridge decision also authorized modification of the sponsor's
responsibility to construct the off site pathway along 441h Avenue; based on the
requirements imposed for the current project, or on road improvements made through
formation of a road improvement district (RID) or installation of a County sewer
project along 44th Avenue. See AR 67-70.
203. City Engineering condition #10, on page 12 of the Staff Report, requires the
installation of curb and sidewalk along the frontage of the site with 44th Avenue. This
conflicts with City Engineering condition#22, on page 13 of the Staff Report, which
provides for construction of a pedestrian path along the frontage of the site (as well as off-
site east to Farr-Road). The reference to the "west" edge of the plat boundary in.
condition#22 should be revised to "east", since the pathway is intended to be an off-site
improvement and not to replace frontage improvements.
204. City Engineering condition #23 on page 13 of the Staff Report delays construction
of the pedestrian pathway between Fan Road and Woodruff Road until completion of the
"first phase of the final plat". However, such timing is ambiguous, because page 6 of the
PUD site plan advises that the preliminary plat will be completed in a single phase.
205. To make the timing of City Engineering condition#23 consistent with the
pedestrian pathway requirements imposed on the Ponderosa Ridge project, the extension
of the pathway between Fan Road and Woodruff Road could be triggered at the
time of issuance of a building permit for the 531d lot in the current ro'ect. The 53'd lot in
P J
the current 81-lot project is proportionate to the 65 th lot for the 100-lot Ponderosa Ridge
project.
206. City Engineering conditions do not require the private roadway system in the
project to connect to Fan Road; although such connection is feasible by connecting
proposed 45th Lane to 45th Avenue, and/or extending a stub road between proposed 47th
Lane and Fan Road.
207. City Engineering condition#19, on page 13 of the Staff Report, requires the
applicant to install a private cul-de-sac at the east end of 45th Lane, adjacent to 45th
Avenue. The preliminary plat map shows a hammerhead turnaround at the east end
of proposed 47th Lane.
208. The applicant indicated that its plans for the easterly termini of 45t''Lane and 47t''
Lane in the project are unclear, and could include hammerhead turnarounds, cul-de-sacs,
or connections or extensions to Fan Road; and that it would like to preserve flexibility
regarding such options. See testimony of Cliff Cameron and Todd Whipple, and page 5 of
Exhibit 20.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 27
I
209. The City Road Standards require the construction of a standard cul-de-sac at the
end of a private road; but allow alternate, hammerhead-type turnarounds "...when the
terrain precludes the use of standard cul-de-sac." See Section 3.17 on page 3-16 of City
Road Standards, and Plan A-10a in Standard Plans section of City Road Standards. City
Engineering condition#19 should be amended to allow such alternatives, if approved by
the City.
210. The original preliminary plat map submitted for the project showed the internal
roadway system in the project connecting to Fan-Road via both proposed 45th Lane and
proposed 47th Lane. The preliminary plat/PUD application also indicated that the internal
road system would connect to 45th Avenue and 47th Avenue. See Exhibit 5, p. 2.
211. Access from the project to Fan-Road may be desirable for both traffic circulation
and fire access. However, the steepness of the downhill grade on Fan- Road, 45th Avenue
and/or a stub road connection to 47`x'Avenue may have factored into City Engineering's
decision not to require such connection in its conditions of approval.
212. If the Ponderosa Ridge project is not developed, a connection to Farr Road would
be necessary for the project under Section 1.03(8) of the City Road Standards and the
provisions of the 2003 International Fire Code adopted by the City(see discussion below).
213. Neighboring property owners raised various concerns regarding steep grades
and/or poor sight distance at the intersections of Farr Road/44`h Avenue and Schafer
Road/Cimmaron Road, the narrowness of the public roads in the area, and the lack of
sidewalks in the area.
214. The SEPA appellant, Ponderosa Neighborhood Association, submitted a copy of a June 6,
2005 report from Robert Bernstein, a qualified professional traffic engineer. Such report was also
submitted during the proceedings on the Ponderosa Ridge project. See AR 733-742, 1826-1835.
Bernstein also testified during the Ponderosa Ridge proceedings. See RP 262-293.
215. 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. This was 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. Bernstein
found sight distance to be inadequate for general traffic and school busses at the intersection of
Cimmaron and Schafer, and that such intersection would be made more unsafe by the increased
traffic from the Ponderosa Ridge project and the current project.
216. Todd Whipple, the applicant's traffic engineer, responded in detail to Bernstein's
contentions; in a letter to the County Hearing Examiner dated June 8, 2005, in County File No.
PE-1940-04 (Ponderosa Ridge). See AR 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 the increased traffic
from development.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 28
A
217. Todd Whipple, in a letter submitted on December 17, 2004 for the Ponderosa Ridge project,
advised 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
grade, at the time they were constructed; and the roads had ample capacity to accommodate the
increased traffic for development. See AR 363-373; and Exhibit 12, p. 10-15, and 36.
218. The TIA for the current project lists accident data for the major intersections in the vicinity,
for a 2.5-year period of time between 2002 and June of 2004. Such data showed that no fatalities
occurring at the study intersections during this time period; but did not provide a qualitative
assessment of the data, because this was not requested by City Engineering. The TIA also
advised that no accidents had been reported at the intersection of 44th Avenue and Farr Road
during the evaluation period. See Exhibit 12, p. 9-15
219. On November 24, 2004, TRANSPO, a traffic engineering consultant retained by the City,
advised City Engineering that based on its review of the TIA, the current project met applicable
City traffic operations standards; subject to consideration of a pedestrian pathway along 44`x'
Avenue. See AR 375-377, and 1516-1518. The City reached a similar conclusion, in a letter
dated May 24, 2005. See Exhibit 30, tab 29.
220. There is insufficient traffic engineering evidence in the record to establish that the accident
rate at area road intersections exceeds current standards; the project will result in current
standards being exceeded; or that there is a need for the applicant to mitigate sight distance,
grades or safety concerns at such intersections to accommodate normal traffic generation.
221. The project, as conditioned, meets the transportation concurrency requirements of the City
Phase I Development Regulations.
0. Provisions for Emergency/Fire Access and Safety
(1) Preparation of fire evacuation analysis for Ponderosa Ridge/Ponderosa PUD projects
222. On July 14, 2004, the City Planning Division held a technical review meeting on the current
project; which was attended by City planning and engineering staff, City police staff, the applicant,
Todd Whipple, and Interim Chief Dan Blystone and Lieutenant Tim Archer of County Fire
District 8.
223. During the meeting, County Fire District 8 staff advised that it was in the process of drafting
an evacuation study for the Ponderosa area, along with the City police department; including an
analysis of the traffic study prepared for the project. Fire District 8 staff also recommended
certain conditions of approval for the project. See memorandum dated 7-23-04 from Micki
Harnois to Marina Sukup, of City Community Development Department, in project file.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 29
224. On July 22, 2004, County Fire District 8 staff submitted written conditions of approval for
the current project and the Ponderosa Ridge project. The conditions required the completion of
an evacuation study to "...determine the ability to safely evacuate residents using the existing
access routes (Schafer and Sands/Bowdish)", as approved by Fire District 8 and other applicable
agencies. See AR 1311.
225. The Fire District 8 conditions recommended that the traffic study for the two projects cover
the need for an evacuation and the capability of the road system exiting the Ponderosa area to
handle 5,000 to 6,000 vehicles, within a set period of time. See AR 1311
226. The Fire District 8 conditions also 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, a minimum
of 30 feet of green space be left to buffer homes from the threat of fire, 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.
227. To facilitate preparation of the evacuation plan, Lieutenant Archer of Fire District 8
prepared an analysis referenced as the "Ponderosa Neighborhood Emergency Overview", dated
July of 2004; and a draft "Ponderosa Evacuation Plan", dated August of 2004. At the time,
Archer served as the district's fire prevention officer. See AR 1296-1314; RP 168-169; and RP
497, lines 10-12.
228. Todd Whipple, the applicant's traffic engineer, prepared a fire evacuation analysis for the
Ponderosa area, with the assistance of Lieutenant Archer. This was included in the TIA submitted
for both projects on September 24, 2004.
229. Todd Whipple considered the documents prepared by Lieutenant Archer; two additional
documents provided by Archer, i.e. the Fire Storm '91 Case Study prepared by the National Fire
Protection Association, and the 2000 Urban Wildland Interface Code; and other reference
documents. See p. 1217-1247. 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 RP 168-175.
230. To prepare the evacuation analysis, Todd Whipple created an evacuation model using
"Synchro 6" ("Synchro") traffic engineering computer software; which uses procedures from the
AASHTO Highway Capacity Manual, the authoritative manual for traffic engineering studies
prepared for local governments. Such software is intended only for normal traffic studies, and
relies on modeling peak hour traffic (AM and/or PM) based on traffic counts taken during the
peak hour.
231. Todd Whipple also utilized a"SimTraffic" module in the Synchro software, to provide a
visual simulation of the traffic flow along the route of ingress and egress in the anticipated
evacuation conditions. This included the use of algorithms; and the inputting of traffic volumes,
intersection levels of service, and delay associated with the level of service calculations obtained
from the Synchro data.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 30
AAJ
I
232. Todd Whipple prepared a compact disk (CD) of the electronic data from the Synchro and
SimTraffic analyses, as referenced above, including a video of the SimTraffic traffic flow
simulation. The electronic data is reproducible on paper using traffic engineering software, but
the SimTraffic video is not. See RP 182-187, AR 456, and Exhibit 41.
233. Lieutenant Archer of Fire District 8 reviewed and commented on the lire evacuation analysis
drafted by Todd Whipple, and favorably received the final draft of the analysis contained in the
Ponderosa Ridge TIA. See RP 179-180. Archer also viewed the SimTraffic video on the CD
prepared for the evacuation analysis. See AR 2222; and Exhibit 44, p. 5 of letter dated 11-16-04
from Todd Whipple to City Engineering(18'page ei7•oneously dated "October 16, 2004").
234. On November 5, 2004, TRANSPO, a traffic engineering consultant retained by the City,
advised that the evacuation analysis in the TIA referenced a"traffic model" that was used to
evaluate emergency evacuation conditions, but failed to include the outputs from the model in the
technical appendix of the TIA.
235. TRANSPO recommended that the applicant be required to provide additional detail
regarding the fire district's evacuation plan and the impact of the project, including an evaluation
of the level of service (LOS) at the intersections of Dishman-Mica and Schafer, and Dishman-
Mica and Bowdish, under evacuation conditions. See AR 2245.
236. On November 24, 2004, TRANSPO recommended that the City obtain a letter from Fire
District 8 and the City police department indicating that such agencies had reviewed the fire
evacuation analysis prepared by Todd Whipple, and were satisfied that the current project would
not overburden first responders in the event of an emergency; considering such agencies would be
responsible for evacuating residents in such event. See AR 375-377, and 1516-1518.
237. On December 7, 2004, City Engineering requested that Todd Whipple obtain written
approval of the fire evacuation analysis from then City Police Chief Cal Walker, and from Bill
Walkup, the new chief of Fire District 8. See AR 374.
238. Deputy Chief Blystone of County Fire District 8 requested Scott Engelhard of County
Engineering staff to examine the CD prepared for the evacuation analysis, since the District did
not have the technology to examine the electronic files on the CD.
239. On December 15, 2004, Scott Engelhard advised Deputy Chief Blystone of Fire District 8,
in a brief letter, that County Engineering had reviewed the fire evacuation analysis, found that
"...the assumptions for the evaluation are conservative in nature and that acceptable levels of
service are maintained...", and accepted the results and recommendations for the evaluation.
Engelhard also corroborated that "levels of service were met" for evacuation of the area, without
going into any detail, at the Ponderosa Ridge hearing. See AR 898, and RP 155-165.
240. On January 25, 2005, Marina Sukup, Director of the City Community Development
Department, advised the applicant that mitigation of the effects of a natural disasters in the
Ponderosa area, including access issues associated with the risks of wildfire, a freight line carrying
hazardous materials and the Chester Creek floodplain, needed to be addressed; and would require
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 31
f
P
the involvement of Fire Districts 8 and 1, and the local water district. Sukup also advised that the
City and the County were responsible for preparing a Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, to qualify
for disaster relief under federal law. See letter dated 1-25-05 from Marina Sukup to Cliff
Cameron, in project file.
241. On January 27, 2005, City Engineering staff advised Todd Whipple, by telephone, that it
would allow the TIA for the current project to be submitted without the 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 TIA. See letter dated 2-3-05 from Todd Whipple to
John Hohman, in project file.
242. On January 28, 2005, Whipple finalized the TIA for the two projects, as indicated above.
This included minor modifications to the fire evacuation analysis contained in the Ponderosa
Ridge TIA, and removal of the fire evacuation analysis from the TIA for the current project..
243. On April 8, 2005, Chief Walkup of Fire District 8 responded in writing to concerns raised by
Chuck Hafner, an area resident, regarding the fire evacuation analysis. Walkup advised that the
district did not have a copy of any detailed analysis or maps of the evacuation model, other than
that contained in the TIA; did not have written adopted 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
evacuation analysis; Whipple should have been directed to work with law enforcement agencies in
developing an evacuation analysis for the Ponderosa; and the District routinely relied on the
expertise of other government agencies relative to traffic flow, movement and level of service.
See AR 2221-2223.
244. Chief Walkup's letter also advised that Fire District 9 and Fire District 1 had learned a
number of valuable lessons from the 1991 firestorm; and such agencies 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. The letter did not provide any
details regarding such alternative strategies.
245. On April 20, 2005, the Board of Fire Commissioners for County Fire District 1 submitted a
letter to City Engineering; which noted 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(31d)
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. ,
246. On April 22, 2005, the Board of Fire Commissioners for County Fire District 8 submitted a
letter to the City and County Planning Departments, advising that citizens in the Ponderosa area
had expressed concern regarding traffic and evacuation, related to their experience with the 1991
firestorm; and the Board had reviewed the information provided by a citizen's group.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 32
1
247. The Board for Fire District 8 also advised that it understood the traffic studies submitted by
the applicant's engineer and the City's engineering consultant indicated that the additional
development proposed in the Ponderosa area would not degrade levels of service at area
intersections below unacceptable levels; but that the Board's past experience indicated that such
studies did not likely consider the impacts of emergency situations on access, or the cumulative
impacts from development. The Board 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 AR 1739, and 2,238.
248. On May 20, 2005, a fire inspector for County Fire District 1 submitted conditions of
approval for the Ponderosa Ridge project to Spokane County; which addressed hydrant spacing
and the adequacy of fire apparatus turnarounds; but did not comment on the fire evacuation
analysis or fire access issues affecting the greater Ponderosa area. See AR 885.
249. On May 24, 2005, City Engineering advised the applicant that its review of the project did
not include the fire evacuation analysis, and that fire safety and evacuation issues for the
Ponderosa area would need to be addressed through Marina Sukup, the Director of the City
Community Development Department. See Exhibit 30, tab 29.
250. On June 8-9, 2005, the County Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the
Ponderosa Ridge project. Prior to the hearing, the City and the Ponderosa Neighborhood
Association filed separate appeals of the Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) issued for such
project. See AR 706-758, and AR 709-763.
251. 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 TIA. Sukup testified that County Fire Districts 1 and 8 had not
accepted the evacuation study, based on a conversation with Chief Walkup, and the April of 2005
letters submitted by the two fire district boards.
252. Marina Sukup also testified at such hearing that wildfire evacuation in the Ponderosa area
needed to be considered as part of a natural hazard mitigation plan that the City and County were
required to formulate under federal law, 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, including the failure to address the evacuation of Ponderosa Elementary
School during an emergency. See RP 71-76, 90-97, 112 and 533-548.
253. During the Ponderosa Ridge public hearing, Todd Whipple submitted a copy of the CD
prepared for the fire evacuation analysis. The CD was not made part of the County Planning
Department's file for the Ponderosa Ridge project, prior to the hearing. See RP 183-187, and AR
545A.
254. 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 Certification of Record by County Hearing Examiner, in County File No. PE-1940-04, item 4
on page 2.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 33
)
255. The CD was not provided to City Engineering or its traffic consultant, TRANSPO; or made
part of the file for the current project. See AR 2245; and Exhibit 44, p. 5 of letter dated 11-16-04
from Todd Whipple to City Engineering.
256. On August 5, 2005, the County Hearing Examiner approved the Ponderosa Ridge project,
subject to conditions, as described above; and denied the SEPA appeals that had been filed by the
City and the Ponderosa Neighborhood Association.
257. In 2006, PNA submitted a printout of portions of the Synchro and SimTraffic data on the
CD, exclusive of the SimTraffic video, to the Washington State Court of Appeals, in support of
its appeal of the Ponderosa Ridge decision. PNA also submitted such data during the current
proceedings. See Exhibits 44 and 38.
258. On November 22, 2005, Marina Sukup of the City Community Development Department
advised the applicant that the environmental checklist for the project was deficient, in part,
because the impact of the project on emergency access needed to be evaluated by County Fire
Districts 8 and 1, and local law enforcement. See Sukup letter to Cliff Cameron dated 11-22-05.
Also see Exhibit 34, letter dated 11-18-05 from Mike Murphy to Micki Harnois, and letter dated
11-29-05 from City Attorney Mike Connelly to applicant; in project file.
259. On February 7, 2007, the applicant submitted a revised SEPA checklist for the project. The
revised checklist advised that no special emergency services beyond typical police and fire
protection are anticipated to be required for the project. The revised checklist cited findings of
fact #139-151 of the County Hearing Examiner's decision on the Ponderosa Ridge project,
regarding the fire evacuation analysis; and citing the condition of approval in the decision
requiring the applicant to assist County Fire District 8 in developing an emergency evacuation
plan for the project, if requested by the district. See SEPA checklist submitted on 2-7-07, p. 13;
and Ponderosa Ridge Decision, p. 21-24, and 40.
260. On June 4, 2007, the Board of Fire Commissioners for County Fire District 1 (Spokane
Valley Fire Department) formally adopted Resolution No. 2007-284; which resolved as follows:
"That the Spokane Valley Fire Department recommends to the City and County Building
Departments, that no further development be allowed in the Ponderosa Neighborhood until a
third public ingress/egress be constructed". The Board directed that a copy of the resolution be
forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. See copy of resolution attached to Exhibit 23,
("Appellant's Brief').
261. The recitals in Fire District 1 Resolution No. 2007-284 find that the 1991 firestorm event
demonstrated 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 (31d) public ingress and egress would help alleviate emergency
congestion in the event of disaster.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 34
262. The report submitted by Fire District 1 staff to the Board of Fire Commissioners indicated
that Resolution No. 2007-284 was recommended for adoption by Fire Chief Mike Thompson;
referenced the concerns expressed by the Board for fire and emergency access in the Ponderosa
area in its April 20, 2005 letter to the City; and recommended that the resolution be disseminated
to the news media. See Exhibit 26, tab#7.
263. On June 4, 2007, Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich addressed a letter to the
Spokane Valley City Council, expressing support for Fire District 1 Resolution No. 2007-284;
and concurring with Fire District 1 that no further development be allowed in the Ponderosa
neighborhood until a third(31d) public access is constructed. See Exhibit 26, tab#8.
264. On June 15, 2007, the City Community Development Department issued an MDNS for the
current project. The Department's written review of the SEPA checklist, issued on the same date,
agreed with the checklist that no emergency services beyond typical police and fire protection are
anticipated to be required for the project; and noted no concerns for public services. See Review
of Lead Agency Environmental Checklist Review dated 6-15-07, items 7A and 15 on p. 4-5.
265. The environmental checklist, and MDNS issued for the current project were provided to
County Fire Districts 1 and 8; but were not circulated to the City Police Chief or the County
Sheriff. 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.
266. On June 29, 2007, PNA appealed the MDNS as indicated above. The appeal includes a
challenge to the fire evacuation analysis included in the Ponderosa Ridge TIA.
267. The project file does not include a copy of Fire District 1 Resolution No. 2007-284, or
Sheriff Knezovich's letter; even though they were provided to the City over two (2) months
before the August 9, 2007 public hearing scheduled on the project. The revised environmental
checklist, the MDNS and the Staff Report do not reference such documents. The Staff Report,
dated July 31, 2007, contains no conditions of approval from County Fire Districts 1 or 8 for the
project; and no conditions that address fire/emergency access or fire prevention for the project.
268. The applicant, at the public hearing held in the current matter on July 31, 2007, proposed
the adoption of special covenants and design requirements for the project, to protect the
residences developed on the site from wildfire. See Exhibit 30, tab#26.
269. Local law enforcement, fire districts and citizens are currently working on a natural hazards
disaster mitigation plan for Spokane County, as required by FEMA to obtain disaster relief
funding. This includes County Sheriff Knezovich, County emergency management personnel,
Chief Walkup of Fire District 8, Chief Thompson of Fire District 1 and citizens in the Ponderosa
area.
270. County Sheriff Knezovich is currently working on an emergency evacuation plan for the
Ponderosa area, which plan has not been completed. Such planning includes a discussion of
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-o4-04/APP-04-07 Page 35
issues associated with the 1991 firestorm in the Ponderosa area, and possible routes for a third
access road out of the Ponderosa area. See testimony of Margaret Mortz.
(2) Fire/Emergency Access provisions in City Codes
271. PNA contended that the table in Section 1.03(8) of the City Road Standards applies to the
cumulative number of lots accessing a road(s) located outside a proposed subdivision, added to
the number of lots in the proposed subdivision generating traffic along such road(s).
272. PNA contended that the project violates Section 1.03(8) of the City Road Standards;
because up to 220 existing and proposed homes, including the current project and Ponderosa
Ridge, depend on one (1) access road, 44t''Avenue, to access the area.
273. PNA also noted that there is only one access road, Schafer Road, out of the Ponderosa area
for the west one-half(1/2) of the Ponderosa area(i.e. west of Van Marter Road), and only one
(1) additional access road out of the Ponderosa area for the remainder of the Ponderosa area. See
Exhibit 23, p. 11-12.
274. 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, and/or is also intended to consider the density of neighboring housing.
275. Section 1.03(8) of the City Road Standards is not a model of clarity; and its wording can be
interpreted to apply to the number of lots located along an access road within a proposed
development, as well as the number of lots located along the extension of the road outside the
development.
276. Claude Wells, a retired deputy chief of County Fire District 8, testified on behalf of the
applicant during the Ponderosa Ridge proceedings. Wells testified that Section 1.03(8) of the
City Road Standards allows consideration of the adequacy of access roads leading into and out of
a neighborhood that abuts a proposed development, as well as the access roads located inside and
immediately outside the development; for fire/emergency access. See RP 493-494, and 499-500.
277. Once the threshold of lots in the table is met, or the fire district finds that a second access
road is necessary regardless of the table, the only mitigation that can be required for a proposed
subdivision under Section 1.03(8) of the City Road Standards is the provision of another access
road into the development to serve fire vehicles.
278. The table in Section 1.03(8) of the City Road Standards becomes ambiguous or impossible
to apply once an access road leaves a development, and begins connecting to other access roads
that lead away from the development. For example, 44th Avenue connects easterly within a few
blocks to south Farr Road and south Woodruff Road, which roads provide southerly routes to
Holman Road and points east and northeast; and connects easterly to north Woodruff Road,
which provides an alternate route to Schafer Road via Cimmaron Drive.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 36
1
]
279. The applicant contended that the reference to "access road" in Section 1.03(8) of the City
Road Standards cannot be applied to a collector street, such as 44th Avenue, or an arterial. See
Exhibit 32 (Applicant's Brief), p. 13; and Section 1.12(2-4). However, the reference to "access
road" appears to apply to any road that provides direct access into, out of or within a
development. If a designated collector street or arterial is constructed through a development, as
is sometimes the case, Section 1.03(8) of the City Road Standards would clearly apply to it.
280. The housing densities of the project, the Ponderosa Ridge project, and the small subdivision
located north of the site across 44th Avenue each exceed a density of 1.99 dwelling units per acre.
Since the proposal itself contains 81 lots, the table set forth in Section 1.03(8) of the City Road
Standards requires a second access road into the preliminary plat.
281. Proposed Locust Lane in the project provides one (1) access road into the preliminary plat,
via 44th Avenue. Proposed 46th Lane and proposed 48th Lane provide additional access roads into
the project from the east, if the Ponderosa Ridge project is built out. If the Ponderosa Ridge
project is not built out, proposed 45th Lane could be connected to 45th Avenue, or proposed 47th
Lane could be extended to Farr Road; to provide a second access road for the project.
282. In 2004, the City adopted the 2003 International Fire Code (IFC). The City also adopted
Appendix D (fire apparatus access roads) to such code; subject to an amendment that fire
apparatus access roads must also comply with other relevant requirements of the 2003 IFC,
including Section 503 (fire apparatus access roads). See SVMC 10.15.010.C, and 10.15.030.D.
The Examiner takes notice of such regulations, and has included copies of such provisions in the
record for illustrative purposes.
283. Section D107 of Appendix D to the 2003 IFC states, in pertinent part: "Developments of
one- or two-family dwellings where the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 shall be provided
with separate and approved fire apparatus access roads, and shall meet the requirements of
Section D104.3."
284. Section 501 of the IFC defines a"fire apparatus access road" as follows: "A road that
provides fire apparatus access from a fire station to a facility, building or portion thereof This
is a general term inclusive of all other terms such as fire lane,public street,parking lot lane and
access roadway."
285. Section D104.3 of Appendix D to the 2003 IFC states the following "remoteness"
requirement for second access roads: "Where two access roads are required, they shall be placed
a distance apart equal to [but] not less than one-half the length of the maximum overall diagonal
dimension of the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses."
286. Section D107.1 of Appendix D provides 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."
287. Section 503.1.2 of the 2003 IFC contains various requirements for fire apparatus access
roads; including the following "additional access" provision: "The fire code official is authorized
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 37
to require more than one (1)fire apparatus access road based on the potential for impairment of
a single road by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions or other factors
that could limit access."
288. The table in Section 1.03(8) of the City Road Standards, and Section D107 in Appendix D
of the 2003 IFC, each appear intended to ensure adequate access roads for fire/emergency
vehicles directly into, or within, 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. Such provisions do not directly focus on resident egress in a fire
or emergency, including community egress issues. See Exhibit 46, article by Professor Thomas
Cova in Natural Hazards Review, p. 102, "Community Egress Codes".
289. The authority vested in fire districts, in Section 1.03(8) of the City Road Standards, to
approve the location of the second access road into the proposed subdivision; and to overrule the
table where it determines there is a safety concern, based on the location and layout of the
development; appears to allow the fire district some consideration of fire/emergency access
concerns presented outside a development. Section 503.1 of the 2003 IFC, adopted by the City,
appears to grant similar authority.
(3) Fire Access concerns for the Project
290. Fires in the Ponderosa area typically arise out of the forested mountainous areas located to
the south and west, and can also be sparked along the railroad tracks that parallel Dishman-Mica
Road in the area.
291. Major fire incidents occurred in the Tower Mountain area in 1984, and in the Brown's
Mountain area in 1985; in addition to the 1991 firestorm. The 1984 fire went right through the
subject property, while the 1985 and 1991 fires went through the same valley where the site is
located. See AR 1300; RP 451-452 and 483; Exhibit 31; and Exhibit 44, letter dated 11-16-04
from Todd Whipple to City Engineering, p. 9.
292. Evacuation of the Ponderosa area for the 1991 firestorm was complicated by poor visibility,
multiple fires, fire-spotting, and the overwhelming of public resources initially devoted to the fire.
Public safety personnel could not tell how fast the fire was coming, and exactly where it was
coming from.
293. Firefighting efforts were also hampered by residents not heeding the recommendation of fire
officials, or the 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.
294. During the Ponderosa firestorm, the main access roads out of the area, including Schafer
Road and Dishman-Mica Road, became congested with bumper-to-bumper traffic; and traffic was
blocked at times by law enforcement. Low visibility due to smoke and dust impeded evacuation,
because some drivers could not see in front of them. Several residents drove into the area to try
and save their homes, belongings or pets. See AR 205, 454-455, 1033-1006, 1043-1044, 1060-
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 38
1061, 1066, 1138, 1217-1247, 1306-1307, 1507-1511, 1873, 1875 and 2036-2037; Exhibit 26,
tab#9; and Exhibit 45, colorized photos of"Firestorm `91 Ponderosa",
295. The Ponderosa area has a significant risk of another wildfire event, as noted in the
evacuation analysis contained in the Ponderosa Ridge TIA, Fire Districts 1 and 8, and the
applicant's fire consultant. See AR 207, 505, 884 and 1298.
296. While the current project and the Ponderosa Ridge project are both located in Fire District
8, the entire evacuation route between 44th Avenue and Dishman-Mica Road passes through Fire
District 1. Emergency evacuation of the Ponderosa area is the primary responsibility of the
County Sheriff and the City Police Chief. See AR 456, 1309, 2221-2222, and RP 465. However,
Fire District 1 and law enforcement did not review the evacuation analysis contained in the TIA.
(4) Flaws in Fire Evacuation Analysis included in the Ponderosa Ridge TIA
297. The fire evacuation analysis in the Ponderosa Ridge TIA claimed to have studied the
complete evacuation of 1,281 "existing"homes in the Ponderosa area, that rely on Bowdish Road
or Schafer Road to enter or exit the area via Dishman-Mica Road. See AR 456.
298. Prior to submittal of the original TIA on September 21, 2004, County Fire District 8 advised
Todd Whipple, the applicant's traffic engineer, that there were roughly 1,281 residential units in
the greater Ponderosa area. See AR 183, 363-364 and 433.
299. During the current proceedings, Todd Whipple testified that the figure of 1,281 homes
included the existing homes in the Ponderosa, plus the undeveloped lots in the "background
projects" considered by the TIA. The "background projects" include the 83-unit Mica View
Estates project, and the 48 certificate of exemption parcels referenced in the TIA; for a total of
131 units. See AR 440.
300. Todd Whipple testified that the 1,281 units did not include the current project; or the
Ponderosa Ridge, Inveraiy or Ponderosa Estates North projects.
301. Todd Whipple also testified during the current proceedings that Fire District 8 had initially
given him a figure of 1,024 "existing homes" in the Ponderosa area. Adding this figure to the 131
units in the background projects yields only 1,155 lots.
302. The figure of 1,024 existing homes appears nowhere else in the record. Janice Cooperstein,
in comments submitted to Todd Whipple dated October 31, 2004, stated there were 1,023
existing homes in the Ponderosa, based on a plot plan map and visual inspection that she
submitted. See AR 363.
303. On April 6, 2005, employees of Spokane Community College and Spokane County
completed a parcel and population analysis of the parcels in the Ponderosa area whose sole egress
was Dishman-Mica Road, referenced as the "fire evacuation area". This was done using County
Assessor parcel maps and a field survey of developed lots conducted by area residents. The
analysis found that there were approximately 1,187 existing lots in the fire evacuation analysis
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 39
v U
area, of which approximately 1,063 were developed with homes. See Exhibit 26, tab 10
(colorized map of parcels with houses built since 1991 and potential future development in
Ponderosa area); also found in AR 2193, and Exhibit 30, tab 3.
304. The April 6, 2005 analysis found that there were an additional 348 lots proposed for
development in the "fire evacuation area". This included the current, Ponderosa Ridge, Mica
View Estates and Inverary projects; a 4-lot preliminary short plat; and an 8-lot preliminary short
plat. The analysis underestimated the number of dwellings in the Inverary project at 15 units,
since such project has a total of 30 lots and units.
305. If the 83 units in the Mica View project are added to the 1,187 existing lots identified by the
April 6, 2005 study, the total would be 1,270 approved lots in the Ponderosa area; excluding the
Inverary project. This is a difference of only 11 lots from the figure of 1,281 units identified by
Fire District 8.
306. The "fire evacuation area" referenced in the April 6, 2005 study does not include several of
the certificate of exemption parcels that are part of the group of 48 certificate of exemption
parcels identified as a"background project" in the TIA. Such omitted parcels are served by
private roads extended southwesterly off Ponderosa Lane and Pierce Road. The addition of these
lots would provide a count of approximately 1,281 approved lots in the Ponderosa area
(excluding the Inverary project). Compare center of south border of"fire evacuation area",
illustrated on Exhibit 30, tab 3, with the parcels illustrated in center of south border, on County
parcel map in Exhibit 48 (printed off County internet site on 8-1-07).
307. Based on the above information, 1,281 lots is a reasonably accurate estimate of the number
of lots developed with existing homes, together with the lots approved but not yet developed with
homes, in the Ponderosa area; excluding the lots approved in the Ponderosa Ridge and Inverary
projects. The 1,281 lots include the undeveloped lots in the background projects referenced in the
TIA, but exclude the proposed housing in the current project and the Ponderosa Estates North
projects.
308. The traffic model described in the fire evacuation analysis assumed that there are two (2)
vehicles evacuating for each of the 1,281 housing units, or 2,562 vehicles; and that there is a
uniform notice to evacuate, and a uniform departure time for all vehicles to leave, at time 0:00.
See AR 456.
309. The traffic model assumed that 10% of the traffic volume of the exiting traffic consists of
residents trying to get into the neighborhood to reach their homes via the two (2) Dishman-Mica
exits. The traffic model also assumed peak hour traffic volumes at the two (2) intersections
during the evacuation period. See AR-456.
310. The traffic model assumed that all 2,562 vehicles must exit the Ponderosa area through the
two (2) Dishman-Mica exits within 30 minutes, by time 30:00. The analysis logically assumed
that Schafer Road, Bowdish Road, Sands Road, 44t1i Avenue and Van Marter Road would be the
major routes of evacuation. See AR 454-458.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 40
311. The fire evacuation analysis concluded, based on the traffic modeling under Synchro, that
the greatest traffic congestion during the evacuation 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 Cimmaron Drive/Schafer Road should also have
emergency personnel directing traffic. See AR 456-457.
312. Alleged flaws in the fire evacuation analysis are found in the Appellant's Brief, the appellate
briefs submitted by PNA in the Ponderosa Ridge appeal matter, the materials submitted by Janice
Cooperstein on behalf of PNA during the current proceedings, and the testimony of Janice
Cooperstein. This includes copies of letters from traffic engineering consultant Robert Bernstein.
See Exhibits 23, 38-40, and 43-45.
313. Janice Cooperstein, a Ponderosa area resident, indicated that she was a math major in
college, is experienced in market research, and has reviewed traffic studies as a lay person in the
past. See Exhibit 44, p. 4 of summaiy; and Exhibit 44, letter dated 11-16-04 from Todd Whipple
to City Engineering, p. 6.
314. The briefs submitted to the Court of Appeals address numerous issues regarding the fire
evacuation analysis that were not considered during the proceedings on the Ponderosa Ridge
project. Such issues focus primarily on the data stored on the CD submitted by Todd Whipple
during the Ponderosa Ridge project hearing.
315. The only hard data in the record indicating how the fire evacuation results summarized i
Y g n
the Ponderosa Ridge TIA were calculated, and which is reviewable by the Examiner, are the print-
outs of the Synchro and SimTraffic data on the CD supplied by Janice Cooperstein on behalf of
PNA.
316. Todd Whipple, the applicant's traffic engineer, testified during the Ponderosa Ridge hearing
that the CD contained the electronic calculations and the default values that supported the results
of the evacuation analysis contained in the Ponderosa Ridge TIA. See RP 182-187.
317. The Synchro model initially input an average hourly traffic volume of 2,444 vehicles per
hour (vph) exiting the Ponderosa area through the two Dishman-Mica intersections. This
included 1,392 vph exiting the intersection of D-M/Schafer, and 1,052 vph exiting the intersection
of Dishman-Mica/Bowdish. See Exhibit 44, Synchro report, volume inputs on line 21 of pages 1
and 4; with the NEL/NET/NER columns on p. 1 being the exiting movements at the Dishman-
Mica/Schafer intersection, and the NBL/NBT/NBR columns on p. 4 being the exiting movements
at the Dishman-Mica/Bowdish intersection.
318. The Synchro model expressed the initial traffic volume inputs as average hourly trips, since
it operates on a "peak hour" basis. Under the traffic model, all vehicles must exit the area during
the initial 30 minutes of the "peak hour", with no vehicles evacuating during the remaining 30
minutes. In other words, the "traffic count" for the "peak hour" was assumed to be 2,444 exiting
vehicles.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 41
319. The figure of 2,444 exiting vehicles in the Synchro model equates to 1,222 residences
exiting the Ponderosa area during the 30-minute evacuation period (dividing 2,444 vehicles by 2
vehicles/home). This is 59 homes and 118 vehicles less than the 1,281 housing units and the
2,562 vehicles the evacuation analysis stated were analyzed.
320. Peak hour traffic studies using Synchro 6 software generally assume that there is a peak 15
minutes of traffic flow during the peak hour, and that the peak 15 minutes for one traffic
movement within the intersection is the same for all traffic movements within the intersection.
321. The peak 15-minute "analysis period" is used to evaluate the traffic flow, delay and level of
service at an intersection; for each traffic movement and the intersection as a whole, during the
peak 15 minutes of the 1-hour modeling period. This is intended to capture the maximum traffic
impact to an intersection or roadway during the peak hour. See Exhibit 44, letter dated 11-16-04
from Todd Whipple to City Engineering, p. 6.
322. Synchro applies a"peak hour factor"to the average hourly traffic flow, to quantify the
hourly traffic flow rate during the peak 15 minutes of traffic. The peak hour factor (phf) is
defined as the ratio of the average 1-hour traffic flow rate to the hourly flow rate during the peak
15 minutes of the 1-hour period. This can vary for each intersection studied. The lower the phf,
the higher the hourly traffic flow rate during the peak 15 minutes compared to the average 1-hour
flow rate. See Exhibit 48, letter dated 7-18-06 from Robert Bernstein, p. 2.
323. Since all the traffic in the study is evacuated at a constant hourly rate over the 30-minute
evacuation period, and no traffic is evacuated during 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 the hourly rate during the entire 30-minute evacuation period.
324. To reflect the hourly traffic flow rate during the 30-minute (.5 hour) evacuation period, for a
total of 2,444 vehicles, the Synchro model divided a"peak hour factor" (phf) of.5 into the initial
traffic flow inputs for the intersections analyzed in the Synchro model. This was succinctly
explained by Todd Whipple in his December 14, 2004 letter to City Engineering. See AR 371;
and Exhibit 44, letter dated 11-16-04, p. 12.
325. A phf of.5 in a normal traffic study assumes that one-half(1/2) of the hourly traffic will
occur during the peak 15 minutes of the 1-hour period; and equates to an hourly flow rate during
the peak 15 minutes that is double the average hourly flow rate for the 1-hour period. See Exhibit
45, letter dated 7-18-06 from Robert Bernstein, p. 2.
326. Application of a .5 phf to the initial traffic input of 2,444 vph for the two Dishman-Mica
intersections produced an "adjusted flow" rate of 4,888 vehicles per hour in the Synchro 6 model.
See Exhibit 44, Synchro report, adding the inputs on lines 22 and 24 for the NEL/NET/NER
movements on p. 1, to the NBL/NBT/NBR movements on lines 22 and 24 on p. 4. However,
such adjusted hourly flow rate still represents the evacuation of only 2,444 vehicles in 30 minutes
(.5 hour). Also see Whipple calculation on AR 371.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 42
327. During the Ponderosa Ridge proceedings, Todd Whipple erroneously testified that there
were 1,800 homes in the Ponderosa area. See RP 175-176. He then compounded the error by
claiming that application of a .5 phf"essentially doubled" the traffic flow; and that he was in effect
studying the effects of 3,600 homes, or 7,200 vehicles (4 vehicles/per home) evacuating the
Ponderosa area in 30 minutes. See RP 174-183.
328. Todd Whipple's claim that he studied up to 7,200 vehicles was an apparent attempt to show
compliance with the initial requirement of Fire District 8 that the evacuation analysis demonstrate
that 5,000 to 6,000 vehicles could be evacuated from the Ponderosa area within a set period of
time. See AR 566. Such showing was unnecessary, because the fire evacuation analysis was later
(and reasonably) refined by Whipple and Lieutenant Archer of Fire District 8, to require the study
of only two (2) vehicles per housing unit leaving the Ponderosa area in a 30-minute time period.
See AR 456.
329. Application of a .5 phf in the Synchro model was simply a means of reflecting 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 clearly did not "double" the volume of traffic to be evacuated
from the Ponderosa area within 30-minutes, as claimed; but left it the same, at 2,444 total
vehicles.
330. Todd Whipple testified during the Ponderosa Ridge hearing that the traffic model initially
left the existing signal timings for peak hour traffic on at the Dishman-Mica intersections.
Whipple added that when the traffic model showed very long traffic queues at the Dishman-Mica
intersections, particularly at Dishman-Mica/Schafer, he adjusted the traffic model to greatly
increase the "green time" for northbound exiting traffic at the intersection. Whipple advised that
this would entail the use of emergency personnel at the intersections; to control and hold the
traffic lights open longer, and allow a freer flow of traffic out of the neighborhood. See RP 177-
178, AR 434 and AR 456; and Exhibit 44, letter dated 11-16-04, p. 5.
331. The rmodel inputs show the increased"green time"provided to exiting traffic at the two
Dishman-Mica intersections, with nearly 75% of the light cycle time at the Dishman/Schafer
intersection, and 67% of the light cycle time at the Dishman-Mica/Bowdish intersection, reserved
for exiting traffic.
332. The adjustment to the traffic signals in the Synchro model still allowed 10% of the volume
of traffic exiting the neighborhood(i.e. 2,444 vehicles x 10%=244 vehicles) into the
neighborhood before leaving, and some cross traffic. See Exhibit 44, Synchro report, total of 245
vehicles resulting from adding vehicles from the SER/SWT/NWL movements on line p. 1, to the
SBT/EBR/WBL movements on p. 4. Also see RP 177-8, 552 and 559-560; Whipple calculation
on AR 371; and AR 456. Todd Whipple testified at the Ponderosa Ridge hearing that at one
point in the 1991 firestorm evacuation, as many people were trying to get into the Ponderosa area
as leaving. RP 559.
333. Todd Whipple indicated in correspondence with City Engineering that the intent of the
traffic model was to establish a vehicle flow rate for analysis purposes, and that standard "level of
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 43
service" calculations were irrelevant once an intersection was taken over by emergency personnel.
See AR 372; and Exhibit 44, letter dated 11-16-04 from Todd Whipple to City Engineering, p. 5.
334. Todd Whipple, in a letter to City Engineering dated December 14, 2004, confirmed the
applicability of maximum flow rates for roads and intersections under the Highway Capacity
Manual to the evacuation analysis. Whipple stated as follows:
"...Additionally, we have provided SCFD No. 8 with an evacuation evaluation that
demonstrates how all residents exiting with at least 2 cars per residence can leave the
area within 30 minutes from time to notice. We demonstrated to SCFD No. 8 personnel
where the two main constricting points are that will need to be managed by emergency
services personnel or City of Spokane Valley Police Officers. These are Dishrnan-Mica
at Schafer and Bowdish. All other intersections can be adequately managed or allowed
to run without emergency personnel. Ms. Cooperstein needs to understand that roads
and intersections have volume constraints. For roads, this is measured in ADT or
pcphpl(passenger cars per hour per lane) and for intersections only pcphpl. The
Highway Capacity Manual/AASHTO Green Book state 2100-2400 pcphl for roads and
1900 pcphpl for intersections. Roughly speaking, with two single lane exits there is
capacity for 3800 cars to exit the Ponderosa in one hour. Therefore, at 1281 units there
is about a 50%capacity to do just that."
[Emphasis added]. This was in response to a question raised by Janet Cooperstein. See AR 366-
367.
p6
335. The reference to "50% capacity" at the end of the above quotation is confusing. If the
correct math is applied, the combined capacity of 3,800 vph assumed at the two (2) exits would
allow 1,900 cars per 30 minutes to be evacuated. This is approximately 74% of the 2,562
vehicles the evacuation analysis indicated needed to be evacuated, still a significant deficiency.
336. In the same December 14, 2004 letter, Todd Whipple responded to a contention by Janice
Cooperstein that the 2,562 homes from the 1,281 homes could not be evacuated via the two (2)
exits in 30 minutes, because this would require each car to follow the prior car by 1.4 seconds.
In his response, Whipple conceded that the 1,281 homes in the Ponderosa area could not be fully
evacuated in 30 minutes, using the two (2) Dishman-Mica Road exits. See AR 371.
337. The TIA indicates that there are two (2) lanes available for northbound traffic movements at
the intersection of Dishman-Mica/Schafer; a through/right-turn lane (NBT/NBR), and a left-turn
lane (NBL) with 150 feet of storage length. The Synchro model shows an "ideal" flow rate of
1,900 vph for each lane; which it adjusted to a"saturated" flow rate of 1608 vph and 1,642 vph
through the two lanes, respectively. See Exhibit 44, p. 1, lines 2 and 12.
338. Because the Dishman-Mica/Schafer intersection can only be utilized 73-74% of the time by
northbound exiting traffic movements, as shown by the Synchro data to allow for incoming and
cross traffic, the volume of vehicles that can be evacuated under the "ideal" flow rate is reduced
to approximately 1,405 vph, for each intersection lane, or a total of 2,810 vph; and the volume of
vehicles that can be evacuated under the "saturated" flow rate is reduced to approximately 1,190
vph and 1,120 vph for the two lanes, respectively, or a total of 2,310 vph.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 44
339. The above calculations translate to a maximum of 1,405 vehicles that can be evacuated in 30
minutes through the Dishman-Mica/Schafer intersection, under the "ideal" flow rate; and a
maximum of 1,155 vehicles that that can be evacuated through the intersection under the
"saturated" flow rate. This compares to the 1,392 vehicles that the Synchro model is trying to
evacuate through the intersection in 30 minutes.
340. The above figures do not include the 118 vehicles from the 59 "existing" homes that were
omitted from the Synchro model, without explanation. If these vehicles are distributed to the two
Dishman-Mica intersections in the same proportion as the inputted 2,444 vehicles, i.e. 57% to
Dishman-Mica/Schafer, and 43% to Dishman-Mica/Bowdish, an additional 67 vehicles, or a total
of 1,459 vehicles would need to be evacuated through the Dishman-Mica/Schafer intersection in.
30 minutes. This revised total exceeds the volume that can be evacuated under the "ideal" flow
rate by 54 vehicles, and the volume that can be evacuated under the "saturated" flow rate by 304
vehicles.
341. The above figures also do not include the 358 vehicles from the additional 179 housing units
in the current project and Ponderosa Ridge project that would need to be evacuated, if approved
and developed. Based on the TIA, 75% of such traffic, or approximately 268 trips, would pass
through the Dishman-Mica/Schafer intersection; and 25%, or 90 trips would pass through the
Dishman-Mica/Bowdish intersection.
342. Adding in the 268 vehicles from the current project and the Ponderosa Ridge project, the
total number of vehicles that would need to be evacuated through the Dishman-Mica/Schafer
intersection in 30 minutes is 1,727 vehicles. This volume significantly exceeds the 1,405 vehicles
that can be evacuated under the "ideal" flow rate; and the 1,155 vehicles that can be evacuated
under the "saturated" flow rate.
343. If the 60 vehicles from the 30 housing units in the approved Inverary project are added in,
all of which would exit through the Dishman-Mica/Schafer intersection, the total number of
vehicles that would need to be evacuated through the Dishman-Mica/Schafer intersection in 30
minutes during a mass evacuation is 1,787 vehicles. This represents 382 vehicles, or 27%, more
vehicles than can be evacuated under"ideal" flow conditions; and 632 vehicles, or 55%, more
vehicles than can be evacuated under "saturated" conditions.
344. Similar calculations can be made for the intersection of Dishman-Mica and Bowdish, by
employing 67% "green" time at the intersection during the evacuation to the "ideal" and
"saturated" flow (permissive) rates, respectively. This includes adding in the vehicle count from
approximately 43% of the 1,281 homes (i.e. 1,103 vehicles, and from 25% of the 179 additional
housing units (i.e. 90 vehicles) proposed in the current/Ponderosa Ridge projects; assuming two
(2) vehicles per home.
345. On such basis, the number of vehicles that need to be evacuated at the intersection of
Dishman-Mica and Bowdish, i.e 1,193 vehicles, is well in excess of the number that can be
evacuated under the "saturated" flow rate (permissive), adjusted for 67% "green" time, i.e. 934
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 45
1
d
vehicles; although less than can be evacuated under the "ideal" flow rate, adjusted for 67%
�
"green" time, i.e. 1,273 vehicles. See Exhibit 44, Synchro report, p. 4.
346. The applicant 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. PNA contended in its Court of Appeals briefs
that the more realistic "saturated" flow rate should be used.
347. The applicant, in its Court of Appeals brief, objected to use of the "saturated flow" rate; on
the basis that enhanced green time would produce fewer light cycles at the two intersections for
exiting traffic, and reduce the delay caused by driver reaction time compared to normal stop and
go traffic. However, the applicant did not identify such adjustment in the Synchro report, or
quantify how much this would increase the saturated flow.
348. The applicant also suggested in its appellate brief 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 2,400 vehicles per hour per lane, and no inbound or cross
traffic allowed at the two intersections. See Exhibit 39, Brief of Respondents, p. 16, note 10.
Such contention has no direct support from the Ponderosa Ridge record, the Synchro model
inputs, or the evacuation analysis contained in the TIA.
349. The functioning of the intersection lanes at the two intersections as "street links" under
evacuation conditions appears highly problematic; considering the single lanes available to
northbound traffic along Schafer Road and Bowdish Road immediately south of the intersections,
the turning movements that must be made by much of the exiting traffic, the short left turn
("protected") pocket at the Dishman-Mica Road/Schafer intersection, and the "permissive" left
turn lane at the Dishman-Mica/Bowdish intersection. Further, the evacuation analysis and
Synchro data clearly assume 10% incoming and cross traffic at the intersections. The fire
evacuation analysis already "ideally" assumes that delay will not result from such potential human
and firestorm factors as stalled vehicles, traffic accidents, lost visibility due to smoke, fallen trees,
etc. See Exhibit 44, Synchro report, p. 1; Exhibit 40, Reply to Brief of Respondents, p. 10-12;
and AR 428.
350. The Synchro model shows a northbound left storage lane at the intersection of Dishman-
Mica/Bowdish that is 100 feet in length. Since the TIA and photos of the intersection establish
that there is no "protected" northbound left-turn lane at such location, PNA contended that
inclusion of the additional lane in the Synchro inputs resulted in a substantial overstating of the
traffic volume that could pass through the intersection in 30 minutes. See Exhibit 38; Opening
Brief of Appellant, p. 22; Exhibit 20, p. 9
351. The TIA 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
AR 428.
352. The applicant conceded that there was no northbound left-turn storage lane at the Dishman-
Mica/Bowdish intersection; but instead argued there was a"de facto additional right turn lane" at
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 46
the intersection, based on a photo of the intersection in the record. See Exhibit 39, Brief of
Respondents, p. 17. However, there is no description in the record of the alleged lane's
configuration, length, or effect on traffic flow.
353. The TIA, in describing the Dishman-Mica/Bowdish 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 AR 428. The Synchro report credits little capacity to the defacto right
turn lane, with regard to southbound traffic movements. See Exhibit 44, Synchro report, p. 4,
lines 3-4, 12 and 14.
354. If there is indeed only one (1) intersection lane available for exiting traffic at the intersection
of Dishman-Mica/Bowdish, the Synchro report would show a much larger number of required
vehicles that cannot be evacuated through the intersection in 30 minutes.
355. The "responses to public comments"portion of the TIA claim that the roadway system in
the greater Ponderosa area can handle the evacuation of"...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 the signals at the two Dishman-Mica intersections being controlled by emergency
personnel. See AR 434.
356. Todd Whipple testified during the Ponderosa Ridge hearing that the 1,281 housing units
considered by the fire evacuation analysis, plus the 181 proposed homes in the Ponderosa
Ridge/Ponderosa PUD, could be fully evacuated in 30 minutes; subject to adjustment of the traffic
signals to allow more green time, with the assistance of emergency personnel. AR 555.
357. Todd Whipple testified during the current proceedings that the data inputs in the Synchro
model indicate that the traffic from the Ponderosa Ridge/Ponderosa PUD projects was considered
in the fire evacuation analysis, comparing the Synchro traffic inputs at the intersection of 44th
Avenue and Woodruff Road with the traffic counts illustrated on p. 449 of the TIA. Whipple did
not supply the data sheet for such intersection in Synchro that would allow a comparison of the
yn P
respective volumes.
358. Figure 10 of the TIA shows the normal "2010 AM peak hour without project" traffic.
Since the peak hour traffic volume of non-project traffic (including background project traffic)
indicated at the 44th/Woodruff intersection is much lower than the traffic volume of non-project
traffic at the intersection during a 30-minute evacuation, the comparison made by Todd Whipple
is one of"apples to oranges" and not meaningful. See AR 449. This is clearly demonstrated on
p. 24 of the TIA, where it is stated that there are a total of 989 non-project vehicles entering and
exiting the Ponderosa neighborhood during the peak hour. This compares to more than twice this
number of nonproject vehicles (2,562 vehicles) that the evacuation model assumed would be
exiting the Ponderosa during an evacuation. Further, the pages from the Synchro data included in
the record clearly show the evacuation of only 2,444 vehicles from 1,222 homes.
359. The Synchro 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.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 47
This included a delay of 103.3 seconds at LOS F for northbound traffic approaching the
intersection [the ICU level shown in the report is not relevant]. See Exhibit 44, Synchro report,
p. 2.
360. The Synchro 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/13owdish. This
included a delay of 133.3 seconds at LOS F for northbound traffic approaching the intersection
[the ICU level shown is not relevant]. See Exhibit 44, Synchro 6 report, p. 5.
361. Based on the Synchro input reports, the summary statement by County Engineering that
"acceptable levels of service"would be maintained at the two Dishman-Mica intersections during
the fire evacuation, without any supporting analysis, cannot be given much weight. See AR 898,
and RP 155-165.
362. The print-out from the Synchro report submitted by Janice Cooperstein contain the data
sheet for only one (1) un-signalized intersection along the evacuation route leading to Dishman-
Mica Road, i.e. at Schafer Road/Sundown Drive. See Exhibit 44, Synchro report, p. 23.
363. The Synchro report shows an adjusted hourly flow rate of 2,428 vph(1,214 vehicles per 30
minutes) for the northbound through traffic movement at the intersection of Schafer/Sundown.
See Exhibit 44, Synchro report, p. 23. This substantially exceeds the "ideal" traffic flow rate of
1,900 vph(950 vehicles in 30 minutes) through the intersection, and the saturated flow rate listed
in the Synchro report for the intersection of 1,676 vph (838 vehicles per 30 minutes). These flow
rates do not account for the stoppages of northbound traffic for traffic turning north onto Schafer
Road at the intersection, shown by the Synchro model; which would allow even fewer vehicles to
pass through the intersection during an evacuation under the "ideal" and "saturated" flow rates.
364. The adjusted hourly flow rate of 2,428 vph(1,214 vehicles per 30 minutes) shown by the
Synchro report at the Sundown/Schafer intersection does not include the share of the 118 vehicles
(336 vph) from the 59 homes that were omitted from the Synchro report; or the 358 vehicles (716
vph) from the 179 homes added by the current project and the Ponderosa Ridge project that
would also need to pass through the intersection.
365. If just the traffic from the current project and Ponderosa Ridge project is added to the
intersection of Sundown/Schafer, the flow rate from evacuating traffic would be an impressive
3,144 vph (1,572) vehicles in 30 minutes. This is 1,244 vph(40%) higher than the "ideal" flow
rate of 1,900, or 622 vehicles that cannot be evacuated in 30 minutes; and 1,468 vph (47%)
higher than the "saturated" flow rate of 1,676 vph, or 734 vehicles that cannot be evacuated in 30
minutes. This deficiency represents 21% of the total volume of traffic that must be evacuated in
the Ponderosa area(i.e. 2,920 vehicles), including the traffic from the current project and
Ponderosa Ridge project, under the "ideal" flow rate; and 25% of the total volume of evacuating
traffic under the "saturated" flow rate.
366. There is no Synchro report data in the record for the merged intersection of Bowdish Road
and Sands Road. However, the intersection must be able to accommodate the entire flow rate
that passes through the intersection of Dishman-Mica/Bowdish, which was 2,206 vph(or 1,103
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 48
vehicles in 30 minutes) under the Synchro inputs. If such northbound traffic could ideally pass
straight through the intersection, without having to merge at a slower rate as required, an "ideal"
flow rate of 1,900 vph would apply at the intersection. This is a still a disparity of 306 vph, or
153 vehicles. This deficiency does not include the additional 180 vph, or 90 vehicles per 30
minutes, generated by the current project and the Ponderosa Ridge project; which results in a total
deficiency of 486 vph (243 vehicles), compared to an "ideal" flow rate of 1,900 vph for through
traffic. This also does not take into account the lower "saturated" flow rate through the
intersection.
367. The "ideal" hourly flow rate for a roadway is considered to be 2,100 to 2,400 vph per lane,
as stated above. The fire evacuation analysis intentionally did not study lane or corridor capacity
impacted by the evacuation traffic; assuming, perhaps erroneously, that the two controlled
intersections on Dishman-Mica Road would create the largest constriction points. See AR 456.
368. There is only one (1) lane of northbound traffic along Schafer Road, and only 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 points to the south where the nearest secondary
roads merge into such roads.
369. The Synchro model shows an adjusted traffic flow rate of 2,784 vph (1,392 vehicles in 30
minutes) evacuating along Schafer Road, before reaching the intersection of Dishman-
Mica/Schafer. The traffic from the 59 omitted homes would add an estimated 134 vph(67
vehicles in 30 minutes) to the roadway at such location, or 2,918 vph (1457 vehicles in 30
minutes). The traffic from the 179 combined homes in the current project and Ponderosa Ridge
project would add an additional 537 vph (268.5 additional vehicles per 30 minutes) to the
roadway; or 3,455 vph(1727 vehicles in 30 minute).
370. The potential traffic flow rate of 3,455 vph trying to evacuate along the last leg of Schafer
Road, including the traffic from the current project and Ponderosa Ridge project, far exceeds the
"ideal" flow rate of 2,100 to 2,400 vehicles vph. This represents a range of 527-677 vehicles that
cannot be evacuated along Schafer Road during the 30-minute evacuation period, under the
"ideal" flow rate. This is a disparity of 15-20%. If the 120 vph from the 30-unit Inveraiy project
is added in, the potential load would be 3,575 vph, or a range of or 587-737 vehicles in 30
minutes that cannot be evacuated under the "ideal" flow rate.
371. Large disparities between the actual traffic flow required to be evacuated, and the ideal
flow, likely occurs along Schafer Road at least as far south as the intersection of Sundown Drive
and Cimmaron Drive, and also at the intersection of Sundown/Cimmaron, respectively.
372. Similar calculations can be made for Bowdish Road before it reaches the intersection of
Dishman-Mica/Bowdish. The Synchro model shows an adjusted flow rate of 2,104 vph (1,052
vehicles) evacuating along Schafer Road before reaching the intersection of Dishman-
Mica/Schafer. The traffic from 47% of the 59 omitted homes would add 51 vehicles (102 vph) to
Schafer Road at such location, and the traffic from the 179 combined homes in the current project
and Ponderosa Ridge project would add 90 additional vehicles (180 vph). This is a potential flow
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 49
ff
rate of 2,386 vph, compared to the "ideal" flow rate along the final stretch of Bowdish Road of
2,100 to 2,400 vehicles.
373. Todd Whipple testified during the current proceedings that the main value of the fire
evacuation analysis was to assist Fire District 8 in determining what intersections would be the
most congested during a 30-minute evacuation time and require emergency assistance, and that
there was no applicable engineering standard to apply to determine what would constitute a safe
evacuation.
374. The above analysis indicates that the greatest constricting points along the evacuation route
are the substantial lack of capacity in the roadway of Schafer Road as it approaches the Dishman-
Mica/Schafer intersection, and the un-signalized intersections along Schafer Road nearest
Dishman-Mica Road. This is followed, to lesser degrees, by the Bowdish/Sands intersection, the
Dishman-Mica Road/Schafer intersection, the roadway along Bowdish Road as it approaches the
Dishman-Mica/Schafer intersection, and the Dishman-Mica/Bowdish intersection (assuming 2
intersection lanes).
375. The above analysis indicates that even under "ideal" flow rates, and greatly enhanced green
time using emergency personnel, nearly 20% of the traffic from the 1,281 housing units referenced
in the evacuation analysis cannot exit the area in 30 minutes; and none of the traffic from the
current project, the Ponderosa Ridge project or the approved Inveraiy project can be evacuated in
30 minutes.
376. If saturated flow rates for intersections are applied, as indicated in the Synchro model; and
the lower range of"ideal" flow rates for roadways are applied, which seems reasonable in the
absence of indicated "saturated" rates; one-third (33%) or more of the traffic from the 1,281 units
cannot be evacuated in 30 minutes. This would also be the case if the intersection of
Schafer/Bowdish is considered to have only one (1) exit lane, even under "ideal" flow rates.
377. If one (1) of the main exit routes to Dishman-Mica Road became blocked for any length of
time during a firestorm event, an even higher percentage of the vehicles could not be evacuated to
Dishman-Mica Road in 30 minutes.
378. 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 44, SimTraffic Report, p. 2 and 3; and Exhibit 40, Reply to Brief of
Respondents, p. 12, note 8.
379. Robert Bernstein indicated, in his July 18, 2006 letter, that it was inappropriate to use the
Synchro and SimTraffic software packages to analyze conditions during an emergency
evacuation; and found their use in the evacuation analysis to not be meaningful, and also
misleading. See Exhibit 45.
380. The Bernstein letter criticized the fire evacuation analysis for not considering the traffic from
the residences proposed in the Ponderosa Ridge and Ponderosa PUD projects, and other future
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 50
development; and for not making available any formal documentation of the analysis and
simulation model results, that connected the summary text in the TIA with the computer data files
on the CD. These are valid criticisms. See general rules for traffic studies in City Road
Standards, Technical Reference A, p. A-2 through A-4.
381. The Bernstein letter stated that the Synchro results suggest that the Ponderosa
neighborhood cannot be evacuated in 30 minutes; and that the SimTraffic simulation does not
show that the area can be evacuated in 30 minutes.
382. The applicant, in its Court of Appeals brief, advised that the SimTraffic data on the CD
mirrors the Synchro data, and assumed that the traffic signals at the two intersections were
functioning and were not under the control of emergency personnel; resulting in the simulation
showing considerable congestion at the two intersections. See Exhibit 39, Brief of Respondents,
p. 18. This is not an accurate description of the Synchro results, which show the enhanced "green
time" allowed at the two intersections using emergency personnel.
383. The SimTraffic module traffic simulation depends on the data inputted into the Synchro
report, and would be flawed to the same extent.
384. Todd Whipple testified during the current proceedings that the debate over the fire
evacuation analysis was essentially moot; because Chief Walkup of County Fire District 8 had
advised a local resident 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. See AR 2221-2223.
385. The documents prepared by Lieutenant Archer of County Fire District 8 in July of 2004
advised that wildland fire research was 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 AR 1,310. Nevertheless, on July 22, 2004, Fire District 8 requested that the applicant
prepare a study analyzing the evacuation of the entire Ponderosa area. See AR 1311.
386. Claude Wells, a retired deputy chief of County Fire District 9, testified as a fire consultant
for the applicant at the Ponderosa Ridge hearing. See RP 445-553. Wells was involved in the
1991 firestorm on the north side of Spokane, and had some involvement with the fire that
occurred in the Ponderosa area 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.
387. Claude Wells testified 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 supply requirements for new
developments under local codes; and having the same dispatch center for all local law
enforcement agencies, and one dispatch center for all local fire authorities.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 51
a T
388. Claude Wells testified 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, evacuation of the Ponderosa area during a wildfire event would not be a
significant problem. See RP 477. However, such testimony is greatly undermined by the serious
flaws in the fire evacuation analysis, as discussed herein.
389. During the current proceedings, Claude Wells testified that based on a recent site visit, little
had changed in the area; and residents were still not taking defensible space measures to protect
their properties from wildfire. The applicant contended that this showed area residents are not
that concerned about lack of access concerns,just increased development. However, the efforts
of area residents to assist in disaster planning for the area, and the opposition of large numbers of
residents to the current project and Ponderosa Ridge project based primarily on fire access
concerns, rebuts such contention.
390. 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 Dishman-Mica Road being blocked by any length of time, by fire crossing the
road, or other circumstance, in expressing their opinions; although they conceded these were
possibilities. See RP 445-565.
391. 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; for local jurisdictions to consider adopting. See AR
1249-1295. Such standards require that two (2) access roadways be provided to directly serve
the site of a permitted use. See AR 1274. This standard addresses access at the point of the use,
similar to Appendix D of the 2003 IFC and the table in Section 1.03(8) of the City Road
Standards; but does not address community egress issues affecting a proposed development, such
as those presented in the Ponderosa area.
392. Robert Bernstein, a consulting engineer retained by PNA, contended in his report and
testimony submitted at the Ponderosa Ridge hearing that emergency access in the Ponderosa was
inadequate both for emergency services response to calls, and emergency evacuation of the
Ponderosa community.
393. 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, the limited utility of the emergency access located off of Bates
Road, the potential for random events that may block one of the main 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 non-working hours when more
residents would have 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, and the need for redundancy in the system of evacuation to ensure that
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 52
escape is not cut off in case one or more of the access routes becomes closed or blocked. See AR
733-742, and RP 262-293.
394. During the current proceedings, PNA submitted the testimony of Professor Thomas Cova,
ova,
Associate Professor, Department of Geography, University of Utah. Cova is also the Director of
the Center for Natural& Technological Hazards; a research center dedicated to studying "human
dimensions" associated with hazards and disasters; and which features wildfire as one of its
center's specialties, particularly protective actions. See Exhibit 41.
395. Thomas Cova testified that he had studied issues of evacuation in wildfire prone areas,
including modeling and planning, for 24 years; published approximately 10 papers on urban
wildfire issues over 10 years; and been published in transportation research journals on the topic
of evacuation. His work included the review and interpretation of traffic studies, attempting to
develop a model for the best use of roadway intersections in wildfire prone areas, and consulting
with local governments on wildland-interface issues. See testimony of Thomas Cova.
396. Thomas Cova testified that he had reviewed the 1991 firestorm study for the Spokane area
that included a review of the 1991 Ponderosa wildfire, the evacuation plan for the Ponderosa area
prepared by Lieutenant Archer, the Ponderosa Ridge TIA and the evacuation analysis contained
therein, and a letter from Robert Bernstein that commented on the evacuation analysis; and that he
had driven around the Ponderosa area to observe its conditions.
397. Thomas Cova characterized the Ponderosa area as a high wildfire hazard area, assumed the
number of homes in the Ponderosa area to be approximately 1,200 units, found the Ponderosa
area had only two (2) community exits, i.e. the intersections of Di h
man-Mic awi
with
Schafer/University and Bowdish; and found that the emergency ingress for fire/emergency
vehicles located near 48thi Avenue and Dishman-Mica was generally too limited to serve as a
community exit.
398. Thomas Cova testified that in working with numerous fire-prone communities in the west
and southwest over the years, he had never seen a community with over 600 homes per exit and
comparable wildfire risks; the communities he typically worked with had around 200 homes per
exit, and the Ponderosa area appeared to set a high water mark for the ratio of homes to
community exits. Cova stated that because the Ponderosa area is an urban-wildland interface
community with a high wildfire hazard, the minimum time to safely evacuate the area should be
approximately 30 minutes.
399. Thomas Cova testified that he had been working on an amendment to the national fire
protection code that would set a standard for the maximum number of households allowed per
community exit for urban-wildland interface communities, for adoption in 2008. If adopted, this
would establish a model for local communities to adopt in their local fire codes
400. Thomas Cova testified that the Ponderosa area could not be safely evacuated at the current
time, because there were too many fire scenarios that would limit community egress and
firefighter ingress; the fire evacuation analysis contained in the TIA vastly underestimated the time
needed for notification, departure time and other components to evacuate; and a more realistic
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 53
I
time period for notifying all residents, preparing to evacuate, and evacuating 1,200 vehicles would
be two (2) hours, depending on the location of the ignition points for the fire.
401. Thomas Cova testified that it would take approximately 40 minutes for notification and
evacuation, and approximately 80 additional minutes to evacuate 1,200 vehicles from the
Ponderosa area; and that more exits out of the area would be needed to evacuate the area in 30
minutes. The evacuation period was based on a rough estimate of evacuating up to 1,000 vehicles
per hour(vph), through each of the two (2) Dishman-Mica exits for community egress.
402. Thomas Cova disagreed with the comment by Chief Walkup of Fire District 8, in his April
of 2005 letter to a local resident, that Walkup and the chief of Fire District 1 did not envision
evacuating the Ponderosa area in the event of another wildfire, in lieu of sheltering in space. Cova
noted that the Ponderosa community did not appear to be designed for sheltering in place, 75% of
the homes in the area appear to be unsafe locations for sheltering in place (due to brush and
trees), Ponderosa Elementary School is the only large property inside the fire danger zone where
numbers of people could shelter in place, the distance of many homes in the south Ponderosa area
from the school, and the long distances (2-3 miles) of some homes in the Ponderosa area from the
Dishman-Mica exits.
403. Thomas Cova testified that the fire evacuation analysis in the Ponderosa Ridge TIA
appeared to be a"minimum" evacuation analysis, rather than a"worst case scenario"; particularly
with regard to the time needed for all area residents to receive notice and prepare to leave before
evacuating.
404. Todd Whipple estimated that it would take approximately 15 minutes for the residents in the
Ponderosa area to be notified to evacuate and leave their homes, although this is not stated in the
Ponderosa Ridge TIA. See AR 370, and RP 175 and 177. Thomas Cova estimated that it would
take up to 40 minutes for such notification and preparation.
405. The record includes a pertinent article published by Thomas Cova in August of 2005, in the
Natural Hazards Review, a publication of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE);
which article appears to parallel his testimony. The article addresses the sufficiency of community
exits for traffic egress in urban wildland areas, and is entitled "Public Safety in the Urban-
Wildland Interface: Should Fire-Prone Communities have a Maximum Occupancy". See copy of
article in Exhibit 46.
406. The article by Thomas Cova addresses public safety for fire-prone communities in the urban-
wildland interface. The article found that evacuation, voluntarily or by order of emergency
authorities, where there is time to evacuate, is usually safer than the more "risky" alternative of
trying to shelter in place, compelled by an insufficient time or an inability to evacuate. The choice
to evacuate considers 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. See p. 101 of article in Exhibit 46.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 54
A
407. In his article, Thomas Cova emphasized the need to evacuate a community in a desired
maximum 30-minute time period, in an area having a high wildfire hazard. This includes
consideration of potential bottlenecks or blockages that may occur along community exit routes
during an evacuation, and the number of community exits that are available for the number of
homes in the area. The article cited the example of a neighborhood in the Oakland-Berkeley arca,
having 337 homes and four (4) exits, where a 1991 fire blocked the two (2) primary exits in the
initial 30 minutes; leaving the remaining residents with two (2) narrow uphill exits for evacuation,
and resulting in a number of fatalities. See p. 103-104, and 106 of article in Exhibit 46.
408. In the article, Thomas Cova proposed a minimum of four (4) exiting roads to safely
evacuate wildland-urban interface communities having over 601 households and with a high
wildfire hazard. This assumes a maximum evacuation time of 30 minutes, two (2) vehicles per
household (equals 4 vph), and the density of housing in terms of road length per household. The
Ponderosa area has over two (2) times this number of households, and only two (2) public exits
out of the area. See p. 104 of article in Exhibit 46.
409. During the current hearing, Thomas Cova did not state how he arrived at his estimate that
approximately 1,000 vehicles per hour could be evacuated through each of the Dishman-Mica
exits.
410. In his article, Thomas Cova applied a road capacity formula from the 1997 Highway
Capacity Manual to derive a maximum flow rate per exit, in order to compare certain canyon and
hillside wildlife interface communities having a high wildfire hazard. This resulted in a common
estimate of 800 vph per exit that could be evacuated, for such communities.
411. The applicant contended at the public hearing that the Ponderosa area is dissimilar to the
urban-wildland interface communities considered by Thomas Cova, including canyons and
hillsides where there is only one or two ways out. However, public access out of Ponderosa area
is heavily constricted by the mountainous areas located to the south and west, and the railroad and
Chester Creek that parallel the west side of Dishman-Mica Road to the east; although there are
possibilities for a third access route out of the area. See testimony of Thomas Cova.
412. Thomas Cova stated in his article that estimating the minimum evacuation time for a given
community can be better tested with a traffic simulation model. See p. 104-106 of article in
Exhibit 46. This is what the fire evacuation analysis in the Ponderosa Ridge TIA attempted to
accomplish, although the analysis is flawed as discussed above.
413. Thomas Cova's testimony and article provide support for the opinions expressed by Robert
Bernstein, County Fire District 1 and the County Sheriff regarding the need for an additional
public access route out of the Ponderosa area, before additional development is approved in such
area.
414. County Engineering testified during the Ponderosa Ridge proceedings that it 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
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 55
difficulty of negotiating the purchase of necessary land from private property owners, securing the
necessary funding, identifying 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 RP 41-46.
415. 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
Ponderosa Ridge decision, FF#s 154-155.
P. Classification of DNR Stream on Site
416. PNA, and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), contended that
the seasonal stream located on the Ponderosa Ridge site should have been classified as a DNR
Type Np under the "permanent" stream typing described in WAC 222-16-030, or as a DNR Type
4 stream under the "interim" classification system described in WAC 222-16-031. WDFW made
a similar contention during the Ponderosa Ridge proceedings.
417. New information submitted at the current hearing, by WDFW and the farmer of nearby land,
establishes that the seasonal stream on the site flows all the way to and through the existing
culvert underlying 44th Avenue, for several months during a period of normal spring runoff; and
that the seasonal stream is annually fed by a spring that lies some distance south of the Ponderosa
Ridge site. See Exhibits 29, 37 and 42.
418. The testimony of Larry Dawes at the hearing establishes that there is not a defined channel
for the seasonal stream on the Ponderosa Ridge property within approximately 50 feet south of
44th
44th 44 Avenue, or directly ectl north of 44
Avenue; and that r
at t has not been proven v by WDFW or
Y � p Y
others that the spring runs year round during a year of normal rainfall, although this may be the
case.
419. The issue of stream typing for the seasonal stream is irrelevant. The Ponderosa Ridge
project is located offsite; the Ponderosa Ridge decision already decided that the seasonal stream
on the Ponderosa Ridge property was a Type 5 stream that was not entitled to protection under
Section 11.20.060.C.2.e of the County Critical Areas, because it did not connect to a higher
classification stream; and such decision has not been overturned on appeal.
Q. Protection of Priority Wildlife Habitat
420. The City Critical Areas maps designate White-tailed Deer priority wildlife habitat on the
southerly one-half(1/2) of the site; but fail to show several of the priority wildlife habitats
designated inside the City, including Elk priority wildlife habitat. Such maps were not updated
after the City incorporated in 2003.
421. Paragraph 11.20.030.D.3 of the City Critical Areas Ordinance requires the City to update its
critical areas maps as new information becomes available. This includes updating the maps as
species and habitats are added, deleted or redefined in the Washington State Priority Habitats and
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 56
Species Program, by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). See City
Critical Areas Ordinance, paragraphs 11.20.060.A.1 and 11.20.030.D.3.
422. The City's Critical Areas maps, in conjunction with site visits and other information, are
used by City Planning as a basis for requiring a field investigation, including a habitat management
plan for priority wildlife habitats and species; with the field investigation controlling over any
conflicts with the maps. See paragraph 11.20.030.D.2 of City Critical Areas Ordinance.
423. The habitat management plan submitted by Larry Dawes on October 1, 2004 for the current
site and the Ponderosa Ridge site, on behalf of the applicant, indicated that the Washington State
Priority Habitats and Species Program database identified White-tailed Deer, Elk, Urban Natural
Open Space and Riparian priority wildlife habitat on the combined properties. AR 338.
424. The habitat management plan found that the properties contained important habitat for
white-tailed deer; but did not offer important habitat for elk, although it might provide a travel
corridor for migrating elk on rare occasions. The plan found that there were no protected species
observed on the site besides white-tailed deer, including protected birds.
425. The habitat management plan indicates that Larry Dawes surveyed the wildlife habitat within
one-fourth (1/4) mile of the subject property; to determine utilization of habitat adjacent to the
site, and off-site influences on the deer and elk population. The plan found that the subject
property was part of the home range of a small group of deer, but the extent of deer activity was
limited by the lack of water and small size of the forested area on the property.
426. The habitat management plan required that a 100-foot wide travel corridor be established
for deer, birds and other wildlife, centered along the seasonal stream located on the Ponderosa
Ridge property, and extended south to 44`h'Avenue; all lots in the preliminary plat be placed at
least 50 feet from the seasonal stream; a"wildlife protection zone" be set aside on a large tract of
open space in the westerly two-thirds of the south portion of the property; and a second wildlife
travel corridor be established that extends northwesterly through the northwest corner of the
preliminary plat, across the ridge above the seasonal stream draw, to Schafer Branch Road. See
Ponderosa Ridge decision, FF#77-78, and AR 336-357.
427. The habitat management plan advised that the proposed"wildlife protection zone" tract of
open space would protect the primary aspen habitat located on the Ponderosa Ridge property,
preserve other native vegetation, and provide daytime protective cover for wildlife seeking to use
the proposed wildlife travel corridors located to the north during darkness.
428. The habitat management plan stated that the two travel corridors would respectively provide
a"high" and a"low" corridor for deer and other wildlife; a linkage to the wildlife habitat located
on the 6-acre parcel that separates the north and south portions of the Ponderosa Ridge property,
and on the "wildlife protection zone" area; connectivity to forested wildlife corridors located off-
site to the south and west; and important linkages for deer that choose to access water sources
west and north of the property.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 57
429. The habitat management plan included consideration of the current project, but did not
recommend protection of any wildlife habitat on the site. The plan acknowledged that it would
eliminate part of the home range of the resident deer population, and that resident deer would
have to adjust their home range so that more of it lies in adjacent forested land located to the west
outside the UGA. The plan indicates that it took the management recommendations of WDFW
into consideration, although it did not adopt all of them.
430. On June 7, 2005, Larry Dawes prepared a vegetative planting plan for the stormwater ponds
proposed in the areas to be reserved for wildlife in the Ponderosa Ridge preliminary plat; to
consist of the planting of the ponds with native grasses, and dense trees and shrubs. The plan
included no mowing of the vegetation planted in the ponds; but due to the buildup of organic
material, the ponds would need to be cleaned out and replanted after several years to preserve the
pond function. The plan indicated that this would provide wildlife habitat and enhance the
functions and value of the ponds. See AR 702-703.
431. The Ponderosa Ridge decision required the County Department of Building and Planning,
prior to final plat approval, to consult with WDFW and the applicant's wildlife biologist, and
require appropriate mitigation for the impact of drainage facilities proposed along the seasonal
stream in the common open space of the Ponderosa Ridge preliminary plat, under the revised
conceptual drainage plan submitted on June 7, 2005, on priority wildlife habitat. The decision
authorized the Department of Building and Planning to limit mitigation to that recommended by
Larry Dawes in his June 7, 2005 letter, if it deemed it appropriate. See Ponderosa Ridge
Decision, condition#16 on page 33.
432. The revised conceptual drainage report dated June 7, 2005 proposed an L-shaped drainage
retention pond of 18,075 square feet, which occupied the entire width of the common space
open s
p p
tract containing the north part of the seasonal stream, for a distance of 165 feet south of 44`x'
Avenue. The report also provided for two (2) much smaller ponds, one located in the southwest
common open space tract, and one in the westerly common open space tract in the Ponderosa
Ridge preliminary plat. See AR 599-701, particularly 670 and 700-701.
433. In November of 2006, the applicant submitted a revised conceptual drainage report for the
current project and the Ponderosa Ridge project ("current drainage report"). The revised report
illustrates a retention pond ("A2") located 70 feet south of 44`r'Avenue; centered on the seasonal
stream in the northerly common open space tract, and extending for a distance of approximately
330 feet to the south along the seasonal stream. See Exhibit 24, sheet 3 of drainage schematic.
434. The pond bottom illustrated for Pond A2 has a width of approximately 75 feet at its north
end, which tapers down to approximately 10 feet at its south end; covers an area of 19,000 square
feet; and has an outer boundary that follows the contour of elevation 2050 on the Ponderosa
Ridge site. Construction of the pond would entail removing existing native vegetation and filling
in the draw containing the existing stream between elevation 2040 and elevation 2050. See
Exhibit 24, p. 2; Exhibit 50; and testimony of Todd Whipple.
435. The current drainage report indicates that after the removal of existing vegetation, the new
pond bottom would be shaped and planted with new native vegetation; based on the
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 58
i
1
recommendations in the habitat management plan and vegetative planting plan submitted by Larry
Dawes. The remainder of the side slopes of the draw located adjacent to the pond would be
retained within the common open space tract.
436. The current drainage report also provides for construction of an earthen berm at the north
end of the pond, in the stream channel, at an elevation of 2152; as well as construction of an
earthen berm at the south end of the pond, at elevation 2151.5, to provide an overflow to the
existing drainage channel north. Construction of the northerly berm would entail removing a
dense concentration of native vegetation located near 44`x'Avenue. See testimony of Todd
Whipple.
437. Under the current drainage report, the northeast corner of the common open space tract,
adjacent to 44th Avenue, would contain a small area for a maintenance access; but would not
contain a retention pond. An inlet in Pond A2 would connect to two (2) drywells located in the
maintenance access, to allow for stormwater treatment and subsurface discharge.
438. The current drainage report also proposes the extension of the existing culvert underlying
44`r'Avenue a distance of 400 feet south of 44"'Avenue, under Pond A2; with a new headwall
located in the streambed just south of Pond A2.
439. Under the current drainage report, the extended culvert would transport existing volumes of
stormwater northerly to the existing culvert under 44th Avenue, where they would exit the
property. Pond A2 would accommodate and treat developed volumes of stormwater, and
separate such flows from the existing volumes. Any developed volume of stormwater that
exceeds the capacity of Pond A2 would overflow the pond at the southerly berm, and be
discharged through the extended culvert along with the existing volumes..
440. The revised drainage report illustrates a relatively small retention pond in the southerly
common open space tract of the Ponderosa Ridge project; which would require some excavation
into the hillside, but no fill or embankment. Two drainage basins located along the east boundary
of the current site would not utilize Ponds Al or A2, and would require separate drainage
facilities. See Exhibit 24, p. 2.
441. Larry Dawes testified during the current proceedings that re-vegetation of the common open
space area after the development of Pond A2 would leave a subtle grassy swale area that would
provide wildlife habitat after it matured; and would not have a significant impact on the habitat
management plan that he prepared.
442. PNA submitted a letter dated August 8, 2007 from Jes Erling, a qualified wildlife biologist;
who found the habitat management plan to be deficient in several respects. Erling focused
primarily on the inadequacy of the riparian/wildlife corridor located along the seasonal stream on
the Ponderosa Ridge site; recommending a buffer of 150-200 feet on both sides of the stream.
Erling also found that the large stormwater pond and extended culvert proposed by the current
drainage plan would destroy the riparian stream and adjacent riparian vegetation, which were a
critical component of the wildlife/riparian corridor. Erling concluded that the plan did not
adequately address the wildlife habitat located on the current site. See Exhibit 22.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 59
443. WDFW also challenged the adequacy of the habitat management plan in a letter dated
August 3, 2007 from wildlife biologist Karin Divens; and in testimony submitted at the current
hearing by Mark Wachtel, the local director of the WDFW. See Exhibit 37. Divens focused
primarily on the improper typing of the stream, and the need for a minimum 75-foot buffer along
the stream; and also the impact of the revised conceptual drainage plan on stream habitat, riparian
habitat, wildlife corridor and mature forest habitat. Divens also noted that the applicant had
recently conducted some clearing and grading activities within 25 feet of the site, with a
corresponding loss of wildlife habitat.
444. The protection of priority wildlife habitat on the Ponderosa Ridge site, under the habitat
management plan, was determined by Spokane County under the Ponderosa Ridge decision.
Such determination is binding unless the decision is reversed on appeal.
445. The current drainage report was approved by City Engineering on December 15, 2006, but
only with regard to portion of the stormwater system proposed on the current site. See Exhibit
30, tab 27. There is no evidence in the record that County Engineering has accepted the revised
report, with regard to the stormwater facilities located on the Ponderosa Ridge site; which are
needed t accommodate drainage from the current project.
446. The current drainage report, which would extend drainage facilities for a distance of 400
feet south of 44' Avenue through the 100-foot wide corridor reserved for wildlife travel on the
Ponderosa Ridge site, would impact the corridor over a much greater distance and expanse than
the June 7, 2005 revised drainage report, which proposed the extension of drainage facilities for a
distance of approximately 165 feet south of 44"'Avenue.
447. The current drainage report would require the removal of much of the existing trees, shrubs
and other vegetation within the wildlife travel corridor for a distance of 400 feet; filling in the
stream and a significant portion of the draw along such expanse; planting new native vegetation
that will take years to mature; and repeating the cycle of vegetation removal and replanting after a
number of years when the ponds become clogged with debris. This could seriously compromise
the purpose of the 100-foot corridor under the habitat management plan; which is to provide a
"low" natural travel corridor for white-tailed deer and other species to the north, under the cover
of darkness and existing trees and vegetation along the stream.
448. There is no evidence that County Building and Planning consulted with WDFW regarding
the recent changes to the drainage report, evaluated the impacts of the revised drainage facilities
on the 100-foot wide wildlife travel corridor located along the seasonal stream; determined
whether the changes are likely to have a significant adverse impact on priority wildlife habitat;
determined whether the habitat management plan needs to be updated and submitted to WDFW
for review; or determined whether the current drainage report should be rejected or revised to
protect wildlife. See paragraph 11.20.060.D of County Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO).
449. Jes Erling, in his report, contended that the habitat management plan intended only to
provide cover for migrating wildlife, and not to preserve wildlife habitat; and did not consider the
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 60
impacts of the two projects on the Urban Natural Open Space and Riparian habitats designated on
the two properties.
450. The habitat management plan appears to consider the features and criteria for Urban Natural
Open Space and Riparian priority wildlife habitats summarized in table 1.1.20.060A of the City
and County Critical Areas Ordinances, and to discuss the impacts of the two projects on such
habitats. The discussion also appears applicable to the Wildlife Corridors priority habitat
referenced by WDFW.
451. The habitat management plan indicates that the large tract located in the southwest portion
of the Ponderosa Ridge site will be preserved as wildlife habitat in common open space, including
preservation of most of the high quality aspen habitat on the property. With the mitigation
proposed by the habitat management plan, the loss of the buckbrush and other wildlife habitat
located on the current site will not result in a significant adverse impact on priority wildlife
habitat.
452. Aside from the additional impacts to priority wildlife habitat that would result from
implementation of the current drainage report, the habitat management plan appears to comply
with the requirements for a habitat management plan set forth in paragraph 11.20.060.D of the
City CAO. Such provision does not prohibit any adverse impacts to priority wildlife habitats or
species,just the avoidance of significant adverse impacts. See Applicant's Brief, in Exhibit 32.
453. As determined in the Ponderosa Ridge decision, there is no need for the applicant to submit
a"breeding bird survey" as requested by WDFW. The conditions of approval listed as 54-57 on
page 16 of the Staff Report are either superfluous comments made by WDFW or the Washington
State Department of Ecology, and/or are inconsistent with the above findings of fact; and should
not be imposed as conditions of approval.
R. Geohazards, drainage
454. County Critical Areas maps designate an erodible soils geo-hazard on the Ponderosa Ridge
site. Such property also contains slopes equal to or greater than 30%, which constitutes a geo-
hazard under the County and City CAO. The Ponderosa Ridge decision found that the geo-
hazard evaluation report and other geotechnical information submitted by the applicant's
consulting engineers, along with the conditions of approval imposed on the preliminary plat of
Ponderosa Ridge, adequately discussed and mitigated such hazards. This issue cannot be
contested now for the Ponderosa Ridge project.
455. City Critical Areas maps do no designate any geo-hazards on the site, and there is no
competent evidence in the record that the site contains geo-hazards that must be addressed under
the City Critical Areas Ordinance. The rocky knoll, which is the highest point on the site, will be
retained in a natural state in common open space.
456. City Engineering found that the current conceptual drainage report complied with the City
Guidelines for Stormwater Mangement and other City drainage requirements, and was acceptable
for the current project; without addressing its adequacy for the Ponderosa Ridge project.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 61
457. City Engineering conditions of approval require the applicant to submit a final draina g e plan,
prior to final plat approval, that complies with City drainage requirements and the conditions of
approval. See Exhibit 30, tab 27; and p. 11 of Staff Report.
458. PNA contended that the current conceptual drainage report does not take into consideration
the stormwater flows through the area discussed in the 1997 Chester Creek Hydrology Study,
which it contended were more intense that those considered by the drainage report under the
Guidelines for Stormwater Management.
459. PNA did not establish, by competent engineering proof, why the flows in the Chester Creek
study should be used rather than those provided by the Guidelines, or that the current drainage
report is inconsistent with the Guidelines. Further, the current drainage plan would actually result
in a small decrease in the volume of stormwater leaving the site compared to existing conditions.
See Exhibit 24, p. 9-10; and Exhibit 46.
460. Under the current conceptual drainage report, the vast majority of the existing and
developed stormwater volume from the site will flow or be directed to the Ponderosa Ridge site,
and be conveyed, treated and disposed of through Pond A2, the extended culvert and/or other
stormwater facilities proposed in the Ponderosa Ridge project. See Exhibit 24, p. 1-2, 5, 10 and
basin maps sheets 1-3.
461. There is no evidence in the record that County Engineering has approved the current
drainage report for the Ponderosa Ridge site; or that County Planning will find the placement of
the revised stormwater facilities in the 100-foot wide wildlife travel corridor located along the
seasonal stream in the Ponderosa Ridge preliminary plat consistent with the habitat management
plan, after consultation with WDFW.
462. Without the above County approvals, the applicant has not established that the current
project makes appropriate provision for stormwater disposal.
S. Public Sewer and Water Concurrence
463. PNA expressed various contentions regarding the adequacy of the water supply for the
project.
464. On June 17, 2004, Spokane County Water District#3 provided written certification that
public water is available to serve the 179 units proposed in the original preliminary plats submitted
for the current project and Ponderosa Ridge project.
465. The water district certification indicates that the water system has a current state permit
allowing the number of water taps requested, the proposed development is consistent with the
water purveyor's state approved water system plan, the water system is able to provide water in
conformance with minimum levels of service below elevation 2220 feet, and that water service
above such elevation will require a booster pump and reservoir.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 62
I
466. The applicant's consulting engineers have continually worked with water district staff to
devise a water plan that will serve lots in the two projects located above elevation 2200 feet. The
current plan includes installation of a booster pumping station, but not a reservoir, to serve lots
above elevation feet; with some allowance for grading to reduce the elevation of lots reasonably
close to elevation 2220 feet to an elevation of 2220, which lots can then be served by the district's
current water distribution system. There would be no massive grading down of the lots located
above elevation 2220 feet, as originally contemplated by the applicant. See Ponderosa Ridge
decision, FF#157.
467. On November 6, 2006, Water District #3 approved the current water plan proposed by the
applicant. The letter indicates that landscaping and irrigation plans for the booster pumping
station proposed on the site will need to be addressed in the final design of the water plan, but this
does not affect the question of water availability. See letter dated 11-6-06 from Ty Wick to City.
468. The current water plan will meet the fire flow, hydrant spacing and other water supply
requirements of Water District#3 and local fire districts. There is no evidence in the record that
the revised water plan would adversely affect the water system currently serving the existing
properties located along Schafer Branch Road.
469. The Health District conditions of approval on page 14-15 of the Staff Report ensure that the
project makes appropriate provision for public water. City Engineering condition #8 for the
project requires the applicant to submit the approved water and sewer plan to the City.
470. The preliminary plat, as conditioned, complies with the water concurrency requirements of
the County Phase 2 Development Regulations.
471. On April 16, 2004, the County Division of Utilities certified that the applicant will design,
fund, construct and provide financial surety for the sewer systems necessary to extend sewer
service to the site and provide service connections as required; and certified the availability of
public sewer to the projects.
472. The Ponderosa Ridge decision indicated that the County plans to extend public sewer to the
site and additional land to the east by 2009. Such land is located inside the 6-year sewer capital
improvement program area designated by the County. This fact alone establishes public sewer
concurrency for the current project under the City Phase I Development Regulations.
473. The Ponderosa Ridge decision indicated that the applicant plans to extend a pressurized
public sewer line in 44th Avenue from the site east to Schafer Road, and north along Schafer Road
to Cimarron Drive. Such facilities are contemplated to be retained between the site and south
Farr Road, but abandoned east of Farr Road, at such time as County Utilities extends public
sewer to the area. There is no competent evidence in the record that the extension of such
facilities would have any significant, probable, adverse impacts on the environment.
474. PNA contended that the County does not have future treatment capacity to serve the
applicants' proposals. This was not established by competent proof in the record.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 63
475. The preliminary plat complies with the public sewer concurrency requirements of the
County Phase 2 Development Regulations.
T. Cultural resources
476. On July 6, 2004, the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation recommended to
the County and the City of Spokane Valley that a professional archaeological survey be conducted
for the current project and Ponderosa Ridge project, and that local tribes be consulted regarding
such issues.
477. On November 23, 2004, the Spokane Tribe of Indians submitted comments indicated that
the area had a high probability of producing archaeological artifacts and possibly humans remains,
and recommended that an archeological survey and shovel testing be conducted in all ground
disturbing activity. Also see letter dated 4-7-07 from Spokane Tribe.
478. On October 4, 2004, the applicant submitted a cultural resources survey for the two
proposals, prepared by archaeological and historical services staff at Eastern Washington State
University. An archaeologist for the university walked the site and conducted shovel scrapes in
various areas of the site. A literature review was also conducted for the vicinity of the projects.
479. The survey disclosed no cultural resources eligible for listing in the area of potential effect
on the two sites, but recommended that if cultural resources are unearthed during project
activities, work should be halted and a qualified archaeologist be contacted to assess the
significance of the resource. The survey was accepted by the State. Such recommendation is
included as a condition of approval on page 16 of the Staff Report.
480. The proposal, as conditioned, will not have any significant adverse impact on cultural or
historical resources.
U. Parks and Recreation
481. The site is not located near any City of County community or neighborhood parks.
However, the Iller Creek Conservation Area is located near the site and the Dishman Hills Natural
Area is located at a greater distance to the north.
482. The City Phase 1 Development Regulations do not require direct concurrency for parks.
The common open space in the project will provide some passive recreational opportunities for
the future residents of the project.
V. Schools
483. The City Phase 1 Development Regulations do not require direct concurrency for parks or
schools. Accordingly, the Examiner cannot address Central Valley School District's concerns
regarding the adequacy of school capacity for future in the homes occupied in the project after the
fall of 2008.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 64
484. The City Engineering conditions that require the installation of sidewalk along he frontage
of the site, and an off-site pedestrian path extended to Woodruff Road; together with the
pedestrian path already located along Woodruff Road between 44th Avenue and Cimmaron Drive,
where Ponderosa Elementary is located; ensure appropriate provision for existing and future
students who must walk to reach the local elementary school.
485. A condition of approval should be added that requires the project to provide a safe off-street
loading area for school busses serving secondary students in the project, as requested by the
school district. See letters dated 4-9-07 and 8-18-04 from CVSD.
313
Based on the above findings of fact, the Hearing Examiner enters the following:
III. 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 is June 24, 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 58.17.110, 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 (GMA) serve as the foundation for
project review. Under such statute, where standards for a development are addressed in local
development regulations, or in the absence of applicable development regulations, a
comprehensive plan, the standards are determinative of the particulars of the development
addressed by the standards. This includes, but is not limited to, the type of land use that is
permitted on the site, and the density of residential development in urban growth areas.
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. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-390, as adopted by the City Environmental Ordinance, the
threshold determination made by the responsible official under the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA), and the City Environmental Ordinance, is final and binding unless reversed on appeal.
6. If the Hearing Examiner determines that the current project will have a probable, significant
adverse impact on the environment, the threshold determination must be reversed; and a
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 65
li
determination of significance (DS) must be prepared and issued by the City Planning Division,
substantially in the form provided in WAC 197-11-980. In such instance, it would not be
appropriate for the Examiner to remand the environmental determination to the responsible
official to determine whether an MDNS should be issued; as contended by the applicant in its
brief. See WAC 197-11-360.
7. If the Hearing Examiner requires a DS to be is issued, the City Planning Division must
initiate the scoping process on the DS, and require the applicant to prepare an environmental
impact statement (EIS). If at any time after the issuance of the DS the proposal is changed so
that, in the judgment of the lead agency, there are no probable significant adverse impacts, the DS
must be withdrawn and a DNS or MDNS issued by the responsible official. See WAC 197-1.1-
1 360 and WAC 197-11-350.
8. Under WAC 197-11-680 and Section 11.10.170(4) of the City Environmental Ordinance,
only one (1) administrative appeal of the threshold determination made by the responsible official
for the City is allowed; successive administrative appeals within the City are not allowed.
Accordingly, if the Hearing Examiner reverses the MDNS issued for the project and orders a DS,
the Examiner's decision cannot be appealed to the City Council.
9. If the Hearing Examiner reverses the MDNS and orders a DS, such decision cannot be
appealed to superior court. This is because SEPA requires that any appeal of a decision under
SEPA be consolidated with the decision on the underlying action; which is not possible if a DS is
ordered. See WAC 197-11-680(4), RCW 43.21C.075(6)(c), and Settle, The Washington State
Environmental Policy Act, #20.01.
10. The Hearing Examiner must accord"substantial weight" to the MDNS determination issued
by the City D
y y rvrsron of Planning for the project, as the responsible official for the lead agency
under SEPA. See WAC 197-11-680, and Section 11.10.170(9) of City Environmental Ordinance.
11. SEPA does not otherwise spell out the standard of review in the administrative appeal of a
threshold determination. However,judicial review of SEPA determinations follows the "clearly
erroneous" standard.
12. Under the "clearly erroneous standard", the MDNS issued for the current project would be
"clearly erroneous" if the Hearing Examiner, after reviewing the record as a whole, and according
substantial weight to the MDNS, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been committed; even if there is some supporting evidence for the MDNS. See Settle, The
Washington State Environmental Policy Act, #20.08, and cases cited therein.
13. The brief submitted by the appellant, PNA, cites relevant provisions of SEPA and
Washington case law for review of a MDNS issued for a project, on appeal; and requiring the
issuance of a DS. See Exhibit 23, p. 2-3. The brief submitted by the applicant also provides
relevant authority regarding SEPA. See Exhibit 32.
14. Under Section 1.03(8) of the City Road Standards, and the provisions of the 2003
International Fire Code (IFC) adopted by the City, a second access road is required into the
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 66
current project in addition to the connection of proposed Locust Lane to 44th Avenue. See also
Section 12.400.122(2-3) of City Subdivision Ordinance. The second access road can be provided
through a connection to the roadway system in the Ponderosa Ridge project, if such project is
developed; or a connection to 45`r'Avenue or Farr Road to the east, if the Ponderosa Ridge
project is not developed.
15. Section 1.03(8) of the City Road Standards requires the local fire district to concur in the
location of an additional access road for fire/emergency access required for a development. Fire
District 8 and Fire District 1 did not comment on the internal roadway system for the project. In
April of 2005, the board of fire commissioners for each fire district each expressed concern
regarding the cumulative impacts of development in the Ponderosa community on fire/emergency
access. In June of 2007, the Board of Fire Commissioners for Fire District 1 requested that no
further development be allowed in the Ponderosa area until a third(3r'1) public access road was
provided out of the area; due to the inadequacy of fire/emergency access to serve such
development.
16. The above-referenced standards apply to the adequacy of access for fire/emergency vehicles
directly into, or within, a proposed housing development; but generally do not address community
egress issues that affect development during a wildfire or other natural hazard emergency, such as
those presented in the Ponderosa area.
17. Policy CF.12.2 of the City Interim Comprehensive Plan states that provision for road access
adequate for residents, fire district ingress/egress and water supply for fire protection be included
in residential developments. Policy T.4a.9 states that adequate access to and circulation within all
developments be maintained for emergency service and public transportation vehicles. Such
comprehensive plan policies, which are also SEPA policies, directly apply to the fire
evacuation/community egress issues that affect the project and other development in the
Ponderosa area, and to review of the project under both RCW 36.70B.030 and SEPA.
18. The ability to evacuate the Ponderosa area in approximately 30 minutes during a wildfire
event, such as the 1991 firestorm, is critical to public safety; considering the large number of
homes and approved lots in the area, location of the community in an urban/wildland interface
with a high wildfire hazard, the rate at which wildfire can spread in the area, and the lack of
definitive evidence in the record that alternative strategies such as sheltering in place, or going to
a place of safety, would be effective or have been planned for by emergency authorities.
19. Under the assumptions contained in the fire evacuation analysis, a significant volume of the
traffic from the 1,281 lots referenced in the fire evacuation analysis cannot be evacuated from the
area in 30 minutes through the two Dishman-Mica exits; from time of notice. See analysis of
Synchro report outputs in findings of fact above. The analysis failed to consider the additional
traffic that would be generated by the lots in the approved Ponderosa Ridge and Inveraiy projects,
or the lots proposed in the current project; which also cannot be evacuated in time. Such
additional trips are relevant in determining the cumulative impact on community egress during an
evacuation, and the ability of project traffic to timely evacuate.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-o7 Page 67
20. The fire evacuation analysis significantly underestimated the time needed for residents in the
Ponderosa area to be notified and prepare for a mass evacuation. While this may allow a longer
time for the Dishman-Mica exits to evacuate a higher volume of traffic from the Ponderosa area,
the overall evacuation time would still substantially exceed 30 minutes. See testimony of Thomas
Cova.
21. The fire evacuation analysis failed to identify the significant lack of roadway capacity in both.
Schafer Road and Bowdish Road, and the un-signalized intersections located along such
roadways near Dishman-Mica Road, to accommodate a 30-minute evacuation for 1,281 or more
housing units in the Ponderosa area. This would apply even if the intersections were under
manual control by emergency personnel.
22. The fire evacuation analysis failed to identify the lack of capacity in the two Dishman-Mica
intersections to handle the evacuation of 1,281 or more housing units under the conditions
assumed in the analysis, even under manual control of the intersections by emergency personnel.
23. The record strongly suggests that even a partial evacuation of the homes in the Ponderosa
area that normally use Schafer Road to reach Dishman-Mica Road, along Schafer Road; or the
partial evacuation of the homes in the Ponderosa area that normally use Bowdish Road to reach
Dishman-Mica Road, along Bowdish Road; would be problematic, particularly along Schafer
Road. Blockage of one of the main access roads by fire, a downed tree or power line for any
length of time during a mass evacuation in the Ponderosa area; which can occur during a firestorm
event; would likely be disastrous.
24. The fire evacuation analysis should have been evaluated and reviewed by Fire District 1, the
County Sheriff, the City Police Chief and County emergency personnel; similar to the natural
disaster planning effort that is currently being conducted by such authorities, and the evacuation
plan for the Ponderosa area being prepared by the County Sheriff.
25. There is no evidence that the responsible official for the City Planning Division considered
the community egress concerns expressed by the Fire District 1 Board and the County Sheriff in
June of 2004. The responsible official did not have the opportunity to review the underlying data
for the fire evacuation analysis contained on the CD, the flaws alleged by PNA in the data
contained on the CD, the 2006 letter from Robert Bernstein that addressed the evacuation
analysis, the testimony of Thomas Cova, or the relevant article by Thomas Cova submitted by
PNA.
26. The testimony by Thomas Cova, a highly qualified expert in the area of protecting
communities such as the Ponderosa area from the impacts of wildfire, including evacuation
analyses, is persuasive on the greater time needed by residents in the Ponderosa area to be notified
and prepare for an evacuation in the event of a wildfire emergency; the need to evacuate the
Ponderosa area in a 30-minute time frame in a wildfire emergency, considering the lack of
evidence that alternative strategies to evacuation, such as sheltering in place or going to a place of
safety, have been planned for by emergency authorities or would be effective in the Ponderosa
area; and the general need for more community exits from the area to safely accommodate such
an evacuation.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 68
27. Since the project will add a significant volume of traffic to the already inadequate
community egress from the Ponderosa area in the event of a wildfire or other emergency, the
project is reasonably likely to have more than a moderate adverse effect on the quality of the
environment (i.e. a probable, significant adverse impact on the environment); including the built
environment and human health in both the project and the Ponderosa area. The MDNS is clearly
erroneous, even giving substantial weight to the determination by the responsible official.
28. Based on the above deficiencies, the preliminary plat does not make appropriate provision
for roads, community fire/emergency egress, or the public health, safety and welfare; and does not
serve the public use and interest.
29. Preparation of an EIS for the project would allow for consultation with local law
enforcement, fire districts and emergency planning authorities regarding an evacuation plan for the
Ponderosa, the search for and the feasibility of a third(3) public access, consideration of the
various wildfire scenarios in the Ponderosa, and the exploration of other strategies to evacuation
in wildfire events that may have merit in the Ponderosa area.
30. The record indicates possible 31(1 access routes out of the Ponderosa area; including the
extension of Ridgeview Drive in the north part of the Ponderosa area, and a possible route being
considered by the County Sheriff in formulating an evacuation plan for the Ponderosa area.
31. The preparation of an EIS may identify mitigation that would allow the project to proceed,
with or without a proportionate contribution by the applicant. A similar EIS process was used for
the Mica View Estates project; which resulted in the installation of the emergency crossing of the
railroad in the southeast portion of the Ponderosa area, and ultimate approval of the project.
32. Under the current conceptual drainage report, the vast majority of the stormwater volumes
passing through the site, or generated on the site through development, must drain through the
adjacent Ponderosa Ridge project.
33. There is no evidence that County Engineering has approved the current drainage report for
the Ponderosa Ridge project; County Planning has reviewed and authorized the increased impacts
that Pond A2, the extended culvert and other revised drainage facilities will have on the 100-foot
wide wildlife travel corridor reserved along the seasonal stream by the Ponderosa Ridge
preliminary plat, under the County Critical Areas Ordinance; or that there is an approved
conceptual drainage plan for the current project that does not depend on such approvals.
34. Based on the above considerations, the preliminary plat does not make appropriate
provision for stormwater disposal.
35. The habitat management plan intentionally chose not to protect the wildlife habitat located
on the current site. However, aside from the potential impact that the current drainage report
may have on wildlife habitat on the combined sites, the plan would not have a significant adverse
impact on priority wildlife habitats or species located on the site, and would meet the
requirements of the City Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO).
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 69
36. Full compliance of the habitat management plan with the City CAO cannot be determined
until the County has evaluated the impact of the current drainage report on the habitat
management plan, after consultation with WDFW.
37. The project complies with the concurrency requirements of the City Phase I Development
Regulations.
38. The preliminary plat/PUD complies with the provisions of the City Interim Zoning Code,
including the UR-7* zone and the PUD Overlay Zone, in place at the time the application became
complete on June 24, 2004; except for the minor deficiencies noted in the findings of fact section
above, which can be remedied in a final PUD site development plan.
39. The project makes appropriate provisions for schools, students who must walk to school,
parks and recreation, utilities, cultural resources and roads; except for minor changes needed to
the City Engineering conditions regarding construction of a pedestrian path, and the addition of a
minor condition making provision for schools bus stops, as identified in the findings of fact
section above.
40. The typing of the seasonal stream on the Ponderosa Ridge site under the County Critical
Areas Ordinance (CAO) is moot; because such issue was decided by the Ponderosa Ridge
decision. The riparian buffers requested by PNA or WDFW for the stream would not extend onto
the current site.
41. There are no geo-hazards or wetlands on the site that need to be addressed under the City
CAO.
42. Condition#s 54-57 on page 16 of the Staff Report should be deleted.
43. Reversal of the MDNS, and issuance of a DS for the project, based on the lack of adequate
community egress from the Ponderosa area in the event of a firestorm event that would require
evacuation of the area, is required under SEPA, the City Environmental Ordinance, and Chapter
10.35 of the City Municipal Code.
IV. DECISION
Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated above, the appeal of the
Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) is hereby granted, the MDNS is reversed,
and the City Planning Division is hereby directed and ordered to issue a Determination of
Significance (DS) for the preliminary plat/PUD application under the City Environmental
Ordinance.
This decision is not subject to appeal.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 70
i
I
DATED this 30th da of November, 2007
Y
CITY HEARING EXAMINER PRO TEM
" /ela, „ \ 0
Michel C. Dempsey, WSBA#8
1.
i
I
1
f
1
3
1
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07 Page 71