Painted Hills FEIS Appendix B - MAY 2023APPENDIX B:
Public Comment Index
This page intentionally left blank.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
1
Public Comment #1 – Doohan, Beth (07-16-21) Response to Comments:
To Whom It May Concern,
As a property owner who lives on 40th avenue, I have deep concerns about this
environmental impact statement. While we do not object in concept to the
development we object strongly to the omission of the consideration of the impact
on our property.
The “Triangle Pond” with the dry wells as stated in the study is only about 100 feet
from our well. This well supplies water for 3 households. There is no mention of our
private well or the 4 others in close proximity, supplying 7 preexisting households.
There seems to be no concern or thought for the impact this may have on our water
flow or quality.
There is also no mention of the traffic impact on 40th avenue, which continues to be
a point of frustration, as we have been vocal in our comments and at meetings
regarding this. While it is nice to study the traffic impact on 32nd and Pines, the fact
is A LOT of cars use McDonald and Woodlawn to cut across to 40th. This is
particularly true during school traffic times, where people will turn right out of
University High School, to turn right on Woodlawn to turn south.40th continues to
be an unmarked road with no lights, no posted speed limits or school zones and is
unsafe. While walking my dogs and young children a car drove by to cut through at
least 50 miles an hour just a couple of weeks ago. People regularly drive 45 down
this road, and rarely stop completely at the stop sign at 40th and Woodlawn. I do
not think it is unreasonable for these roads to accommodate more traffic, but it
really is unreasonable they are not mentioned for planning or improvement in any
way as part of this proposal.
Additionally, 40th avenue becomes a private road and it is not equipped for heavy
loads. I just want to make sure that it is clear that the "triangle pond" does not have
an easement to use our road, which runs along the fence line on the southern
border. I know that in the process of posting and surveying we have seen vehicles
on our private property. Should they need to run trucks or traffic this way, there
would need to be discussion with us as the property owners about compensation
1. Water Quality and Flow (Residential Wells): Section 3.1.1 of the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been updated to discuss the
existence of private wells adjacent to the triangle pond. In addition,
Section 3.1.2 of the EIS has been updated to explain that Triangle Pond
infiltration is not expected to affect water flow and water quality in
residential wells adjacent the Painted Hills site. As noted in that section,
the infiltration pond is not anticipated to impact “flow”/water quantity or
water quality because the proposed project drywells will be located at
least 100 feet from the local wellheads. In addition, the groundwater level
in this area is located approximately 70 feet below the proposed project
drywells.
2. Traffic on S. Woodlawn Drive (Midilome Cut-Through Study): The
commenter concern regarding cut-through traffic is addressed in Section
3.3. of the EIS and supported by an analysis of cut through traffic on S
Woodlawn Drive conducted by Whipple Consulting Engineers (WCE),
which concludes no significant adverse traffic impacts to the Midilome
East neighborhood will result from the proposed PRD. Specifically, the
traffic engineer for the Painted Hills Planned Residential Development
(PRD) applicant conducted an analysis of existing traffic along S.
Woodlawn Drive between E. 32nd Avenue and E. 40th Avenue to determine
the volume of suspected cut-through traffic. The results were included
in the 2016 Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and have been incorporated into
Section 3.3.1.2 of the EIS. As noted in that section of the EIS, WCE
completed traffic counts during the AM and PM Peak hour using tube
counters to inventory total trips along that stretch of S. Woodlawn Dr. and
they also used video to discern cut-through traffic from local traffic. The
study found that there were five cut-through trips in the AM peak hour
and seven cut-through trips in the PM peak hour. It is believed that cut-
through traffic is the result of an attempt by drivers to avoid congestion
at the intersection of E. 32nd Avenue and S. Pines Road.
Spokane County identifies the extension of East 40th Avenue between
South Pines Road and Highway 27 as a future urban arterial route in
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
2
or preparation of the roadway.
Thanks, Beth Doohan
Figure 6 of the Comprehensive Plan’s Transportation Element and
“Program Item 36” in the County’s 2023-2028 Six-Year Transportation
Improvement Plan. The extension of 40th is expected to encourage the use
of primary arterials for traffic between SR-27 and South Pines which
would disincentivize cut through traffic through the Midilome East
neighborhood. Further discussion regarding this issue is included in
Section 3.3.2.2 of the EIS.
In Alternatives 2a and 2b, vehicles originating from the Painted Hills PRD
are not expected to significantly increase traffic flow along S. Woodlawn
Dr. given the orientation of the school sites relative to the project site.
New vehicle trips from the project will travel through S. 32nd Ave. and S.
Pines St. intersection. Additional daily trips will not significantly impact
Level-of-Service standards (LOS), specifically WCE notes in their traffic
study (Appendix F) that new traffic generated from the PRD will keep the
same queuing deficiency identified under the No Action alternative.
In further support of the TIA’s conclusion that adequate levels of
transportation service can be met with Alternatives 2A and 2B, the
applicant obtained a Certificate of Transportation Concurrency for the
PRD that reserved 545 new PM peak hour trips for the project. A copy of
this certificate in included with the EIS as Appendix L.
With regard to comments regarding potential speeding, it should be
noted that speeding was not evaluated in this study and is considered a
local law enforcement issue rather than a concurrency issue. Should the
City and project neighbors determine that speeding presents a safety
issue through the existing subdivision to the east, there are options
available for the City and the residents to work together to lobby towards
speed reduction design measures including signage and installation of
speed bumps through on S. Woodlawn Drive, if deemed necessary.
In response to concerns that have been raised about pedestrian safety on
S Pines Road in the vicinity of the school complex north of the Painted Hills
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
3
site, a flashing beacon and cross walk south of the intersection of East
40th Avenue and South Pines/South Madison Road is proposed. Section
3.3.3 of the EIS has been updated to include reference to a new flashing
beacon and crosswalk at the intersection of East 40th Avenue and South
Pines/South Madison Road.
3. Access to and within Triangle Pond and Gustin Ditch: Public right of way
exists for East 40th Avenue to a point approximately 2,196 feet east of
Madison Road, including approximately 197-feet of frontage of the
commentor’s property (See image below). The commentor is incorrect in
their statement that this road is private. No easements are needed for
pond access. Since the initiation of the draft EIS the project applicant has
secured rights via contract to purchase the triangle pond property and will
complete the purchase prior to construction within the pond. Section 1.1
of the EIS has been updated to address access and use of the triangle pond
in the context of the Painted Hills PRD site. Section 3.2.2. of the EIS has
been updated to address long-term maintenance and safety redundancies
at the triangle pond. Easement rights to construct and maintain the Gustin
Ditch are anticipated to be obtained prior to initiation of construction.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
4
Public Comment #2 – Lochte, Elizabeth (07-16-21) Response to Comments:
Please reconsider the impact of the density on this area. 300 SFD with approximately 2
cars per home and minimum of 1 car per 280 rental units is an additional 880 cars on
Pines and Dishman Mica. Cars already speed along Pines to Madison and I’ve had
multiple cars not stop for me when attempting to cross from Chester to Loretta. The
schools are already full, we never seem to plan our school remodeling for future growth
and apartments do not pay property taxes to help with schools, roads, services.
Less density would be a compromise. I’m extremely disappointed the City failed to buy
this as a park. Cramming 580 units onto this small area is going to change the character
of the south Valley
Elizabeth Lochte Sent from my iPhone
1. Land Use: Land use and zoning for the Painted Hills site and surrounding
properties are addressed in Section 3.2.1 of the EIS. The density of housing
proposed in the Painted Hills PRD is consistent with the underlying zoning,
which allows a density of up to six units per acre, and the City has already
considered the general growth impacts of residential development with its
long-range comprehensive plan. Therefore, no change in the EIS document
has been made.
2. Traffic on S. Pines Road The speed limit along S. Pines Road between E.
32nd Street and E. 40th Street is marked at 35 miles per hour, except when
school speed zones are activated. The speed limit is set for and enforced by
the City and cannot be resolved by the applicant. This comment does not
address technical elements of the EIS. Therefore, no change to the EIS has
been made.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
5
The TIA identified the need for improvements at the 16th Avenue/Pines/SR
27 intersections. The TIA acknowledges that the Project contributes to the
need for improvements at these intersections. As identified, additional
traffic capacity is needed which requires a new southbound right-turn only
lane on Pines Road and a new traffic signal at 16th and Pines. The Developer
will furnish these improvements prior to the City’s issuance of a certificate
of occupancy for the 200th unit. The Developer will furnish the City an
intersection plan similar to that required by WSDOT and Traffic Signal Plans
for final approval prior to construction.
The City may determine to seek funding and/or complete traffic
improvements at the Pines/32nd or the 16th/Pines/SR-27 intersections
prior to the developer completing improvements anticipated in the TIA. If
this were to happen the Developer will enter into a voluntary mitigation
agreement with a proportionate contribution toward the City’s
improvements.
In response to public and City comments about potential improvements for
pedestrian safety on S. Pines Road, the developer is proposing a flashing
beacon and cross walk south of the intersection of East 40th Avenue and
South Pines/South Madison Road. Section 3.3.3 of the EIS has been updated
to include reference to the new flashing beacon and crosswalk at the
intersection of East 40th Avenue and South Pines/South Madison Road as
an additional mitigation measure for pedestrian safety. Traffic control
design techniques in addition to those noted in Section 3.3.3 of the EIS were
not deemed necessary due to projected ADT and LOS in WCE’s 2016
transportation impact analysis. Additionally, speeding was not evaluated in
this study because it is considered a local law enforcement issue rather than
a concurrency issue and there are measures available for the City to help
remedy these issues through greater enforcement, signage and installation
of speed bumps, among other design mitigation measures.
3. Schools: Section 3.4.8.1 has been added to the EIS and addresses the means
by which the Central Valley School District (CVSD) generates revenues to
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
6
fund student enrichment and capital facilities to augment additional
revenues channeled to the district from the state. This section also
addresses the various means by which districts plan for and accommodate
student population increases associated with urban growth. Sections
3.4.8.2.1 through section 3.4.8.2.3 address the impacts of the three
alternatives on school capacity.
Public Comment #3– Bean, Sally (07-16-21) Response to Comments:
This seems like too much development. Why do planners and builders have to put is so
much commercial, houses and apartments?? Where is the park? Greenbelt? Dog park?
These are things families need too.
PLEASE CONSIDER THESE AND MAKE THEM FIT IN!
1. Parks/Greenspace: Public open space areas are provided pursuant SVMC
Section 19.50.060, which requires at least 30 percent of the gross land area
be dedicated for “common space for the use of its residents”.
Based on the City’s comprehensive plan level-of-service target of 1.92-acres
of park space per 1,000 residents, the project would create demand for
approximately 2.70 acres of park space in the community.
Approximately 30-acres of the 100-acre Project site will be open space area
under Alternatives 2a and 2b, including a 10-acre park and wildlife travel
corridor, which will fulfill the recreational demands of the new
development. Recreational amenities are specified in Section 3.4.9 of the
EIS. Therefore, no change to the EIS has been made.
Public Comment #4 – Blood, Angela (07-17-21) Response to Comments:
Hello Ms. Barlow.
I would like to express my concerns regarding the housing development plans for the
Painted Hills Golf Course area. When you consider the numbers, you'll be bringing the
population of an entire small town to this little space! I can only imagine the traffic
nightmare it will bring to that area and crowding in our schools. This excessive summer
heat has brought attention to the fact that our electric grid isn't up to par to support the
needs of Spokane County as we've seen Avista have to have forced power outages and
calls for citizens to conserve electricity wherever possible. Additionally, people who
have moved into that area did so with the idea that they would live off-the-beaten-path
1. Land Use: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 1.
2. Transportation: Transportation design techniques and mitigation measures
are provided in Section 3.3.3 of the EIS. Traffic design techniques and pass-
through traffic calming measures are expanded on in the response to Public
Comment #1, Item 2 and Public Comment #2, Item 2.
3. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
4. Utilities: Section 3.4.8 of the EIS has been updated to include an affected
environment section which discusses existing Inland Power and Light power
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
7
in an area surrounded by nature and a quiet golf course - not a massive housing
development. They've paid their property taxes and should get what they've paid for!
There is already enough destructive building going on in that area - filling wetlands with
buildings and displacing wildlife from important habitat. Meanwhile, there are plenty of
vacant lots and abandoned buildings/homes around the valley that are just eyesores
and nuisances.
Maybe instead of destroying more natural areas, developers should get creative and
consider reusing the abandoned spaces that are already sitting around looking hideous
with no useful purpose. People move to the suburbs for a suburban kind of living - not
to be squished in between and crowded out by massive cookie-cutter housing
developments! We don't want the traffic, the crowding in the schools, the added stress
on our resources, the rise in crime that is bound to come with more people packing into
a small area, or any more displaced wildlife! Build it somewhere else - Don't turn the
Valley into the very type of place we moved away from in Spokane proper.. Thank you
for your consideration. Angela Blood
service to the site. As a public utility, Inland Power and Light bears the
responsibility to update and maintain its power grid commensurate with
urban growth. As confirmed in discussions with Inland Power and Light, no
power supply improvements are necessary to service the site and the
project will only require distribution line improvements to serve the future
development.
5. Wetlands: As stated in Section 3.4.3 of the EIS no wetlands, as defined by
the City of Spokane Valley, the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE),
or the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), have been identified on the
Painted Hills site. Therefore, no change to the EIS document has been
made.
6. Wildlife: Section 3.4.3.1 and Appendix H of the EIS describe biological
resources on the Painted Hills PRD site. No federally-listed or state-listed
species or other species of concern were identified on the Painted Hills PRD
site. The existing habitat is degraded, having been planted in non-native turf
grasses with sparsely-spaced conifer and deciduous trees lining some of the
fairways when the site was a golf course. Alternatives 2a and 2b will retain
a corridor of open space both along the south edge of the site, and through
the riparian area of Chester Creek, allowing wildlife to safely cross the site.
Public Comment #5 – Ferris, Candy (07-17-21) Response to Comments:
Can you please help us understand how the school capacity would be impacted. The
schools are already overwhelmed, adding 100s of students would not be good for the
current school system.
Thank you Candy Ferris 44th ave
1. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
Public Comment #6 – Ferris, Candy (07-17-21) Response to Comments:
How can we safely let our children walk to school with 100s of additional vehicles in the
area. What is being done to address this?
Candy Ferris 44th ave
1. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: Pedestrian and cyclist safety will not
be significantly impacted by the proposed development for the following
reasons, and through the following mitigation measures:
Frontage improvements will include new continuous sidewalks
constructed throughout the project and along the site frontages of
Madison Road, Thorpe Road, and Dishman-Mica Road. Upon
completion of the Madison Road improvements, a roughly 300-foot
long gap in sidewalk will exist between the northern limits of the
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
8
Painted Hills PRD site and the existing sidewalk which terminates at E.
40th Street and S. Pines Road. The applicant intends to address this
connection by extending a paved pedestrian path within the South
Madison Road right of way to ensure a continuous pedestrian
connection on the west side of South Madison Road between East
Thorpe and East 40th Avenue. The proposed pedestrian connection is
illustrated in the figure below.
The Project will construct new turn movement lanes on South
Dishman-Mica Road at the primary site entry prior to the initiation of
mass grading activities on the site.
A beaconized crosswalk will be constructed at the intersection of East
40th Avenue and South Pines/South Madison Road, immediately south
of Horizon Middle School to facilitate safe pedestrian crossings of
South Pines/South Madison Road near the northeast corner of the
site.
Section 3.3.2 and of the EIS has been revised to address potential effects of
construction-related and trip-generated traffic on pedestrian and cyclist
safety. The EIS has been updated to include a new mitigation measure in
Section 3.3.3, including the new beaconized crosswalk at the intersection of
East 40th Avenue and South Pines/South Madison Road specific to this public
comment, the pedestrian walkway will connect on the west side of South
Madison Road between East Thorpe Road and East 40th Avenue including
the 300-foot-long gap located adjacent to the approximately two-acre
property owned by Water District #16 abutting the northeast corner of the
Painted Hills PRD site.
Vehicular speed and impacts to children/pedestrian safety were also noted
as a concern in this public comment. The proposed beaconized
crosswalk/new mitigation measure outlined in Section 3.3.3 of the EIS will
serve as a redundant pedestrian safety measure in addition to those existing
traffic control measures in school zones, including school zone speed limits,
school zone signage, and cross walk attendants. Speeding on off-site
facilities was not evaluated in the 2016 traffic study and is considered a local
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
9
law enforcement issue rather than a concurrency or specific impact
mitigation issue.
Public Comment #7 – Rustad, Cheryle (07-19-21) Response to Comments:
"Respectfully, Deanna
From: Comcast <ethncher@comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2021 2:26 PM
To: City Hall <cityhall@spokanevalley.org>
Subject: Painted Hills development
In response to the notification of proposed development of the Painted Hills area by
Black Realty Inc. I would like to submit my NO VOTE for the following reasons:
1.It’s a wetland area that consistently holds water run-off for the surrounding area.
Every single year it nearly floods Thorpe Rd.
2.Because of the high water levels it is also used extensively by
wildlife.
3.The proposed housing is too dense. Existing services will be overwhelmed.
Much of the traffic would go by 3 schools which already have a very heavy road usage.
1. Wetlands: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 5.
2. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6.
3. Land Use: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 1.
4. Traffic Impacts on Thorpe Rd and Dishman-Mica: Section 3.3.1 of the EIS
addresses traffic estimates on Dishman-Mica and Thorpe Road. Section
3.3.2 of the EIS discusses the potential effects of construction-related and
trip-generated traffic on Dishman-Mica and Thorpe Road. Posted speeds
on roadways are set by the city and/or county. Adjustments can be made
pursuant to their standard methods regardless of new development in the
areas. As this Item does not require a technical revision, no change to the
EIS document has been made.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
10
4.The schools themselves would carry a heavy impact.
Thorpe road exiting the west side onto Dishman-Mica is already heavily traveled. The
road merges at a curve with no center turn lanes which will greatly increase the
likelihood of serious accidents in a 45 MPH zone. Both fire stations that service
this area are already in high demand – I hear the sirens!
5. In years past when we have experience fire danger the escape routes are already
limited. The proposed density will aggravate this situation and compromise safety for
the entire communityThank you for considering this information. I have not spoken to
even one person in the neighborhood who thinks this development is a reasonable
proposal. The only one who stands to benefit in Black Realty by pocketing the profits
while they live away from the problems they create
Cheryle Rustad 3809 S. Loretta Dr.
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Sent from Mail for Windows 10”
5. Traffic Design Techniques and Traffic Calming Mitigation: A flashing
beacon and crosswalk is proposed at the intersection of East 40th Avenue
and South Pines/South Madison Road. The addition of the beaconized
cross walk adjacent Horizon Middle School will serve as a redundant
pedestrian safety measure that will augment other measures, such as
school zone speed limits, school zone signage, and cross walk attendants.
It is anticipated that a condition of approval would be imposed on the PRD
by the City that stipulates the beaconized crosswalk will be added prior to
construction. As such, revisions to Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 of the EIS have
been made to reflect the newly added beaconized cross walk. Traffic
control design techniques/traffic calming mitigation measures in addition
to those noted in Section 3.3.3 of the EIS were not identified as a required
mitigation measure in WCE’s 2016 transportation impact analysis.
Additionally, speeding was not evaluated in this study and is considered a
local law enforcement issue rather than a concurrency issue.
6. Fire Safety and Evacuation Routes: The EIS preparer is aware of a fire
event in 1991 in the Ponderosa residential area to the west. Such events
are rare and the potential for such events stems from the combination of
densely forested Ponderosa pine trees in that area and prevailing winds
from the west/southwest. Because the prevailing winds that help fuel
such an event are generally from the west/southwest, the logical escape
route for residents from the Ponderosa residential area or from the
forested hillside east of South Madison Road, if such an event were to
occur again, would likely be to the north.
For residents within the Ponderosa community to the west, the logical
escape route would be South Dishman Mica Road either via Schafer Road
or via South Bowdish Road. Both of these access points to South Dishman
Mica Road are north of the Painted Hills access to South Dishman Mica
Road and future development of the Painted Hills subdivision would not
interfere with either access point. For areas east and southeast of South
Madison Road, the escape route would likely be South Madison Road or
SR 27 farther to the east. The Painted Hills PRD will not introduce any stop-
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
11
controls on South Madison that would interfere with northbound travel
in the event of a fire.
Furthermore, the Painted Hills PRD would not be landscaped with dense
combustible landscape materials. Future buildings and infrastructure will
be built to fire code and will include suppression features that would
protect the subdivision if a fire event approaches from the west, south or
east.
In addition, the Painted Hills PRD will improve cross circulation between
South Dishman Road and South Madison Road by providing a new east-
west local circulator through the site. This will improve access to either
South Madison Road or South Dishman Mica Road and provides alternate
routes of travel should fire events occur either to the east or west, where
forested low density residential development exists. The EIS preparer has
updated Section 3.4.8.2.2 of the EIS to include this discussion on wildfire
safety.
Public Comment #8– Owen, Cody (07-17-21) Response to Comments:
"Hello Lori,
I grew up in this area my whole life. These wetlands and wildlife have been a huge part
of my life and my now children’s. You can’t build over our wetlands. This area can’t
sustain growth like this let alone the community that has been built here.
My kid’s start junior high next year and will be walking to schools. They have always
been so happy to grow up in an area where we have many wild animals and the water
ways.
Please do everything in your power to allow this not to happen and it will greatly impact
my family and all the other families in the area. This is a small beautiful community and
don’t want it ruined with what Black has planned.
Thanks for your time.
Get Outlook for iOS"
1. Wetlands: See Response to Public Comment #4, Item 5.
2. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
12
Public Comment #9 – Boyer, Stacie (07-17-21) Response to Comments:
"Hi, my name is Stacie Boyer. I grew up in The Painted Hills area. My parents live at
5713 S. Mohawk Dr. their home since 1974.
I am absolutely appalled that units for almost 600 people would reside on the land
that used to be Painted Hills golf course! The impact this will have environmentally
for the deer, birds, moose and countless other wildlife will be substantial.
I can't even fathom how Chester Elementary, Horizon and U-Hi would be able to
handle the influx of this many more students..it will crowd this entire area beyond
capacity!
I understand that development and growth needs to occur, but the scale of this
project is much too large for that plot of land, I am not privy to the building flood
requirements, but this land is also a known flood plain, a huge reason why so many
animals frequent this area for a water source.
Hopefully those with the ability to do so, recognizes all of these concerns and either
stops this development, or largely scales this project back.
Thanks for your time, Stacie Boyer
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android"
1. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6.
2. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
3. Flooding (general): Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 of the EIS have been revised to
address design redundancies of the flood control system that reduce the
likelihood of system failure and reduce significant consequences in the
event of system failure. Risk of failure and risk to adjacent properties is
unlikely for the following reasons and through the following measures:
Flood models and the supplemental flood control narrative (March 6,
2019) prepared by WCE concludes that flood water velocities and depth
of flooding during a 100-year storm event are shallow and slow:
o Flood depths in the event of a headgate failure scenario range
average 0.9 feet deep with deeper flood volumes
concentrated in flood control system elements (secondary
storage park pond and the discharge basin lowpoint pond).
o Flood velocity was determined to be relatively low (main flow
at Chester across Thorpe Road and golf course flow combined
has a peak flow rate of 91 cubic feet per second (cfs)). In
addition to the overflow from Chester Creek, the hillside
above Madison Road has a peak design inflow of 15 cfs
through the four operational 18” culverts under Madison
Road. Therefore, the total peak 100-year event flow rate for
conveyance and infiltration design is 106 cfs. In support of this
conclusion, the average flood velocity during a 100-year storm
is 1.4 feet per second. Tables indicating flood depth and
velocity among several river stations are included with the EIS
as Appendix N.
At least one public comment raises a concern about vegetation and
woody debris clogging flood control system components, specifically
the system’s trash racks at the headworks. Vegetation within the
Chester Creek watershed upstream of the site is largely devoid of trees
and large woody debris that could be carried to the site by floodwaters.
Further, the flood velocities and depths of flooding that reach the
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
13
project headworks are not of a velocity or depth that would be able to
carry the large woody debris, if it existed in the upstream basin. The
EIS describes this issue in detail and provides context behind the
findings that a total headworks obstruction from large woody debris is
highly unlikely.
In the unlikely event the trash racks are obstructed during a 100-year
storm, flood waters will fill a secondary storage pond located within
adjacent PRD open space.
Overflow under this scenario will be readily apparent to those living
within the Painted Hills PRD and to the Homeowners Association
representatives responsible for maintenance and repairs. Due to the
velocity and shallow nature of flooding in the basin reasonable time
would exist to remove debris from the trash racks.
After passing through the headworks, flood waters will continue
through a series of 48” culverts with 5 feet wide manholes to a grassy
slope to filter sediment prior to entering the settling pond.
The Gustin Ditch and Triangle Pond are off-site components of the flood
control system. The Gustin Ditch and Triangle Pond are designed to
retain all 100-year storm flows from the east and prevent flood waters
from overtopping South Madison Road and converging with additional
100-year flood hazard area on the Painted Hills PRD site.
It is also of note that any development activities located in a flood hazard
area are subject to review and approval through FEMA’s Conditional Letter
of Map Revision (CLOMR) and eventual approval via a Letter of Map Revision
(LOMR). The applicant has submitted all flood and stormwater designs to
FEMA for preliminary review, as established during a meeting with FEMA and
other reviewing agencies on October 14, 2021. Comments were received
from FEMA on August 22, 2022, and December 21, 2022, as part of a
preliminary review. These comments request relatively minor revisions such
as expanded responses and revisions to application materials. No
modification of the flood conveyance system design is required as a result of
these comments; however, the technical review process is not yet complete,
and FEMA may provide additional comments that need to be addressed.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
14
Public Comment #10– Blegen, Colby (07-19-21) Response to Comments:
"Hello, my name is Colby Blegen, it has recently come to my attention the people like
Dave Black are seeking to develop the old painted hills golf course into new
neighborhoods.
This is NOT a good decision and should never be approved.
Not only does it cause an enlarged environmental impact on the city of Spokanr Valley
with increase housing causing more greenhouse gases will would also produce
exceedingly clogged traffic in the future.
Additionally, as a high school student, I have seen first hand the overpacking of local
school, especially in the Spokane School District and the Central Valley School District.
The addition of over 300 homes would be incredibly stressing to our schools and it could
not be sustainable for long.
If you seek to keep Spokane in the splendor it is today, the building of new
neighborhoods is not going to assist in that
Thank you
Colby Blegen 509-904-9075"
1. Air Quality: Section 3.4.1.1 of the EIS describes existing air quality in
Spokane Valley. Section 3.4.1.2 of the EIS discusses effects on air
emissions from the Painted Hills PRD and concludes that the anticipated
air quality impacts from the construction and operation of the project are
consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan, which designates the site
for residential development. Recommended mitigation measures to
minimize air quality effects are provided in Section 3.4.1.3 of the EIS.
2. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
3. Transportation (general): A 2016 TIA was prepared by WCE in which
existing vehicular average daily trips were compared with new trips
resulting from the proposed Painted Hills PRD. The TIA concluded the
following:
Development of the proposed project will generate new trips on the
existing transportation system and that those trips, while affecting
level of service (LOS), will generally not degrade LOS below
concurrency levels, except at the intersection of 16th Avenue and
Pines Road/SR 27. However, it is anticipated that paired signalized
intersections will be installed at this location that will improve
conditions to an LOS C in this location. No other system deficiencies
were identified under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1).
The following mitigation measure is outlined in Section 3.3.3 of the
EIS “The TIA acknowledges that the Project contributes to the need
for improvements at these intersections. As identified, additional
traffic capacity is needed which requires a new southbound right-turn
only lane on Pines Road and a new traffic signal at 16th and Pines.
The Developer will furnish these improvements prior to the City’s
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the 200th unit. The
Developer will furnish the City an intersection plan similar to that
required by WSDOT and Traffic Signal Plans for final approval prior to
construction”.
Additionally, any queueing deficiencies that have been identified are
the same under the no action/Alternatives 2a and 2b in the EIS.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
15
As noted in the response to Public Comment #1, Item 1, Spokane County
identifies the extension of East 40th Avenue between South Pines Road
and Highway 27 as a future urban arterial route in Figure 6 of the
Comprehensive Plan’s Transportation Element and “Program Item 36” in
the County’s 2023-2028 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan. The
extension of 40th is expected to disincentivize cut-through traffic by
providing a more direct east/west route between SR-27 and South Pines
Road. The applicant will be purchasing the triangle pond property and will
cooperate with the County if/as necessary to provide right of way
necessary for NE 40th Avenue when the county initiates a project to
complete the arterial connection between SR-27 and South Pines Road.
Section 3.3.2.2 of the EIS has been updated to address the extension of
East 40th Avenue in the context of the concerns regarding cut-through
traffic.
Public Comment #11– Andrews, Ike (07-19-21) Response to Comments:
Thank you for sending the draft environmental impact statement for the above
project.
I was very interested in the traffic impact analysis and appreciate the attention to
detail that it included.
I would like to alert the City of Spokane Valley and the applicant of an additional detail
to the traffic analysis that was not included but warrants some further study due to
the potential safety impact.
At the intersection of Dishman-Mica and Thorpe is a commercial establishment (Craft
& Gather). During peak commercial hours for the establishment, vehicles traveling
southbound on Dishman-Mica heading to Craft & Gather must make a quick left turn
into the establishment’s parking lot after turning left off Dishman-Mica and heading
eastbound on Thorpe. When multiple vehicles make the turn, and westbound traffic
on Thorpe prevents the turn into Craft & Gather, a car can be left blocking the
intersection for northbound traffic on Dishman-Mica. Therefore, as frontage
improvements are planned for Thorpe, I would recommend widening the road enough
1. Traffic Impacts on Dishman-Mica and Thorpe/Access to Craft and Gather:
The concern noted in this comment will be addressed with proposed
mitigation. Specifically, as noted in Section 3.3.3, a westbound left turn lane
on Thorpe Road will be completed by the project, which will shorten queues
and avoid queues that back beyond the commercial driveway that currently
serves Craft and Gather.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
16
to allow either a left-turn lane into Craft & Gather or enough room on the south side
of Thorpe to allow vehicles to go around cars waiting to make the turn into Craft &
Gather
Thank you for considering this input. Yours truly,
Isaac “Ike” Andrews
5911 S. Lochsa Ln.
Spokane, WA 99206
509-795-6540
Public Comment #12 – Rudmann, Karina (07-19-21) Response to Comments:
I am writing to oppose the proposed Painted Hills PRD. The area surrounding this
property is not made to support this much added residential home and multi family
units. The roads next to Horizon Middle School and Chester elementary school and
University High School will be dangerous with the construction traffic followed by the
significant increase in residential traffic upon completion. I am not opposed to
expanding residential areas, but adding more multi-family units is not a desirable
addition to the area
Sincerely, Karina Rudmann
1. Land Use: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 1.
2. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
3. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3.
4. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See Public Comment #1, Item 1.
Public Comment #13 – Christian, Steven B. (No date) Response to Comments:
This is in reference to the Painted Hills Planned Residential Development located in the
Spokane Valley.
After reading the proposed flood zone mitigation plan, I can only assume that the
developer believes they can control the will of GOD and natural occurrences. From
what I can tell the
proposed development lays approximately 80% within a FEMA designated AE fold
zone which will require FEMA flood insurance. I am stunned that development is even
remotely being considered for approval. Given the location and the flood zone status,
the highest and best use would be a park or other facility, where no housing would be
built.
{screen shot of flood map, see word doc or pdf}
AE flood zones are areas that present a 1% annual chance of flooding and a 26%
chance over the life of a 30-year mortgage, according to FEMA. These regions are
clearly defined in Flood Insurance Rate Maps and are paired with detailed information
1. Flooding: See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
17
about base flood elevations. Most AE flood zones are located in close proximity to
floodplains, rivers and lakes, though low-lying regions without large bodies of water
may also be classified under this designation. Since these areas are prone to flooding,
homeowners with mortgages from federally regulated lenders are required to
purchase flood insurance through the NFIP.I respectfully request that this project NOT
be approved based on proven flood zone information and potential unnecessary
financial burden to any potential homeowner.
Respectfully, Steven B. Christian
3915 S. Sunderland Dr.
Spokane Valley, WA 99206-8629 509-995-8953
Steveb.christian@gmail.com
Public Comment #14 – Wolfrum, Erik (07-21-21) Response to Comments:
Hi Lori…Thank you for taking public comments on the Painted Hills development. As a
member of the community, parent with children that attend the close by schools and
educator, I believe developing Painted Hills in the way stated, is the wrong use of the
property. My concerns are for the schools, traffic and safety (mainly student safety).
Our local schools are already at capacity and would not have space to accommodate the
additional students coming in with 300 single family homes and 280 multifamily units.
University High School is already the largest high school in Central Valley and the new
boundary lines don’t seem to be easing the student load. Adding more students (to all
the local school) will only increase the already bulging student population and class
sizes. Neither are conducive to a productive learning environment.
Students walking or riding their bikes to school (Chester, Horizon and U-High) use
Madison and adding additional traffic and students would be huge safety concern as the
road is already tight in the mornings and afternoons. Finally, traffic on Dishman-Mica
and Madison/Pines will come to a stop more than it already does. The infrastructure is
not made for the number of cars we currently have and adding a development of this
size will bottle neck the already stressed roads. The intersection of Dishman-Mica and
Thorpe is a on a curve with limited visibility. Adding the number of vehicles to the roads
will increase the chance for accidents at this one intersection among others.
1. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
2. Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment #6, Item 1.
3. Traffic on Dishman-Mica and Thorpe: See response to Public Comment #7,
Item 4.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
18
Again, I hope this property can be used for something other than a development that
would stress the community.
Thanks for taking comments and if there is anything else I can answer, please let me
know.
Erik Wolfrum
Ponderosa Community Member
Director of Teaching and Learning: NEWESD 101
Public Comment #15 – Swan, Ian (07-21-21) Response to Comments:
"Dear Ms. Barlow,
I am a life long resident of the Spokane Valley and tax payer. It is as such that I am writing to voice
strong opposition to the proposed construction of 580 dwellings on the old painted hills golf
course.
Here are some of the issues I see.
1. Traffic both during construction and after.
2. Noise pollution, mostly during construction.
3. Destruction of a wetland. Loss of habitat for deer, moose, eagles, frogs, ducks, geese,
hawks and bear.
4. Lack of school infrastructure. As I understand it, Ponderosa, Chester, Horizon and
University High School are all at or above capacity.
5. Too many homes. Not sure if you or any other city planners have been by what used to
be the Bergman tree farm, but what a disaster. Amazing what happened to that neighborhood
almost over night. Most neighbors to that property have sold or are in the process of selling. It
used to be one of the most coveted areas of the valley, unfortunately no longer.
6. Loss of one of the few remains green tracks in the valley.
It seems that this property could be used to build homes on 1/2 acre lots with the preservation of
the existing wetland in-mind. I would assume the developer could sell the lots at a premium. I
know this would possible cut into the the anticipated tax rolls of the city, but that should be the
last of your concerns.
Please inform me when a public comment period is as I would like to speak on the record about
this. Sincerely,
Ian Swan
11315 E 18th
Spokane Valley Wa 99206 Sent from my iPhone"
1. Transportation: Both construction-related traffic and development
generated traffic are discussed in Section 3.3 of the EIS. Supplemental
technical documents including the Transportation Impact Analysis and the
Truck Haul Memo are included as Appendix F and G, respectively. This
comment does not address technical elements of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes were made.
General traffic concerns such as volumes, queueing, and mitigation
measures are also addressed in Public Comment #10, Item 1.
2. Noise: Section 3.4.7 of the EIS describes current noise levels on and around
the Painted Hills site. In addition, Section of 3.4.7.2 of the EIS discusses the
potential noise levels during construction and throughout the lifetime of the
PRD. Construction-related noise will be limited to times prescribed in the
City of Spokane Valley’s Municipal Code (SVMC) 7.05.040(K)(1), as noted in
Section 3.4.7.3 of the EIS. Therefore, no EIS changes are warranted.
3. Wetlands: See Response to Public Comment #4, Item 5.
4. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6.
5. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
6. Land Use: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 1.
7. Recreation: Section 3.4.9.1 of the EIS discusses existing recreational
opportunities near the Painted Hills site. In addition, Section 3.4.9.2 of the
EIS describes that the amount of park and open space provided in the
Painted Hills PRD proposal satisfies the requirements of the SVMC.
Therefore, no EIS changes are warranted.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
19
Public Comment #16 – Reamer, John (07-23-21) Response to Comments:
We were looking for the map of dwelling locations. My wife found one that gave us what we
needed.
Are the cottage properties going to be zoned for rental? We live in the Greens at Midilome and
are concerned there may be some impact on property values. I’m also wondering about fencing
or barriers between our property and the development.
Thank you for your quick response.
John
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 23, 2021, at 12:14, Lori Barlow <lbarlow@spokanevalley.org> wrote:
Mr. Reamer, thank you for taking the time to review the project. Can you clarify what map you
are referring to? Thanks – Lori
Lori Barlow, AICP | Senior Planner, Community and Public Works Department 10210 E. Sprague
Avenue | Spokane Valley, WA 99206
(509) 720-5335 | LBarlow@spokanevalley.org
www.spokanevalley.org
This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State’s
Public Record Act, chapter 42.56 RCW.
From: John Reamer <reamerj@icloud.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 9:36 AM
To: Lori Barlow <lbarlow@spokanevalley.org>
Subject: Painted Hills Planned Residential Development project
Ms. Barlow,
I'm reviewing the email regarding the planned development for the Painted Hills Development.
The quality of the attached map of the plan is too poor to read. Is it possible to get a copy of
that map at the City Hall?
Thank you, John L Reamer
3829 S Eagle Lane
509-991-9635
reamerj@mac.com
1. Land Use: This comment does not address technical details of the EIS.
Therefore, no changes have been made.
Public Comment #17 – Berkseth, Barbara (07-24-21) Response to Comments:
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
20
Once again I want to voice my disapproval of the high density building proposed by Bryan Walker
of Black Realty and Todd Whipple of Whipple Engineering. The area should not be exploited for
the economic gain of these realtors and builders. The area is an obvious wetland, flood plain and
no amount of fill dirt is going to change this for the long term. The instability and future settling of
the area will add to problems down the road and can't help but affect our aquifer. Cementing
over wetlands for new roads and driveways can only be detrimental to the needed drainage in
that area. Traffic in and around this area would be horrendous and not in keeping with the
current rural type setting that original homeowners wanted when they settled in the area.
Evacuating in times of emergency will be slowed due to the sheer number of new builds in that
area. More school personnel will be needed to keep children safe going to and from schools
within a mile of the new development. Arrival and leaving times at the high school nearby already
cause a lot of traffic congestion. What is the figure for added cars due to building in Painted Hills?
I would think at least 1000 additional cars could be expected on the roads in the area.
Do not allow this high density building to further pollute our valley, affect our water supply, and
make further demands upon our roadways and schools. Their intent is to develop, build and sell
units to unsuspecting buyers who aren't familiar with the area and the ramifications of a high-
density building plan there. If impact fees were assessed and charged to these developers, they
would find out that it wasn't profitable to even consider such a
development.
As we all protested against this 6 yrs. ago - no amount of fill dirt is going to make building in
Painted Hills "okay!" The return of this area to a golf course would be the logical solution. I was at
the driving range behind Craft & Gather in June of this year and there definitely are people who
favor the return to golf. At three o'clock the parking lot begins to fill and people enjoy doing what
the area was intended for.
Barbara Berkseth
Sent from Outlook
1. Wetlands: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 5.
2. Flooding: See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3.
3. Transportation: See response to Public Comment #1, Item 2.
4. Recreation: This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS.
5. Water Quality (SVRP Aquifer): Sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 of the EIS discuss
the potential effects of the project on the Spokane Rathdrum Prairie
Aquifer. No significant water quality or quantity impacts to the aquifer are
anticipated for the following reasons and through the following measures:
Floodwater will be directed through elements of the flood control
system prior to infiltration, including the tall grassy slope and settling
pond
Floodwater and stormwater will percolate through 50 drywells in the
lowest point of the discharge basin prior to infiltration and discharge
to the ground/SRVP.
All other stormwater runoff not directed to the flood control system
would have the same water quality characteristics of waters during a
heavy rain event under the No Action/development alternative and
Alternatives 2a and 2b (Painted Hills PRD) in the EIS. Therefore, no EIS
changes have been made.
Floodwater inflows to the site are received from mostly rural
subbasins with low contaminant loads relative to developed areas
with significant impervious surfaces from roofs, streets, and parking
lots. For comparison, the highly developed 2.81 sq mi drainage area
to the north of the Painted Hills site contains 1,059 drywells that drain
directly to the aquifer. This drainage area is estimated to have a peak
two-year event inflow to the 1,059 drywells of approximately 167 cfs,
which is 13 times greater than the estimated peak inflow from the
two FEMA identified flooding sources. Therefore, floodwaters will
continue to infiltrate on the site under typical conditions and no
appreciable change in volumes or quality of water that reach the
aquifer via the Painted Hills site are anticipated to occur under
Alternative 2a or 2b.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
21
6. Geotechnical (general): The commenter raises a concern about
“instability and future settling of the area…”. There are no known
geotechnical hazard areas within the Painted Hills PRD site or evidence to
support the commenter’s claims. Therefore, no EIS changes have been
made.
Public Comment #18 – Swett, Megan (07-24-21) Response to Comments:
Hello, I am writing in regards to the planned development of the Painted Hills area. It is a great
concern to me the amount of homes that will be constructed. That area is accessible by only
single lanes roads and will lead to congestion, crowding, and increased crime in the area with
the multi-family units that are being planned. In addition, it will lead to additional overcrowding
of the schools as well as a significant loss of habitat for the abundant wildlife. I ask that this
project be denied and would request either significantly fewer homes being built or the land
being turned into a public park area
Thank you for your consideration! Megan Swett
Megan Swett
Indirect Underwriter II Numerica Credit Union 509-536-6127
Life Moves. Live Well.™
1. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
2. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6.
3. Transportation. The comment does not address technical details of the
EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made.
Public Comment #19 –P, Dan (07-20-21) Response to Comments:
Unfortunately this happened. You should consider a new sign. Dan
{photo of vandalized sign, please see word doc or PDF} 1. Miscellaneous: This comment does not address technical details of the
EIS.
Public Comment #20 – Pavelich, Dan (07-27-21) Response to Comments:
Dear Ms. Barlow and Mr. Hohlman,
On behalf of the Painted Hills Preservation Association we are requesting a 15 day extension of
time for comments on the DEIS and related Exhibits. In addition we will be requesting in other
communications to you that the City hold a Public Hearing on the DEIS.
The DEIS and related exhibits are comprised of 648 pages. Given the volume even an additional
15 days will pose a significant challenge for a thorough review by our members, legal counsel
and other experts. Given the process that the City has been though, that commenced on
September 19, 2019, with a DEIS Coordinating and Kick off Meeting, and numerous letters
following involving Reed Stapleton, DOWL and Todd Whipple, by which, the City communicated
1. Public Involvement: The City provided an extended public comment
period in August and September of 2021, including a public hearing on
September 8, 2021. No EIS changes are necessary.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
22
deficiencies and clarification speaks clearly of the difficulty the City itself had in identifying the
environmental impacts and proposed mitigation of such. It took the City and the Developer
nearly two years to achieve a DEIS that was then released to the public for comment on July 16,
2021. Besides what appeared on the City's website as to documents released to the public, I can
only imagine the amount of time the City and its expert spent in internal communications,
analysis, research and study of the critical disturbance of the environment that the proposed
development will cause if the project is ever permitted to begin construction.
Please advise me as to whether you will grant the 15 day extension.
Thank you,
Dan Pavelich, President Painted Hills Preservation Association
Public Comment #21 – Pavelich, Sandy (07-28-21) Response to Comments:
I would like to request the 15 day extension.I did not receive a notice and the only way I knew
about t his is seeing the signs posted around the golf course. AlsoI would like to have a public
hearing so we have more time to discuss thiswith our environment al lawyer.
1. Public Involvement: The City provided an extended public comment
period in August and September of 2021, including a public hearing on
September 8, 2021. No EIS changes are necessary.
Public Comment #22 – Desgrosellier, Mandy (08-02-21) Response to Comments:
"I would like to express my concern with the Painted Hills subdivision proposed development. I
have lived in this area for the past 45 years and have seen substantial growth during this period. I
am not opposed to growth but have some true concerns for the proposed development on the
Painted Hills golf course land. This area has always been considered a flood plain and has flooded
year after year. Almost every year Thorpe Road is closed for period of time due to the flooding. I
am even more concerned now with the proposal for the cut and fill plan to try to eliminate the
flooding. This is not a resolution that makes sense for the environment, wet lands, wildlife or the
future homes they propose to build on it. The negative impact this will bring to our community is
unfathomable.
I live on Woodlawn Drive in Midilome East. Our street has become a main arterial for people
wanting to avoid the lights and congestion on 32nd and Pines. The volume of traffic and high
speeds people drive is very dangerous to our kids, pets, and our general population. This has
1. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3.
2. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6.
3. Traffic on Woodlawn Drive (Midilome Cut-Through Study): See response
to Public Comment #1, Item 2.
4. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
5. Wetlands: See Response to Public Comment #4, Item 5.
6. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3.
7. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See Public Comment #1, Item 1.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
23
progressively gotten worse/dangerous in the last few years, as other developments have been
completed. It's scary to imagine the impact 580+ new housing units. It is also very dangerous
currently to turn left onto Thorpe Road off of Dishman Mica. Having a development on the corner
including apartments will be increasingly dangerous/deadly with the proposed increase of traffic. I
am highly opposed to the increased traffic this development will bring into our area.
My kids attend the local schools including Chester, Horizon and University. The schools are
already overcrowded and are having to bus kids to other schools. I am opposed to the negative
impact all of the existing students will face with the severe overcrowding this development will
create.
Please consider paring down this project considerably to preserve our wetlands, wildlife, schools,
and keep the traffic flowing safely. Better yet, maybe the City of Spokane Valley can purchase it
back from the developer and turn it into something the public can use and enjoy.
Thank you,
""
ier
13004 E. 34th Ave.
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 509-869-9624"
Public Comment #23 – Kendall, Tom (07-30-21) Response to Comments:
After watching floods in two years in the early 1990's in this area, I do not believe that any
mitigation mentioned will handle that volume of water. It is classified as a flood plain and should
remain
so. Leave it alone!
1. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3.
Public Comment #24 – Caine, Jamie (08-02-21) Response to Comments:
"August 2, 2021
Lori Barlow
Spokane Valley Community and Public Works Department
10210 East Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206
RE: Opposing the Proposed Painted Hills Project
Dear Lori,
1. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3.
2. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6.
3. Traffic Impacts on Dishman Mica and Thorpe Road: See response to
Public Comment #7, Item 4.
4. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
5. Recreation: This comment does not address technical details of the EIS.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
24
I would like to express my concerns with the Painted Hills subdivision proposed development. This
area has always been considered a flood plain and has flooded year after year. Almost every year
Thorpe Road is closed for period of time due to the flooding. I am even more concerned now with
the proposal for the cut and fill plan to try to eliminate the flooding. This is not a resolution that
makes sense for the environment, wet lands, wildlife or the future homes they propose to build
on it. The negative impact this will bring to our community is unfathomable.
I am highly opposed to the increased traffic this development will bring into our area. The
increased volume and high speeds people drive is very dangerous to our kids, pets, general
population and wildlife in the area. This has progressively gotten worse/dangerous in the last few
years, as other developments have been completed. It's scary to imagine the impact of 580+ new
housing units. It is also very dangerous currently to turn left onto Thorpe Road off of Dishman
Mica. Having a development on the corner including apartments will be increasingly
dangerous/deadly.
My children attend the local schools (Chester Elementary, Horizon Middle School and University
High School). The schools are already overcrowded and are having to bus kids to other schools. I
am opposed to the negative impact all the existing students will face with the severe
overcrowding this proposed development will create.
Please consider paring down this project considerably to preserve our wetlands, wildlife, schools,
and keep the traffic flowing safely. Better yet, maybe the City of Spokane Valley can purchase it
back from the developer and turn it into something the public can use and enjoy.
Respectfully,
Jamie Caine
12738 E Apache Pass Road Spokane, WA 99206
509.999.2008"
6. Wetlands: See Response to Public Comment #4, Item 5.
Public Comment #25 –McKinley, Brenda (08-04-21) Response to Comments:
"As a local homeowner I am AGAINST this development. We already have traffic issues on all of
the roads around this area. If you add another 1000 ppl to the road system, it will be overloaded.
AND, this is all wetlands, wildlife roam freely here. I would hate to see all the animals shoved out
of their environment. Why not put it back to a golf course? Spokane Valley doesn’t have a golf
course. City should buy this and put it back to a golf course. Then we could continue to use the
land for recreation and wildlife can continue to flourish there.
DO not build more homes or multi family there. Brenda McKinley"
1. Wetlands: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 5.
2. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6.
3. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3.
Public Comment #26 – Meier, Don (08-04-21) Response to Comments:
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
25
HI LORIE… I HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING CONVERTING WET LAND/ FLOOD PLANE LAND INTO
USEABLE BUILDING PROPERTY…IS THERE A REQUIREMENT THAT IF THIS LAND IS DEVELOPED
THAT AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF LAND MUST BE PROVIDED TO OFFSET THIS EXCHANGE.?.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
THANKS ….DON MEIER
1. Wetlands: See Response to Public Comment #4, Item 5.
2. Floodplain (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3.
Public Comment #27 – Lobdell, Eric (08-04-21) Response to Comments:
"I have been following this project proposal from its beginning. While I no longer live close to the
area where this development is proposed, I do still live in Spokane Valley and have a legitimate
interest in the health of the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer. I also spend time in and
around the area where the proposed development would be and I am very familiar with it.
I would like to voice two concerns, listed below.
1. As it exists in/near a wetland area, with significant seasonal flooding, water
management would be a critical situation for any development there. The floodwater
management failure mitigations described in Appendix E of the Environmental Assessment
require significant ""routine maintenance"" measures as well as other long-term maintenance
responsibilities. To whom will these responsibilities fall? Will the City of Spokane Valley own this,
passing the cost to taxpayers? If not, will there be an HOA responsible for all of the maintenance
costs and management? If so, what oversight will exist to ensure this development is properly
handling everything on a regular basis into the foreseeable future? What public funds will be used
for this oversight?
With its proximity to the aquifer and the dry wells proposed, will there be any measures enacted
and enforced to prevent pollutants such as lawn chemicals, petroleum-based products, and other
unhealthy substances from being washed into these dry wells and seeping into the aquifer?
2. Traffic impacts in the 2016 analysis were unrealistic when the report was originally
released back in 2016. In particular, predicted increases in traffic on Bowdish Rd. are too low, and
the related impact to the Midilome neighborhood from high school student travel is completely
overlooked. This is already an issue today. There is signage in place intended to reduce it, with
limited effect. That traffic volume would grow significantly and presents a true safety concern for
the families living in the neighborhoods between the proposed development and University High
School.
1. Wetlands: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 5.
2. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 of the
EIS have been revised to expand on how the flood control system will be
owned and maintained by the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) , what will
be done to maintain the solvency of the HOA and the reserve fund,
presence of a maintenance bond.
Other public comments raise concern with who will maintain the flood
control system, monitoring, funding, enforcement, and alternative
responsibilities in the event of HOA insolvency. All minor repairs will be
handled by a licensed and bonded third party contractor, designated by
the HOA. An example of minor maintenance and operation requests
might include removing vegetation from trash racks, removing silt from
the settling pond, and aesthetic repairs to flood control system
components. Major repairs, or those requiring technical knowledge in
engineering and stormwater design will be designated to a licensed
professional based on the level of repairs.
The maintenance and operation of the flood control system will be funded
through HOA dues, paid by residents in the Painted Hills PRD and stored
as a reserve fund for the flood control system. Therefore, all costs
associated with repairing, maintaining, and operating the flood control
system will not result in significant costs to taxpayers.
Enforcement mechanisms that ensure fees are collected and are
adequate for funding the reserve fund will be specified in the Covenants,
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
26
There have already been changes in the surrounding area that change the parameters of that
outdated analysis in the 5+ years since it was completed. These include businesses at Dishman-
Mica and Bowdish and at least one new apartment complex (on Bowdish near 40th Ave.) as well
as new homes on
South Madison Road and other nearby areas. At a minimum, a new traffic impact analysis is
needed. Will the developer bear the cost of widening roads in the area? Will intersection
redesigns be required? If so, who will bear that cost?
Thank you, Eric D. Lobdell Spokane Valley"
Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R’s) for the Painted Hills PRD. These
enforcement mechanisms used to ensure fees are collected for the
reserve fund might include, but are not limited to:
Late fees and financial penalties for overdue fees
Property liens
Restrictions on new development permits, through the City of
through the HOA’s architectural review committee.
HOA fees are anticipated to be evaluated on an annual basis to determine
whether they are adequate for annual costs to operate and maintain the
flood control system. The calculation for how the annual HOA fees are
outlined in the O&M manual (Appendix O) and in Section 3.2.2 of the EIS.
In conjunction with the recording of the final plat, waivers of
remonstrance from formation of a flood control district will be recorded
on the title of each lot created with the plat. These waivers will require
owners to acknowledge the ability of the local government entities to
establish a flood control district that would assume the ownership and
maintenance of on-site and off-site flood conveyance infrastructure. This
would provide City recourse in the event that the HOA either fails to
perform its maintenance responsibilities and/or becomes insolvent.
Revisions to Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 of the EIS have been made to address
HOA maintenance and operation of the flood control system as well as
outline precautionary measures in the event of HOA insolvency. A draft
version of the PRD O&M manual is included with EIS. Clarification has
also been added to note that the maintenance bond will be structured to
allow the City and/or a future flood improvement district, if created, to
access funds to perform operation and maintenance responsibilities on
the flood control system if deemed necessary.
3. Water Quality (Aquifer): See response to Public Comment #17, Item 5.
4. Midilome Cut-Through Study: See response to Public Comment #1, Item
2. The EIS has been updated to include a brief discussion of the potential
for cut-through traffic on Midilome Cut-through traffic.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
27
Public Comment #28 – Parker, Francis (08-04-21) Response to Comments:
The loss of land, increased traffic,impact on schools and utilities is staggering.
Property values will decrease and developers are not charged any impact fees
as they line their pockets.
1. Land Use: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 1.
2. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
3. Utilities: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 4.
4. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3.
Public Comment #29 – Simon, George (08-04-21) Response to Comments:
“George Simon 3952 S Eagle Ln
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
August 4, 2021
Lori Barlow, Senior Planner City of Spokane Valley 10210 E Sprague Ave
Spokane Valley, Washington 99206
Subject: Public Comment on the DEIS for the Painted Hills Residential Development Dear Ms.
Barlow:
My concerns for this development are many, but in this letter I will only focus on one:
Responsibility for the flood mitigation plans associated with the development.
As I understand the plan, the water that currently percolates through the 99 acres of land is to be
channeled to the very northern end of the development and return to the aquifer via a drywell
gallery that may cover the area of approximately one acre. Furthermore, it has been stated that
frozen ground will not affect the ability of the water to drain through the dry wells.
To me that assumption is questionable. I have special concern regarding this, as my home and
those of my neighbors is adjacent to this infiltration gallery. The homes at the Greens that border
the proposed development have a basement slab elevation of 2011.5 feet, while the high-water
level has been 2009 feet. We have never been considered in a flood plain, but if there is a failure
of the infiltration gallery (even outside of a 100 year event) we could be facing risk of flooding.
1. Flooding: Section 3.2.2 of the EIS discusses the infiltration rates adjacent
to the infiltration gallery under frozen ground conditions. Section 3.2.1 of
the EIS discusses the site’s sources of flooding and FEMA designation as a
compensatory storage area. Section 3.2.2 discusses fill and grading
activities that will remove areas of the site from the mapped FEMA 100-
year floodplain and the on- and off-site floodwater management
infrastructure that is intended to remove the existing flood risk from the
site and surrounding area. Proposed changes to the floodplain will be
reviewed and approved by FEMA prior to project construction. Design
revisions will be made (if necessary) to satisfy FEMA requests.
2. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3.
3. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public
Comment #27, Item 2.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
28
More disturbing is the notion that a Homeowners Association will have the managerial and fiscal
resources to be successful in the maintenance and operation of a complex flood mitigation
system. I pose the following questions to you and the city:
• The plan speaks of a bond. How large is this initial bond? Is it also designed to cover
losses to those that could be impacted by the failure of such a flood mitigation system? Or
even the premiums on liability insurance?
• What happens if the HOA fails to adequately fund the reserves? According to the plan
they are to provide the Spokane Public Works Department the general status of the sinking
fund annually. What will the City do if the funding appears inadequate?
• What are the required credentials of the contractor? What if the designated contractor
fails to succeed at their duties? Who enforces the necessary next steps?
• What happens if upon the inspection by the City, necessary corrections are not
addressed, what is the City’s scope of authority and plans for remedy?
• The plan says that the City would not be responsible, but according to the plan the city
is involved in substantial oversight of ongoing O & M. If you are providing oversight, how
do you deal with non-compliance with a residential development at full build out?
• So who is ultimately responsible? A possibly ineffective or insolvent HOA?
• I thought that the city has previously denied the possibility of an HOA taking on such a
responsibility. Is this not a fact?
• I was also under the impression that FEMA would not allow an HOA to take on such
responsibility. Correct?
I worked in The Washington State Department of Health’s Drinking Water Program for nearly 20
years. Much of my time was spent in the compliance program. There were and continue to be
situations where HOA organizations could not successfully manage a drinking water system, either
due to lack of fiscal resources (inadequate budgeting, or customers not paying their bills),
technical knowledge, or ineffective contract operators. Can you imagine an HOA not being able to
ensure that they have the basic necessity of safe drinking water? And yet the developer is
confident that these potential homeowners in the Painted Hills Residential Development can take
on the responsibility of a complex flood mitigation system and thrive.
The following is a quote from the most recent DEIS, page 35: “One potential adverse impact that
could result from the removal of the FEMA floodplain designation from the Painted Hills site or
off-site properties could be that the implementation of the flood management system provides a
sense of security to potential homebuyers, encouraging them to purchase a home on a site
believed to be safe from flooding. In the unlikely event that the flood control infrastructure fails,
these homeowners could be temporarily displaced until the system failure is remedied and flood
damage repaired.”
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
29
If the site would be removed from FEMA’s floodplain designation, there wouldn’t be any flood
insurance available, so who is paying for the flood damage? Once again, the developer is trying to
place a huge burden on future homeowners living in this development, and for their neighbors as
well. And what is my recourse if my property floods? Where does my compensation come from?
And I wonder to what extent potential buyers will be informed of their collective responsibility.
Another quote from the DEIS, page 39: “Individual elements of the proposed flood management
system have the potential to fail under extreme circumstances. However, if properly maintained,
the likelihood of failure of any on element is small”.
Please note that everything should be just fine if properly maintained. And whose responsibility is
that again?
This DEIS is contains several statements that talk about the potential for failure of the flood
management system. Since there is not a governmental agency that will be responsible for this
project in perpetuity, I feel it is too great a risk. Why would the City of Spokane Valley approve a
development on a flood plain and as a result place their residents, their homes, and belongings at
risk? We as a community cannot say yes to such an endeavor just so that a determined developer
has a satisfactory return on investment, while he sings his noble refrain about providing much
needed housing in the Valley. Going in to this project, the developer knew what he was buying.
The city does not owe him a return on his investment, nor should we build more houses at
locations that are unfit and pose a potential risk to many, because there is a need. Site suitability
for construction should be a primary determination for development, not just the need that we
are all aware of.
Respectfully, George Simon 3952 S Eagle Lane”
Public Comment #30 – Simon, George (08-04-21) Response to Comments:
Hello Ms. Barlow,
Due to the complexity of the DEIS for the proposed Painted Hills Residential Development, I am
requesting that a public hearing be held.
An article regarding the proposed development in the July 29th Business Journal reads: The
development company submitted an updated draft environmental impact statement early this
year that laid out multiple development scenarios that CEO Dave Black contends “answers any
questions that would ever come up on that development.”
I find the above remark from Dave Black outside of reality. I know I have many concerns and
questions after reviewing much of the DEIS that remain unanswered. I’m sure other residents,
1. Public Involvement: A public hearing was held on September 8, 2021.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
30
and even you have unanswered questions as well. I believe a public hearing would provide a
welcome avenue for enlightenment of all parties.
Thank you.
Respectfully, George Simon
Public Comment #31 – Lawless, Isaac (08-04-21) Response to Comments:
I am writing too have you be aware of my opposition to the Painted Hills Gofe Course addition of
over 500 housing units. I believe there will be a major traffic issue, especially during school days
from U Hi to the Middle school. It becomes un safe for traffic and especially walkers or bike riders.
Deer crossing Madison are going to be impacted negatively. Most all people living south in the
Painted Hills area will be affected. Thank you, Isaac J Lawless
1. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3.
2. Transportation (pedestrian safety): See response to Public Comment #6,
Item 1.
3. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
4. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6.
Public Comment #32 – Mercer, Kathy (08-03-21) Response to Comments:
“8/03/2021
Lori Barlow
Senior Planner/SEPA Official
City of Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Dear Lori Barlow:
I am writing regarding the development of the Painted Hills golf course. I am very concerned with
this development as I live “upstream” from the location and I know what the water in this area
can do when it can’t flow where it is supposed to. It is very concerning that the city and
developers would want to fill in this natural area where the flowing water supports an array of
purposes for our community. The water ways need to be maintained and kept up for the water to
do its job. Building on the wetlands directly tampers with the natural flow of the environment by
blocking the water passages which were naturally instituted by the free flow of the water.
Because wetlands are an ecosystem, they play an essential role in the environment. The amount
of wildlife that use this area is unreal. Why is this area marked as a natural wetland/flood plain in
the beginning? Because it is! The golf course was a great addition to the area and a more natural
way to keep the land doing its job. When wetlands are filled, the water that makes them wet has
to go somewhere. Where will that be?
The development just southeast of there on Madison is adding homes to the claimed “housing
shortage”. Is that extra traffic and head count added into what will be residing in the area?
Also, what about the proposed development just south on Dishman Mica. More houses, more
people, more traffic, more strain on services.
1. Wetlands: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 5.
2. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6.
3. Floodplain (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
31
I really hope the city considers all the reasons this area can not support 500+ more homes and
another 1300 people with police protection, schools, current road systems and destruction of our
natural filter for our most valuable resource…WATER.
Sincerely,
Kathy Mercer”
Public Comment #33 – Landa, Teresa (08-04-21) Response to Comments:
“I am writing to request that the City hold a public hearing regarding the draft of the
Environmental Impact Statement for the Painted Hills proposed development. Specifically, I have
strong negative feelings about an HOA being responsible for the maintenance and safe operation
of something so critical as the water mitigation system.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Teresa Landa
3946 S Eagle Ln Spokane Valley 99206”
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
2. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public
Comment #27, Item 2.
Public Comment #34 – Carey, Ann (08-05-21) Response to Comments:
“Regarding the development of the Painted Hills Area, and the two options presented by the
developer.
I urge council members to proceed cautiously with the overdevelopment of Spokane Valley.
Please consider the voices/wishes of your individual constituents vs. big name developers –
especially as you face re-election.
I share the opinion of many of my Ponderosa and Painted Hills neighbors in preferring single
family homes versus multi-family. It’s how this area was originally designed and why many of us
chose these neighborhoods instead of Spokane or Liberty Lake.
It appears the developer is willing to sweeten the deal with trails, a park, and a wild life corridor –
only if mixed use units are approved. It is a failing of the City of Spokane Valley to not require
things like that for any large development. At this rate, we will soon need to change the City logo
from trees and water to stacks of apartments etc.
With either decision, before 500+ residences are added to an area with limited infrastructure –
PLEASE consider the fact that Spokane Valley is already getting a failing grade for traffic flow
(https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2021/jul/19/getting-there-new-fees-to-aid-failing- central-
spok/). And reducing developer fees for multi-family is counter-intuitive as more housing units
create density in an area, which will increase traffic (unless they are closer to urban services or are
near bus routes which this area is not).
Thank you for allowing, and listening to, public comment. Ann Carey
1. Recreation: This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS.
2. General Transportation Concerns: Section 3.3.1 of the EIS describes the
evaluation of existing transportation facilities that has occurred and the
mitigation proposed to address system deficiencies and pedestrian safety
improvements. See Section 3.3.1 of the EIS for a detailed description of
impacts and mitigation measures.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
32
11317 E Sundown Dr, Spokane Valley, WA 99206”
Public Comment #35– DeChenne, Monte and Donna (08-05-21) Response to Comments:
“I live at The Greens at Midilome and I am concerned about the proposed development planned
for what was the Painted Hills Golf Course. My wife and I moved to this location for the serenity it
offers. We like seeing the deer wandering around, we find it quite peaceful. We enjoy the open
space presently afforded and do not wish to see it change.
Additionally, I believe I’ve seen comment regarding who will maintain the flood plane, It seems a
shedding of responsibility for the developer to pass on that responsibility to some future HOA.
Should this project ever be approved the developer should be held accountable for the full
installation and 32chool32ance of said flood plane. Also, we have three (3) schools along Pines
that may not be adequate, as is, to handle the additional student load such a large development
would surely put upon the schools. Must we shoulder that additional burden or will the developer
be contributing to that issue. Another issue I foresee is the huge increase in traffic on all the
streets surrounding this proposed development. The streets as they presently are were not
designed for the amount of traffic they presently have and would surely need to be upgraded for
the future traffic load brought about by this development. The intersection of Thorpe and
Dishman-Mica would certainly require a traffic light and upgrading to accommodate the extreme
increase in traffic flow. Who exactly will be paying for all these necessary upgrades? Surely the
developer should be required to shoulder the majority of financial responsibility for these and
other upgrades just to maintain the quality of life we presently have. As you might guess, I and my
wife oppose this development for these and other reasons and we would gladly attend a public
hearing in regards a Draft Environmental Impact this proposed development would bring about.
Thank you,
Monte R. and Donna M. DeChenne 3818 S. Eagle Ln.
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
H (509) 535-2710 or C (509) 869-3145”
1. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public
Comment #27, Item 2.
2. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
3. Traffic on Dishman-Mica and Thorpe: See response to Public Comment#
7, Item 4.
4. Floodplain (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3.
Public Comment #36 – Goff, Robert (08-02-21) Response to Comments:
“August 2, 2021 To: Lori Barlow
RE: Spokane Valley Community and Public Works Department 10210 E. Sprague Avenue
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Opposing the proposed Painted Hills Project
COSV Public Works
AUG 05 2021
Rec eived
1. Flooding: See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3.
2. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6.
3. Traffic on Woodlawn Drive (Midilome Cut-Through Study): See response
to Public Comment #1, Item 2.
4. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
5. Wetlands: See Response to Public Comment #4, Item 5.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
33
I would like to express my concern with the Painted Hills subdivision proposed development. I
have lived in this area for the past 20 years and have seen substantial growth during this
period. I am not opposed to growth but have some true concerns for the proposed
development on the Painted Hills golf course land. This area has always been considered a flood
plain and has flooded year after year. Almost every year Thorpe Road is closed for period of time
due to the flooding. 1 am even more concerned now with the proposal for the cut and fill plan
to try to eliminate the flooding. This is not a resolution that makes sense for the environment, wet
lands, wildlife or the future homes they propose to build on it. The negative impact this will bring
to our community is unfathomable.
I live on Woodlawn Drive in Midilome East. Our street has become a main arterial for people
wanting to avoid the lights and congestion on 32nd and Pines. The volume of traffic and high
speeds people drive is very dangerous to our kids, pets, and our general population. This has
progressively gotten worse/dangerous in the last few yea rs , as other developments have been
completed. It’s scary to imagine the impact 580+ new housing units. It is also very dangerous
currently to turn left onto Thorpe Road off of Dishman Mica. Having a development on the corner
including apartments will be increasingly dangerous/deadly with the proposed increase of
traffic. I am highly opposed to the increased traffic this development will bring into our area.
My kids attend the local schools including Horizon and Un ivers ity. The schools are already
overcrowded and are having to bus kids to other 33chool ls . I am opposed to the negative impact
all of the existing students will face with the severe overcrowding this development will create .
Please consider paring down this project considerably to preserve our wetlands, wildlife, schools,
and keep the traffic flowing safely. Better yet, maybe the City of Spokane Valley can purchase it
back from the developer and turn it into something the public can use and enjoy.
Sincerely yours,
Robert H. Goff, CFSP 3410 S. Woodlawn Dr Spokane Valley, WA 99206 509-710-4517”
Public Comment #37 – Bean, Sally (08-05-21) Response to Comments:
“Please do as good of a job as possible when building this project. Make SURE you include a park,
green belts and a dog park. Please do not try and get as many apartments and houses as you
possibly can jam in one area. That is what people hate about new projects, not much esthetic
thought goes into what it will look like at the end!! Our forefathers when developing Spokane
made sure the people had parks to go to.
Thank you, Sally Bean”
1. Recreation: This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS.
Public Comment #38– Barnes, Kristy (08-04-21) Response to Comments:
“August 4, 2021
Lori Barlow (Lbarlow@spokanevalley.org)
Spokane Valley Community and Public Works Department 10210 E Sprague Avenue
1. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6.
2. Wetlands: See Response to Public Comment #4, Item 5.
3. Flooding Upstream: Although the project involves fill and grading that will
remove areas of the site from the mapped FEMA floodplain, floodwaters
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
34
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
RE: Comments for Painted Hills PRD PRD-2015-0001, SUB-2015-0001, EGR-2016-0066, FPD-2016-
0007
Dear City of Spokane Valley,
I am writing to express several concerns I have with the Painted Hills Golf Course Development. As
a local landscape architect resident, I drive by this property every day and I am deeply
disappointed that the Painted Hills Golf Course is being considered for such high density
development and destroying one of Spokane Valley’s natural jewels, especially with it being a
flood zone. Deer, fish, moose, and eagles use this land as their habitat. The mature trees sparkle
during the Fall. The amount of imported material proposed is excessive and will likely destroy
existing mature trees. What does FEMA and United States Army Corps of Engineers think of this
proposal in respect to floodplains and wetlands?
I’m really quite astonished this proposal is still being considered, especially since 1000 year floods
are taking place in several different countries. China, Germany, England, and now Denver,
Colorado are all having flash floods disrupting homes and causing infrastructural problems. At
least 25 are dead as rains deluge central China’s Henan Province. The condos in Florida collapsed
partially due to developers filling in a wetland and caused 11 people to die. I don’t think a
floodplain should be treated with such little regard.
Capturing, redirecting, and infiltration of the flood flows will need to be considered for 100 year
to 1000 year floods. Both type of flood events are happening more frequently. By adding fill to
move the building areas above the floodplain will cause the flooding to increase upstream. It isn’t
right that current land owners have to take on the extra flood waters for this new development.
Placing fill in the floodplain forces the water into a narrow channel, which will result in creek flows
incising the creek channel. When this happens the floodplains’ purpose to redistribute over a flat
plain is hampered. The floodplain no longer works properly and continues to cut down making the
problem worse and worse. This incising may also create creek channeling in areas where the creek
waters currently infiltrates, causing creek channels to develop downstream where it wasn’t found
before. This creates a problem that is difficult to impossible to correct without removing the fill
and allowing water to flood as nature intended. In addition, the loss of shallow areas destroys fish
habitat.
Previously, the City of Spokane Valley dredged Chester Creek due to flooding, especially on
Thorpe Road. This fill-in of sediments is a natural process that is already occurring under existing
that enter the site under existing conditions will continue to do so via the
flood control infrastructure. As discussed in Section 3.1.2 of the EIS, no
change in the volume of water that will reach the aquifer is anticipated.
Therefore, no impacts to water quantity/flooding upstream of the project
site are anticipated.
4. Chester Creek: Section 3.4.3.2 of the EIS has been updated to discuss
potential impacts to Chester Creek. It is not anticipated that the project
will impact water quality or quantity in Chester Creek. The main channel
of Chester Creek is physically separated from the project site by the
presence of levees and the Dishman-Mica Road embankment; therefore,
the proposed development will neither increase nor decrease flow to the
creek. Under proposed conditions, surface flow draining to the site will
still discharge to groundwater, as it does under existing conditions.
5. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public
Comment #27, Item 2.
6. Water Quality and Flow (Residential Wells): See response to Public
Comment #1, Item 1.
7. Construction-Related Traffic: This comment does not contest technical
details of the EIS.
8. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
9. Noise: See response to Public Comment #15, Item 2.
10. Chester Creek, Fish Habitat: See response to Public Comment #43, Item 2.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
35
conditions. This project will accelerate and worsen this condition. We already have a flooding
problem, why are we making it worse both up and downstream? It doesn’t sound like this
projects meets FEMA regulations.
The Flood Management System Element Failure Risk and Impact Summary discusses mitigation by
removing sediment and installing trash racks to prevent pipes from getting clogged. All of this
doesn’t matter if we have a 1000 year flood that would cause the whole system to be over
capacity.
Residents in the Sundown/Bowdish area next to the flood plain have complained about flooding
getting worse behind houses.
Storm-water treatment facilities that are proposed to reduce pollutant loads and concentrations
will not eliminate all the contamination from the fish that live in the stream. How is this
development going to affect all the residential wells in the neighborhood?
The amount of trucks needed to fill the golf course would be dangerous for all the school children
attending Horizon, Chester and University High school. The Truck Haul Plan Memorandum states
that the trucks will use Dishman-Mica. Even if the trucks don’t use the neighboring roads, the
noise from that amount of soil being dumped required will be substantial and cause traffic on
Dishman-Mica to increase and for how long?
Where will all the new school children go from this development? They just updated the local
elementary schools and still lack space for children who move into the area.
I understand how the project would be helping to “relieve the under supply of housing in the
Spokane Valley, but I believe this under supply should be addressed in areas NOT located within a
flood plain. Sprague Avenue has a vast amount of land not occupied. The Spokane Valley should
focus their development in areas where it makes sense to have high density with close access to
stores and services.
Please do not replace our wetlands/floodplain and animal sanctuary with this development.
Please consider the neighboring terrain containing open space. The proposal is completely out of
character with the surrounding area and I strongly feel that this property would be more valuable
to the City of Spokane Valley as a park and for recreational activities, which is something the
Valley needs more of for all the new people moving into it!
Thanks for the opportunity to voice my opinion. Sincerely,
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
36
Kristy Barnes
11615 E View Ridge Lane Spokane, WA 99206”
Public Comment #39 – Cobb, Frank and Jill (08-09-21) Response to Comments:
“Dear Lori Barlow,
System Maintenance & Operation.
The developer is proposing that “”the DEIS assigns responsibility for flood control system
Maintenance and Operations to the project’s homeowners association””. This cannot possibly be
approved no matter how large the sinking fund, given that “”the system is adequately maintained
in perpetuity and that the liability for system maintenance and performance will not fall to the
general public or to any governmental agency, including the City of Spokane Valley or Spokane
County””, (pp 4, letter dated 09/19/2019, City to Read Stapleton).
Gustin ditch and triangle pond.
The ‘triangle pond’ currently is the property of Timothy and Joanne Comer. The developer does
not currently hold title to this property. It seems that proposed engineering on this property is not
viable as long as the developer does not hold title. If this property is not purchased or leased by
the developer, can the project proceed?
400,000 cubic yards of fill.
What is the point of all this fill if the system fails? Water is then diverted to contingent properties.
Who becomes responsible and liable for damages to those property owners?
This property is best suited as a golf course, park or some other use considering the risk of
flooding at some future date.
Frank & Jill Cobb 3922 S Eagle Lane
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 509.993.2216”
1. Flooding: See response to Public Comment #27, Item 2.
2. Public Access on East 40th Avenue to the Triangle Pond and Gustin Ditch
Site: See response to Public Comment #1, Item 3.
Public Comment #40 – Swett, Marcus (08-09-21) Response to Comments:
“Good Morning Lori,
I ask that please do not develop this area and place 300 single family homes and 280 multi family
units. This area will be way too crowded with all of those people. Can it be fewer houses to not
over crowd the schools and roads. I thank you for your time.
Marcus”
1. Land Use: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 1.
2. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
3. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #6, Item 1.
Public Comment #41 – Potts, Taylor (08-16-21) Response to Comments:
“To whom It May Concern:
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
37
Due to the recent environmental survey on the development of the Painted Hill Golf course, I
would like to voice my concern as a family who lives and works in the area as well as kids that
attend the schools next door. I am hoping there will be another hearing on this matter as the
current residence would NOT like to see this be developed into a ton of housing. The real
estate market in the area is starting to slow down and there would be no need of a development
this size and would greatly increase the traffic and density in a negative manor for the people
living in these close neighborhoods. We all love the South Valley, and I think we can agree
there are more than enough rentals, duplex, and apartments in this area, we do need more
housing for purchase eventually but the real estate market is starting to normalize so we don’t
need any more housing with only two streets in and out of what could be a development,
especially when there are 3 schools all on the same street that are already being funneled into
one exit point. Please keep our kids safe and reconsider this development project. Thank you !
-Taylor Potts”
1. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #6, Item 2.
2. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment
#6, Item 1.
Public Comment #42 – Weinand, Kathleen (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
“Thank you for the opportunity to review the Painted Hills Residential Development Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. The proposal includes 280-325 multifamily residential units.
Multifamily residential generally generates demand for transit and requests for close transit
service. The closest bus stops are located approximately a mile away at E 32n d Ave at Bowdish
and Pines. Bus service closer to the subject site is not identified in any current STA plans.
However, the placement of potential future bus stops should be considered in the design of
sidewalks, stormwater storage, and landscaping for frontage improvements along the arterial st
reets. This will help avoid costly retrofits if this area were to become a reasonable candidate for
bus service should ridership demand develop, and funding is available.
Consistent with Spokane Valley Street Standards 7.6.1, side walks along both sides for all street
classifications will promote safer access by residents to current and future bus stops.
Pedestrian pathways should offer safe and direct connections to the art erials . A grid street
network is most conducive for the successful integration of transit into communities, provides
shorter travel distances for all modes, and discourages unnecessary vehicle trips . Where
proposed streets cannot connect through to complete the street grid, direct pedestrian
connections should be provided to shorten travel distances.
Please let us know if there are any questions on these comments.”
1. Public Transportation: Both build alternatives considered in the EIS
provide ample locations for bus stops on South Madison Road East Thorpe
Road and South Dishman-Mica Road should STA decide to extend bus
service along these frontages in the future. No changes have been made
to the EIS as no effects on transit service are anticipated.
2. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment
#6, Item 1.
Public Comment #43 – Van Herk, Andrea (08-09-21) Response to Comments:
“Ms. Barlow,
I just finished reading the DEIS for the Painted Hills planned residential development. I’m
writing you with several concerns regarding the planned development.
1. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
38
My first concern is wildlife. The 99 acre area that is being proposed is habitat to multiple
species of animals. Driving by that area daily, I see deer, and with their fawns in the summer,
almost every day. I’ve also seen moose in that area as well. In addition to deer and moose, that
area has a large bird presence and is part of the Pacific Flyway Migration Path. Decimating
and disturbing that natural habitat could have devastating impacts on migrating birds as well
as the other wildlife that inhabit it. Chester Creek has also been designated as a fish bearing
stream and this proposal could have devastating impacts on the creek.
My next concern is that this development is being planned on a known flood plain. While the
builders have plans to help mitigate the risk of building on flood plains, there is really no way
to know how effective their plans will be until it may possibly be too late. I’m also worried
about the current residents that don’t currently have flooding issues. Will this new
development change the course of yearly flooding in a way that has a negative impact on
them? Also, will the new residents in this plan be made aware that their new home is built on a
floodplain?
Another concern is the amount of residents this plan intends to add to the area. The plan states
that it intends to be home to nearly 1,400 people. Apart from my worry that they will be
cramming 1,400 residents into an area that is not nearly big enough to support that amount of
people, I am seriously worried about the strain that this will put on the area and the current
people that live there. Our schools already have an overcrowding issue. Adding that many
more students to the area would create a huge burden with classroom sizes, bussing issues and
the likelihood that new schools would need to be built/funded in order to support the huge
increase in students. This planned development will also put a serious strain on the roads
nearby. The roads are not currently equipped to handle that amount of traffic and the increase
in traffic could create a significant safety issue if there were a fire in the Painted Hills
considering there are only 2 routes out.
As a resident of Painted Hills I truly hope that you take all of our concerns into consideration.
There are too many serious red flags as to why this type of planned development is not right
for that location.
Thank you.
Andrea Van Herk”
2. Chester Creek, Fish Bearing Stream: Section 3.4.3.1 of the EIS has been
updated to reflect that the onsite reach of Chester Creek is potentially
fish-bearing. In addition, Section 3.4.3.2 has been updated to discuss
potential impacts to fish habitat of Chester Creek. No impacts on water
quality or fish habitat in Chester creek are anticipated due to vegetation
preservation and restoration mitigation measures along Chester Creek.
Specifically, no significant impacts on Chester Creek and fish habitat are
anticipated for the following reasons and through the following measures:
Impacts to the riparian zone of Chester Creek will be mitigated on the
east side of Chester Creek. As such, the applicant intends to establish
a 100-foot-wide buffer along the entire east bank of Chester Creek. It
was determined in the BE that these buffer enhancements and
vegetated Park/Wildlife Travel Corridor, and significantly greater area
of open space far outweighed other mitigation alternatives (see BE
for additional details). The applicant intends to manage invasive
plant species through control measures that do not adversely impact
native vegetation, including monitoring, herbicide control, and other
measures contracted by a weed control specialist.
The 100-foot-wide buffer will be restored by planting native
herbaceous plants, shrubs and trees. Recommended plantings and
buffer impact areas to be enhances are outlined in Section 8.0 of the
BE.
The applicant intends to place permanent signage indicating the
riparian buffer area and that natural areas cannot be disturbed.
The applicant anticipates that any peripheral buffer areas that are
inadvertently disturbed during construction will be planted with the
specified native seed mix to prevent erosion.
Irrigation will be provided to support vegetative growth during the
growing season up to when vegetation is established.
All work will be completed in strict accordance with the IPEC
Operations and Maintenance Best Management Practices.
Monitoring will occur within the 100-foot buffer area along Chester
Creek, consistent with state and local monitoring requirements.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
39
Section 3.4.3.2 of the EIS describes the methodology for assessing and
establishing the 100-foot buffer along the eastern side Chester Creek on
the Painted Hills PRD site. Mitigation measures are provided in Section
3.4.3.3 of the EIS and in the BE (Appendix H).
3. Flooding: See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3.
4. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
5. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3.
6. Fire Evacuation Routes: See response to Public Comment #7, Item 5.
Public Comment #44 – Schmedding, Steve (08-09-21) Response to Comments:
From: Schmedding, Stephen <sschmedding@ewu.edu>
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 2:09 PM
To: Deanna Horton <dhorton@spokanevalley.org>
Subject: Painted Hills proposed project
[EXTERNAL] This email originated outside the City of Spokane Valley. Always use caution when
opening
attachments or clicking links.
PC 44
Good afternoon Deanna:
Adam Jackson is a friend of mine and he directed me to you regarding the subject project.
I was involved in some of the negative feedback from the effort in 2015 to develop the old golf
course site.
I just saw in the Journal of Business that it has again surfaced.
Unfortunately, I am going abroad soon and have little opportunity to dive into this revised SEPA
and design prior to the date which comments are required to be returned by.
How has the general response been by local residents to the revised package so far?
I’m not necessarily against development but I don’t believe that the surrounding area and
infrastructure can support such an influx of new houses without significant improvements.
How does Spokane Valley public works, police, fire, and other depts feel about this revision?
Have they made significant changes from the original submission?
Has CVSD opined on the revision?
I am going to try to make a formal comment but with little time I was hoping you could give me an
idea of the overall feeling of this revision.
Thank you for your time,
Steve Schmedding, P.E., LEED AP
Facilities Engineer/Sr. Project Manager
Construction & Planning Services
Eastern Washington University | www.ewu.edu
This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
40
101 Rozell, | Cheney, WA 99004-2464
p 509.359.4205 | f 509.359.4224 | c 509.359.0455
EWU expands opportunities for personal transformation through excellence in learning"
Public Comment #45– McGuire, Charlie (07-21-21) Response to Comments:
"To the City of Spokane Valley- Planning Commission,
Regarding the development of the old Painted Hills Golf Course into a residential community, it is
bad for our city for the following reasons.
First, I am the house that looks directly down on Madison Street that runs between Thorpe and
40th street. While most drivers are careful to maintain a safe speed, there are regular speeders
who cannot resist the straightaway that Madison provides. Very easy to hear the loud mufflers
on the cars that exceed the speed limit. We are talking three schools that these speeders pass.
Some students walk south to get home and head toward Madison. To increase the traffic flow is
to also increase the number of speeders. Who wants to take responsibility for a child getting hit?
Ages Kindergarten to twelve grade. The city can put speed bumps along Madison but that will be
a nuisance for the local residents who now enjoy a beautiful smooth road.
Second, I have witnessed a 100 year flood where nobody expects a small river to flood a large
area. In the center of Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base there is a helicopter airfield. Next to
the airfield is a creek named Santa Margarita river. To everyone's surprise one day a strong rain
came in the area East of the airfield. In a few hours the airfield had several feet of water. There
were many million dollar helicopters helplessly getting flooded and no way to evacuate them.
The date was around 1990.
The 100 year flood happens unexpectedly and very fast. Sometime in the future the old Painted
Hills Golf Course can expect it's 100 year flood.
Lastly, this project is about 93 acres. The whole area is naturally absorbent of rain and snow.
To prevent this rain and snow from going directly into the ground by developing this area is simply
to send it to the people who live at a lower level along Dishman Mica Rd.
Treat others as you want to be treated.
All the Best,
Charlie McGuire / Resident of Spokane Valley"
1. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public
Comment #27, Item 2.
2. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment
#6, Item 1.
3. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3.
Public Comment #46 – Fifeld, Jolene (08-10-21) Response to Comments:
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
41
"I would like to express my concern with the Painted Hills subdivision proposed development. I
have lived in this area since 1978. I have witnessed substantial growth during this period. I am not
opposed to growth but have some true concerns for the proposed development on the Painted
Hills golf course land. This area has always been considered a flood plain and has flooded year
after year. Almost every year Thorpe Road is closed for period of time due to the flooding. I am
even more concerned now with the proposal for the cut and fill plan to try to eliminate the
flooding. This plan is not efficient in any way. This is not a resolution that makes sense for
the environment, wet lands, wildlife or the future homes they propose to build on it. The negative
impact this will bring to our community is unfathomable.
I live on East Lenora Drive., which is approximately 2 blocks long. My street has become a main
arterial for people wanting to avoid the lights and congestion on 32nd and Pines. The volume of
traffic and high speeds people drive is very dangerous to our kids, pets, and our general
population. I do not have school aged children any longer, but I would not allow them be in the
front yard during the school year. The amount of speeding students is outrageous. I really enjoyed
the quiet time on this street during the pandemic and summertime.
Once school started back up, so came the problem of excess traffic. This has progressively gotten
worse, dangerous in the last few years. It’s hard to imagine the impact 580+ new housing units.
The traffic congestion at the light at 32nd and Pines is unbelievable. At times it takes 3-5 light
sessions to get through the intersection.
In addition, the drivers are not driving responsibly. They are all “in a hurry”. It is also very
dangerous currently to turn left onto Thorpe Road off of Dishman Mica. Having a development on
the corner including apartments will be increasingly dangerous/deadly with the proposed increase
of traffic. I am highly opposed to the increased traffic this development will bring into our area.
Out roads out here are not designed to accommodate the increase in traffic.
The schools at Chester, Horizon and University High School are already overcrowded and are
having to bus kids to other schools. I am opposed to the negative impact all of the existing
students will face with the severe overcrowding this development will create.
Please consider paring down this project considerably to preserve our wetlands, wildlife, schools,
and keep the traffic flowing safely. Perhaps the City of Spokane Valley can purchase it back from
the developer and turn it into something the overall public can use and enjoy.
Thank you,
Jolene Fifield
12509 E Lenora Drive
Spokane Valley, WA 99216"
1. Flooding: See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3.
2. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6.
3. Wetlands: See Response to Public Comment #4, Item 5.
4. Traffic on Pines Road: See response to Public Comment #154, Item 3.
5. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
Public Comment #47 – Pavelich, Sandy (08-11-21) Response to Comments:
"I would like to request a public hearing concerning the DEIS proposal for the Painted Hills golf
course development that have our comments required by August 31. Also because of our working
neighbors could we please arrange it the evening.
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
42
Thank you
Sandy Pavelich
Sent from my iPad"
Public Comment #48 – Cobb, Frank and Jill (08-11-21) Response to Comments:
"Dear Lori,
I would like to request the City hold a public hearing concerning the DEIS.
Frank & Jill Cobb
3922 S Eagle Lane
Spokane Valley, WA 99206"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
Public Comment #49 – Hixson, Andrea (08-11-21) Response to Comments:
"To Whom it May Concern,
I am glad to see multi-family units and a commercial center included in this plan, both of which
are sorely needed in the south valley. I am not opposed to the project. I am submitting a
comment/request to take into consideration traffic load on our arterials, particularly Dishman
Mica. The addition of 580 housing units will have a noticeable impact on traffic during peak
commuting hours. As development extends south, our arterials are seeing heavier and heavier
traffic, and plans for increased capacity and upgrades to our streets, including expanded bus
services, need to be included when adding new residential housing to minimize the negative
impacts of increased congestion on current residents.
Thank you,
Andrea Hixson, resident, Spokane Valley."
1. Traffic on Dishman-Mica Road: See response to Public Comment# 7, Item
4.
Public Comment #50 – P, Dan (08-11-21) Response to Comments:
"Good day Lori,
I am requesting that the City hold a Public Hearing on the DEIS. Evening timing would
be beneficial for those in the work place.
Dan"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
Public Comment #51 – Simon, George (08-11-21) Response to Comments:
"George Simon
3952 S Eagle Ln
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
August 11, 2021
Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
City of Spokane Valley
1. Flooding: See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3.
2. Construction-Related Traffic and Fill: See response to Public Comment
#149, Item 2.
3. Mosquitoes: Infiltration basins are designed to allow stormwater to
quickly percolate into soils and would not retain water.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
43
10210 E Sprague Ave
Spokane Valley, Washington 99206
Subject: Public Comment on the DEIS for the Painted Hills Residential Development
Unaddressed Concerns/Comments
Dear Ms. Barlow:
My concerns for this development are many, and I (among many others) outlined several of them
back in 2018. To date I do not see them being discussed or addressed by the applicant. I thought
that was the point of being provided an opportunity for public comment. Shouldn’t the concerns
of the surrounding community have been addressed in this DEIS?
I still seek answers on:
A past administrator with FEMA did not endorse fill as a way to mitigate a flood plain as it just
moves the risk of flooding to surrounding areas. Which concerns me as my property borders this
planned development. How will my property be protected? In Todd Whipple’s responses (August
20, 2018) to the City of Spokane Valley comments he said: “For any flood event beyond the 100 -
year event the proposed finish floor of the residences and the commercial buildings are graded
above the BFE, so any flooding would be maintained in the streets, with minimal incursion into
the structures”. In the current DEIS he also states that people may be displaced and damage to
the homes could occur if everything were not properly maintained. For this reason alone, why
hasn’t this project been shut down? It gives me the impression that some flooding is acceptable.
How could this potentially impact the City’s National Flood Insurance Certification?
Will potential buyers and lenders alike be aware of the risks and costs (the HOA fees have to be
expensive) associated with owning a home in this development? Should there be a flood event,
will people just walk away from their homes leaving an undesirable, wasting neighborhood? But
by then the developer will have fulfilled his promise of providing more homes for our community.
How noble. More homes, whatever the risks. Four years of cut and fill? That’s outrageous. The
wear on roads to move 377,000 cubic yards of soil, the noise, the dust, and the traffic. Then when
we’ve lived through that, there is a 10 year build out plan.
This is real pollution and can’t be candy coated.
This project will add an increased risk on mosquito breeding grounds. In addition to the original
drywell infiltration gallery, there will be a settlement pond. Water will not flow into the drywell
gallery until the PC 50 pond is over a foot deep. We had a neighbor that had a small koi pond at
one time which proved to be a problematic breeding ground for mosquitos. How will this not
generate the same problem? (Once again see the information that I included in 2018 from the
State Department of Ecology and a PhD zoonotic professional with the Department of Health). If
this development were ever to move forward, we need assurances that the City of Spokane Valley
or the County will oversee a mosquito control district. I’m sure that Washington State Department
of Health and Spokane County Health would be interested in
the flood mitigation system that by design will have standing water.
4. Reciprocal Use of the Triangle Pond Site: See response to Public
Comment #39, Item 2.
5. Chester Creek, Fish Habitat: See response to Public Comment #43, Item
2.
6. Midilome Cut-Through Study: See response to Public Comment #1, Item
2
7. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
44
Why does the developer continue to reference the gravel pit west of HWY 27 in his plan? He has
no rights to it. The owner has stated that no deal has been struck with David Black having any
access to it. Department of Fish and Wildlife does not concur with the City or the Developer in the
DEIS that Chester Creek is non fish bearing. Can you explain why the City and the developer has
more knowledge in this matter than the Department of Fish and Wildlife?
There was no traffic study conducted at the intersection of 40th and Madison or Woodlawn.
About 30% of traffic from south Madison turns east on 40th to avoid the schools and the light at
32nd. This regular residential area (Midilome East) was not designed as a main thoroughfare, that
would only become worse. In a letter dated October 2, 2015 sent from Sean Messer, PE, Senior
Traffic Engineer with the City of Spokane Valley, Public Works Department – Traffic Engineering,
to Todd Whipple, that an analysis of cut through traffic via 40th/Woodlawn needed to be
provided. To date I have not seen any such data. In addition, I understand that some of the traffic
studies that were conducted at other areas of concern, were done on a Holiday: Martin Luther
King Day. Schools were out, and many workers had the day off. Seems deceiving at best.
Central Valley School District has stated that there is no room in the three schools nearby for any
children in the proposed development. They will need to be bussed to other schools outside the
area. Not a great way to build community. This volley of submittals and City comments has been
going on since 2015, and I don’t see a viable plan as of yet. I am concerned when I see the City’s
comment that the DEIS meets minimum submittal requirements when so many concerns have not
been adequately addressed. What does that mean?
In the DEIS the developer states that The City of Spokane Valley will not be the responsible party
for the flood control infrastructure. But if the DEIS is accepted by the City (and all of the M&O
oversight) the
City will become the owner and will be responsible for identified, or the lack thereof of the
environmental impacts and mitigation. In a court of law, I don’t see how the city could approve
the project, and be a part of the ongoing checks and balances, and yet somehow escape
responsibility for same. Can the City make an argument otherwise?
I believe that the planned residential development is poorly thought out, is entirely self-serving
for the developer, represents a deterioration of the living standard we enjoy in the area, and
more importantly presents a real risk to our health and safety. To protect our community and
prevent liability for the City, option A must be adopted as described in your October 26, 2018
letter.
Respectfully,
George Simon
3952 S Eagle Lane"
Public Comment #52 – McNeice , Randy (08-11-21) Response to Comments:
I am requesting a public hearing concerning DEIS for the old painted hills golf course
Thank you,
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
45
Randy McNeice
Intermountain Leasing LLC
PO Box 14758
Spokane Valley WA 99214
888.308.5327
509.924.0280
509.924.0294 fax
www.intermountainleasing.com
Public Comment #53 – McNeice, Randy (08-11-21) Response to Comments:
"I would respectfully request that there be a public hearing on the DEIS for the Painted Hills
Golf Course project.
Thank you,
Ryan McNeice
Ryan McNeice
McNEICE WHEELER, PLLC
221 W. Main #100
Spokane, WA 99201
www.mcneicewheeler.com
www.facebook.com/mcneicewheeler
509.928.4141 p
509.928.9166 f"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
Public Comment #54 – McNeice , Janet (08-11-21) Response to Comments:
"I am requesting a public hearing on DEIS painted hills golf course
--
Thank you,
Janet McNeice
janet@intermountainleasing.com
www.intermountainleasing.com
1.888.308.5327"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
Public Comment #55 – McNeice , Janet (08-11-21) Response to Comments:
"Janet McNeice
5811 S Mohawk Drive
Spokane, Wash 99206
Respectfully requesting a public hearing on DEIS Painted Hills Golf Course property
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
46
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 1:37 PM Janet McNeice <janet@intermountainleasing.com> wrote:
I am requesting a public hearing on DEIS painted hills golf course
--
Thank you,
Janet McNeice
janet@intermountainleasing.com
www.intermountainleasing.com
1.888.308.5327"
Public Comment #56 – Fiedler, Rick (08-11-21) Response to Comments:
"Dear Ms Barlow.
I request a public hearing on the Painted Hills DEIS. My concerns are the traffic that will inundate
the immediate area and management of the future community, or the potential lack of it.
Thank you.
Richard Fiedler
3941 S Eagle Ln
Spokane Valley, WA 99206"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
2. Transportation: This comment does not contest technical details of the
EIS.
Public Comment #57– Patterson, Jim (08-11-21) Response to Comments:
"My name is Jim Patterson
3947 S Eagle Ln
Spokane Valley 99206
Would like to be included among those who are requesting a public hearing on the development
in painted Hills.
Thank you
Sent from my iPhone"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
Public Comment #58– Lu (08-11-21) Response to Comments:
"From: Lu
To: Lori Barlow
Subject: Painted hills development. 40th Avenue be addressed. It already carries all the painted
hills traffic that is he’s dead east on 42nd. The cars routinely go 40-45
Date: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 1:44:59 PM
[EXTERNAL] This email originated outside the City of Spokane Valley. Always use caution when
opening attachments or clicking links.
Morning the painted hills golf course area runs across 40th Ave at the 40th and Pines
intersection that short level that shirt back up
Get Outlook for iOS"
1. Transportation: This comment does not address technical details of the
EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
47
Public Comment #59– Lu (08-11-21) Response to Comments:
"40th Ave that connects to Pines Ave at 40th get so much traffic that it's a real problem already
all the people in the painted hills that want to go east on Sullivan go across 40th and up
Woodlawn to 32nd the average speed is 4550 miles an hour along that stretch on 40th there
are no signs there are no school signs there are no speed bumps there are there is not a normal
width of a road there's only like 2/3 of a road because across from the junior high they never
finished extending the road to the full length yay for the sidewalks but there's still a real
problem on 40th and turning off and on to Pines at 40th in the morning especially when the
school buses are lined up there can be a real challenge thank you for considering this
Get Outlook for iOS"
1. Transportation: See response to Public Comment #1, Item 2.
Public Comment #60– Matlack, Loretta (08-11-21) Response to Comments:
"I am requesting a public hearing regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted
to the city of Spokane Valley for review. This is about the planned development to be built on the
property that was previously occupied by the Painted Hills Golf Course on the wetlands being fed
by Chester Creek.
Sincerely, Loretta Jeanne Matlack, 3822 S. Eagle Lane, Spokane Valley, Wa"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
2. Wetlands: See Response to Public Comment #4, Item 5.
Public Comment #61– Meier, Don & Sharon (08-11-21) Response to Comments:
"AS A RESIDENT IN THE AREA OF THE DEVELOPMENT I'M REQUESTING A HEARINGS MEETING
ADDRESSING ALL OF THE ISSUES OF CONCERN...I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD AN ISSUE THAT HAS
NOT BEEN ADDRESSED BY ANYONE... IT IS FOUND IN THE SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN...CHAPTER 5- HOUSING...5.0 INTRODUCTION...THE 2ND PARAGRAPH IN TOTAL NEEDS TO BE
ADDRESSED...AND VERY IMPORTANT ""NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS SHOULD PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF EXITING NEIGHBORHOODS"" THE CURRENT
PROPOSAL DOES NOT MEET THIS CRITERIA IN MANY AREAS...THIS MUST BE A TOPIC DISCUSSED
AT THE MEETING....WE LOVE OUR VALLEY AND DON'T WANT IT DESTROYED BY AN UNCARING
DEVELOPER..
DON & SHARON MEIER
3910 S. EAGLE LANE
SPOKANE VLY 99206
509-928-3700"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
2. Aesthetic Impacts: Section 3.4.2.1 of the EIS discusses current aesthetics
of the City of Spokane Valley and the required City development
standards associated with aesthetics. EIS Section 3.4.2.2 discusses
aesthetic impacts resulting from the Painted Hills PRD project. No
significant aesthetic effects are anticipated when considering the action
alternatives in conjunction with other potential development in the
project vicinity. Therefore, no EIS changes are warranted.
Public Comment 62 – Fletcher, Rod (08-11-21) Response to Comments:
"Mrs. Barlow I am writing to request that the county have a public hearing to discuss
the Painted Hills DEIS. There are many concerns with this planned community and a
lot that would negatively effect our existing neighborhood. I feel a public meeting
would be very beneficial.
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
48
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Rodney Fletcher
3810 S Eagle Ln
Spokane Valley WA. 99206"
Public Comment #63– Zagelow, Vivian (08-11-21) Response to Comments:
"I request a public hearing regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted to the
City of Spokane Valley for review. It’s for the development that would be built on the property
directly south of The Greens development that use to be a golf course.
Sincerely,
Vivian Zagelow
3935 South Eagle Lane, Spokane Vly
The Greens"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
Public Comment #64 – Simon, Marla (08-11-21) Response to Comments:
"I submitted a letter to you on November 13, 2018, stating tne concerns I nave wItn tne tramc
voIume.
Of course we were not in the middle of a pandemic, so it was unbelievable to me the amount of
traffic there was on 32ⁿᵈ Pines, Madison, Thorpe and 40ᵗʰ especially during peak am and pm
times.
Between the number of students on the sidewalks and crossing the streets by the schools, the
buses, the parents waiting in their cars to pick kids up and delivery trucks and service trucks, it is
overwhelming. Adding 580 new homes will definitely impact traffic in a very negative way.
In that letter I also stated that I noticed in the Traffic Impact Analysis, there were many
questions and comments about the ""cut through"" from Madison road, down 40ᵗʰ east, and then
a north tum on Woodlawn. There were no traffic counts taken at Madison and 40ᵗʰ In a letter
dated October 2, 2015
sent from Sean Messner, PE, Senior Traffic Engineer from the City of Spokane Valley, Public Works
Dept-Traffic Engineering, to Todd \Nhipple, the following is a direct quote from that letter:
re: Painted Hills Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Review
""5. General: Cut-through traffic was identified by the public. The executive summary and
conclusions (one in the same) provide recommendations, however the report does not contain
any analysis or discussions of cut-through traffic via 40th/Woodlawn. Please provide appropriate
analysis and document accordingly.""
There are still no counts or analysis provided for this intersection. And taking traffic counts at
1. Midilome Cut-Through Study: See response to Public Comment #1, Item
2.
2. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
3. Noise: See response to Public Comment #15, Item 2.
4. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment #6,
Item 1.
5. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
49
this point in the summer on that intersection, would not provide the correct perspective of the
traffic situation. We have a direct view of that intersection and in the morning and evening, cars
and trucks are backed up to make turns in all directions.
Page 41, Table 14, in the DEIS document, states a total of 5,846 daily trips in and out of the
development. WOW!! That much more traffic on top of what exists during normal traffic times
(not during COVID-19) will absolutely be impossible. No need to put sidewalks around this
development,"
NOISE- "In addition, sounds originating from temporary construction sites as a result of
construction activity are exempt from the provisions of SVMC 7.05.040(K)(1)between the hours
of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. or when conducted beyond 1,000 feet of any residence where
human beings reside and sleep at any hour." \/\/hat is key, the word "temporary'' and "short
term" are used in the stated WAC, the DEIS, and SVMC, but never defined. Most people would
agree, that short term or temporary does not mean construction over a 10-15 year period. That
is more than a stretch of the WAC and SVMC codes and regulations.
On one of the agency reports from Central Valley School District, Jay Rowell, who at that time
was CVSD Deputy Superintendent , sent a letter to Christina Janssen at the city, dated 9-09-
2015, stated very clearly that any students who live in that development will not be attending
any of the three schools nearest the site. The letter stated that even with the planned upcoming
construction projects which have mostly been completed (the new high school at Liberty Lake
and the renovations at Horizon Middle School), these students will not be going to the nearby
schools. So now we have situation where students will have to ride buses or rely on parents to
drop them off at school. There will need to be crossing guards near the bus stops to help safely
get the students on their buses.
Public Comment #65 – Simon, George (08-11-21) Response to Comments:
"I already submitted this request, but was told I needed to include my home address.
Amended below in signature block.
From: George Simon <bekasimo@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 1:02 PM
To: 'Lbarlow@spokanevalley.org' <Lbarlow@spokanevalley.org>
Cc: Frank & Jill Cobb (fccobb@gmail.com) <fccobb@gmail.com>
Subject: PAINTED HILLS DEVELOPMENT - Public Hearing Request
Hello Ms. Barlow,
Due to the complexity of the DEIS for the proposed Painted Hills Residential
Development, I am requesting that a public hearing be held.
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
50
An article regarding the proposed development in the July 29th Business Journal
reads: The development company submitted an updated draft environmental
impact statement early this year that laid out multiple development scenarios
that CEO Dave Black contends “answers any questions that would ever come
up on that development.”
I find the above remark from Dave Black outside of reality. I know I have many
concerns and questions after reviewing much of the DEIS that remain unanswered.
I’m sure other residents, and even you have unanswered questions as well. I believe
a public hearing would provide a welcome avenue for enlightenment of all parties.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
George Simon
3952 S Eagle Lane
Spokane Valley, WA"
Public Comment #66–Linda (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"Stop this crazy growth in Spokane county!!! Here in the valley the traffic.alone is scary
not to mention the lack of upgrading of the older infrastructure.. this population growth
has to stop!! Your allowing some of us to get squeezed out of our neighborhoods.
Taxes are rising, streets are overcrowded, brand new schools will be overcrowded
when they open!! Barker rd needs to be widened, more roundabouts are needed..
and all of this is due to the greedy contractors finding every piece of ground available
to build on!! Its gone to far people!!!!
Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device"
1. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
2. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3.
3. Utilities: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 4.
Public Comment # 67– Mayer, Kent (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow,
I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the
Painted Hills golf course. This development has enormous implications for our entire
community for the majority of our lives.
Thank you,
Kent Mayer
4308 S. Locust Rd."
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
Public Comment #68 – Mar, Jef (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"I'd like to be added to the list of neighbors requesting a hearing on the EIS for Blacks Painted Hills
Golf course proposal. We are Jeff and Laurie Marshall, 6303 S. Eagle Crest Dr, Spokane WA 99206.
We've lived up here starting in 1982, and had a dental practice at Pines and Broadway until 2019.
When we moved up here, Madison wasn't paved! And the Senske's bought the old farm property,
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
51
cleaned out the remains of the collapsed barn, and built the golf course. That was because it was
a flood zone, no residences allowed. Great use of the property, especially with the schools so
close the kids could walk there for practice and golf team activities. Thanks!"
Public Comment # 69– Clarizio, John (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"Hello Lori,
I am requesting a public hearing on the DEIS.
Thank you for what you do and thank you for your time.
John Clarizio
4021 S. Madison Rd.
Spokane, WA 99206"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
Public Comment #70 – Pierson, Frank (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"It is extremely important this development be done right, this will impact the south valley for
years to come. Each side should have ample time and opportunity to express their thoughts.
This will overcrowd schools, roads, traffic and change the peacefulness that people move to the
Valley to enjoy. Please be very careful with your decisions, you could make a mistake that will
impact many.
Thank you
Frank Pierson
Valley Resident"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
2. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
3. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3.
Public Comment # 71– Briggs, David (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow, I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of
the Painted Hills golf course. I’ve read the Environmental Impact Statement and believe
there is quite a bit of misinformation and errors in the report that need to be fully vetting and
brought to light. I implore you to get on the right side of this before its too late.
Thank you,
David Briggs
6102 S Lochsa Dr
Spokane, WA 99206
509-9908447"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
Public Comment # 72– Schindler, Tammy (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms Barlow
We need a hearing so that the many voices of this neighborhood being affected by this one
developer can be heard.
Please setup a meeting so the community has a voice.
Thank you
Tammy Schindler
Sent from my iPhone"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
52
Public Comment # 73– Bridges, Taylor (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"I would like to request a public hearing and a DEIS study immediately- this 600 building might
made will be a true detriment to our community and wish for more voices to be heard
Taylor Bridges
12914 E Apache pass rd
Spokane 99206
Sent from my iPhone"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
Public Comment #74 – Kristy, O'Connell (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"Painted hills development is a massive mistake and will greatly negatively affect the whole
neighborhood. The schools nor the roads can handle the large impact that this many homes will
have.
Thank you Kristy"
1. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
2. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3.
Public Comment #75 – Francis, Chelsea (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow,
I live near the proposed Painted Hills Development.
I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted
Hills golf course. This development has enormous implications for our entire community for
the majority of our lives. Thank you,
Chelsea Francis
3708 South Reeves Rd
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
Public Comment # 76– Kelley, Rhonda (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"________________________________
Ms. Barlow,
I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills golf
course. This development will have enormous implications for our entire community in many
different ways.
Thank you,
Rhonda Kelley
4603 S Ponderosa Lane"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
Public Comment #77 – Walters, Susan (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"Hello,
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
53
Greetings from a local resident regarding the Painted Hills golf course development.
Please hold a public hearing on this so citizens can voice their concerns about 600 new buildings
on wet lands.
On another note… I just retired here after being away 30 yrs…..Sprague avenue looks like a run
down town what has happened to the charming valley???
Thank you!
Susan Walters
5506 S. Bates road
Spokane valley, WA 99206
Sent from my iPhone"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
2. Wetlands: See Response to Public Comment #4, Item 5.
Public Comment #78 – Catalano, Kathy (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow, I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of
the Painted Hills golf course. This development has enormous implications for our entire
community for the majority of our lives.
Katherine Catalano
10901 East 11th Lane
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Kathy Catalano
Word Processor | Witherspoon • Kelley
KathyC@witherspoonkelley.com | vCard"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
Public Comment #79– Dowling, Jeanne (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow,
I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the
Painted Hills golf course. This development has enormous implications for our entire
community for the majority of our lives.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Dowling
11913 E. 38th Ave.
Spokane Valley,WA"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
Public Comment #80– Alexander, Jan (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"I am requesting a public hearing on the Painted Hills Development Project.
Jan Alexander
13004 E 37th Lane, Spokane Valley, WA 99206"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
Public Comment #81 – Bravinder, Richard (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"Please ensure that there is a public hearing about the proposed development at the Painted
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
54
Hills Golf Course. The long term impact on the general environment and the neighborhood
needs to be addressed before this development proceeds." 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
Public Comment #82 – Schneider, Lori (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the planned development of the former
Painted Hills golf course. The number of negative issues with this development are overwhelming.
If the land must be built on, there are much smarter and more responsible ways to do so."
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
Public Comment #83 – Wallis, Nita (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow,
I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills
golf course. This development has enormous implications for our entire community for the
majority of our lives.
Thank you,
Nita Wallis
12321 E Emory Ln
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Nwallis58@yahoo.com
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
Public Comment #84 – Rauf, Jennifer (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow,
I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills
golf course. This development has enormous implications for our entire community and needs
further discussions and input.
Thank you,
Jennifer Rauf
5815 S Cree Drive
Spokane, WA 99206"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
Public Comment #85 – Lawver, Jamie (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"Hi Ms. Barlow,
I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the proposed development of the
Painted Hills golf course land. This development will change everything surrounding the area
and will impact roads, schools, environment among many others. I grew up in Midilome and
vividly remember the wildlife that inhabited the area and the large floods that came every
year.
Thank you,
Jamie Lawver
13208 E. San Juan Ln.
Spokane Valley, WA 99206"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
2. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
3. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3.
4. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
55
Public Comment #86 – DePew, Tessa (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"I am writing to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the
former Painted Hills Golf Course. The enormous implications of this 600+ site will
change the standard of living of all surrounding community members. Our
infrastructure is not set up to handle the traffic influx. Our schools aren't prepared to
accommodate students from the new residences. The wetland area of Chester Creek
has already been impacted and moved to allow other developments in the area,
pushing area wildlife (to include bald eagles, moose, deer, hawks, and turkey vultures
to name a few) into residential areas and creating hazardous conditions on our roads
when they're pushed out of their habitat.
Montessa DePew Childears
12714 E Apache Pass Rd.
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
tessadepew@rocketmail.com
(509) 590-5576"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
2. Transportation (Infrastructure): Truck volumes, operations, and phasing
are detailed in Section 3.3.2.2 of the EIS. Specifically, the increased truck
traffic could impact non-construction related users of the local roadway
system. Potential impacts to local users would include traffic delays due
to additional truck traffic on the roads, and inconvenience and potential
danger caused by fugitive dust and spilled fill materials on the roadways.
In addition, additional traffic could result in damage to existing roadway
infrastructure including pavement surfaces, signs, and guardrails. Per the
City of Spokane Valley Haul plan requirements Item #5, any damage to the
public roadway or roadway elements is the responsibility of the
contractor. Supplemental technical documents including the
Transportation Impact Analysis and the Truck Haul Memo are included as
Appendix F and G, respectively. The following measures are proposed in
order to mitigate for transportation impacts on infrastructure:
All improvements will conform to City of Spokane Valley Standards.
The project may have up to two new commercial driveway approaches
on Dishman-Mica Road along the frontage of the project:
o The northernmost commercial driveway approach will access the
apartments only and will be restricted to right-in/right-out by
means of a raised median along Dishman-Mica Road or via a pork
chop island within the driveway. The design of the median or pork
chop will be approved by the City.
o The southernmost commercial driveway approach will access the
northern commercial site only along Dishman-Mica and may be a
full movement driveway with a two-way left-turn lane along
Dishman-Mica for left-turn access.
Prior to the initiation of mass-grading activities associated with the
project, the applicant will install a two-way left turn lane on Dishman-
Mica Road and a right-turn northbound lane on Dishman-Mica Road at
the proposed new entry road into the PRD.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
56
A final haul route plan approved by the City will be developed and
managed to ensure that truck trips to and from the site during
construction use Dishman-Mica Road for site access over the duration
of site construction. This plan should include a section devoted to pre-
and post-construction inspections of the facility to determine any
pavement failures that can be attributed to the construction trips. A
draft of this Truck Haul Plan is provided as Appendix G.
Stabilized construction entrances will be provided to minimize the
potential for dirt and debris to be carried onto the road by exiting
construction vehicles.
Access points on Dishman-Mica Road will be designed to ensure safe
sight distances per the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and local standards to ensure that
turning movements into and out of the site will have adequate vision
clearance.
Section 3.3.3 of the EIS addressed transportation mitigation
measures, including those that apply to construction/transportation
impacts on public infrastructure. Therefore, no changes to the EIS
were made.
3. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
4. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6.
5. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3.
Public Comment #87 – Lunden, Steve (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"Good afternoon Ms. Barlow,
As a resident of the Ponderosa neighborhood since 1991, I would like to request a
public hearing on the DEIS and development plans for the old Painted Hills golf
course. A project of this size and scope will have significant impacts on our
neighborhood and general area. I'd like the opportunity to express my many
concerns. Thank you.
Steve Lunden
4221 S Hollow
Spokane Valley, WA 99206"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #88 – Allen, Andie (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"Dear Ms Barlow,
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
57
I would like to request a public hearing on the on the DEIS and the development of the Painted
Hills golf course.
This development has enormous implications for our entire community and the lives of all that
live here.
Thank you,
Andie Allen
3607 S Fox St
Spokane Valley WA 99206
Sent from my iPhone"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #89 – Russell, Leanne (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"Thank you Ms Barlow for recording my request for a public hearing to review and discuss the 600
unit development currently under advisement for approval in the Painted Hills area. I believe
there are many issues that require discussion before the council makes further decisions.
Sincerely
Leanne Russell
Ruslsroost@msn.com
Sent from my iPhone"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #90– Allen, Justin (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"Dear Ms Barlow,
I would like to request a public hearing on the on the DEIS and the development of the Painted
Hills golf course.
This development has enormous implications for our entire community and the lives of all that
live here.
Thank you,
Justin Allen"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #91– Danielson, Kelly (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow,
I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills golf
course. I am extremely concerned with the impact this could have on our surrounding community,
schools, traffic, safety, and environment.
Thank you,
Kelly Danielson
12914 E. 35th ave.
Spokane Valley
Washington 99206"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
2. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
3. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3.
4. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6.
5. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment #6,
Item 1.
Public Comment #92 – Ayers, Robert (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"Dear Ms. Barlow,
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
58
My wife and I are requesting that a public hearing be held concerning the Painted Hills
DEIS. We are Carol and Robert Ayers residing at 3930 S. Eagle LN Spokane Valley, WA 99206.
We have a myriad of concerns regarding the proposal and feel that a hearing is needed for all
concerns to be expressed. Among our concerns, in no particular order of importance, is the
question of traffic congestion (as it stands now, with the three schools adjascent to one
another, traffic congestion is considerable with parents dropping off and picking up their
children during the day; not to mention what the addition of dump trucks bringing in fill will
add to the traffic embroglio that already exists). As an ex-educator of 36 years it has been
brought to my attention by connections in the school district that if the housing construction
takes place, the students from those new homes will not be going to the neighborhood
schools due to lack of room but will be bussed to schools further east - this is information that
I am sure will not be shared with potential home buyers and will cause considerable
consternation, thus resulting in poor PR for the school district and the city (we witnessed this
exact thing on 5 Mile when we lived there - the anger generated was considerable). We are
also concerned about the noise factor that would present itself in a 10 to 15 year project. We
are also saddened by the potential destruction of a natural wildlife sanctuary (on a daily basis
we watch deer, coyotes, an occasional moose, and even bald eagles from our deck). We also
are fearful that the plans to build on this wetland with the proposed water abatement system
opens the door for disastrous results regarding maintenance and repair of said system. To put
the monetary responsibility for repair and maintenance in the hands of proposed HOA's seems
to us to be reckless and foolish and ultimately non-workable. There are other issues of
concern that need to be expressed before the decision to allow the possibility of construction.
Please allow for a hearing from concerned constituents before making a decision.
Sincerely, Robert & Carol Ayers"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
2. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3.
3. Construction-Related Traffic: See response to Public Comment #149,
Item 2.
4. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
5. Noise: See response to Public Comment #15, Item 2.
6. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6.
7. Wetlands: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 5.
8. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public
Comment #27, Item 2.
Public Comment #93– Buckner, Margaret (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow
I wish to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills golf
course. This development has huge impact and implications for our entire community for the
majority of our lives.
Thank you.
Margaret Buckner
9921 E. 44th Ave
Spokane Valley, WA 99206"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
Public Comment #94– Myers, Michael (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
""Ms. Barlow,
I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
59
golf course. This development has enormous implications for our entire community for the
majority of our lives.
Thank you,
Michael Myers
4510 S. Woodruff Rd.
Spokane Valley, WA 99206"
Public Comment #95 – Penn, John (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"I am requesting that we have a public hearing on the proposed Painted Hills development so all
parties have an opportunity to participate in the discussion regarding the impact this will have on
our community.
John and Melody Penn
4411 S Woodruff Rd
Spokane Valley 99206
Sincerely,
John Penn"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
Public Comment #96– Currer, Bruce (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"We need to have a public hearing regarding this development and their environmental report.
There are too many unaddressed issues and perhaps incorrect information.
Please consider.
Bruce Currer
12102 E Nez Perce Ln
Spokane 99206
Thank you
Sent from my iPhone"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
Public Comment #97– Edwards, Nicole (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"Greetings,
I am emailing to officially request a public hearing is held regarding the development of the
painted hills golf course. Many among my valley community (myself included) are already feeling
a surge in traffic and our neighborhood streets have become more dangerous in recent years.
There are other concerns but this is primary.
Thank you for your consideration,
Nic Edwards
1600 block South Bowdish Road
Spokane Valley, WA 99206-5442
Sent from my iPhone"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
2. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3.
3. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment
#6, Item 1.
Public Comment #98– Ragan, Don (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"I am requesting a public hearing regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
60
There ae many reasons why this project should not be allowed to progress and I am anxious to
provide my input.
Thank You,
Don Ragan
3902 S. Eagle Ln
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
(509) 924-1578
Sent from Mail for Windows"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
Public Comment #99 – Vrabel, Jana (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"Dear Ms. Barlow,
I would like to request a hearing on the DEIS and development of the Painted Hills Golf
Course property. This development has serious implications for our Painted Hills community
(and neighboring communities) and many of us are very concerned.
Thank you,
Jana Vrabel
6204 S Eagle Crest Dr
Spokane, WA 99206
Sent from my iPhone"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
Public Comment #100– Munt, Pat (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"From: pat@inlandnwgardening.com
To: Lori Barlow
Subject: We need hearing for the Painted Hills development
Date: Thursday, August 12, 2021 7:53:07 PM
[EXTERNAL] This email originated outside the City of Spokane Valley. Always use caution when
opening
attachments or clicking links.
The developer is shoving this past you. We don’t need housing that bad
Pat Munt, She/her
Columnist, Author, Garden Coach
Co-author of Northwest Gardeners Handbook
4903 S Mohawk Ln
Spokane WA
pat@inlandnwgardening.com
509 998 9769"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #101 – Wurst, Cara (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
61
"Dear Ms Barlow:
I respectfully request a public hearing on the DEIS and the Painted Hills PRD. The
proposed actions and outcomes have so many ramifications for our family, none of
them beneficial at this point. We live south of the golf course along Dishman Mica
Rd, and this is our main access to EVERYTHING in town. I cannot imagine the
horror of traffic trying to get to work, school and essentially everywhere in town for us
with that area developed as proposed. Anyone trying to drop their child at Chester
Creek, Horizon or at University knows traffic in the is area is already a huge problem
and safety of children as they go to and from school is already risky.
Thank you -
Cara Wurst
6405 S Dishman Mica Rd"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
2. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3.
3. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment
#6, Item 1.
Public Comment #102– Gonzales, Carol (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms Barlow
I am requesting a public hearing for the Huge Painted Hills golf course development. This is
completely an unreasonable size development for the acreage and being in a 100 year flood plain,
especially since the same developers are already working on another development one block to
the south of The Painted Hills development with at least 40 homes on a 12 acre parcel. Between
the two developments it is a huge impact on our community.
Please consider a public hearing.
Thank you
Carol Gonzales
4621 S Lapwai Lane
Spokane Valley,Wa 99206
Sent from my iPad"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
2. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3.
Public Comment #103 – Wilderding, Kasey (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"Hello Ms. Barlow,
As a member of the south valley community that would directly impacted by the development in
the proposed Painted Hills area I am requesting a public hearing.
We live on S Pines across the street from Chester Elementary and UHi and observe speeding cars
on a daily basis. In the 3 years we have lived in this home the traffic has steadily increased. I have
concerns about the safety of my children as well as concerns regarding overcrowding of our
schools if this development occurs.
I appreciate your time regarding this matter.
Best,
Kasey Wilberding
3426 S Pines Rd"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
2. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3.
3. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment
#6, Item 1.
4. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
62
Public Comment #104– DeVries, Melanie (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow,
I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills golf
course. This development has enormous implications for our entire community and our day to
day lives.
Thank you,
Melanie DeVries
12735 E Apache Pass
Spokane Valley, Wa 99206
Sent from my iPhone"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #105– Turner, Tiffany (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"I would like to request a hearing on the Painted Hills development.
Thank you,
Tiffany Turner
12104 E Lenora Drive
Sent from Mail for Windows"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #106 – Scott, Kelly (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"Dear Ms. Barlow:
As a resident of the Ponderosa area, I am very concerned about the planned development at
the site of the old Painted Hills Golf Course. The addition of 600 housing units in this area will
overwhelm the existing infrastructure, the roads, the schools and the way of life of the
residents of this area.
I request that a public hearing be held regarding the impact of this development to the
residents of the surrounding area.
Sincerely,
Kelly Scott
10615 E. Pierce Ln.
Spokane, WA 99206"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
2. Transportation (Infrastructure): See response to Public Comment #86,
Item 2.
3. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3.
4. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
Public Comment #107– Bodhireddy, Hari (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"Hello Lori,
My address is 4105 S. Madison Rd., Spokane Valley, WA 99206. We live across from the proposed
development area in Painted Hills. My wife and I are requesting a public hearing on the DEIS. The
proposal, which I have reviewed with many neighbors, has several oversights that everyone
involved should be aware of.
The biggest area of concern is the funding for maintenance of the flood mitigation system. The
HOA fees would be prohibitively expensive, so affordable housing this is not. If the HOA is unable
1 Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
2. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public
Comment #27, Item 2.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
63
to cover the cost of maintenance of the flood mitigation system, the burden falls on the city.
There are many more points to be heard.
Thanks,
Hari Bodhireddy"
Public Comment #108 – Briggs, Theresa (08-12-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow,
I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of Painted Hills golf
course. This development has enormous implications for our entire community.
Thanks you,
Theresa Briggs
6102 S Lochsa Drive
Spokane, WA 99206
Sent from Theresa's iPhone"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS.
Public Comment #109 – Bisson, Diane (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"I am writing in support of a community hearing to address the issues of a large scale
development in the Painted Hills.
Diane Bisson
10108 E Cimmaron Dr
Spokane Valley, 99206
Diane
Sent from my iPad"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS.
Public Comment #110 – Chandler, Marci (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow, I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the
Painted Hills golf course. This development has enormous implications for our entire community
for the majority of our lives. Thank you, Marci Chandler
10921 E Hallett Rd
Sent from my iPhone"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS.
Public Comment #111– Robbins , Barbara (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms Barlow,
I would like to request a public hearing of this planned development as it severely impacts my
community in a negative way. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Barbara Robbins
11014 E 42nd Ct
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Sent from my iPad"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS.
Public Comment #112– McKinley, Brenda (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
64
"Good Morning, I had sent you a previous email, but now I understand I needed to request a
hearing on this development.
As a neighbor and Realtor I am against this development. This development will impact the value
on the homes in the area. This development will impact the schools and roads. We are not built
for the amount of vehicles and people that this would bring.
Please schedule a hearing so the public can be heard.
BRENDA MCKINLEY
Real Estate Advisor"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
2. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3.
3. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
Public Comment #113– Swan, Nicholas (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow,
I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills golf
course. This development has enormous implications for our entire community for
the majority of our lives.
Thank you,
Nicholas Swan
11310 E 35th
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Sent from my iPhone"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS.
Public Comment #114 – Owen, Cody (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow,
I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the Painted Hills Development. This will
have major implications on our community and wildlife.
Thank you
Cody Owen
5506 S Mohawk DR
Get Outlook for iOS"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
2. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6.
Public Comment #115 – Anderson, Jerry (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow,
I would like to request a hearing to consider the planned development in Painted Hills. My email
address is navoffsf@yahoo.com.
Thank you,
Jerry Anderson"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #116–Anton-Galietti, Kathy (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"Dear Ms. Barlow,
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
65
I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills
golf course. This development has real environmental implications.
Thank you
Kathy Anton-Galietti"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #117 – Schroeder, Joyce (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow,
I am requesting that a Public Hearing be held regarding the DEIS for the Painted Hills Golf
Course Development. This development would have a major impact in many ways on the
surrounding neighborhoods.
Joyce Schroeder
5205 S Cree Dr, Spokane, WA 99206"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #118– Carey, Ann (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow,
I understand it is not too late for there to be a hearing regarding this development.
As such, I would like to add my request for a public hearing on the DEIS and the
development of the Painted Hills golf course. This development has enormous implications
for our neighborhoods and the entire community.
Thank you,
Ann Carey
11317 E Sundown Dr, Spokane Valley, WA 99206
On Aug 5, 2021, at 10:34 AM, Ann Carey <bobandann03@gmail.com> wrote:
Regarding the development of the Painted Hills Area, and the two options presented by the
developer.
I urge council members to proceed cautiously with the overdevelopment of Spokane Valley.
Please consider the voices/wishes of your individual constituents vs. big name developers -
especially as you face re-election.
I share the opinion of many of my Ponderosa and Painted Hills neighbors in preferring single
family homes versus multi-family. It’s how this area was originally designed and why many
of us chose these neighborhoods instead of Spokane or Liberty Lake.
It appears the developer is willing to sweeten the deal with trails, a park, and a wild life
corridor - only if mixed use units are approved. It is a failing of the City of Spokane Valley to
not require things like that for any large development. At this rate, we will soon need to
change the City logo from trees and water to stacks of apartments etc.
With either decision, before 500+ residences are added to an area with limited infrastructure -
PLEASE consider the fact that Spokane Valley is already getting a failing grade for traffic
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
66
flow (https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2021/jul/19/getting-there-new-fees-to-aid-
failingcentral-spok/). And reducing developer fees for multi-family is counter-intuitive as more
housing units create density in an area, which will increase traffic (unless they are closer to
urban services or are near bus routes which this area is not).
Thank you for allowing, and listening to, public comment.
Ann Carey
11317 E Sundown Dr, Spokane Valley, WA 99206"
Public Comment #119– Johnson, Jeremy (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"Hello Ms. Barlow,
Hello Ms. Barlow,
I would like to request another meeting regarding the painted hills golf course development
project. The public and planners need more time to consider the impact and implications of the
plan.
Thank you,
Jeremy R. Johnson
12805 E 35th Ave
Spokane Valley, WA
99206. The public and planners need more time to consider the impact and implications of the
plan.
Thank you,
Jeremy R. Johnson
12805 E 35th Ave
Spokane Valley, WA
99206"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #120– McDonald, Stacia (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow, I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of
the Painted Hills golf course. I’m incredibly concerned about how this will impact our
community for many years.
Thank you,
Stacia McDonald
staciaandnatemcdonald@gmail.com"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #121– Everett, Kate (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
67
"Ms. Barlow,
I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted
Hills golf course. This development has enormous implications for our entire community for
the majority of our lives.
Thank you,
Kate Martin
2525 E. Everett
Spokane, WA 99217"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #122– Patten, Ramona (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"Please consider this my request for a hearing on the Painted Hills Development.
Housing in the Spokane Valley is growing at a much larger, faster rate than the infrastructure can
handle. A golf course or natural areal would blenefit the quality of human and animal life in
Spokane Valley. 600
additional homes with over a thousand new residents and cars will only deteriorate the area and
quality of life for all.
Thank you for recognizing my request,
Ramona Catherine Patten
16321 E. Whirlaway Ln
Veradale, WA 99037"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Response to Comments: Response to Comments:
"Lori,
I request a hearing for the proposed development in Painted Hills. Let me know when that is
scheduled.
Regards,
Jeff Pearce
4027 S Forest Meadow Dr.
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
(509) 850-0574"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #124– Bean, Sally (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"Please let us have a say in what is happening with the development of 600 units. Many of these
new ones are not very well planned; hence, no green belts, children play areas and dog areas. It
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
2. Parks/Greenspace: See response to Public Comment #3, Item 1.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
68
seems to me the developers jam as many units as they can. Take a look at what is going on in
these new developments all over the valley. It is a sea of homes and apartments. Our forefathers
did better with all the parks they left for us.
Thank you for looking into this and I hope you give us a meeting to have a say.
Sally Bean
4228 S Terra Verde Dr
Veradale, WA 999037
Sent from Mail for Windows 10"
Public Comment #125– Brooks, Kimberly (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"Hello Ms. Barlow,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the planned development of the Painted Hills
Golf Course. I am writing to express my concerns over of this plan due to increased risk to the
general safety of the public that lives surrounding this area. Currently, traffic is growing due
to developments without any consideration for traffic management for wildlife fires or other
natural disasters. There is 1 way in and out of this area, high density housing would put
numerous families at risk. Additionally, such a large development will impact our already
overwhelmed school systems and available resources (e.g. hospitals, grocery stores).
Please accept my comments as a voice for declining to allow this development to occur.
Sincerely,
Kimberly Brooks
4813 S. Low Way Ct.
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
509-370-0644"
1. Fire Evacuation Routes: See response to Public Comment #7, Item 5.
2. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
3. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3.
Public Comment #126– Connors, Kyle (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms Barlow,
Thank you for taking this time to read this email. I hope the day is finding you well despite all the
smoke and heat.
I am just learning about a rather large development over in the painted hills area. While new
developments can be exciting… I feel this particular one will not be a great addition to our area.
With the recent influx of bad behavior and crime, I only feel like it will get increasingly worse with
the added dwellings in the area.
Not to mention with the added population adds to traffic congestion, traffic safety near our
schools (we already have a problem with people racing up and down pines at alarming speeds)
and makes me think that the schools may not be able to handle the added influx of potential new
students.
It also concerns me that with such a population increase also increases pollution from motor
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
2. Transportation (General): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3.
3. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment
#6, Item 1.
4. Public Services: Section 3.4.8 of the EIS addresses public services, which
includes waste management services. Franchise utilities such as internet
bear the responsibility to update and maintain infrastructure
commensurate with urban growth, as planned for in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
69
vehicles, litter and human waste management.
Also our internet infrastructure and power demands will also not be able to handle the loads that
will be thrown at it. We already experience power outages, internet service interruptions that are
not going to get better with the increase in population.
At 580 new dwellings the math is kind of staggering when you break it down.
Single persons being only 580 new people to the area
Couples and Single Parents is 1160 more people
Parents with 1 child is 1740
Parents with multiple children is anywhere from 2320-3480+ more people in the area
To myself and others I think the numbers alone can show that such a boom is not sustainable in
this area.
I would request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development on the Painted Hills as it has
serious implications for our entire community.
Thank you for taking the time to read this email.
-Kyle Connors
12021 E 34th Ave Spokane Valley WA"
Public Comment #127– Wendel, Farryle (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"Dear Ms Barlow:
I respectfully request a public hearing on the DEIS and the Painted Hills PRD. The
proposed actions and outcomes have so many ramifications for my daughter's family,
none of them beneficial at this point. They live south of the golf course along
Dishman Mica Rd, and this is their main access to EVERYTHING in town. I cannot
imagine the horror of traffic trying to get to work, school and essentially everywhere in
town for them with that area developed as proposed. Anyone trying to drop their child
at Chester Creek, Horizon or at University knows traffic in this area is already a huge
problem and safety of children as they go to and from school is already risky.
As the mother and grandmother, the increased traffic will make it very difficult for me
to visit. Please review all the possible designs of future development as well as the
environmental impact for this area.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Farryle Wendel
4117 N Farr Rd
Spokane WA 99206"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
2. Transportation: See response to Public Comment #15, Item 1.
3. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment
#6, Item 1.
Public Comment #128– Ragan, Paulette (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"I am requesting a hearing regarding the DEIS. There are numerous reasons why this project
should not be allowed to progress and there needs to be serious discussion regarding this matter.
Paulette Ragan
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
70
3902 S. Eagle Ln
Spokane Valley, WA 99206" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #129– Krogh, Hallie (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow,
I am requesting a public hearing on the DEIS in relation to the development of
Painted Hills.
Thank you,
Hallie Krogh
11306 E Ponderosa Drive
Spokane Valley, WA 99206"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #130– Krogh, Ryan (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow,
I am requesting a public hearing on the DEIS in relation to the development of
Painted Hills.
Thank you,
Ryan Krogh
11306 E Ponderosa Drive
Spokane Valley, WA 99206"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #131– Brewer, Ricci (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"Dear Ms. Barlow,
As a homeowner, tax payer, and parent living in the Painted Hills Neighborhood I am just
devastated to hear about Dave Black’s development plans for the former Painted Hills Golf
Course, and wetlands area.
As our elected representative I am reaching out to you to request a public hearing on the DEIS and
the development on the Painted Hills area as this needs to be stopped as it has serious impacts to
so many facets of our local community.
As of this time our schools are already at capacity. How can this school system safely add children
from 580 new dwellings? Classrooms were at capacity before COVID restrictions, and with the
addition of social distancing, need for small class sizes, and a shortage of teachers our children’s
education will suffer if this significant increase of children is added to an already maxed out school
system.
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
2. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
3. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: Public Comment #6, Item 1.
4. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6.
5. Wetlands: See Response to Public Comment #4, Item 5.
6. Transportation (General): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
71
Traffic: Our current two lane road to and from the Painted Hills neighborhood (Along Madison)
has no sidewalks, this road boasts a beautiful population of deer who travel throughout the area,
and these roads are already attracting car races, speed pushing drivers, and putting our animals,
runners, walkers, and children at risk. My boys are entering middle school next month and I am
already concerned about their safety as they plan to walk to and from school on occasion. The
increase in dwellings with make an already growing problem too much to handle with the added
traffic congestion. Not to mention school drop up and pickup for the elementary takes nearly a
half hour with the current school traffic flow issues.
I know you have many emails to read, and I could go on and on with reasons why this project
needs to be stopped, traffic, school, energy, wildfires, A FLOODPLAIN, wetlands, and the
devastation to our wildlife! Please look past the builders need for money, and more, more more…
and be an advocate for the community members who’ve elected you and will re-elect you.
Thank you for your time in advocating for our community, and putting a stop to this plan as our
elected representative.
Best,
Ricarda Brewer
5506 S Mohawk Dr
Spokane, WA 99206
Ricci.brewer@gmail.com"
Public Comment #132– Simmons, Amanda (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"I would like a public hearing on the DEIS. The 600 unit proposed housing plan will have a huge
impact on our community. It will over run our schools and roads. Not to mention the negative
impact on the environment.
Thank you,
Amanda simmons
9615 e 43rd Ave spokane valley wa 99206
Sent from my iPhone"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #133– Taylor, Mary (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow,
I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills
golf course. This development will cause so many issues, including traffic that the roads just
won't be able to handle, school over-crowding, loss of habitat for much of our surrounding
wildlife that is already suffering... the list goes on. Our entire community is opposed to this
and has been for so many years. Please allow a public hearing on this matter.
Thank you,
Mary Taylor
11605 E. 48th Ave
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
2. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6.
3. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3.
4. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment
#6, Item 1.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
72
Spokane Valley,WA 99206
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android" 5. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
Public Comment #134– Van Herk, Amanda (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow,
I’m writing you to request that there be a public hearing on the Painted Hills DEIS. This
planned development will have significant negative effects on our community, but most
importantly the environment/wildlife. Thank you.
Andrea Van Herk"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
2. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6.
Public Comment #135– DeVries, Patrick (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"Subject: Painted Hills Public Hearing
Ms. Barlow,
I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills golf
course. This development has enormous implications for our entire community
and our day to day lives. I own and live in my home in the immediate area.
Thank you
Patrick DeVries | President / CEO
Patrick@devriesinc.com
509-838-1044 Ext. 321 | 866-433-4691 Ext. 321 | devriesinc.com"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #136– Ingraham, Wayne (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"I would like to have another public hearing on the development at painted hills.
My name is Wayne Ingraham
11317 E. 48 Ave. Spokane Valley 99206
wayneshirlene@msn.com
Thank you"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #137– Scott, Rylan (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"Hi I'm writing as a resident nearby the poderosa area, and I am concerned about the
environment, and infrastructure impacts that will come with it. Please hold a public hearing in
order to allow public input on this development.
My address is 10615 E Pierce Ln Spokane Wa"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #138– Verity, Sue (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow,
I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills golf
course. This development has enormous implications for our entire community for the majority of
our lives.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
73
Sue Verity
4222 South Hollow Street
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Email: lancesuev@gmail.com
Sent from my iPhone"
Public Comment #139– Deyarmin, Sasha (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"Dear Ms. Barlow-I would like to request a hearing on the proposed development on the former
Painted Hills Golf Course. The proposed development will have long lasting and negative
implications on the South Valley Community. A development to this magnitude would put an
undo burden on our roads, our maxed out Central Valley schools, and would propose a major
safety hazard for walkers, bikers, and drivers. In addition, it would endanger the wildlife in the
area. The golf course added to the quality of lives of the people in this community. We now need
to drive at least 30 minutes to play golf. This area would better serve the community as a golf
course and park, which was the promise of the Spokane Valley City Council when they told the
neighbors across the street of their plans so that the neighbors would not purchase it. Please
consider this request. Sincerely, Sasha Deyarmin
5916 S. Lochsa Lane 99206 and Candace Jordan 10214 E. 40th Ct. 99206
Sent from my iPhone"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
2. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6.
3. Transportation (Infrastructure): See response to Public Comment #86,
Item 2.
4. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment
#6, Item 1.
5. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
Public Comment #140– Rausch, Leonard & Debbie (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of Painted Hills Golf
Course. The development has huge implications for our entire community. Once completed, the
damage to our area will be irreversible.
Thank you,
Leonard and Debbie Rausch
10510 E 20th Ave
Spokane Valley, Wa 99206
Sent from my iPad"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #141– Verity, Lance (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"City of Spokane Valley, 10210 East Sprague Avenue,
Spokane Valley, WA 99206,
LBarlow@spokanevalley.org.
Ref: Project Name: Painted Hills PRD - 2015-0001Proposal Description: A planned
residential development with 300 single family homes, 280 multifamily units and a
neighborhood commercial center.
Questions:
1. Who will be performing Operational and Maintenance of structures in and around the
development. I.E trash racks, pipe openings, swales.
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
2. Flood Management System Element Failure Risk and Impact Summary
(Appendix E): See response to Public Comment #209, Item 3.
3. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
74
2. Appex. E: ""Pipe openings clogged by debris during a flood event"". ""Vegetation in and near
the ditch that enters the pipe is non-woody and would not contribute a measurable amount of
debris."" In my 10+ years of working in and around CSO tanks and sewer lines I have
witnessed many different objects blocking control gates and racks. Everything from tree
branches to large rocks. It does not depend on vegetation in the local area of the rack-it's more
dependent on the Items upstream in the Chester Creek Watershed and the amount of energy
forced by heavy rains. This was recently shown by a microclimate downpour in the north
Spokane area within the last year.
Because of these reasons and other concerns that will be addressed more fully, I would like to
request a public hearing on this project's DEIS.
Thank you,
Lance Verity (PC385)
4222 South Hollow Street
Spokane Valley, WA 99206"
Public Comment #142– Kang, Jill (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"Lori,
I am requesting a hearing regarding the Painted Hills Golf Course.
Jill Kang
Jill.Kang@comcast.net
Sent from my iPhone"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #143– Taggart, Damon (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow,
I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills
golf course. This development has enormous implications for our entire community for the
majority of our lives.
Thank you,
Damon Taggart
3809 s union rd
Spokane valley wa 99206
Get Outlook for Android"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #144– Hyndman, Alexandra (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"Dear Ms. Barlow,
I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the
Painted Hills golf course. This development has the ability to impact our community
in a drastic way that I would like the opportunity to comment on.
Thank you,
Alexandra Hyndman
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
75
12735 E Apache Pass rd
Spokane, WA
99206"
Public Comment #145– Sisser, John (08-14-21) Response to Comments:
"Please add me to the list of people requesting a public hearing on the Painted Hills project.
My address is
3909 S Robie Road
Spokane Valley
Thank you
John Sisser
Get Outlook for iOS"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #146– Martin, James (08-14-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow,
This Email is to request a Public Hearing on the DEIS for the proposed Painted Hills Development.
This project has so many negative implications: schools, roads, environment, wildlife and is being
proposed on a flood plain that the developer wants others to be responsible for the water
mitigation system. This developer lives in an excusive neighbor hood on the South Hill and could
care less about the mess and chaos he leaves behind here in beautiful Spokane Valley. This is no
time for the City of Spokane Valley to give in to a developer who only cares about $$$, let’s
develop this City properly.
Regards,
James M. Martin
3919 South Eagle Lane
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Sent from Mail for Windows"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
2. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6.
3. Transportation (Infrastructure): See response to Public Comment #86,
Item 2.
4. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3.
5. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
6. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3.
Public Comment #147– Bieker, Michelle (08-14-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow,
I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the developement of the Painted Hills
Golf Course. This development has caused multiple concerns and will have enormous implications
for our entire community.
I thank you for your consideration in this matter. My address is 11206 e 48th ave.
Sincerely,
Michelle Bieker"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #148– Flatt, Rachelle (08-14-21) Response to Comments:
"Hello Mrs Barlow,
I am writing today to join my fellow neighbors in requesting a public hearing regarding the
Painted Hills Development. The impact report must be addressed. This development will have a
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
76
severe impact to our wildlife, schools and the future occupants of the area if built. Please honor
our request of a public hearing regarding this
matter.
Regard,
Rachelle Flatt
Sent from my iPhone"
This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
2. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6.
3. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
Public Comment #149– Martin, Mardy (08-14-21) Response to Comments:
"RE: Painted Hills PRD / DEIS
Dear Lori:
As a resident of the south valley for over 40 years, and a tax paying citizen of the City of Spokane
Valley,
I believe the approval of the Painted Hills PRD would be irresponsible. The property is a
designated flood plain. We have watched this land flood multiple times. It will happen
again. The complex hydraulic abatement system proposed by the developer in the DEIS can not be
maintained and operated by a Home Owners Association. It is not realistic to assume that a group
of neighborhood volunteers would have the knowledge or financial resources to manage,
maintain and operate the proposed water control system. When the system fails, the failure will
be the responsibility of the City of Spokane Valley and the the resulting liability and costs incurred
will ultimately be shouldered by the tax payers.
The idea to bring in 377,000 cubic yards of fill dirt (37,000 truck loads) is ludicrous. To say this
would not have an impact on the existing roads, neighbors and adjacent three schools is not
reality. Who is going to monitor the quality of the proposed fill dirt to make sure it does not
contain contaminants that will leach into our aquifer? Who is going to pay for damages caused to
neighbors when water is diverted onto their properties?
The Traffic Impact Study included in the study has many omissions and is outdated. It should not
be considered as valid and current information.
Central Valley School District has stated that they do not have room at University High School,
Horizon Middle School, and Chester Elementary School to accommodate the new students
generated by 580 new residences. Will the developer notify prospective purchasers that their
children will need to be bussed out of the area for school? Of course, the answer is no. Will the
developer pay for the cost of bussing thechildren? The answer is no.
As proposed, this development is doomed to failure for so many reasons. Please do not allow this
to become a liability for the citizens of the City of Spokane Valley.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
1. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public
Comment #27, Item 2.
2. Construction-Related Traffic: Section 3.3.2 of the EIS and the Truck Haul
Plan (Appendix G) discuss construction-related traffic, fill quantity, timing,
routes, and impact to local roads. Implementation of the mitigation
measures identified in Section 3.3.3 , in particular the mitigation
requirement to finalize a truck-haul plan, approved by the city will ensure
that the traffic-related effects of on-site fill activities are sufficiently
mitigated. Minor refinements to Sections 3.3.2.2 and 3.3.2.3 of the EIS
have been made to the transportation section of the document to clarify
the expected number of trips per day associated with fill activities.
Mitigation measures in Section 3.3.3 of the EIS include the requirement
for a truck-haul plan approved by the city. The City’s certificate of
concurrency for the Painted Hills PRD project remains valid and any
development proposals that have occurred after the issuance of the
certificate of concurrency are required to consider background trips from
the Painted Hills project. Therefore, the delay in approval for the Painted
Hills PRD will not result in unaccounted for impacts on the system due to
the fact that subsequent development proposals have included trips from
the proposed project as background volumes in their traffic studies to
obtain certificates of concurrency.
3. Water Quality (Aquifer): See response to Public Comment #17, Item 5.
4. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
5. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
77
Mardy Martin
3919 S Eagle Lane
Spokane Valley, WA 99206"
Public Comment #150– Sisser, Kathy (08-14-21) Response to Comments:
"Please add my name to the list of people who are requesting a public hearing on the Painted Hills
Project. My mailing address is Kathryn J. Sisser, 3909 S. Robie Rd., Spokane Valley, WA 99206 509-
994-2584.
Thank you
Kathy Sisser"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not contest technical details of the EIS.
Public Comment #151– Martin, Mardy (08-14-21) Response to Comments:
"Lori,
It is imperative that the City of Spokane Valley recognizes the concerns of it's citizens.
I am requesting a public hearing on the Painted Hills PRD.
Thank you,
Mardy Martin
3919 S. Eagle Lane
Spokane Valley, WA 99206"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not contest technical details of the EIS.
Public Comment #152– Berkseth, Barbara (08-14-21) Response to Comments:
"I am signing on to request another hearing regarding the massive undesirable go at developing
the old Painted Hills golf course. Please include me in the request!
Barbara Berkseth
bberkseth@msn.com
Sent from Outlook"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1 This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #153– Schroeder, George (08-14-21) Response to Comments:
Dear Ms. Barlow:
Please have a public hearing on the above development due to the complexity and issues
associated with it. The Painted Hills Golf Course project will have a major impact on our
community. Thanks very much.
Sincerely,
George Schroeder
5205 S Cree Dr, Spokane, WA 99206
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #154– Sisser, John & Kathy (7-16-21) Response to Comments:
"We are writing this memo to express our concerns on the proposed Painted Hills Development.
We live at 3909 South Robie Road in Spokane Valley. We are within 400 feet of the northern
boundary of the development.
1. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public
Comment #27, Item 2.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
78
A major concern is the affordability of these homes. We foresee these this project being marketed
as “affordable “homes, but they will not be. The developer will list the selling price as affordable,
but will they list what the HOA fees are and what the HOA will be responsible for when the HOA
assumes ownership. Probably not because they do know what these fees will be.
With what the developer wants to do to wash his hand of any liability after the project is
completed, the cost is unpredictable. There will need to be some insurance for these repairs.
There will need to be a contingency fund built to cover these unexpected repairs if insurance
cannot bmet. What happens when the HOA declares bankruptcy? Look at the condo disaster in
Florida, the lawsuit Phillips vs King County or a flooded development in Harris County Texas
because of poor drainage the developer put in.
The result is the taxpayers of Spokane Valley will be paying the bill, not the developer because he
has washed his hand of the project. Who is going to monitor the developments HOA Board to see
that it is covering all day-to-day maintenance?
The use of the Triangle Pit has been identified as a water storage and infiltration area from the
development. This is about a half a mile for the development. There needs to be right away
acquired to move the water between the two points. Roads and private property will have to be
crossed. Who will be providing maintenance if needed?
When you start adding up all this potential cost and dividing them out amongst the possible
homeowners and adding them to the normal maintenance (mowing and snow removal)
affordable housing this is not. The city does not want these liabilities, do they?
Now let’s look at the impact on the school on Pines Road. This is a unique situation where we
have a Middle School, Elementary, and High School all along Pines Rd. It was stated to the
consults back in 2001, when the comments were made regarding Woodlawn Rd being extended
to 40th. Currently, it was under county control. We made the comment that pushing Woodlawn
thru would create a perfect scenario for people from the east to go down Woodlawn, turn right
on 40th and have a right hand drop off at Horizon Middle School or Chester Elementary.
Whipple’s people said this would not happen. This has happened. It was also stated that the
students from University High School would find Woodlawn a way to get to South Madison,
bypassing the light. This would not happen. It has.
When the initial traffic study was done, we questioned the validity of the numbers because they
did not include all the school hours, just “standard hours”. School traffic starts about 7:15 AM and
continues to after 9 AM and on late start days, 10 AM. Dismissal starts about 2:30 PM and
continues until 3:30 PM, not normal traffic hours. This development will also increase the number
of trips on Madison/Pines to where it will make it a lot more dangerous for kids to cross in front of
Chester from thee Midilome Development for school. The crossing at 37th and Pines Road is a
blind crossing for cars going north coming up the curve and hill.
Who is going to pay for the road repairs after the developer brings in all the dirt to bring elevation
of the round to get above the flood plain? There is going to be a lot of dust and noise pollution
2. Triangle Pond: As described in Section 2.2.1 of the EIS, the project will
replace Gustin Ditch with a 36-inch pipe, will deepen an existing detention
basin (“triangle pond”), and will install drywells in the pond bottom to
increase the infiltration capacity. Water will infiltrate at the pond and
there is no proposal to move water between the pond and the project
site. Public right of way exists for East 40th Avenue to a point
approximately 2,214 feet east of Madison Road and connects to the
triangle pond. No easements are needed for pond access.
3. Traffic on Pines Road: Section 3.3.1 of the EIS describes current LOS on
Pines Road. Section 3.3.2 of the EIS discusses the potential effects of
construction-related and trip-generated traffic on Pines Road.
Implementation of mitigation measures identified in EIS Section 3.3.3 will
ensure a continuous paved pedestrian connection on the west side of
Madison Road to provide safe connections from development to adjacent
schools. In addition, a northbound right turn lane off S Pines Road will be
provided as a condition of approval prior to the City’s issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for the Painted Hills PRD project. Clarification on
these two mitigation measures has been added to Section 3.3.3 of the EIS.
4. Traffic on Woodlawn Drive (Midilome Cut-Through Study): See response
to Public Comment #1, Item 2.
5. Erosion Control: Section 3.4.5.1 of the EIS discusses existing geology of
the Painted Hills site. In addition, Section 3.4.5.2 of the EIS discusses fill
quantities, extent of impervious surfaces, and source for imported
material. As stated in this section, “Material will come from the nearest
source approved per the City and County standards and be brought to the
site following City guidelines”. No significant erosion on the Painted Hills
PRD site is anticipated when considering the mitigation measures
recommended in Section 3.4.5.3 of the EIS. Therefore, no EIS changes are
warranted.
6. Noise: This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS.
7. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment
#6, Item 1.
8. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
79
associated with this part of the project over several years. Are you going to place someone on site
for the duration of the project to monitor the developments use of controls?
My last comments are directed towards the City Council. The developers support your election to
the council, most do not live in the city. We are the taxpayers; we are the ones you should be
listening to.
The developer will show up the meetings, convince you to approve the project, build the project
out and leave the city with the bill to fix their screwups. You accept their money, and they have no
loyalty after project is done.
We are not against developments. We spent 10 years in the fastest growing area of Southern
California in the 90’s. We saw growth from less than 10,000 people to over 80,000 during that
time. The county, city , and school district all worked together to get a GREAT product. Developers
had to help pay for schools, parks, and other city infrastructure. Everyone benefited. All followed
the rules.
Sincerely,
John and Kathy Sisser"
Public Comment #155– Inks, Charles & Vicki (08-14-21) Response to Comments:
"Dear Ms. Barlow,
On behalf of my husband Charles and I, I would like to request a public hearing regarding
the planned 600 unit housing development of the Chester Golf Course. We believe there is
more input needed before this should go through. Thank you for your consideration.
Charles and Vicki Inks
4929 S Coyote Creek Lane
Spokane Valley. 99206
Get Outlook for iOS"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #156– Baker, Sandra (08-15-21) Response to Comments:
My address is 4928 S Coyote Creek Lane.
Thank you,
Sandra Baker
1. Public Involvement: Comment noted. This comment does not address
technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made.
Public Comment #157– Kougl, LuRicka (08-14-21) Response to Comments:
"Hello Lori,
We wanted to express our serious concerns about the PRD for the Painted Hills
area. This planned development is a huge impact to an area that is strained now and
with a planned increase of a significant number of living units, the area will be facing
1. Transportation: This comment does not address technical details of the
EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made.
2. Fire Evacuation Routes: See response to Public Comment #7, Item 5.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
80
very real safety issues. There are daily traffic backups from the train crossings and
just enough traffic to cause people to run red lights because they can't get through the
lights. Evacuation routes are very limited and if and when the area requires residents
to evacuate, it will be very hazardous. The schools are also in no position to expand with this level
of living units added. It only jeopardizes the ability to properly manage a school system already
being negatively impacted by high enrollment.
It appears this PRD is not a well-planned community development. Just because this
developer (Black Realty) has dollar signs in their eyes, it doesn't mean this community and it's
current residents should be impacted negatively with an unsupported infrastructure. I hope the
City of Spokane Valley will hear the concerns of the current residents and decline Black Realty's
proposal.
Thank you for taking the time to hear our concerns.
LuRicka & Gary Kougl
Aspen Creek"
3. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
Public Comment #158– Baker, Sandra (08-15-21) Response to Comments:
"From: sanraybaker
To: Lori Barlow
Subject: I am a home owner in the Creek at Chester development and am requesting a public
hearing on the DEIS for the proposed development of the previous Painted Hills Golf Course.
Date: Sunday, August 15, 2021 8:24:55 AMMy address is 4928 S Coyote Creek Lane.
Thank you,
Sandra Baker
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #159– Oyler, Carol (08-15-21) Response to Comments:
"We are requesting a public hearing on the DEIS for the Painted Hills Development in our area.
We are very concerned about the impact of this development on the infrastructure and
environment in our area. Thank you.
From: Jeff and Carol Oyler, 11120 E 48th Ave, Spokane Valley
Sent from Mail for Windows"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #160– Sorensen, Ashley (08-15-21) Response to Comments:
"To whom it may concern;
I live at 4913 S Coyote Creek ln and I am writing to request a public hearing of the DEIS in
regards to the proposed development of the old Painted Hills Golf course. I am opposed to this
development as it will affect my property value, traffic in the neighborhood and safety.
Ashley Sorensen"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #161– Gowdy, Frank & Mary (08-15-21) Response to Comments:
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
81
"Ms. Barlow,
My wife and I have lived in Painted Hills for 21 years and would like to voice our opposition to the
planned development at the old golf course.
Has anyone really thought about what it’s going to be like when we add some 1200 cars, 1200
kids and 1200 adults to this area?
We would like to request a hearing so that we would know that these and many other questions
are being asked and answered and that this decision is not just based on a bunch of money being
made by a few people while the rest of us have to foot the bill for possible flooding, new schools
and infrastructure not within the developments boundaries but affected non the less. This should
be about community not making a few people richer.
Please feel free to respond to this email.
Thank you,
Frank and Mary Gowdy"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
2. Transportation (Infrastructure): See response to Public Comment #86,
Item 2.
3. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3.
4. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
5. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3.
Public Comment #162– Reisinger, Derald (08-15-21) Response to Comments:
"Dear L Barlow:
I am concerned about the impact of the Painted Hills Planned Residential
Development project by Black Realty and would like the city to hold a public
hearing of the DEIS for the proposed Painted Hills Golf Course development.
Sincerely,
Derald Reisinger
4721 S Coyote Creek Ln
Spokane Valley, WA 99206"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #163– Carney, Heidi (08-15-21) Response to Comments:
"I would like to request a public hearing of the DEIS for the proposed Painted Hills Golf Course
development. This
development will severely impact our neighborhood at Chester Creek.
Thankyou,
Heidi Carney
4703 s Coyote Creek Lane
Spokane Valley WA , 99306
Sent from my iPhone"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #164– McElroy, Mary (08-15-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow,
I am a registered voter of Spokane Valley and I live within a mile of the proposed
Painted Hills Development. I respectfully request a public hearing on the DEIS.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
82
Sincerely,
Mary McElroy
12013 E. 34th Ave.
Spokane Valley, WA 99206"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #165– Fisher, Arleen (08-15-21) Response to Comments:
"1. New Traffic Scoping Meeting necessary due to other new County and City developments
that affect Dishman Mica, Madison Rd, and 32nd Avenue. At the last Traffic Scoping Meeting
conducted Whipple's voice recording which available on the the City of Spokane Valley
website stated that the Painted Hills PRD development would ""shelter in place"". According to
Fire District #8, there is no such thing as ""shelter in place"". Plus, there is lack of egress onto
Madison Rd and Dishman Mica due to the current & proposed surrounding developments and
traffic flow on two lane roads. Madison Road is filled with young students walking and older
students driving to University High School. The students driving are backed up in traffic due
to lack of entrance off of Pines Rd on the west side of University, which makes it impossible
for people to get to work with long delays.
2. The HOA proposal for mitigation of stormwater or floodwater does not address HOA's
financial failure of mitigation maintenance and which government entity will be responsible if
hundreds of people upstream and downstream of the golf course are flooded and roads and
current stormwater along Dishman Mica or Madison is destroyed.
3. The Chester Creek that runs through this development is a 'Fish Bearing Stream'. No
engineer can state in documents that it is not so without approval of Washington State DFWD
declaring it so.
4. The bridges on the Dishman Mica (runs east to west), University Road that runs into
Pondondersa, and Thorpe Rd lack adequate One Foot Freeboard required during high winter
melt off. I have in my possession videos and photos from Feb 16th, 2017 and Feb 17th, 2017
documenting the lack of FEMA Freeboard and widespread flooding in both the County and
City of Spokane Valley.
5. With the current historic drought and all of the hills surrounding the Painted Hills Golf
Course being surrounded are Wildland-Urban areas. The fire danger is very high. Consider a
large wildfire, mudflows, rainfall, rapid snow melt off, after such a wildfire that affects all the
hills, including Painted Hills, Horizon Hills, Ponderosa Hills, and Madison Hills and one or
more extreme event as described above covering the entire golf course in flash flooding and
debris after a wildfire. This is extremely important since the HOA mitigation remains
questionable and the extreme amount of added fill that has been requested by the developer
1. Fire Evacuation Routes: See response to Public Comment #7, Item 5.
2. Traffic on Pines Road: See response to Public Comment #154, Item 3.
3. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public
Comment #27, Item 2.
4. Chester Creek, Fish-Bearing: See response to Public Comment #43, Item
2.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
83
would inevitably make the situation worse. Then the financial responsibility will be directed to
the County and more than likely to the City of Spokane Valley that approved this PRD, when
the next extreme weather event occurs in the future, as Mother Nature is unpredictable.
Sincerely,
Arleen Fisher
6121 S Zuni Dr"
Public Comment #166– Fisher, Arleen (08-15-21) Response to Comments:
"RE: Follow up to my previous email. I hit send before completing my address.
Arleen Fisher
6121 S Zuni Dr
Spokane, WA 99206"
1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #167– Robertson, Lisa (08-15-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow and Mr. Holman:
I am writing to request a public hearing on the Painted Hills Golf Course development.
I have several concerns regarding the proposed development
1. Management and maintenance of the drainage and flood control system
2. Traffic study that is based on old data
3. Fire safety & evacuation routes for residents living on Painted Hills
Management and Maintenance of the drainage and flood control system
The proposed development is on a flood plain. My understanding is that the proposed
solution to manage water drainage during winter melt is to build a filtration and drainage
system to allow water to seep directly into the aquifer.
My understanding is that the HOA will be responsible for the management and maintenance of
this system. The HOA will lack the knowledge and experience to determine the appropriate
costs, frequency, and type of contractor to perform this type of work.
What happens if the HOA goes bankrupt or does not maintain the system properly? I have
had direct experience being part of running an HOA. It can be extremely hard to find reliable,
reputable contractors for basic maintenance. I would not want to be part of the Board having
to make decisions on a complex drainage system.
Just look at what happened in Florida with the condominium collapse. The HOA was
ultimately responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the building and no-one understood
the risks or the structural issues of the building.
Traffic Study Based on Old Data
The traffic study is well out of date as it was conducted a number of years ago (2015). There
is another development just started on the East of Madison Road as well as the continual build
out of existing developments in neighboring areas. I understand the land to the South of the
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
2. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public
Comment #27, Item 2.
3. Midilome Cut-Through Study: See response to Public Comment #1, Item
2.
4. Evacuation Routes: See response to Public Comment #7, Item 5.
5. Transportation (Infrastructure): See response to Public Comment #86,
Item 2.
6. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3.
7. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
84
Cemetery has also been given approval for housing development as well as two large sites
in Ponderosa.
I am requesting that a new traffic study be performed that includes the impact of ALL of the
new developments. Are there plans to upgrade the local road infrastructure to deal with the
increase in traffic, or will we be faced with increased traffic congestion and an increase in road
traffic incidents. I am concerned with the increased risk to school children safety with the
increased traffic along Madison, 32nd, and through the Middleome housing developments.
The article in the Spokesman Review 'Getting There' on 19th of July highlighted significant
congestion issues already being endured by Valley residents due to infrastructure struggling to
cope with the massive influx of residents.
Fire Safety and Evacuation Routes for Painted Hills.
The other major concern I have is safety in the event of a Fire Evacuation to Painted Hills
residential housing area. We live at the top of Painted Hills with one road in and out from
houses above Cree and Apache. Below Cree and Apache there are only 2 exit routes via
Mohawk. Mohawk to the south exits onto Dishman Mica, and to the North onto Madison.
With a new housing development about to start on Madison (south of Thorpe) there is going to
be increased traffic between Mohawk and Thorpe. We have already had road closures along
this section due to construction of a new access road into the new development. The impact of
this was to reduce the entire Painted Hills residential area to a single emergency exit route.
This was a serious risk to health and safety of the Painted Hills residents. In the event of a fire
people may not have been able to get off the hill. With the increase in traffic and housing
being planned for the former Painted Hills golf course there is a much higher risk of an
accident or incident resulting in a road closure or blockage at the junction of Thorp and
Madisson that would effectively block one of the two exits from Painted Hills. I am asking for
a risk assessment study to be carried out for the Painted Hills housing development.
Sincerely,
Lisa Robertson"
Public Comment #168– Robertson, Lisa (08-15-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow,
I realized I didn't include my mailing address.
5924 S. Lochsa Lane
Spokane Valley
WA 99206
I also got a delivery failure for Mr. Holman. I trust you will pass my concerns onto him
Thanks,
Lisa Robertson"
1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
85
Public Comment #169– Clark, Tom (08-15-21) Response to Comments:
"Ma Barlow,
I am writing to request that there be a public hearing to review the DEIS that has been
submitted on the proposed painted hills development.
Thank you,
Tom Clark
5214 S. Cree Dr
Spokane, WA 99206
Get Outlook for iOS"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #170– Brandle, George (08-15-21) Response to Comments:
"Hi Lori,
I request a public hearing for the Painted Hills Planned Residential Development DEIS, which
notice was released on July 16, 2021.
Regards,
George Brandle
12906 E 40th Ave
Spokane Valley, WA 99206"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #171– Brandle, Betty (08-15-21) Response to Comments:
"Hi Lori,
I request a public hearing for the Painted Hills Planned Residential Development DEIS, released on
July 16, 2021.
Sincerely,
Betty Brandle
12906 E 40th Ave,Spokane Valley, WA 99206"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #172– Alberti, Sobert & Sonja (08-15-21) Response to Comments:
"We are requesting a public hearing of the DEIS for the proposed Painted Hills Golf Course
Development. We are very concerned about this development and how it will change our
lifestyles in the Painted Hills area. We just recently bought a home and moved into this area this
Spring because it was very quiet and serene. This huge development will significantly change our
quality of life because it will affect the quality of our schools, increase traffic congestion, as well as
noise and air pollution. We understand development is a necessity but this is extremely
large and will drastically alter a way of life. Thank you!
Sincerely,
Robert and Sonja Alberti"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #173– Giannini, Lon (08-15-21) Response to Comments:
"Hello,
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
86
I’m very concerned and opposed to the proposed painted Hills development project. This email is,
in writing request my for a public hearing.
Lon Giannini
Sent from my iPad"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #174– Coalson, Alan & Rose (08-16-21) Response to Comments:
"Dear Lori Barlow,
We are requesting that a public hearing be held in regards to the DEIS that was
released recently re: the old Painted Hills golf course property.
We feel that several issues were not addressed adequately and would like further discussion on
the matter. Several issues we are concerned about are: An HOA's financial ability to handle any
flooding problems that could arise, the increase in traffic the project will incur, an evacuation plan
in case of fire in the Painted Hills neighborhood and why are things proceeding before FEMA has
given their report.
These are only 4 issues. There are more.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Yours, Alan & Rose Coalson
5419 S. Cree Drive
Spokane, WA 99206"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
2. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public
Comment #27, Item 2.
3. Transportation: See response to Public Comment #15, Item 1.
4. Fire Evacuation Routes: See response to Public Comment #7, Item 5.
5. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3.
6. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public
Comment #27, Item 2.
7. CLOMR Process: See response to Public Comment #210.
Public Comment #175– Henderson, Kelli (08-16-21) Response to Comments:
"Dear Ms. Barlow,
I am so concerned for the community effecting the Painted Hills development. I believe more
research needs to be done, traffic studies road updates ect. I would like to request a hearing for
the community to be heard again.
Thank you in advance,
Kelli Henderson
(508)954-7544
Sent from Kelli B’s iPhone"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #176– Watts, Gary (08-16-21) Response to Comments:
"Dear Ms. Barlow,
I would like to add my name to those requesting a public hearing regarding the Painted Hills
Development. It is my understanding that there are some significant questions that need to be
asked regarding the environmental impact of this development.
Sincerely,
Gary Watts
4309 S. Darcy Dr.
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
87
Spokane Valley, WA 99206"
Public Comment #177– Mowe, Alisa (08-16-21) Response to Comments:
"Hello Lori,
I am writing to request a public hearing for the Painted Hills Planned Residential Development
DEIS, which notice was released on July 16, 2021.
Thank you,
Alisa Mowe
13811 East Bellessa Lane
Spokane Valley, WA 99206"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #178– Mowe, Shuyler (08-16-21) Response to Comments:
"Hi Lori,
I request a public hearing for the Painted Hills Planned Residential Development DEIS, which
notice was released on July 16, 2021.
Regards,
Shuyler Mowe
13811 E Bellessa Ln
Spokane Valley, WA 99206"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #179– Bailey, Alisha (08-16-21) Response to Comments:
"Hi Lori,
I request a public hearing for the Painted Hills Planned Residential Development DEIS, released on
July 16, 2021.
Sincerely,
Alisha Bailey
12810 E 40th Ave,Spokane Valley, WA 99206"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #180– Abou-Harb, Christine (08-16-21) Response to Comments:
"I’d like a public hearing to discuss the development of the former Painted Hills golf course. There
is no way the neighborhood could support the traffic or school needs for the size of development
proposed.
Thank you,
Christine Abou-Harb
509-954-3571
3422 S Melissa Dr
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
2. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3.
3. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
88
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Sent from my iPhone"
Public Comment #181– Rosenoff, Julie (08-16-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow,
Thank you for your time explaining many details about the Painted Hills DEIS
and comments this afternoon. I appreciate your kind patience and clear
explanations very much.
Julie Rosenoff
jrosenoff@gmail.com
Spokane Valley, WA
Here are my comments. I have highlighted key words and phrases to add clarity
to my long letter and hope it will make tallying my comments easier. I have also
attached it as a pdf document for your possible convenience.
Painted Hill DEIS Documents
One of my biggest issues is how to protect the wetlands values as well as the flow to Chester
Creek and our valuable Dishman Hills natural area is not compromised in any way. I will
personally miss the peaceful bucolic aspects of my daily walk in the future.
We need clarification (education) on why this area does not include wetlands. Those of us
familiar with this area for many years know that a pond forms on the south side of 40th Ave.
that frequently covers the roadway. Redwing blackbirds have lived in the area. It appears to
many of us that the surface water is significant there and nearby, although it is not permanent.
I respectfully submit that the public needs to be educated on how this general area is not
classified as a wetland.
The report is contrary to wide-held beliefs of the area. Conclusions of Larry Dawes in the
Environmental Assessment, page 16, states: “No wetlands occur adjacent to Chester Creek
because it is not influenced by a high water table. … Chester Creek loses water to the
underlying sands and gravels all year long preventing wetlands from forming.”
Another one of my major concerns is that the increase in traffic and in
school children will be underestimated. How accurate are the projections of
increase in people, cars, and children? Projections somehow must reflect how
nearby areas are building up. Somehow the future growth seems to outpace
careful long-term planning. I have seen this repeatedly in my life time where
schools are full the minute they are opened. I read the anticipated occupancy of
1. Wetlands: See Response to Public Comment #4, Item 5.
2. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3.
3. Lighting/Crime: This comment does not contest technical details of the
EIS.
4. Flooding (Chester Creek): Public Comment concerns regarding water
quality entering Chester Creek and fish habitat are addressed in the
response to Public Comment #43, Item 2. For response regarding general
flooding concerns and floodwater as it relates to flooding on Chester
Creek, please see response to Public Comment #9, Item 3.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
89
the multi-family units would be 1.77 persons per apartment. Really? In this area?
The documents stress that this project will just effect things incrementally
when it comes to traffic being made worse or stay the same. Yes, there are
other factors involved, but projected growth in one small area is likely to be
quite different than using general projections.
I am also concerned that the environmental impacts might be much greater
than projected. I would like to know of other examples in our area where
diverting waters elsewhere has a neutral impact.
I read that exterior lighting will be included (with shields), but will there be
unlit areas at night that draw undesirable activities? That was originally a
problem with Browne’s Park.
I agree that the intersections of Highway 27 with 32nd avenue and 16th avenue
will continue to be areas of concern. 16th Avenue and Pines (just west of
highway 27) is already a problem. There are many days when it is difficult to
turn because of so much traffic.
In the future, will we be able to see a drawing of a possible E-W 10-acre
wildlife travel area through property plus 30 acres of open green?
I personally would prefer a mixed use of the area that includes green acres
to solely single-family dwellings with no open land."
Public Comment #182– McDonald, Judi (08-18-21) Response to Comments:
"We as long time citizens of the valley want to have a hearing on this painted hills housing
stuff. I moved to the valley because of the more rural feeling, now i feel like a crammed up
person. We certainly don't need houses in a flood plain. What we really need is a sports
complex to bring some money into here instead of all in town."
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1.
2. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3.
3. Parks/Greenspace: See response to Public Comment #3, Item 1. Specific
facilities provided as part of the greenspace requirement are unknown at
this time.
Public Comment #183– Wurst, Cara (08-20-21) Response to Comments:
"August 20, 2021
Lori Barlow
Spokane Valley Community and Public Works Department
10210 E. Sprague Avenue
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
RE: Comments for Painted Hills PRD
Dear Ms Barlow and City of Spokane Valley,
I”m writing to express strong points AGAINST the Painted Hills PRD in its’ current proposed form.
There are so many areas of concern that it’s hard to pick which one to discuss first.
1. Traffic on Dishman-Mica Road: Public Comment# 7, Item 4.
2. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment
#6, Item 1.
3. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
4. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public
Comment #27, Item 2.
5. Chester Creek, Fish-Bearing: See response to Public Comment #43, Item 2.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
90
First I will make comment on the traffic issue. We live on Dishman Mica Highway proper and thus
drive past this PRD daily, often several times. I cannot imagine the traffic snarl that will ensue
between Thorpe exiting 500+ homes worth of drivers, often 2 or more, onto Dishman Mica
Highway or Madison. The current road system is certainly not equipped for this increased traffic
and I have a hard time believing the developers will adequately
address this. There’s also a new development of homes directly off Madison currently being
constructed. This will bring more traffic still.
Which brings me to a related subject - SCHOOL SAFETY. I implore one of the council to drive along
Madison during AM school (and essentially going to work) hours and see the children, parents,
and local residents all trying to get to their destination at the same time. The traffic burden that
this development would put in this already heavy use area for 3 schools is unthinkable. Oh, and by
the way I saw the engineers putting out their “traffic study” bands DURING SCHOOL BREAK WEEK
- if this is the data they used to gauge traffic through the area that was DISINGENUOUS and
purposely misleading indeed.
This leads to the next serious area of concern — schools themselves. My daughter has had to
endure not one, but two school constructions now, and the classrooms are already at capacity.
WHO is going to build more schools AND PAY for this increase?? I for one have had enough of
school levy’s and property taxes but I”m fairly certain the developer has not allocated the money
for the new schools(where will they be built??) and the money for the bussing and all the school
staff. Honestly, this is crazy to think that our kids’ education won’t be affected adversely by
adding this many more households, who are sure to have children into our already maxed out
Valley school system.
Next let’s discuss the flooding. As a daily driver up Dishman Mica Highway, I see the seasonal
flooding. I also know that the golf course has always been a contingency for the eventual 1000
year fold. I know this area is in the 1000 year flood plain and I’m not sure the fill plan from
Whipple and Co will adequately address this eventuality. The idea of an HOA being both
financially patent and handling this properly is a stretch to say the least. Having moved across the
country as a military spouse, I can tell you that rarely are HOAs run well and managed well.
This burden then will fall on the City in some fashion and the hapless homeowners whose homes
are sure to beflooded and left without recourse. What a greedy and short sighted thing to do to
citizens and the City. We only have to look to the recent HOA negligence and the catastrophe in
Florida with the condo to have an idea of how well HOAs handle thing such as this. Does the City
want this kind of liability in allowing development in a floodplain?
I can tell you with absolute certainty that Chester Creek is in fact fish bearing. The creek runs
through our property and both my child and the neighbors chase the fish in the creek all summer
long. You are welcome to come and take a look yourself, bring your net. Also, our area of the
creek has never dried up in the years that we have lived here, there is always some amount of
water. I remember the fill process is slated to be ongoing for 4 years??? What about the current
6. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6.
7. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3.
8. Parks/Greenspace: See response to Public Comment #3, Item 1.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
91
residents and communities all around this who are expected to put up with dusty noisy and
intrusive work for nearly 1/2 a decade?? This on top of regular construction work? This also is
another safety issue for all the children going to and from school twice/day.
As of yet, I don’t believe any regulatory agencies have approved this PRD in any fashion. This
leaves the flood and wildlife issue still very much unresolved. I know wildlife and conservation do
not generate tax revenues, but these are important issues that bring people to this wonderful city,
and make them want to stay and be invested in it.
Please please do not let the developers pressure allow you, our elected officials with whom we’ve
entrusted our best interest as homeowners in the Valley, to be pressured or worn down. This golf
course area could be so many wonderful things that the Valley needs rather than a menace to the
wildlife, the flood control, the neighbors and schools. Having to drive many times up north for
sporting events with my child, I’m of the mind that we could use some baseball and soccer fields
for recreational leagues on this end of town. Surround that with SOME homes, with larger lots
that are on the high areas, out of the flood elevation, combined with even more parks or green
spaces, a dog park perhaps — what a jewel to add to this part of the Valley!!
Thank you for the opportunity to express our dire concerns, this issue has been heavy on many of
our hearts – we love our area and want only the best for it, and this PRD is NOT in the best
interest of the region.
Sincerely,
Cara Wurst
6405 S Dishman Mica Rd
Spokane, WA 99206"
Public Comment #184– Mcelroy, Mary (08-21-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow,
I am a registered voter of Spokane Valley and live within a mile of the former Painted
Hills golf course. I take regular walks around the perimeter of the golf course and am
familiar with the area.
I am opposed to the residential development of this land. I do not feel the impact on
the environment - specifically, increased traffic - has been adequately addressed.
Have any of the decision makers waited in traffic at the intersection of Pines and
16th? Or Pines and 32nd when school is starting/ending? This is under current
conditions. The study has not explained how the additional traffic of 600+ homes and
apartments in front of a 2-land road will be addressed to avoid even bigger issues.
I expect the leaders of the City of Spokane Valley to think about the future. They
need to explain how traffic flow will be changed to ensure expediency and safety.
Also, this should be paid by the developers, not the public. We are already behind
the curve on our infrastructure according to the latest city report.
Regards,
1. Traffic on Pines Road: See response to Public Comment #154, Item 3.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
92
Mary McElroy
12013 E. 34th Ave.
Spokane Valley, WA 99206"
Public Comment #185– Mcelroy, Mary (08-21-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow,
I am a registered voter of Spokane Valley and live within a mile of the former Painted
Hills golf course. I take regular walks around the perimeter of the golf course and am
familiar with the area.
I am opposed to the residential development of this land. I do not feel the impact on
the environment - specifically, the wetlands - has been adequately addressed. There
are so few natural areas left in this part of the valley. There is value in having these
natural areas. Once they are gone, they are never coming back. I expect the leaders
of the City of Spokane Valley to think about the future.
Filling wetlands with junk materials is not a solution and is irresponsible. I want to
know how the wetlands will be maintained or replaced to ensure wildlife have access.
I also want to know where citizens will have access to natural areas.
Regards,
Mary McElroy
12013 E. 34th Ave.
Spokane Valley, WA 99206"
1. Wetlands: See Response to Public Comment #4, Item 5.
Public Comment #186– Landa, Teresa (08-20-21) Response to Comments:
"Dear Lori,
I live in The Greens HOA and wish to express my concerns regarding the plan to develop
Painted Hills Golf Course.
My fear is with Black's plan to have the HOA be responsible for the water mitigation system
in the proposed development. A task as important as flood control should not be left to an
HOA. Neglect by the HOA contributed to the disaster in Florida. Bad plan.
Thank you for passing this along.
Teresa Landa
3946 S Eagle Ln, Spokane Valley, WA 99206"
1. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public
Comment #27, Item 2.
Public Comment #187– Sandon, Kirk (08-22-21) Response to Comments:
"Mrs. Barlow,
The Painted Hills Planned Residential Development is unfortunate. It seems like it is
only being done to make Black Realty even richer than they already are by bulldozing
through another real-estate project where they make money and the city is left
holding the bag. The city is being left with figuring out how to teach the additional
1. Construction-Related Traffic: See response to Public Comment #149,
Item 2.
2. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
93
students that will come with this development and how to keep it safe with emergency
services. The only reason the project was held up last time was enough people
complained and made them actually do an environmental study. The city didn't seem
to care, they were ready to rubber stamp the deal, like they seem to do with all real
estate projects, especially if they come from Black Realty and others like it.
To build it they are going to do significant damage to the roads with all the dirt they
are having to bring in. Are they going to pay or rebuild the road? My guess is not, we
will have to. Are they going to replace or keep one of the few good restaurants in the
valley (the Craft & Gather)? Probably not, that doesn't make enough money, bull
doze it down. After all, it as all about the money for them, not building a community
we want to live in (they don't even live here).
I would not be as opposed to this if they reduced the number of houses to a more
reasonable number, but again it is all about money for them so they are either going
to jam as many single homes in as legally possible, or do there mixed housing idea
and only keep some green space so they can average out the density to meet the
requirements. They aren't doing the green space out of the kindness of there hearts,
it is all about putting in as many homes as possible to make themselves even richer.
Does the city even need this many more houses? Yes we are seeing an influx right
now but that is not likely to last, especially with all of the other construction going on.
In summary this project should not go forward as planned. Make them reduce there
density to something more in the lines of Midelome or Midelome East.
Thank you for your time,
Kirk Sandon"
3. Emergency Services: Emergency services are addressed in Sections
3.4.8.1 and 3.4.8.2 of the EIS. It is expected that additional service calls for
police, fire and emergency services will occur from future residences and
businesses within the site, but these uses are not anticipated increase
demand for public safety services in a manner that would significantly
outpace local agency capacity to provide such services. Per
communications with City of Spokane Valley staff, it is not anticipated that
Alternative 2a would generate a significant impact to City services. The
City regularly reviews large development proposals and, in instances
where a significant new user creates enough demand to warrant special
adjustments in service, the City will work with the county and make
necessary adjustments to its service contract(s). It is anticipated that the
gradual increase in population, employment and business activity on the
site can be commensurately addressed through adjusted service levels.
4. Parks/Greenspace: See response to Public Comment #3, Item 1.
5. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3.
Public Comment #188– Ferris, Candy (08-23-21) Response to Comments:
"Please do not approve the new building. The area is beautiful and doesn't need this type of
growth. Traffic and everything will hurt the area.
Thank you
Candace Ferris
11010 e 44th Ave, Spokane Valley, WA 99206"
1. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3.
Public Comment #189– Pavelich, Dan (08-17-21) Response to Comments:
"Painted Hills Proposed Development
Comments on Painted Hills PRD DEIS
Public Release Date July 16, 2021
• Having an HOA assume the financial responsibility of the Operation and Maintenance of
the flood control and stormwater system is a perfect storm that will drench the City in
Liability. The estimated HOA fees in the DEIS would not begin to cover significant costs
associated with the failure and maintenance of the system. I have read and analyzed the
1. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public
Comment #27, Item 2.
2. Reciprocal Use of the Triangle Pond Site: See response to Public
Comment #39, Item 2.
3. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment
#6, Item 1.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
94
computation of fees to be assessed to the HOA participants and they are a rounding
error in the reality of the cost associated with the failure. The condo disaster in Florida
is a lesson on HOA lack of responsibility. Additionally, the HOA would not be equipped
with the necessary knowledge to even collaborate with a contracting firm as to actions
and monitoring. HOA’s go bankrupt. I suggest that you have the City Attorney and your
Risk Assessment people read the Phillips vs King County Case. We have an internal
record by a City official involved in the review of the proposed PRD stating that HOAs go
bankrupt on a frequent basis. Not only is the City taking on a significant financial liability
they could also lose their ability to continue to participate in the National Flood
Insurance Program. This would be a disaster for property owners that could experience
uninsured property damage and flood insurance premiums that would be significantly
impacted.
• In a letter from Spokane County to Whipple Consulting and City of Spokane Valley,
dated January 27,2017, it states, “This work primarily benefits the Painted Hills PRD,
thus Spokane County believes the City of Spokane Valley should be ultimately held
responsible for facility maintenance and an appropriate CSV official listed in the O&M
manual”. It requires identification in the DEIS that such will be done. Explain how you
will monitor the financial stability of the HOA, its membership, leadership, and expertise
in dealing with a contracting organization to assess the ongoing needs of maintenance
and replacement.
• The use of the Triangle Pit has been identified as a water storage and infiltration area,
both from the proposed development, and what is referred to as the Gustin Ditch which
runs east west from Highway 27. The pit and Gustin Ditch area are privately owned. No
information is available as to the accessibility of this property by the developer for this
purpose. It is my understanding that the owner has not granted legal access to the
developer for the purpose of use for flood control. I have a draft of a document not
finalized that I have attached to this memo, which appears to be eventually
incorporated into a HOA. How will the City monitor the HOA’s responsibility and their
financial viability? Please produce the documentation from Tim Comer or Spokane
County as to the use of any easement granted.
• The traffic study needs to be revised with new developments being approved and those
under construction. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand the significance of
traffic congestion and safety with projected daily trips of over 5,000 per day. You are
exposing school children and other users of Madison Rd to danger. There is no
provision for paved sidewalks to accommodate pedestrians. Fire evacuation is put into
peril. Not covered in the DEIS.
• School overcrowding. The Central Valley School District responded in their letter back
to the City that everyone needs to understand that even with adjusted new construction
4. Evacuation Routes: See response to Public Comment #7, Item 5.
5. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
6. Chester Creek, Fish-bearing: See response to Public Comment #43, Item
2.
7. Erosion Control: See response to Public Comment #154, Item 5.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
95
that the students in the new development will likely attend a school other than Chester
Elementary. DEIS makes assumptions of additional students that will occur that are not
realistic. Does not take a demographic expert to refute their count.
• The area is a Compensatory Water Storage area that will no longer exist with the flood
waters being diverted into the Aquifer without filtration.
• The Department of Fish and Wildlife in a letter dated November 16, 2018, disagreed
with the City as to Chester Creek not being fish bearing. The City has stated it is not fish
bearing since it dries up at times. Fish and Wildlife recognizes this. Inadequate
mitigation response by the applicant and acceptance of such by the City..
• DEIS does not cover monitoring of the cut and fill as to contaminants in the fill, dust
control, being able to haul until 10:00 pm at night as to additional traffic safety control.
Their comment as to using 30 cubic yard dump trucks is a stretch. Heavy duty dump
trucks without a pup carry about 10 yards. They acknowledge many of the significant
safety problems but do not address the mitigation. As to dust control one only must
look at Black’s development on the corner of Thorpe and Madison and observe there is
none. One lone water tanker that is significantly underused. And the proposed PRD cut
and fill is intended to go on for four years. How will the City mitigate the impact upon
the failure of the developer to do so if this is approved?
• The flood control system and cut and fill has not been approved by FEMA to remove the
property from its flood plain designation through a CLOMR and an eventual LOMR. The
developer has proceeded to run the permitting process concurrently. FEMA could deny
or require substantial modifications as to the flood control and floodplain fill. So, the
City wants the public to spend momentous time and resources reviewing a document
that may become extinct. Too late to turn back the clock but what a potential waste of
everyone’s time.
• The Public Works Department of Spokane County, wrote a detailed comment letter
authored by Marianne Barrentine, PE, CFM to Whipple Consulting Engineers and the
City of Spokane Valley Development Engineering regarding the PRD Floodplain/CLOMR
Submittal Review #2. Please identify where the appropriate revisions, or lack thereof,
have been incorporated in subsequent submittals by the Developer or the City’s lack of
response.
• The City received 443 Public Comments over two scopings which are included in Exhibit
A to the DEIS. It is obvious from the DEIS that the concerns that were expressed were
not adequately addressed or in many cases not even acknowledged. It appears that it
was a pick and choose process without a complete review by the City. The sheer number
of respondents clearly demonstrates that the community is not in favor of the proposed
development not withstanding a weak DEIS.
• Attached is a copy of an internal email thread amongst city employees relative to a
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
96
concern expressed by a citizen over site flooding and the potential livelihood of future
homeowners, stating.…” perhaps we need some sort of canned response….”. It is a
poor reflection on the professional and political administration of the City. It troubles
me, wherein, the cumulative effect on the natural and human environment is, forever,
going to be negatively impacted. And in finality, I was informed by a City official that the
City was tired of dealing with the developer, which has been ongoing for two years, on
the DEIS and their lack of cooperation, so the decision was made to release it. The result
of which has caused the public and various jurisdictional agencies to bear an
unreasonable responsibility and burden as to the adequacy of identified negative
environmental impacts and proposed mitigation.
Cc:
John Hohman, Deputy City Manager
Honorable Mayor Ben Wick
Carry Driskell, City Attorney
Council Members of the City of Spokane Valley
Marianne Barrentine, PE, CFM Spokane County Environmental Programs Manager
Bricklin and Associates
Painted Hills Preservation Association"
Public Comment #190– Pavelich, Sandy (08-17-21) Response to Comments:
"John Hohman
Lori Barlow
When your residents experience more flooding we will use your own information about how this
property should be retained for the welfare of our community.
Spokane County has already allowed a home to be built in a floodway. So, I am not surprised that
they want the City of Spokane Valley to do this project so you can take full responsibility for the
outcome.
Also, I have contacted Fish and Wildlife telling them they might as well close their department.
When they designate a wildlife corridor and then allow the City of Spokane Valley and Spokane
County to pump water out of the Chester Watershed area and try to eliminate
a water source for that Wildlife Corridor things are really bad and the whole system needs to
change.
Sincerely
Sandy Pavelich"
1. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
97
Public Comment #191– Edlund, Richard (08-13-21) Response to Comments:
"Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner
City of Spokane Valley,
10210 E. Sprague Ave,
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Subject: Painted Hills PRO Draft Environmental Impact Statement
As a resident near the Painted Hills Planned Residential Development (PRO) I have comments to
offer on the draft Environmental Impact Statement description of impacts to the neighborhood
and southwest Spokane Valley. The negative effects on traffic density, safety of traffic flow, safety
in school zones and travel corridors to them, critical aquifer recharge, air quality from additional
PRO traffic and heating emissions, concentrated and potentially polluted rain and snowmelt
runoff from non-absorbing surfaces, aesthetics in the PRO and the southwest valley, and wildlife
are substantial and in my opinion unable to be mitigated.
First among my concerns are impacts of increased traffic, especially with the school facilities
adjacent to the PRO. With over 5000 projected additional vehicle trips per day the study authors
acknowledge the current inadequacy of streets to handle the flow citing 32nd avenue and Pines
road and 16th avenue and Pines road as intersections of concern, but that number of additional
vehicle trips will certainly increase congestion in areas such as 32nd avenue both east and
particularly west toward Dishman-Mica Road. The 32nd avenue and Dishman-Mica intersection is
an unsignaled congestion point, especially in recent years with new development to the east
which funnel flows on 32nd to Dishman-Mica as arterials to access Sprague avenue, 1-90,
Spokane, the airport, and points west. Also on 32nd the traffic associated with student drop off
and pick up for University High School, Horizon Middle School, and Chester Elementary schools is
quite congested with elevated hazards to through-traffic and pedestrians, so in my opinion the
addition of dedicated turn lanes on Pines as the DEIS authors suggest falls short of the current
need much less several thousand additional vehicle trips per day from the PRO.
Likewise, additional traffic ouflows to Dishman Mica Road from the west side of the PRO would
diminish capacity of a corridor that is already congested. The proposed additional turn lanes into
the west area of the PRO and onto Thorpe Rd and widening of Thorpe Rd and Dishman
intersection will create safety hazards as traffic merges into 45 mile per hour traffic in the blind
and lengthy road curve from Bowdish to beyond Thorpe. Pedestrian and bicycle safety is a
concern there and with relatively narrow adjacent strips of land along Dishman-Mica bounded by
Chester Creek and the railroad on the west and vulnerable habitat on the east there is little room
for additional turn lanes plus the planned pedestrian-bike lanes. Further complicating the matter
1. Traffic Impacts on Dishman-Mica and Thorpe Road: Public Comment# 7,
Item 4.
2. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment
#6, Item 1.
3. Air Quality: See response to Public Comment #10, Item 1.
4. Water Quality (Aquifer): See response to Public Comment #17, Item 5.
5. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
98
is the expressed interest by the City of Spokane Valley in purchasing the nearly 20 acres due west
and slightly south of the PRO for a new city park, which will inevitably lead to visits by PRO
residents who cross Dishman-Mica in the blind road curve with widened turn lanes creating
considerable hazard to pedestrians and motorists.
Environmental qualities and the threat to them from the PRO also count strongly among my
concerns. Chief among these are the effect of extensive impermeable surfaces on the aquifer
recharge functions in this high susceptibility area of the Critical Aquifer Recharge Area. In contrast
to the current vegetated landscape that infiltrates rain, snowmelt, and runoff in wet areas the
PRO will cover as described nearly 25 acres with roofs and paved roads, sidewalks, and parking
lots. The revised plans use a series of concrete channels and discharge areas to the north end of
the PRO to carry the known flood and overflow events from Chester Creek and south of Thorpe
road which in my opinion is an artificial device to circumvent the natural landscape runoff and
infiltration occurring now in areas around the creek. Also there is the question of operation and
maintenance of any such floodwater transport and disposal system since over time sediment and
vegetation will encroach on any constructed works, limiting their capacity and creating backed up
or overflow situations in high runoff conditions. The authors of the DEIS in my opinion do not
appear to adequately account for the estimated 25% of the current landscape being roofed or
paved. As happens in residential settings there will be subsequent development of additional
impermeable surfaces in the form of sheds, decks, pools, driveways, recreation courts, with such
additions done in a haphazard manner with regard to disposal and infiltration of runoff. Although
municipal and other development standards will require catchments for planned runoff, that
runoff will be from artificial surfaces with vehicle and residential- generated pollutants in the PRD
and these chemical pollutants will have no barrier to entry into the aquifer. With groundwater
found through test borings to be as close as 11 feet of depth and the gravel and sand offering no
resistance to infiltration any pollutants from the PRD will easily enter ground water.
As a resident who regularly walks and bikes around the PRD I view wildlife using the site not only
including songbirds, deer, elk, and rabbits and squirrels, but also possibly important species like
Bald Eagles, various raptors and owls. All of these would be displaced by the PRD. Further, the less
visible resident animal populations that burrow and occupy ground level in the PRD would be
displaced.
Less tangible, but still important in this unique area, the quality of aesthetics has been enhanced
by the open space of the former Painted Hills Golf Course which provides a transition from dense
development near Bowdish Rd. to the rural character of the Chester Creek valley. Although
scattered development has been permitted to occur in and uphill from Chester Creek to the south
the rural character of the area is largely intact. The PRD will diminish if not remove the aesthetic
qualities of the transition to open lands south of Bowdish road especially given the other
development occurring southeast of the PRD and the planned development due south adjoining
Dishman-Mica Rd ..
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
99
Finally, the soil qualities found in the PRD area merit consideration. The area contains soil types
considered prime farmland which will be irrevocably disrupted by the widespread excavation and
subsurface installation of sanitary, utility, water, and other infrastructure leaving the soil matrix in
much more than 25% of the PRD unable to function as a carbon storehouse, biological and
microbiological habitat, substrate for vegetation growth, and infiltration resource for precipitation
to replenish the aquifer.
Taken together these negative effects on quality of life in the south valley are substantial but
when other adjacent development is already occurring at the intersection of Thorpe and Madison,
and yet another residential development is proposed on Dishman-Mica due south of Thorpe this
represents a wholesale change in the rural character of south Spokane Valley with negative
effects on roads, schools, wildlife habitat, safety, water regime, and environmental quality for
generations.
Sincerely
Richard Edlund
11616 E. 47th Ave, Spokane Valley, WA 99206"
Public Comment #192– Schroeder, George (08-23-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow - I have read the DEIS for the above. Very short on school impact, drainage concerns
at north end and HOA responsibility for potential liability of flooding with little in the way of the
City of Spokane Valley to depend on should the HOA go broke and become the City responsibility.
HOA's are not well funded for an event such as flooding. Also, Fish & Wildlife has not addressed
the fact that Chester Creek has fish. Thanks very much.
Sincerely,
George C. Schroeder
5202 S. Cree Drive
Spokane, Wash. 99206"
1. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
2. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public
Comment #27, Item 2.
3. Chester Creek, Fish-bearing: See response to Public Comment #43, Item
2.
Public Comment #193– Startzel, Karol (08-05-21) Response to Comments:
"I would like to comment on the proposed Painted Hills development and appreciate there has
been an extension to do so. Trying to be informed requires getting through all the documents
which is time consuming to say the least.
I live just east of this area and have been here for 17years. The 9 hole golf course that existed
prior was awesome and we are so sad it is gone. The space has since become and impromptu dog
park and is still a valuable green space for those that live in the area. We have witnessed many
changes over the past years and appreciate that the valley is going to do nothing but grow. This is
a city in its infancy with so much to offer and if done right will be come a very valuable
place to live. But development can be done with the well being of its citizens in
1. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
2. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3.
3. Parks/Greenspace: See response to Public Comment #3, Item 1.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
100
mind and consideration for a future where that continues. Or it can be in the hands of people who
have no other goal then to make as much money as possible. Two examples are the Elk Ridge
Heights development who used its required green spaces and a bit of land here and there that
added up to meet their requirement. These are not parks, places to gather or even spots to enjoy
nature or views. They met the required land space and that is all. There are
apartments on highway 27 that have walking paths through the complex that also
connect to the grocery store. An official dog park and community spaces for it's
tenants to enjoy. Very different approaches!
After reading this proposal and its impact I felt like this is being done by people
who don't really care much about the roads, schools, existing neighborhoods,
wildlife or the future of this new city. It feels like just the right words and
numbers are being chosen to shove another development through. I am not
against developing this space but this feels like the wrong approach.
Ask the people of New York the value of Central Park. Incredibly valuable
property that was wisely set aside for the need of humans to connect with the
natural world. I sure hope those in charge are wise enough to make the same
difficult choices that are not just based on making money.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Karol Startzel
4310 S. Horizon Hill Lane
Spokane, WA 99206"
Public Comment #194– Pavelich, Sandy (08-15-21) Response to Comments:
My comments on the DEIS are many. For one, I cannot believe a Realty Company (Black Realty)
can keep submitting a DEIS over and over again. I cannot believe you will not use your legal
powers to deny this. Also, do you know if what they sub_mitted to FEMA is truthful. This should
not be allowed to be done simultaneously.
The biggest disaster is fill. I am including a statement by Frank Thomas, former Deputy Associate
Director of FEMA's Mitigation Directorate. In 2000 he writes "I recommended barring flood map
changes for development that use fill". He called it "egregious and akin to a cancer eating at the
foundation of the National Flood Insurance Program." Thomas argued that "the use of fill merely
displaced flood risk to surrounding communities".
I have also gone on to read that when FEMA removes a designation of a flood plain the very
people we are trying to provide affordable housing to are the most hurt. The cost of knowing that
you should still have flood insurance is costly. So, they are left with cracked foundations, mold,
etc., that they do not have the means to deal with or the ability to move.
1. Maintenance of Flood Control System: See response to Public Comment
#27, Item 2.
2. Chester Creek, Fish-bearing: See response to Public Comment #43, Item
2.
3. Traffic on Woodlawn Drive (Midilome Cut-Through Study): See response
to Public Comment 1, Item 2.
4. Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment #6, Item 1.
5. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
6. Water Quality (Aquifer): See response to Public Comment #17, Item 5.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
101
Here I will include information that shows with Global Warming our flooding is only going to
increase.
Page 1 and 2
The HOA for this development is ridiculous. Homeowners Associations do not have the expertise
to even begin to handle the problems of maintaining this flood containment area and the plan. If
you allow this development to proceed Black needs to set up a three-million-dollar irrevocable
letter of credit or performance bond to protect the homeowners and the surrounding
homeowners. I have been reading it is usually five years after a development is completed that
problems arise.
You only have to look at the collapse of the condominium in Florida (the Surfside) to realize a
homeowner's association is not capable of maintaining the flood control systems of this project. I
really feel from reading the DEIS that no one can really guarantee that this is going to work.
Now just for your information: The last seven years I (we) have learned a lot researching this
project. From going to the County, especially Marianne Barrentine, we have learned about the
floodways and flooding. The County approved the house on the corner of Dishman Mica Rd and
Thorpe Rd. That is my usual running route. This last flood season I took a picture of the floodway
piling up debris (but mainly soil) on the corner of the retaining wall of that house. I sent it to
Marianne to show her what building in a floodway was doing. Within two days it was removed.
This is the worst flooding I have seen affecting houses to the South of Thorpe Rd. We are all aware
of the upstream and downstream repercussions that can occur with this development. Remember
the Phillips vs King County precedent.
My other observations are that you still allow falsehoods to remain in this submittal.
1. Fish Bearing Stream:
I have included The Department of Fish and Wildlife letter.
Previously I included an email to Lori Barlow that confirmed this from the Department of Fish and
Wildlife.
Page 10 and 11
I have pictures from 2012 to 2021 of Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley pumping
water out of the Chester Watershed area or the Chester Wetlands and pumping in canary grass. I
was told you can do this because canary grass is compatible with a wetland. I am surprised the
City of Spokane Valley is still trying to eliminate Chester Creek. I have copies of years of Grant
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
102
money given to maintain this vital watershed area and the compensatory storage area that helps
to clean the water that is ultimately deposited directly into the Aquifer.
Of course, this development will need a new traffic study. One of the previous traffic studies for
this development was done on a holiday. Another traffic study did not include Woodlawn.
With More development approved in this area a new traffic study is crucial.
a. 331 homes off of 32nd and Highway 27. Lexington Homes purchased the property from
Fairmont Cemetery.
b. 13 lots of the Paxton property.
c. The new development that Black is doing on the corner of Madison and Thorpe Rd. It
was approved years ago by the County for SO structures. We have not been able to get
information from the County to the exact number of units that will be built there. They have
removed half a mountain so I am sure the number will be greater than SO.
The City of Spokane Valley does not have the infrastructure to deal with all of this new
development.
S80-Black Painted Hills Golf Course 331-Lexington Homes Plan
220-Lutheran Church apartments off of Dishman Mica Road
???-Black development on the corner of Madison and Thorpe 13-Paxton development on
Madison
27-?? If you approve development off Thorpe and Dishman Mica Road
???-Plus the development west of Bowdish and Dishman Mica Road.
There is no acknowledgement of the safety of children going to school. There are 3 schools where
children walk and ride their bikes to school.
The school district has already stated there is no room for children in these 3 schools. They will
have to be bused someplace. How is this protecting the well being of your citizens and their
children.
Noise Control. This DEIS states that noise is allowed from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. How can that be
allowed to remain in this submittal?
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
103
Flooding occurs in winter. All of my pictures are dated February and March. I have historical
pictures and only one has snow. I would have Henry Allen pull up the archived pictures to
determine if this is truthful.
Fill and Dust. The current development by Black Realty on Madison and Thorpe has little dust
control. I have dirt every day that I have to breathe and clean. I am located at least 900 feet away.
I cannot believe you think it is okay to subject our school children to 4 years of fill and more when
the dirt is moved around. It is already detrimental to my health. I pray for our children.
The Aquifer. I have included information from Water District 3 and the SVRP. If you allow water to
be directly deposited into the Aquifer you will not allow this compensatory storage area to filter
out the contaminates. The Chester Watershed and the Compensatory storage at the Painted Hills
Golf Course was supposed to be protected in perpetuity to protect this vital area that flows
directly into the shallow end of the Aquifer.
The Scope of this development needs to be downsized.
The development should only be built on areas currently above the flood plain.
We are in need of senior housing. Since our schools have no room for more children this would be
an ideal location of a 55 and older community.
I am including maps of predictions of more flooding because of Global Warming.
Thank you, Sandra Pavelich
4311S. Madison Rd 99206
Public Comment #195– Startzel, Todd (08-06-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms. Barlow – I am opposed to a 550 plus residential development because there has been no
assessment of the impact on the local schools, nor proposed solutions to the negative impact on
the local schools by adding a large number of additional students. I have resided on Horizon Hill
Ln. since 2004. I drive all around the valley and the streets in and around the schools. Both my
children attended the newly constructed University High School. From the day it first opened, the
school was horrible over-crowded. Auxiliary class rooms were installed the FIRST year because of
overcrowding and exist today. Students did not and still do not use lockers to store books, etc.
The reason: due to over-crowding, students do not have sufficient time to navigate the crowd of
kids jamming the hallways to get to a locker and swap out books or other materials needed for
the next class. The students carry all their books, lunch, etc. in their backpacks. A 550 plus
residential development will only exacerbate the problem.
1. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
104
Washington state governments have a legal obligation, as affirmed by the Washington State
Supreme Court in the case of McCleary v. State, 173 Wn. 2nd 477, 269 P. 3rd 227 (2012), “to make
ample provision for the education of children…” The “paramount duty” the court noted, was not
only a funding decision but also other education reforms, including class size limitations; student
teacher ratios and adequacy of space. The duty imposed on the state passes onto local counties,
cities and school boards. The proposed developed, given the current size, does NOT take into
consideration the impact on the local school and in my view, violate the McCeary court’s decision
mandate to place public education at the forefront of consideration. University High School does
NOT have the space for more students. Any number of studies have confirm excessive class size
negatively impacts the education experience— that is, a vast amount of research has confirmed
without dispute that students in smaller class size perform better on all subjects and better on
assessment tests. Increasing the class size therefore does not comply with the McCleary decision.
The impact on the schools discussed above does not even address the on-going pandemic. There
is no light at the end of the tunnel thus far. The trend line is not favorable and no one can predict
the pandemic will be under control by the time home construction begins. Excessive class size
therefore increases the health risk for all students, faculty and staff.
Todd R. Startzel
Kirkpatrick & Startzel, P.S.
108 N. Washington St., Ste. 201|Spokane, WA 99201
P 509.455.3647|F 509.624.2081|www.ks-lawyers.com
PC 195"
Public Comment #196– P, Dan (08-26-21) Response to Comments:
"For a DEIS that is over 400 pages long allowing only 3 minutes per person does not serve the
public interest. Dan"
1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #197– Pavelich, Sandy (08-26-21) Response to Comments:
"I would like my comments, that I sent to you and Lori read into the public hearing. This seems
odd that this would be scheduled before all the public comments are even received. Does this
mean no one even reads our comments.
Sincerely
Sandy Pavelich
Sent from my iPad"
1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #198– Pavelich, Sandy (08-26-21) Response to Comments:
"The city should schedule 2 virtual meetings. We have a lot of individuals who want to comment.
And if not this meeting needs to be at least scheduled for 3 hours so we can all call in our
comments. I also believe this needs to be posted on your signs and in the newspapers for at least
30 days before this hearing. The DEIS comment period doesn’t even end until the 31 of August. So
1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
105
all of our hard work and money spent on legal advice is worthless if no one is reading our
comments.
Sent from my iPad"
Public Comment #199– Pavelich, Sandy (08-26-21) Response to Comments:
"How many people can you accommodate on this zoom call. Also if we telephone how do we
enter the webinar number. Also how many operators are you going to have available to accept
our calls
Sincerely
Sandy Pavelich
Sent from my iPad"
1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #200– Pavelich, Sandy (08-26-21) Response to Comments:
"How many people are you capable of allowing on this zoom call. When I telephone the number
to call, how do you enter the webinar number. How many operators are going to be accepting
calls. I would like all of our written comments entered into the hearing examiners records. You
have scheduled this meeting before you have even ended our comment period. Amazing!
Sincerely
Sandy Pavelich
Sent from my iPad"
1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #201– Deyarmin, Sasha (08-26-21) Response to Comments:
"Hello-I’m so glad that we get a public hearing. However, this is the first day of school for the
entire CVSD. It seems weird that this hearing would be scheduled when the majority of the people
in the area will be focused on the first day of school. This eliminates parents, teachers, and
administrators from participating. For example, Horizon Middle School (the neighbor to Painted
Hills) has a meeting for all parents of athletes that afternoon. The development has a significant
negative impact on our schools and families. Also, I don’t understand why the hearing has to be
during the workday. It’s seems like a 6:00 hearing would be more appropriate if it’s for the
“public.” I am hoping that our retirees and community members without children will be able to
be the voice of the community. This development is the worst thing to happen to this community.
Please do whatever you can in your power to stop it and turn it into a par 3 and park like was
originally planned by our city. Thank you! Sasha Deyarmin
Sent from my iPhone"
1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This
comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #202– Fe, J (08-26-21) Response to Comments:
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
106
“A very old photo. It does not show the "True" picture of the current land and its surroundings.” 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no
changes have been made.
Public Comment #203– Sabo, Steve (08-29-21) Response to Comments:
"First, and foremost, I have serious concerns about the maintenance and future replacement
costs of the proposed flood control system. The assurances in the DEIS that the HOA would
be able to fund those costs are simply not believable. And, if the HOA is incapable of covering
those costs the burden then seems to fall on the City of Spokane Valley if the DEIS is
accepted. I doubt the Valley citizens want that potential financial time bomb hanging over
their heads. Especially with the likelihood that the HOA would never be able to fund such an
expense.
"Additionally, the flood control plan depends on overflow components known as the Triangle
Pit and Gustin Ditch. At this point, these features have no assurance of even being available
for inclusion in the plan. There is no information about any agreement with the current
owner(s) of these features. This makes their inclusion in the flood control plan, at this point,
mute."
"While these flood control issues seem to be the greatest flaws in the DEIS, they are by no
means the only concerning aspects of the plan. Others include:
- traffic hazards and road damage resulting from the cut and fill portion of the project.
- added traffic volume, particularly in the Pines corridor, that would most certainly necessitate
changes at 16th Avenue, and likely other intersections."
"the required extensive bussing of students from the development due to lack of local school
capacity- severe and potentially deadly traffic congestion in the event of evacuation due to an
approaching wildland/urban interface fire."
1. Maintenance of Flood Control System: See response to Public Comment
#27, Item 2.
2. Reciprocal Use of the Triangle Pond and Gustin Ditch Site: See Public
Comment #39, Item 2.
3. Traffic on Pines Road: See response to Public Comment #154, Item 3.
4. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
5. Construction-Related Traffic: See response to Public Comment #149, Item
2.
6. Evacuation Routes: See response to Public Comment #7, Item 5.
Public Comment #204– Phillips, Chad (08-24-21) Response to Comments:
"August 20, 2021
Lori Barlow, AICP Senior Planner
City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206
RE:
DEIS Comments
Dear Ms. Barlow:
1. Flood Control Facilities: Section 3.2.2 of the EIS has been updated to
identify the design standards for the following flood control elements:
bioretention swale, settling pond, infiltration pond, and UIC pre-
treatment. As noted in that section, the design standards used comply
with the following standards and guidance:
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
107
This letter is being written in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated April 2,
2021, regarding the Painted Hills Planned Residential Development (PRD) and the proposed
Painted Hills Flood Control Plans dated June 23, 2020. Upon review of the DEIS, the City of
Spokane Valley Stormwater Engineering Program provides the following comments.
Cover Memo
• No Comment
DEIS 4-2-2021
• General Comments
o What design standard does the flood management system meet? The design standard must be
identified to adequately address the capabilities of the system. Specifically, design standards
are required for the following elements:
▪ Bioretention swale design
▪ Settling pond design
▪ Infiltration pond design
▪ UIC pretreatment requirements
o The documents provide for a limited geotechnical evaluation. In order to adequately address
the capabilities of the flood management system, a more detailed geotechnical evaluation is
necessary.
o The documentation does not indicate the size of the storm event that activates the stormwater
and flood management system. Is the storm event a 10-year, 25-year, or 100-year recurring
storm events? The level of system maintenance and risk of failure is dependent on how active
these systems are.
o The proponent should consider providing water source near the proposed
drywell gallery so full-scale drywell tests can be performed as part of the ongoing maintenance
and operational needs of the flood management system. Drywell tests may need
to be conducted every 10 years, or following a 10-year event, or at other intervals as established
by flood management agencies.
Appendix A - Public Comment Index
• No Comment
Appendix B - SEPA Checklist
• Question A.14.a.1
o Answer speaks to 10-year storm generating 100 cfs. Section 3.2.2.2 of the DEIS seems to
indicate the 100-year storm generates the 100 cfs design flow.
• Question A.14.b.2 – Will stormwater be discharged into the ground?
o Answer speaks to stormwater discharge to ground per the Spokane Region Stormwater Manual
(SRSM), without providing any details. The proponent must differentiate and provide
documentation that the design standards applicable to the development of stormwater facilities
and those applicable to flood management system are separate and distinct. The SRSM would be
Bioretention swale – SRSM, Stormwater Management Manual
for Eastern Washington (SWMMEW)
Settling pond– SRSM, SWMMEW
Infiltration pond– SRSM, SWMMEW
UIC pretreatment requirements – Department of Ecology
2. Geotechnical Data: Additional infiltration testing can occur prior to
installation of the flood control system to confirm the geotechnical testing
results and infiltration rates that have been obtained to date are accurate.
3. Storm Frequency and Size: The FEMA Flood Event to which the facilities
are designed is greater than the storm events referenced. Through
coordination between the project applicant, the City of Spokane Valley,
and Spokane County, FEMA has agreed to conduct a preliminary review
of the CLOMR request in advance of receiving the CAFs. FEMA review of
the CLOMR application is in process and FEMA has provided initial
comments to the applicant on May 24, 2022, and a second round of
comments to the applicant on December 21, 2022. These comments
request relatively minor revisions such as expanded responses and
revisions to application materials. No modification of the flood
conveyance system design is required as a result of these comments;
however, the technical review process is not yet complete, and FEMA may
provide additional comments that need to be addressed.
4. Stormwater management vs. Flood Control Facilities: Section 3.2.2 of the
EIS has been updated to identify the design standards for stormwater
management elements. As noted in that section, the design standards
comply with the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern
Washington (SMMEW) and the SRSM .
5. Erosion Control: Section 2.2.4 of the EIS, Permits and Approvals, has been
updated to include a project-specific Construction Stormwater Permit
from DOE.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
108
applicable to the development of stormwater facilities only. The standards within the SRSM
(COSV), the Stormwater Management Manual for Easter Washington (SMMEW) by the
Department of Ecology (DOE), and even the Highway Runoff Manual (HRM) by the Washington
State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) do not adequately
cover standards for the flood management systems.
• Question B.1.h – Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion.
o Answer speaks to measures to reduce or control erosion includes erosion control plans outlined
by the SRSM and SMMEW. This is an inaccurate statement for this PRD. This project will require
a project-specific Construction Stormwater Permit from DOE which will prescribe the measures to
reduce or control erosion. Most likely per Appendix l of the EW Phase ll Municipal Stormwater
permit, COSV may document coverage (erosion control) under Ecology’s CGSP and the SWPPP in
leu of Erosion Control plans.
• Question B.5.d – Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff
water impacts.
o Answer speaks to proposed flood control system is designed to capture, treat, store, and
dispose of floodwaters. The response does not identify what standards the flood control system
is being designed too. Without knowing what standards are being utilized, an adequate review
cannot be developed. Please keep in mind that the SRSM does not adequately address
flood management design standards.
Appendix C - Impact Comparison Table
• No Comment
Appendix D - Standard Subdivision Alternative Environment Review
• No comment
Appendix E - Flood Management System Elements Failure Risk and Impact Summary
• No Comment
Appendix F - Traffic Impact Analysis
• No Comment
Appendix G - Truck Haul Plan Memorandum
• No Comment
Appendix H - Painted Hills PRD Biological Evaluations
• No Comment
Appendix I – Cultural Resources Survey
• No Comment
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions related to these comments. I appreciate
your feedback.
Thank you,
Chad Phillips, PE
Stormwater Program Manager"
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
109
Public Comment #205– Clark, Jeremy City of Spokane Valley (08-24-21) Response to Comments:
"August 23, 2021
Lori Barlow, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Spokane Valley
RE:
ills PRD DEIS”
COSV Traffic Engineering Review Dear Ms. Barlow:
Upon review of the Painted Hills DEIS dated April 2, 2021, the City of Spokane Valley Traffic
Engineering Program provides the following comments:
Transportation impacts during construction
As stated in the DEIS, all trucks hauling materials for the initial mass grading of the project
would enter from Dishman-Mica Road. There is not currently any access from Dishman-Mica Road
directly into the project site. Based on the documents provided, estimates range from as little as
11 trucks per day (Page 56) to as many as 9 trucks per hour (Appendix G). There is also reference
on Page 57 of the DEIS stating that the additional truck traffic would temporarily pose potential
safety risks to users of the roadway. The evaluation and design of appropriate access should be
included as identified mitigation. This is anticipated to include left-turn or right-turn storage
bays off of Dishman-Mica, depending on the source of the fill material, as well as outbound
acceleration lanes.
Transportation planning horizon
The DEIS references a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) that was completed in 2016 and approved by
the City of Spokane Valley and is included as Appendix F. The assumptions established for the TIA
included a build out year of 2025 and buildout plus 5-year horizon of 2030. However, based on
the information in the DEIS, the time period for importing fill and constructing the project is at
least 12 years after the approval of the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) by FEMA.
This time period includes approximately four years of an initial mass- grading period (Page 56) and
ten years for construction of the project (Page 56). There will also be a period of time between
the mass grading and the first building permit whereby the applicant will complete and require
1. Construction-Related Transportation Impacts: Section 3.3.2 of the EIS has
been updated to address access on Dishman-Mica Road for construction-
related traffic. In addition, Section 3.3.3 of the EIS has been updated to
include the installation of the two-way, left-turn on Dishman-Mica Road
north of the Chester Creek Bridge, and the installation of northbound right-
turn lane prior to commencement of site grading activity as requested by
the City of Spokane Valley.
2. Transportation Planning Horizon: The City’s certificate of concurrency for
the Painted Hills PRD project remains valid and any development proposals
that have occurred after the issuance of the certificate of concurrency are
required to incorporate trips from the Painted Hills project in background
trip volumes. Therefore, the delay in approval for the Painted Hills PRD will
not result in accrued and/or unaccounted for impacts on the system. The
applicant anticipates construction activities and the resulting planning
horizon specified in the EIS are contingent on acceptance of the FEIS and
City permitting and can be updated to align with the review timeframe
closer to permitting review and submittal of construction design
documents. The certificate of transportation concurrency expires five (5)
years from Preliminary Plat approval, included with the EIS as Appendix M.
Timing and phasing of transportation improvements are specified in Section
3.3.3 of the EIS, specifically:
o Prior to the initiation of mass-grading activities associated with the
project, the applicant will install a two-way left turn lane on Dishman-
Mica Road and a right-turn northbound lane on Dishman-Mica Road
at the proposed new entry road into the PRD.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
110
approval of the final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from FEMA. As such, the earliest expected
completion of the project is 2036, with the expected buildout plus 5-year horizon of 2041. The
traffic review should be updated to account for the inconsistency in the DEIS between the original
identified planning horizon of 2025 and the realistic time period estimated for project completion.
Mitigation Measures
As identified on Page 60 of the DEIS, two mitigation measures are recommended for revision:
• A two-way, left-turn lane will be installed on Dishman-Mica Road north of the
Chester Creek Bridge.
Given prior comments and stated concerns in the DEIS regarding operations and safety of local
roadway users, the two-way left turn lane should be installed prior to beginning the mass grading
of the project to provide safe access for construction vehicles.
• When warranted by the development conditions, the project should contribute its
participating percentage in a project to signalize the intersection of 16th Avenue & Pines Road.
During the five years that have elapsed since the approved TIA, the recommended mitigation at
16ᵗʰ Avenue/Pines Road/SR-27 has evolved. The currently recommended and documented
mitigation in the Transportation Improvement Plan is a multi-lane roundabout. The participating
percentage calculation should be updated with the update of the TIA as noted in a prior
comment.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions related to these comments. I appreciate
your feedback.
Thank you,
Jerremy Clark, PE, PTOE
Traffic Engineering Manager"
o The entire Project will be accessed by one new public local access
street that intersects Dishman-Mica Road and two new public local
access streets that intersect Madison Road. In addition, two new
gated private streets are permitted on Madison Road.
o The Project will construct southbound left-turn lanes on a) Dishman-
Mica Road at the intersection with the new public local access street
and at b) the intersection of Dishman-Mica Road and Thorpe Road
concurrently with the construction of the new public local access
street. The two southbound left-turn lanes will provide a minimum of
150 feet of queue storage and will have the required gap and taper
lengths per WSDOT standards.
Please also refer to Public Comment #149, Item 2 for construction related traffic
impacts. A copy of the Certificate of Concurrency is included with the EIS as
Appendix L.
Public Comment #206– Fisch, Pete (08-24-21) Response to Comments:
"August 18, 2021
Lori Barlow, AICP Senior Planner
City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206
RE:l Development
DEIS Comments Dear Ms. Barlow,
This letter is being written in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement regarding the
Painted Hills Planned Residential Development (PRD) and the proposed Painted Hills Flood
Control Plans dated June 23, 2020. My concerns, as the City of Spokane Valley’s Bridge Program
Manager, relate to the existing Thorpe Road Bridge, (SPOKV-4421) and the pre-fabricated box
culvert proposed on Thorpe Road at Station 19+00± for flood control.
1. Thorpe Road Bridge: If it is confirmed that the existing web girder bridge
cannot be widened by adding a box culvert, Thorpe Road Bridge (SPOKV-
4421) will be redesigned to satisfy the design elements and requirements
outlined in the WSDOT Bridge Design Manual (LRFD) M23-50.20, dated
September 2020. In this case, a new load rating for the bridge will be
established.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
111
The existing Thorpe Road Over Chester Creek Bridge, SID #08014700, was built in 1976 and has an
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 1,800 (Nov. 2018), with 6.25% large vehicles. It is single span,
Prestressed Concrete Multiple Web girder bridge, made up of seven units of rib deck. It is two
lane, 26.7 feet curb-to-curb, no sidewalks, and has 1.5 inches of asphalt overlaying the bridge
deck. Concrete footings are supported on timber piles. It has a Sufficiency Rating of 64.79.
This bridge is currently open with no weight restrictions and currently serves mostly
residential properties to the east of Dishman-Mica Road.
Current Condition:
This bridge has seen some deterioration over the past few inspection cycles, mainly at the web-to-
flange interface, due to possible overloaded vehicles. In May of 2019, the girders were evaluated
and it was found that the stresses due to the cracking do not change the weight rating of
the structure carried out in April 2017. However, if there is continued use by
overloaded vehicles as suspected, weight restrictions might be warranted in the future. This is
considered a Short Span Bridge which makes it ineligible for Federal Funding when the
bridge requires rehabilitation and/or replacement.
Project Impacts:
The most significant impact that is presented by the proposed development is the inadequacies of
managing the existing Thorpe Road Over Chester Creek Bridge. The detailed engineering
information presented in the Painted Hills Flood Control Plans (Plans), with a
Professional Engineering Seal dated June 30, 2020, indicate a widening of Thorpe Road over
Chester Creek. The widening of Thorpe Road, as shown on Sheet C3.12 of the Plans, is
planned to be accomplished by adding a box culvert to the existing Thorpe Road structure. It
most definitely must be noted that the Painted Hills documents identify the existing structure as a
box culvert when in fact, the existing structure is a pile-supported, short span, multiple web
girder bridge as previously noted. As there are dissimilarities between the existing structure
and the proposed structure, Thorpe Road cannot be widened over Chester Creek in the manner
proposed.
Additionally, as previously noted, the current girders are experiencing cracking and stresses
likely caused by overloaded vehicles. This current loading may require that weight restrictions be
placed on the bridge in the near future. As part of the project, the proponent intends to overlay
the existing bridge with 4 inches of asphalt pavement, whereby the current structure only has 1-
1/2 inches of asphalt pavement. This added asphalt, may overload the existing bridge to the point
where bridge weight restrictions are required. Should the bridge have weight restrictions, the
planned methods of construction for the PRD will require modifications.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
112
Recommendations:
The existing Thorpe Road Bridge over Chester Creek cannot be widened in the manner prescribed
in the proponents Plans, that is, the web girder bridge cannot be widened by adding a box culvert.
With that being the case, it is recommended that the proponent replace the Thorpe Road Bridge
(SPOKV-4421) in accordance the WSDOT Bridge Design Manual (LRFD) M23-50.20, dated
September 2020. It should also be noted, that the existing bridge cannot be widened using a
similar bridge structure due to the age and condition of the existing bridge.
The replacement structure for Thorpe Road could either be a bridge structure or a box culvert.
The design elements and requirements of the new structure must meet those outlined in the
WSDOT Bridge Design Manual (LRFD) M23-50.20, dated September 2020. In completing the
design, the proponent will need to take into all anticipated traffic and construction loading, which
means a new load rating for the bridge will be established.
As far as the proposed pre-fabricated concrete box culverts on Thorpe Road, Station 19+00± for
the over-flow storm water channel, the design shall follow the guidelines presented within the
WSDOT Bridge Design Manual (LRFD) M23-50.20, September 2020.
Respectfully submitted,
Pete Fisch
Bridge Program Manager / Engineering Technician II"
Public Comment #207– Polak, Chad (08-25-21) Response to Comments:
"Hi Lori,
YPL does not have any comments based on the location of the project.
Sincerely,
Chad M. Polak
Agent, Real Estate Services
O: (+1) 303.376.4363 | M: (+1) 720.245.4683
3960 East 56th Avenue | Commerce City, CO 80022
Phillips 66"
1. Public Involvement: Comment Noted. This comment does not contest
technical details of the EIS.
Public Comment #208– State of Washington Department of Ecology (08-30-21) Response to Comments:
"August 30, 2021
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
113
Lori Barlow, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Re:
FPD-2016-0007
Dear Lori Barlow:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
regarding the redevelopment of an approximately 99.5-acres former golf course, by constructing
300 single- family homes and 280 multi-family units, to include a neighborhood commercial
center, green space, streets and associated utilities and amenities (Proponent: Whipple
Consulting Engineers, Black Realty and Northwest Renovators Inc.). After reviewing the
documents, the Department of Ecology (Ecology) submits the following comments:
A. Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program-Andrew Maher (509) 329-
3612
Please keep in mind that during the construction activities associated with the Painted
Hills PRD Project, some construction-related wastes produced may qualify as
dangerous wastes in Washington State. Some of these wastes include:
• Absorbent material
• Aerosol cans
• Asbestos-containing materials
• Lead-containing materials
• PCB-containing light ballasts
• Waste paint
• Waste paint thinner
• Sanding dust
• Treated wood
You may find a more comprehensive list, as well as a link to identify and designate your
wastes on the Common Construction and Demolition Wastes website at
https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Guidance-technical-
assistance/Dangerous-waste-guidance/Common-dangerous-waste/Construction-and-
demolition.
The applicant, as the facility generating the waste, bears the responsibility for all
construction waste. The waste generator is the person who owns the site. Even if you
A. Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program
1. Construction Waste: This comment does not contest technical details
of the EIS. Therefore, no EIS changes are warranted .
B. Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program
1. Geotechnical Data: Additional infiltration testing will occur prior to
installation to verify the geotechnical testing results that have been
obtained to date.
2. Stormwater v Floodwater: For clarity, Section 1.2 of the EIS text has
been revised to clarify the distinction between floodwater and
stormwater as referenced throughout the EIS.
3. Infiltration Rates (Aquifer): Section 3.1.2 of the EIS discusses the
potential effects of the project on the Spokane Rathdrum Prairie
Aquifer. Section 3.1.3 explains that compliance with the stormwater
quality and quantity management requirements of the SRSM for both
on-site and regional development will prevent significant water
quality and quantity impacts to the aquifer. Based upon the
unchanged infiltration rate through 70 plus feet of native soil from
the ground elevation to the aquifer.
4. Hydrologic and Hydraulic (H&H) Analysis: Section 3.2.2 of the EIS has
been revised to include the Chester Creek channel and levee and
discuss impacts on hydrologic and hydraulic modeling. As noted in
that section, no net rise occurs as a result of including the Chester
Creek channel in the H&H Analysis.
FEMA’s review of the CLOMR may provide additional information to
address this comment.
5. Figure 3-8: At the time of final design and following FEMA’s review of
the CLOMR, no residential development will be located within the
future floodplain area.
6. Report for Frontage Improvements:
Table 2 Values: The value shown in the table is the minimum
required pond size. During final design all swales will be designed
to meet or exceed that required minimum.
SWMMEW: Final project designs will satisfy the requirements of
the SWMMEW.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
114
hire a contractor to conduct the demolition or a waste service provider to designate
your waste, the site owner is ultimately liable. This is why it is important to research
reputable and reliable contractors. In order to adequately identify some of your
construction and remodel debris, you may need to sample and test the wastes
generated to determine whether they are dangerous waste.
For more information and technical assistance, contact Andrew Maher at (509) 329-
3612 or
andy.maher@ecy.wa.gov.
B . Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program-Lynn Schmidt (509) 329-3413
The terms “stormwater” and “floodwater” are used synonymously throughout the
document. It would help to differentiate on-site stormwater generated from the
development vs. floodwaters from the Chester Creek watershed to identify and
understand the various water management infrastructures and associated regulations.
Critical hydro geologic information necessary to design the infiltration facilities is
missing. The estimated infiltration rates in this DEIS are likely too high considering the
volume of water to be infiltrated in a relatively small area. Analysis such as
groundwater mounding and the cumulative effects of multiple drywells and infiltration
galleries in close proximity must be conducted before the size of the facilities can be
calculated. Other methods are available than a full-scale drywell test. Regional
stormwater manuals are not necessarily appropriate for designing flood control
facilities. Additionally, the SVRP aquifer surface can fluctuate nearly 20 feet in a given
year in this area, so timing of subsurface testing vs. the anticipated occurrence of
flooding is important. It is improbable that the City can feasibly approve a PRD, grading
plan, or sign the FEMA Community Acknowledgement Form without this information.
The Community Acknowledgement Form certifies that the development will meet all
local floodplain management standards, and that cannot be determined without
sufficient data to size the facilities.
Page 19 states that “this DEIS contemplates and addresses the range of environmental
effects that can be expected to result from the range of infiltration test results” so that
any change to the proposal resulting from the CLOMR process would likely not require
additional SEPA review. The infiltration rates could very likely be well outside of this
range with proper full scale and groundwater mounding analysis.
Dishman-Mica Road Runoff: Stormwater from Dishman-Mica
Road currently sheet flows into an existing roadside swale built
and maintained by Spokane County. Prior to final design the
adequacy of this existing swale will be addressed.
Off-site Times of Concentration: The minimum time of
concentration in the SRSM is 5 minutes, which is why 5 minutes
was used as the default time of concentration for the roadways
adjacent to the site.
Outflow Rate from Infiltration Areas: A detailed design
evaluation will be provided at the time of final design that will
follow SRSM guidelines.
C. Solid Waste Management Program
This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS.
D. Toxics Cleanup Program
This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS.
E. Water Quality Program
This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS.
F. Water Resources Program
1. Dam Safety Construction Permit: The public commenter identifies
that a Dam Safety Construction Permit is required for those dams or
ponds that impound a volume of 10-acre feet or more of water above
ground level pursuant RWC 90.03.350. No Dam Safety Construction
Permit is required, as confirmed by an email received January 26th
from Gary Myers, Dam Safety Section Manager. The email provides
the following summary “DSO has reviewed that portion of the project
document set related to the ponds. Our conclusion is that the ponds
are below grade, no dam will be constructed. A DSO permit is not
needed for the ponds.” Therefore, no EIS changes are warranted.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
115
The Chester Creek channel and levee are not included in the hydraulic and hydrologic
analysis. As this is a major component of the overall system and is impacted by the
development, it should be included.
The DEIS states that there is no impact to the SVRP aquifer. In the existing condition,
floodwaters slowly infiltrate and filter through fine soils over a longer period. The
proposal is to inject a large volume of floodwaters and stormwater much more quickly
than the current condition. It is improbable that a bio filtration swale will treat all
floodwaters, let alone that the vegetation and grasses may be dormant during flood
events. Please include probable impacts to the SVRP aquifer.
Figure 3-8 shows the existing and future floodplain. Infiltration facilities and drainage
infrastructure would still be considered floodplain areas, so those should be included.
The southern and western portions of the site are still shown to be in the floodplain.
Multi-family residential units and possibly estate lots are located in these areas. Please
either revise the proposed floodplain area if incorrect or address the development in
the floodplain. A detailed stormwater plan will need to be developed for the full
project area that meets the current regulations (i.e. 2019 SWMMEW). Stormwater
designs may need to follow the SWMMEW instead of the SRSM since there have been
changes in the SWMMEW that are not reflected in the SRSM.
There is little detail in the DEIS. The Eastern WA LID Guidance Manual is referenced;
however, that document is phasing out and the information from that document is
now included in the 2019 SWMMEW. The proposal implies that all runoff will remain
on-site and not discharge off the property. With this amount of infiltration, it may be
difficult to get that amount of water successfully into the ground.
Comments on the Storm Drainage Report for Frontage Improvements:
Table 2 calculates the amount of treatment volume required using a method described
in the SRSM (1815 method). In this calculation, the PGIS area draining to the treatment
BMP is used. In the SRSM, the language used for the calculation is the “hydraulically
connected impervious area to be treated (acres)”. This differs from the value used in
the report, so the BMPs are undersized. This is a serious issue and needs to be
addressed.
It appears that the runoff from Dishman-Mica Rd will not be treated since it drains
away from the property and “cannot be effectively captured.” If there is new or
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
116
replaced impervious surface on that road, it needs to be addressed, or apply additional
treatment to other impervious surfaces along the roads.
On page, 5 of 6, off-site times of concentration in terms of hours are discussed. Since
this study involves the roadways adjacent to the project site, the times of
concentration seem overly long. The basin areas are small and should have short times
of concentration. Flood issues may be confused with stormwater control issues.
It is unclear how the outflow rate from the infiltration areas for the 50-year storm
analysis was calculated. A different rate is used in several of the basins, but there is no
explanation of how the rate used was determined. This value depends on the
infiltration area and the site- specific infiltration rate.
For technical assistance or additional information, please contact Lynn Schmidt at (509)
329- 3413
or via email at Lynn.Schmidt@ecy.wa.gov.
C. Solid Waste Management Program-Martyn Quinn (509) 329-3435
The applicant proposes to demolish an existing structure in the construction activities
involved with the Painted Hills PRD project. Section B.7.a of the SEPA checklist asks if
any environmental health hazards exist could occur as a result of the proposal.
Improper disposal of solid waste, including demolition waste, can result in
environmental health hazards.
Ecology encourages the applicant to salvage, reuse, and recycle as much of the waste
as possible. Recycling demolition debris typically costs less than disposal. Otherwise,
the applicant must dispose of demolition waste at a permitted solid waste facility.
For more information, please contact Martyn Quinn at (509) 329-3435 or via email at
Martyn.Quinn@ecy.wa.gov.
D. Toxics Cleanup Program-Ted Uecker (509) 329-3522
Historic use of the Painted Hills PRD project site as a golf course may have resulted in
the release of hazardous substances such as petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals,
pesticides, and herbicides into the soil and groundwater. Areas where these releases
are likely to occur include landscaped putting greens, fairways, drainage basins, and
equipment or chemical storage facilities.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
117
Any release, known or discovered at the site must be reported to Ecology as required
by the Model Toxics Control Act. This information should be passed on to the
proponent and/or property owner.
For more information or technical assistance, please contact Ted Uecker at (509) 329-
3522 or via
email at Ted.Uecker@ecy.wa.gov.
E. Water Quality Program-Shannon Adams (509) 329-3610
Ecology acknowledges that the applicant will obtain a Construction Stormwater
General Permit, as stated in Section A.10 of the SEPA Checklist, and agrees a permit is
required. For more information or technical assistance in obtaining a Construction
Stormwater General Permit, please contact Shannon Adams at (509) 329-3610 or via
email at Shannon.Adams@ecy.wa.gov.
F. Water Resources Program-Dam Safety Office-Charlotte Lattimore (360) 407-6066
Under RCW 90.03.350, a Dam Safety construction permit is required for those dams or
ponds, which can impound a volume of 10 acre-feet or more of water or other liquids
above ground level. The Painted Hills PRD development references stormwater ponds
as part of the project. To determine if Ecology will require a Dam Safety construction
permit for your project, the applicant must submit a set of construction plans to:
WA Department of Ecology
Dam Safety Office
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
For more information, please contact Charlotte Lattimore by e-mail at (360) 407-6066
or via
email at Charlotte.Lattimore@ecy.wa.gov.
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
Ecology bases comments upon information submitted for review. As such, comments
made do not constitute an exhaustive list of the various authorizations you may need
to obtain, nor legal requirements you may need to fulfill in order to carry out the
proposed action. Applicants should remain in touch with their Local Responsible
Officials or Planners for additional guidance.
To receive more guidance on or to respond to the comments made by Ecology, please
contact the
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
118
appropriate staff listed above at the phone number or email provided.
Department of Ecology
Eastern Regional Office (Ecology File: 202103907)
cc: Todd Whipple, Whipple Consulting Engineers Inc."
Public Comment #209– Horton, Deanna - City of Spokane Valley (08-30-21) Response to Comments:
"Dear Ms. Barlow:
This letter is being written in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated April 2,
2021, regarding the Painted Hills Planned Residential Development (PRD) and the proposed
Painted Hills Flood Control Plans dated June 23, 2020. Upon review of the Painted Hills Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), the City of Spokane Valley Floodplain Management
Program provides the following comments:
SEPA Checklist
• Section B.l .e mentions that there could be 450,000 cubic yards of material moved with up to
330,000 cubic yards of material imported. Please discuss this in the Natural Environment section
(Section 3.1) of the DEIS.
• Section B.3.c.l mentions ""Stormwater generated on site will not be discharged to other
waters"". Confirm this pertains to the 100-year storm and that the 100-year on- site stormwater
will not be discharged to the flood control facilities or floodplain.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
General
• Flows - when describing flows coming on site from south of Thorpe Road, please make it clear
if the discharge quantity being discussed is the Flood Insurance Study quantity for the golf course
overflow or the whole Chester Creek 100-year flow. Is the project being designed for the golf
course overflow amount or the whole Chester Creek flow?
• Comments below for Alternative 2a apply to similar conditions found in Alternative 2b.
2. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
2. Fact Sheet - The City of Spokane Valley is not the project proponent.
2.2.4 Permits and Approvals, Page 18 -The City's grading permit review will occur prior to FEMA's
review of the CLOMR. Prior to the City accepting and/or signing the CLOMR submittal that is
1. SEPA Checklist:
A. Fill quantities are discussed in Section 3.3.2.2.
B. Stormwater generated by the 100-year storm will remain on site.
C. The project is being designed for the golf course overflow.
2. Fact Sheet: The fact sheet has been updated to remove the City as the
project proponent. The project proponent has been updated in the EIS to
be Black Reality Inc.
3. Natural Environment:
A. Chester Creek base flows: According to the Biological Evaluation
prepared by Larry Dawes in November 2021, Chester Creek is not
influenced by a high-water table that creates wetlands. Chester Creek
loses water to underlying sands and gravels, so wetlands do not occur
outside of the channel of flowing water.
Section 4.8.1 of the Biological Evaluation provides information
regarding Chester creek Flood Frequency. Section 4.8.2 of the
Biological Evaluation provides information regarding the flood
conveyance system that conveys floodwaters from the three sources
of floodwater described in Section 3.2.1 of the EIS.
Section 3.1.1 of the EIS discusses current conditions of Chester Creek.
Section 3.1.2 of the EIS has been revised to discuss potential effects
to Chester Creek base flows as a result of developing the Painted Hills
site. As noted in that section, development and the widening of
Thorpe Road is not anticipated to impact “flow”— or capacity—or
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
119
provided to FEMA, the City needs to review and approve all CLOMR submittal documents and
their reference documents.
3.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
3.1.1.1 Existing Hydrologic Conditions-
• Discuss any impacts this project will have to the base flows in Chester Creek.
• The borehole test was conducted in the bottom 30 feet of a 60-foot deep boring. Is this
depth representative of the location of the outflow sections of the drywells?
3.1.2.2 Alternative 2a -
• The aquifer will also be recharged through the drywells (along with the permeable floor of
the infiltration basin).
• This section indicates that, ""Based on the presence of this deep deposit of permeable
material, groundwater mounding beneath the proposed infiltration system is not anticipated""
The infiltration of the 100-year storm is a lot of water and some groundwater mounding is
anticipated.
Please confirm that a Geotechnical Engineer licensed to practice in Washington State supports
your conclusion of no mounding throughout the 100-year storm for both the onsite facilities and
the triangle pond facilities. If there is groundwater mounding, then discuss its impacts.
3.1.3.2 - Are evaporation ponds really expected to be utilized?
3.2 BUILT ENVIRONMENT
3.2.1 Affected Environment, FEMA Floodplain Designation - Discuss in detail how this project will
address the requirements of SVMC 21.30.100, specifically:
A. In all storage areas designated on the FIRM, there shall be no net loss of flood storage or
infiltration capacity.
B. No development shall be allowed which removes flood storage volume unless an equal
volume of storage as defined by the pre-development ground surface and the base flood
elevation is provided in the immediate area of the proposed development to compensate for the
volume of storage which is lost (compensatory storage). Excavation below the ground water table
shall not constitute an equal volume of storage.
C. No obstruction shall be permitted in any storage area which restricts or diminishes flood
water conveyance capacity or floodway characteristics. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007).
3.2.2.2 Alternative 2a, Floodplain Map Modifications and Floodwater Management Improvements
-
• Recommend referring readers to Figure 3-9 when discussing specific construction Items.
• On page 35 it says, ""The intent of the development of the floodwater management
water quality of Chester Creek given the mitigation measures
recommended in Section 3.1.3 of the EIS. Design revisions will be
made (if necessary) to satisfy FEMA requests.
Maintenance of the flood control system, including the drywells
located in the discharge basin/low point pond is addressed in the
response to Public Comment #9, Item 3.
B. Borehole Test: The depth is representative of the location of the
outfall sections of the drywells.
C. Groundwater Mounding: Results of geotechnical testing support the
statement that no groundwater mounding is anticipated.
4. Built Environment:
A. Flood Management System: The issues of flood storage capacity
removal will be eliminated following approval of the CLOMR and
LOMR processes. Appendix K has been added to the EIS to illustrate
the design of the flood conveyance system and redundant safety
features.
B. Suggested Figure Updates:
Appendix E now includes Figure 3-9. Additional references to
Figure 3-9 have been added to the EIS.
Figure 3-8 will be revised following FEMA’s review of the CLOMR.
When modeling future floodplain conditions in an environment
that contains and uncertified levee, FEMA requires that the
modeler consider a scenario in which the levee functions to
withhold the 100-year flood and a scenario in which the levee
does not withhold the 100-year flood. The resulting floodplain
mapping must reflect the more extensive limits of those two
scenarios (or levee failure). The 100-year failure scenario is
referenced in Section 3.2.1 of the EIS. Future conditions of the
100-year flood mapping as shown in Figure 3-8 reflect this
consideration in the floodplain limits.
The infiltration basin will not be considered a Special Flood
Hazard Area.
A figure showing the future floodplain location for Alternatives
2a and 2b will be added following FEMA’s review of the CLOMR.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
120
infrastructure is to permanently remove the flood risk that currently exists both on and off the
Painted Hills site. "" However, Figure 3-8 shows floodplain on site in the future after
construction.
• Describe the ""100-yr levee-failure scenario.""
• Figure 3-7 - Show the location of the sedimentation basin.
• Figure 3-8 - Will the flood water in the infiltration basin be considered a Special Flood
Hazard Area and should be mapped?
• Include a figure showing the future floodplain on a map of one of the Alternative 2
scenarios.
• In the discussion about the 100-year design flow in the biofiltration swale, the document
identifies that ""Suspended solids in the floodwater would be filtered out by tall grasses planted
in the biofiltration swale. "" What are the design velocities for this flow in the swale? Will the
grasses be standing or laying down? Will flow conditions be quiescent enough to enable
sedimentation? What size sediments are expected to settle out?
• For the settling pond, what is the target grain size to settle out? What will be the design
standards to ensure that throughout the 100-year storm hydrograph there will be appropriate
hydraulic conditions and adequate residence time in the settling pond to enable the fine,
suspended
sediments to settle out in the pond and not enter the subsurface facilities located in the
infiltration pond?
• On page 38, the document indicates water levels within the gravel gallery rising by 1 foot.
Should this be referring to water levels in the infiltration basin?
• The DEIS indicates that the infiltration pond has been designed to infiltrate 290.76
acre-feet over a period of weeks. Is that significant? What is the volume of the 100-year storm?
3.2.2.2 Alternative 2a, Phasing - Who is responsible for maintaining the flood control system
between Phase 1 and full buildout? The O&M manual should describe maintenance
responsibilities for
all phases, as well as for those times between phases.
3.2.2.2 Alternative 2a, Flood Management Facilities and Maintenance-
• Due to the size and complexity of the proposed stormwater management facilities and the
number of proposed dwellings which could be subject to flooding during a maintenance failure,
the
City is concerned about the impact on the operation and maintenance should the proposed
Homeowners
Association (HOA) dissolve. This section of the DEIS indicates that the HOA will acquire and
maintain a maintenance bond to ensure that resources are available in perpetuity for any and all
C. Gravel Galleries: The EIS has been updated to remove references to
gravel galleries, as they are no longer part of the proposed flood
control system. The rise by 1 foot does indeed refer to water levels in
the infiltration basin.
D. Biofiltration swale: Based on velocities, flows will be slow enough to
enable sedimentation. PM10 and greater size sediments are
expected to settle out.
E. Infiltration Pond Infiltration Capacity: The infiltration basin has been
designed to accommodate the anticipated volume of a 100-year flood
event. Specifically, the 1997 event which was approximately a 100-
year flood event had a volume of approximately 291 ac-ft of water.
Infiltration rates under Alternatives 2a and 2b are addressed in
Section 3.2.2 of the EIS.
F. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public
Comment #27, Item 2.
G. Flood Management System Element Failure Risk and Impact
Summary (Appendix E):
H. Please revise to arrange system elements from upstream to
downstream by location. The elements in the table are presented in
the suggested order except for the potential inflow from the Gustin
Ditch which enters from the east of the site. A figure that identifies
the location of each element has been added to Appendix E for
additional clarity.
I. Probabilities of failure for the various components of the Flood
Management System.
There are no available methods to effectively quantify the
probabilities of failure for these elements. However, the EIS has been
updated to provide greater context regarding factors of safety
incorporated into the site design and additional qualitative
information regarding site and regional context and flood conditions
to reasonably ascertain extents of flood risk. Thus, potential for
system failures has to be considered in the context of the system and
the surrounding environment. Section 3.2.2 of the EIS has been
revised to address potential failure of risk for each element of the
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
121
system maintenance requirements that might exceed the sinking fund capacity. What provisions
will be put in place to guarantee the HOA will be existent and viable in perpetuity to fund the
maintenance bond? If the HOA dissolves, the ability to fund the maintenance bond in perpetuity
dissolves.
• What provisions will be put in place to ensure all HOA members contribute in perpetuity to
fund the maintenance program?
3.3 TRANSPORTATION
3.3.2.2 - Alternative 2b requires approximately 104,630 cubic yards of imported fill material on
the site compared to 328,289 cubic yards of imported fill material for Alternative 2a. The Haul
Plan included in Appendix G anticipates 104,630 cubic yards of fill. Following the hearing
decision, the Haul Plan must be updated to reflect the correct amount of haul volume expected.
Appendix E - Flood Management System Elements Failure Risk and Impact Summary
General
• Consider arranging system elements from upstream to downstream by location.
• Include probabilities of failure for the various components of the Flood Management System.
• Include recourse(s) in the event of a component failure. Item #IA, Headwall and Trash Rack at
Inlet
• Potential Failure Impacts section mentions that the headwall is designed to limit inflow.
Explain why limit the inflow.
• Mitigation section says that trash racks will be installed to mitigate clogging of trash
racks by debris. Please explain.
Item #2 states that the vegetation in the area isn't woody. Elaborate on how this will prevent
clogging during an event as grasses and brush can clog storm and flood system pipes. Will
maintenance address this potential problem?
Item #3, Triangle Pond
• Mitigation section says that sediment will be removed by a vactor truck. Are there other
types of equipment that might be more efficient? To what level will the sediments be removed
down to?
Item# 4b, Infiltration Pond- See comments for Item #3. Item# 4c, Settling Pond- See comments for
Item #3.
Item# 4d, Bioswale - Will sediment buildup also be removed? If so, to what level?
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions related to these comments. I appreciate
your feedback."
system in terms of how each element is designed with a “factor of
safety” and other redundant safety features that ensures marginal
greater capacity than the design storm (e.g., 100-year storm)
volumes, thereby reducing the likelihood of complete system failure
and risk to adjacent properties.
Section 3.2.2.2 of the EIS has been revised to address risk to health
and human safety in the event of a failure of the flood conveyance,
specifically the headworks of the system – determined to be the most
critical element to the intake and outflow of floodwaters. WEST
performed modeling to evaluate the peripheral areas that would be
subject to inundation, as a proxy for risk, in the event of a complete
obstruction of the headworks, which concludes increased flooding
would occur beyond present day conditions in limited areas under a
total headworks failure, but the majority of the area subject to
inundation in a headworks failure scenario will be the same as
present day 100-year flooding conditions. Regardless, redundant
safety features and operations and maintenance of the flood
conveyance system remain critical to minimize risk to off-site
properties in the vicinity of the Painted Hills PRD. A figure illustrating
the effective 100-Year floodplain vs. the headworks failure scenario
is included with the EIS as Appendix N.
J. Please describe recourse(s) in the event of a component failure.
Item #IA, Headwall and Trash Rack at Inlet. Section 3.2.2 of the EIS
has been updated to discuss potential for failure among flood
conveyance components, specifically the trash racks. Additionally,
routine maintenance activities of trash racks are addressed in the
draft O&M Manual is updated and included with the EIS as Appendix
O.
K. Potential Failure Impacts section mentions that the headwall is
designed to limit inflow. The EIS has been revised to correctly state
that the headwall, clarified for consistency as the “headworks”, is
designed to limit clogging of opening of the conveyance pipe.
Additionally, Section 3.2.2 of the EIS has been revised to address
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
122
potential failure of system components, including redundant safety
features. Appendix N has been added to the EIS to illustrate current
100-year flood hazard area vs. flood hazard area under the
headworks failure scenario, in support of the conclusions provided in
the EIS.
L. Trash Racks: Section 3.2.2 and Appendix E of the EIS have been
updated to specify design of trash racks. Specifically, that flood
waters could potentially transport some grass and sediment, both of
which are able to flow through the angled trash racks and continue
to the next element of the flood conveyance system without issue.
M. Vegetation and Pipe Clogging: Section 3.2.2.2 of the EIS has been
updated to address function and design of trash racks relative to
adjacent vegetation. The EIS concludes that “under the current HEC-
RAS modeling, 100-year floods lack the velocities and depth required
to carry large woody debris capable of obstructing trash racks. Flood
waters will likely pick up grass and sediment, both of which are able
to flow through the angled trash racks and continue to the next
element of the flood conveyance system without issue. Additionally,
each element has been designed to withstand water volumes in
excess of the 100-year storm and floodwater conveyance pipes have
been sized to accommodate 1.3 and the ponds are sized at 3 times
the quantity of water predicted to be produced by the 100-year
design storm.
N. Are there other types of equipment that might be more efficient?
Please address this question
We know of no other vehicle that is more efficient and readily
available to remove the buildup of sediment.
O. To what level will the sediments be removed down to? PM 10 and
greater.
P. Bioswale and Sediment Removal: All sediment is proposed to be
removed, see response to Item iii (2).
5. Transportation: The Preliminary Haul Plan has been prepared based
upon Alternative 2b. The plan can be revised to meet the needs of
Alternative 2a prior to engineering plan approval. Figures have been
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
123
revised following receipt of FEMA preliminary review of the CLOMR,
dated May 24, 2022, and a second round of comments to the applicant
on December 21, 2022. These comments request relatively minor
revisions such as expanded responses and revisions to application
materials. No modification of the flood conveyance system design is
required as a result of these comments; however, the technical review
process is not yet complete, and FEMA may provide additional
comments that need to be addressed.
i. Who is responsible for maintaining the flood control system
between Phase 1 and full buildout? The O&M manual should
describe maintenance responsibilities for all phases, as well as for
those times between phases.
The developer will be the president of the HOA until such a time as
that the HOA population meets the requirements for a change in
leadership.
ii. What happens when apartment ownership changes?
Requirements for participation in the HOA and associated
maintenance responsibilities will run with the land and will continue
to be the responsibility of any owner of the apartment complex.
Under the CC&R provisions for the PRD, penalties will be imposed on
owners within the PRD who fail to pay HOA dues. These penalties
include the ability of the HOA to file liens on the properties and the
ability of the City to withhold building or other requested permits for
property owners on non-compliant properties.
iii. How will fees cover maintenance? Please address this question
Section 3.2.2. of the EIS has been updated to include calculations for
estimated future replacement costs of the flood conveyance system.
These costs are anticipated to be refined in the final O&M Manual,
which will be provided at the conclusion of construction. A copy of
the draft O&M manual is included with the EIS as Appendix O.
iv. What happens if fees cannot cover costs of maintenance?
Please see the response to Item iii.
v. Who will assume responsibility in the absence of apartment
ownership?
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
124
It is assumed that the apartment property would be owned by the
developer until such time as a third-party entity may purchase the
site.
vi. What contingencies are planned to ensure the system will always
be maintained? Please address this question
It is the intent of the project that ownership and maintenance of the
system will be provided by the HOA which will include the apartment
ownership. With the inclusion of the apartment owner in the HOA,
the HOA membership will include a long-term and deeply committed
financial entity to further ensure that the HOA is meeting its
operation and maintenance responsibilities associated with the flood
conveyance system. The HOA’s commitment will be to help fund the
maintenance activities as well as provide for open spaces, parks, and
other issues pertinent to the residential portion of the platting action.
The commercial apartment management will be present as long as
there are apartments or other commercial activities on the project
site, and would be expected to be present in the event the HOA
expires or becomes defunct.
Section 3.2.2 of the EIS has been revised to address contingencies in
the event the HOA is dissolved. This includes the requirement for
waivers of remonstrance to be signed by all property owners in the
PRD that will provide an acknowledgement by owners of the right for
a local agency to establish a flood control district that would assume
ownership and operation of maintenance of flood conveyance
system infrastructure withing the PRD.
vii. What happens if the HOA fails to adequately fund the reserves?
According to the plan they are to provide the Spokane Public Works
Department the general status of the reserve fund annually.
With the addition of the apartment owner to the HOA, the HOA will
have a consistent and deeply committed commercial owner to help
ensure that the reserve fund remains sufficiently capitalized. In
addition, all properties within the PRD will maintain waivers of
remonstrance to the formation of a flood control district which will
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
125
allow a local agency, at any time, to form a flood control district that
would assume ownership and maintenance responsibility for flood
conveyance infrastructure from the HOA. This provides further
recourse if the HOA were to default in its responsibility to maintain
the reserve fund and/or the on and off-site flood conveyance
infrastructure.
Viii. What happens if upon the inspection by the City, necessary
corrections are not addressed, what is the City’s scope of authority
and plans for remedy?
Section 3.2.2.2 of the EIS has been revised to identify remedies in the
event corrections of the flood conveyance system are not addressed.
These enforcement mechanisms will be specified in the CC&R’s and
on the finalized and recorded final plat to ensure fees are paid
towards the reserve fund and the system is maintained is accordance
with the City and County’s requirements. These enforcement
mechanisms are anticipated to include but are not limited to late fees
and citations imposed on delinquent/defaulting property owners,
property liens, and a moratorium on any new development requests
from such property owners reviewed through the HOA’s architectural
review board and/or with the City and County Planning Department.
Public Comment #210– Reale-Pilkenton, Roxanne FEMA (08-30-21) Response to Comments:
"Hi Lori & Deanna,
Thank you for sending the DRAFT ENVIORNMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) for the
Painted Hills Development, for FEMA review and comment. I have read the DRAFT
ENVIORNMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) as well as Appendices A through I. My
comments have been limited to those that are in direct correlation with the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP).
The first observation made while making the first read through of the material is that
the DEIS does not seem to provide analysis for the entirety of the subject development
or its potential effects outside of the project area.
Are there parts of this proposed development that occur on land located in
Unincorporated Spokane County? If so will a separate hearing and decision be made?
Will both jurisdictions need to sign final plat/agreement/mapping documents? Will
CLOMR/CLOMR-F applications need to be done by Spokane County?
1. CLOMR Process: The Painted Hills PRD project proposes flood conveyance
infrastructure and the importing and grading of earthen material to
control the location of inundation of on-site flood events. Therefore, the
requested changes to the base flood elevation (BFE) and National Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) are outside the scope of the MT-1 team and
would not be reviewed under the CLOMR-F/LOMR-F process. Instead, the
Painted Hills PRD will be reviewed by the MT-2 team under the
CLOMR/LOMR process. Therefore, the majority of the public commenters
concerns raised CLOMR-F/LOMR-F are no longer accurate to the required
procedural review through FEMA.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
126
The scope of the DEIS and the attached Appendices do not appear to be consistent in
their analysis of the alternatives, or even which alternatives are discussed.
It appears that both a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and a Conditional
Letter of Map Revision based on fill (CLOMR-F) will be required for this proposed
development. The DEIS only identifies a CLOMR as required and the SEPA Checklist lists
a CLOMR-F as required. Because the applicant is anticipating removal from the SFHA by
both off and on-site storm drainage and channel improvements, as well as fill being
added to the site, both a CLOMR and CLOMR-F will be required.
A CLOMR-F will necessitate Spokane Valley (and Spokane County if fill is being added to
the site in Unincorporated Spokane County) to sign the community acknowledgment
form. I’ve attached a RISK Map Fact Sheet to this email that gives an overview of what a
community will be attesting to with their signature on a CLOMR/CLOMR-F.
On electronic page 15 of 279, partial paragraph, states that “Off-site and on-site storm
drainage and channel improvements will be made that will result in the removal of
approximately 48 acres of the site from the FEMA one percent-annual-chance
floodplain (100-year floodplain).” The first full paragraph, details that “These
improvements to the Gustin Ditch and to the triangle pond will eliminate the possibility
of the floodwater inflows to the site from the east as modeled in the current FEMA
floodplain insurance study for the area.” The second full paragraph asserts that “….will
be completed that would also result in the removal of approximately 44 acres of off-site
properties from the FEMA 100-year floodplain. Before these statements are made, the
CLOMR/CLOMR-F would need to be reviewed and approved by FEMA.
FEMA strongly suggests that Spokane Valley (and Spokane County as required) have the
applicant submit the CLOMR/CLOMR-F and receive FEMA approval prior to issuing the
needed permitting for the installation of dry wells and infiltration testing. FEMA has
recently reviewed the Spokane Valley ordinance as part of a Community Assistance
Contact and supports and approves the proposed new language that states “If a CLOMR
application is made, then the project proponent shall also supply the full CLOMR
documentation package to the Floodplain Administrator to be attached to the
floodplain development permit, including all required property owner notifications.”
The DEIS states on electronic page 24 of 179, in the fourth paragraph that “Because it is
expected that the CLOMR review and the City construction document review will be
occurring at the same time, the applicant expects that any system design revisions
requested/required by FEMA to ensure approval of the CLOMR will be integrated with
revisions to the construction document package as necessary before the City issues final
approval of the construction document.” It appears as if there is already the assumption
that system design changes could be required that further demonstrates why Spokane
Valley (and Spokane County as required) have the applicant submit the CLOMR and
A meeting was held on October 14, 2021, where FEMA Region X staff met
with representatives for the city, county, and applicant. Group consensus
concluded that the applicant would submit one CLOMR to FEMA as part
of a preliminary review process, that included all system components (on-
site in the city and off-site in the county).
Final processing of the CLOMR requires the City and County floodplain
administrators to sign the Community Acknowledgment Forms (CAF). The
applicant anticipates that these local agencies will sign the CAFs after the
installation of the dry wells and after the applicant’s design team makes any
final system design refinements, if deemed necessary. Through
coordination between the project applicant, the City of Spokane Valley, and
Spokane County, FEMA has agreed to conduct a preliminary review of the
CLOMR request in advance of receiving the CAFs. FEMA review of the
CLOMR application is in process and FEMA has provided initial comments to
the applicant on May 24, 2022, and a second round of comments to the
applicant on December 21, 2022. These comments request relatively minor
revisions such as expanded responses and revisions to application
materials. No modification of the flood conveyance system design is
required as a result of these comments; however, the technical review
process is not yet complete, and FEMA may provide additional comments
that need to be addressed.
Upon completion of FEMA’s design requests in the preliminary review,
FEMA and the applicant understand that the City and County will sign the
Community Acknowledgement Form and send a completed copy to the
applicant. The applicant will submit both “Certification Form 1” forms and
the revised CLOMR to FEMA to finalize the formal technical review process.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
127
CLOMR-F, receive approval, prior to issuing permits. FEMA suggests that if Spokane
Valley (and Spokane County as required) considers approving the project that they
would also consider adding a condition to the approval of the Painted Hills Development
that no permits will be issued until the CLOMR/CLOMR-F are submitted to, and given
approval from FEMA.
FEMA can only approve a LOMR and LOMR-F if they are consistent with the approved
CLOMR and CLOMR-F. Could Field changes in lieu of plans or process, not be allowed
and all proposed changes are reviewed in consideration of the approved CLOMR and
CLOMR-F documents?
Spokane Valley (and Spokane County as required) will need to ensure that flood permits
are issued for any work on City roads located in the SFHA. Any fill or changes to culverts,
bridge abutments, etc. will need to be included in the CLOMR and CLOMR-F
applications.
FEMA recognizes that the subject property is located in the compensatory storage area
designation of Spokane Valley. Because the DEIS speaks to the CLOMR removing this
flood designation, FEMA suggests that the application for the CLOMR and CLOMR-F be
approved by FEMA prior to permits being issued.
FEMA suggests that both Spokane Valley and the applicant, separately, request to speak
to the MT-2 processing team to discuss the anticipated staging of fill that will be
brought and stored on the site, if located in the SFHA. The storage of fill for 4 to 10
years could change flooding conditions and the CLOMR-F, and the CLOMR may need to
address this. The MT-2 team is happy to discuss the requirements for the CLOMR and
CLOMR-F applications for this situation. If contact information is needed please let me
know.
The SEPA checklist states that approximately 25 percent of the site would be covered
with impervious surfaces, the DEIS states 25 percent in Alternative 2b, but 30 percent in
Alternative 2a.
The SEPA checklist states that “Off-site flood convenance improvements in Spokane
County are anticipated on parcel numbers…..” FEMA would like to know how Spokane
County is involved with the proposed project and where they are at with any required
hearing or decision criteria.
The SEPA checklist lists that the threatened or endangered species are “None known.”
This seems to contradict information provided in Appendix H.
QUESTION: When is Spokane Valley anticipating requiring that the LOMR and LOMR-F
be approved? Would it be prior to buildings being constructed?
Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can provide any further information.
Kind regards,
Roxanne
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
128
Roxanne Reale-Pilkenton, CFM
Floodplain Management Specialist | Mitigation | Region 10
Office: (425) 487-4654 | Mobile: (425) 892-4036
roxanne.reale-pilkenton@fema.dhs.gov | Preferred pronouns she/her
Federal Emergency Management Agency
fema.gov"
Public Comment #211– Barrentine, Marianne - Spokane County (08-31-21) Response to Comments:
"Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner
City of Spokane Valley
10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Dear Ms. Barlow,
Spokane County Public Works submits the following comments relative to Floodplain and
Stormwater issues for the EIS for the proposed Painted Hills PRD:
1. Off-Site Proposal: We are concerned with the overall lack of detail and clarity on offsite
proposal in Spokane County and with addressing of the associated impacts. Suggest
maps/plans specifically to address the offsite areas. Also, the Biological Report and
Cultural Resource Survey do not appear to address off site project area at all.
2. CLOMR and Permitting Process: Spokane County requests that the CLOMR and
CLOMR-F package include all floodplain modifications, both in the City and the County.
Before County would sign off on the CLOMR application, we perform a detailed review
and accept project plans sets, engineering/geotech reports addressing infiltration and
floodplain hydraulic engineering, and a detailed Operation and Maintenance manual.
Spokane County Public Works will not approve or issue floodplain permits for work in
County until FEMA approves the CLOMR and CLOMR-F for the entire project and CSV
has approved the development. It’s not clear if this is proposed, but there needs to be an
alternative to infiltration testing beyond full scale construction of all the proposed
drywells in the Triangle Pond.
3. Triangle Pond /Gustin Ditch– Need to address use of Spokane County’s existing drainage
easement and current property owners needs for the Triangle Pond. This will require
project proponent to negotiate an agreement to purchase or obtain easement and
compensation for both. Also proposed plans cannot encumber County plans for
extension of 40th Ave. around the Triangle pond. Note as well that these need to be
addressed with letters of intent from property owners at a minimum before the County
can sign off the Community Acknowledgement for the CLOMR application.
4. Risk Analysis- This table needs more detail on potential failure impacts. A map to
address potential flooding would be helpful. This is critical for the Operations and
Maintenance manual and future maintenance efforts to insure potential failures and their
impacts are minimized.
1. Off-Site Proposal (Biological Resources): The Biological Evaluation Report
and Section 3.4.3.1 of the EIS have been updated to include descriptions
of existing biological resources on the off-site Triangle Pond property.
Section 3.4.3.2 of the EIS has been updated to discuss impacts to
biological resources on the off-site Triangle Pond property. As noted in
that section, no significant effects to off-site biological resources are
expected to result from the project.
2. Off-Site Proposal (Cultural Resources): The Cultural Resource Survey and
Section 3.4.6.1 of the EIS have been updated to discuss existing
archaeological resources on the off-site Triangle Pond property.
Additionally, Section 3.4.6.2 of the EIS has been updated to briefly discuss
potential impacts on archaeological resources and potential historic
properties of the Triangle Pond property. As noted in that section, no on-
going or future activities are expected to occur that would result in
significant effects when considered in conjunction with any of the project
alternatives.
3. CLOMR Process: See response to Public Comment #210 (immediately
above).
4. Reciprocal Use of the Triangle Pond and Gustin Ditch Site: See response
to Public Comment #39, Item 2.
5. Triangle Pond Risk/Factor of Safety: Section 3.2.2.2 of the EIS has been
updated to elaborate on “factor of safety” for on and off-site flood control
components. No construction activities other than those necessary to
install flood conveyance system improvements will occur on off-site
properties. While unlikely, a failure scenario where the triangle pond
floods would result in flood waters that over top the triangle pond.
However, HEC-RAS flood modeling indicates that a failure scenario would
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
129
5. Factors of Safety: Please clarify factor of safety for design flows in the stormwater
systems, both on and off site. We see different flow capacity for pipes and system in
different parts of the report and not sure its addressed at all for the off-site facilities.
Suggest a table of facilities with design flows and factors of safety.
6. HOA Maintenance: Spokane County has continuing concern with HOA being responsible
for maintenance, due to the uncertainty of their long term existence and capability to do
the critical work needed with this complex of a stormwater/flood control facilities. Need
stronger guarantee of ongoing maintenance for entire system, including facilities in
Spokane County. Note also, a proposed detailed Operations and Maintenance Manual for
the entire system and proposed implementation/organization plan will need to be
submitted before the County will sign the Community Acknowledgment for the CLOMR.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Marianne Barrentine, PE, CFM
Water & Environmental Program Manager"
result in flood waters remaining on the triangle property and therefore,
no water would be displaced as a result of adding the triangle pond.
6. Maintenance of Flood Control Components: See response to Public
Comment #27, Item 2.
Public Comment #212– King, Leslie – Washington State Department of Fish &
Wildlife (08-31-21)
Response to Comments:
"August 31, 2021
City of Spokane Valley
Attn: Lori Barlow
10210 E. Sprague Avenue
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
RE: Painted Hills Planned Unit Residential Development Project , project file numbers
PRD-2015-0001, SUB-2015-0001, EGR-2016-0066 and FPD-2016-0007. Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
Dear Lori,
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) would like to submit the
following comments for consideration pertaining to the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS):
The Painted Hills PRD Biological Evaluation, Critical Areas Report and Habitat
Management Plan dated February 28, 2019 explores three separate alternatives of
proposal for development. Alternative # 2 and #3 employ buffer averaging to allow
encroachment into the buffer and provide mitigation to off-set it.We look forward in the
future to more in depth discussions regarding the buffers and mitigation.
The Department of Fish and Wildlife continues to stand by the comment submitted on
1. Chester Creek, Fish-Bearing: See response to Public Comment #43, Item
2.
2. Flood Control System, Fish Passage: Section 3.4.3.2 of the EIS has been
updated to discuss effects on fish during a flooding event. No significant
effect to fish life is expected.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
130
November 16, 2018 to the proposed Conditional Letter of Map Revision- Fill (CLOMRF)
which declares Chester Creek a fish bearing stream and does not support re-typing
from F to Ns. Not only does Chester Creek meet the physical characteristics of a fish
bearing stream according to WAC 222-16-031 (3), but there are also resident fish
observed living within the system. It has been observed that fish do get transported
downstream, likely on an annual basis, during normal run off conditions.
Page 73 of the DEIS cites the consulting biologist stating that the on-site reach of Chester
Creek does not provide fish habitat. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
would respectfully disagree with this statement. While this may not be premier fish
habitat due to past alternations and periodic drying, it does provide for regular seasonal
use.
The Department of Fish and Wildlife has concerns under the Proposed Flood Control
Plan. Flood water of Chester Creek will be captured and conveyed to an artificial water
retention system. This has the potential to transport and trap fish into a stormwater
system which serves the planned residential development. Upon reviewing the materials
provided in the DEIS, it is unclear how the proposed flood water system will keep fish
from entering the flood water/storm water system and how they will escape this system.
It appears the effects to fish life are not being recognized as an impact and therefore no
mitigation is proposed to off-set these impacts. We recommend this loss of fish life is
recognized and assessed and then is addressed through appropriate mitigation
sequencing.
Lastly as mentioned in the previous comment, any work conducted on structures such as
culverts and pedestrian bridges within the project area will require a Hydraulic Project
Approval (HPA) from WDFW and be designed to meet fish passage standards.
Thank you for your time and the opportunity to provide comments.
Sincerely,
Leslie King
WDFW Habitat Biologist"
Public Comment #213– Clark, Tom (08-31-21) Response to Comments:
"Ms Barlow,
My name is Tom Clark and I have lived in the Painted Hills neighborhood for over 30 years.
I have previously responded to the city with my concerns regarding the proposed development
of the property known as the Painted Hill Golf Course property ( the site ) and continue to be
adamantly against its approval. Having now reviewed the the current DEIS for the PRD I have
the following additional comments:
In reading the DEIS it is evident that the developer ( Black ) continues to force his
development onto a site which for many reasons is not suited for it. Beginning with the plan to
remove the site from the 100 year floodplain by raising the elevation of the site in itself shows
1. Construction-Related Traffic: See response to Public Comment #149,
Item 2.
2. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
3. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public
Comment #27, Item 2.
4. Erosion Control: See response to Public Comment #154, Item 5.
5. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
131
how desperate he is to push this through. While I'm not qualified to speak to the validity of the
proposed elaborate stormwater mitigation plan , it is obvious that the DEIS does not
accurately reflect the effects on our neighborhood of one of the basic components of the plan,
that of the trucking plan.
In appendix E under transportation it states that they would be hauling fill for FOUR YEARS
working 280 days a year. There are only 260 weekdays in a year so they are basing this
impact on working weekends and/or holidays to accomplish this in 4 years. Further in this
same portion of the DEIS they state that the haul route is only on Dishman-Mica road yet in
appendix G they clearly show the haul route running North on Madison and directly in front of
Horizon Middle School. This an example of how the DEIS is being written to meet
requirements and look favorable yet not really reflecting what the impact will be.
This structuring of the DEIS is also evident in the impact assessment to the schools shown in
Appendix D. The author of the DEIS uses the U.S. Census Bureau ACS to set the total
anticipated students residing within the development at 206. So using that number and total
number of residences at 580 ( per alt. 2b ) that is only .35 children per household. Common
sense and experience with other similar developments shows that this number is extremely
low considering the target market for homeowners in a development such as this. Again the
calculation used is not to reflect the actual anticipated impact but rather it is used to force the
development to ""fit"".
My second concern is having an elaborate storm water mitigation system being managed and
financed by the HOA. There is no detailed plan as to what kind of organizational structure
would be in place to undertake this responsibility nor a plan should the HOA disband. I
believe there is case law which transfers the maintenance and performance of such a system
to the City should the HOA not be able to do so. Is this a liability the city is willing to expose
themselves to ?? I would hope the council is involved in such a long reaching decision. The
impact to adjacent properties of a failure of the system is enormous and cannot be viewed
lightly.
Overall the City of Spokane Valley as well as the County has permitted numerous
developments in our neighborhood since the traffic study was completed. The traffic study is
now not accurate as the traffic loads on our neighborhood roads have greatly increased
The DEIS does not adequately address the impact to the deer and other wildlife which use the
existing undeveloped site. Again the DEIS tries to skip over this serious issue with a simple
statement that a corridor will be provided for the deer to use to cross the site. They do not
address the fact that with all the development that has been permitted in our area the wildlife
have nowhere to migrate to, even if they somehow were forced into a corridor to cross the site.
The developer and his team have no regard for our neighborhood asset of wildlife and what it
brings to our environment.
Regarding the 300,000 plus cubic yards of fill required to raise the site there are many issues
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
132
not adequately addressed in the DEIS. Other than the hauling calculations and truck route
questions raised above, no plan or mention of quality control for the fill or standards for the
same are seen in the DEIS. There is no source given for the fill. No plan to make sure it is
clean fill and not contaminated, no mention of how the fill will be suited for the site , and most
notably how the fill will be stabilized during the 4 plus years of importing and later while it is
awaiting the development to catch up . ( the development is a 10 year plan, the fill is 4 ).
One only needs to look at the dust, traffic disruption, road degradation , and noise pollution
that the existing development under construction at Thorpe and Madison streets has caused to
see what kind of impact such an endeavor will have on our neighborhood. This is a BIG issue
that is purposely not detailed enough within the DEIS due to the magnitude of its impact and
the inability to mitigate it.
Having witnessed the developers lack of maintenance of the site since his purchase, I believe
that the maintenance of the site during the 10 year buildout needs to be addressed in the DEIS.
Noxious weeds have invaded the site and have subsequently invaded adjacent property
throughout our neighborhood. He has let the trees die , he has also let the fences go into
disrepair , etc.. These are clear signs of his disregard for the neighborhood and his simple
desire to exploit the site for his personal gain without regard to the neighborhood. It is also an
indication that the city has no control over how he maintains his property now or in the future.
In closing I again believe that the developer and his consultants are desperately trying to
force a ""square peg into a round hole "" with this development. Rather than working with the
site and planning a development which works with the very nature of the site they are planning
a development with total disregard to the site and our neighborhood's environment. Economic
gain looks to be the only driving force. I look forward to the city's rejection of the DEIS as
submitted.
Respectfully,
Tom Clark
5214 South Cree Drive
Spokane WA 99206
509-991-3088"
Public Comment #214– Olmstead, Leslie (08-31-21) Response to Comments:
"Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner
City of Spokane Valley
10210 East Sprague Avenue
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
(509) 720-5335 or LBarlow@spokanevalley.org
RE: Comments to the Painted Hills Planned Residential Development – Draft EIS
Dear Ms. Barlow:
I have reviewed the Painted Hills Draft EIS and have comments and a few questions
1. Sources of Flooding: Section 3.2.1 of the EIS has been updated to
describe sources of flooding. The existing and future ground contours
generally slope toward the north side of the project area; therefore,
stormwater will generally flow to the north and not to the northwest
and across Dishman Mica Road.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
133
that will likely serve as comments. Please accept the questions and comments to the
Draft EIS.
Stormwater and Flooding
1. In Figure 3.6, the floodways run to the northwest. This development will have
an increased covered area (concrete and asphalt) of 25% of the total project.
Also, in the northwest corner of the PRD, the covered areas will be greater, due
to multifamily housing parking and commercial development parking. The
problem is stormwater will have a higher likelihood of continuing to run to the
northwest, not be captured for stormwater treatment and potentially flood the
residents in the trailer park located on the west side of Dishman-Mica.
2. This development will likely have impacts further to the northwest that
currently do not seem to be captured within this DEIS yet given the potential
economic impacts due to flooding of a trailer park, they should be considered.
3. Have additional box culverts been considered for the northwest side of the
project?
4. There has been a great deal of discussion of the flooding on Thorpe. However,
changing the flood patterns within this area will likely have impacts to Madison
as well. Have those impacts been looked at? What will the mitigation
measures be in relation to Madison?
5. It is not clear how the compensatory storage areas will be compensated or
mitigated in detail. I would like to see more information in relation to this
aspect of stormwater management."
Both onsite and offsite flooding impacts have been evaluated, including
potential impacts to Madison Road in Section 3.2.2 in the FEIS and
illustrated in Figure 3-8.
FEMA’s review of the CLOMR/LOMR will be completed before permitting
approval for the purpose of determining engineered solutions to on and
off-site flooding are viable, and no water will be displaced onto surround
parcels.
Public Comment #215– Navarra, Gerard (08-31-21) Response to Comments:
"Hello Lori:
Below are comments in response to the DEIS for the proposed Painted Hills development adjacent
to Thorpe Road:
· Almost without exception, the common scenario for flooding around the golf course
property is high run-off over frozen subgrade. That implies that the proposed idealized
design is based on a circumstance that will rarely occur, ie proper bio-filtration before
injection into the aquifer. The most likely flood scenario managing mechanism for the
proposed system will be to dump large quantities of untreated water into the aquifer via the
over flow drains. This will be combined with a substantially increased pavement area when
project build-out is complete. A proper design must include substantial storage capacity to
provide a reasonable likelihood that the overflow mechanism will not be triggered.
Alternate 2A obviously does not accomplish that end. It is not clear that even 2B would
achieve this goal, since volume comparisons (current storage versus proposed) are not
indicated in the DEIS. Underground pipe storage should also be considered in the
developed areas to provide sufficient storage to avoid unfiltered injection and
1. Water Quality (Aquifer): See response to Public Comment #17, Item 5.
2. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public
Comment #27, Item 2.
3. Construction-Related Traffic: See response to Public Comment #149,
Item 2.
4. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
134
contamination of the aquifer and local water wells. A phased build out would also be
prudent to verify the adequacy of the proposed system and leave options open for
additional storage to supplement the system in place of designated housing lots if it proves
deficient.
· The DEIS does not provide any grading plans with which to make comparisons of the
proposed versus existing adjacent property grades. In the likely event that clogging and icing
occurs in the overflow drains, what adjacent properties will be immediately affected and to
what degree? What are the proposed elevations of the new lots as compared to residential
units immediately adjacent to the PRD. A fund should be available to immediately put into place
enhancements or repairs to the flood control system should they prove inadequate. Flooding
could occur before the HOA payments have built to a sufficient level to provide more than minor
maintenance. The presentation on the impact of truck traffic is inadequate. Firstly, truck traffic
doessubstantially more damage to road surfaces than automobile traffic, even though typically
making up only about 5% of ADT; therefore, downplaying it as 1% of ADT is intentionally
misleading. Truck induced damage to roadways is especially bad during thawing periods.
Secondly, transporting 30 CY of material requires the use of truck and trailer. If the more
likely scenario of single trucks are used, the average number of trucks entering the site
jumps to more than 40 per day or one every 11 minutes. That will be a wearingly high
intensity when considered over 4 years. These numbers will be even worse on “nonaverage”
days. The pavement damage is undeniable when considering over 25,000 truck and trailer trips or
50,000 single truck trips. The developer must be held responsible for some of these costs when
issuing the grading permit, as opposed to the taxpayer. Here again, alternative 2A appears
unreasonable.
Thank you,
Gerard G. Navarra, P.E.
Spokane Valley, WA 99016
509-951-1405"
Public Comment #216– Brandle, George (08-31-21) Response to Comments:
"Hi Lori and John,
I am against this development as presented in the DEIS.
First, the biggest issue I see is the huge movement of dirt to raise the earth level. The truck
volume will change our neighborhood character potentially for YEARS.
Second, the movement of so much flood water into ponds and UIC wells makes me very
nervous based on seeing floods here for nearly forty years. I also doubt these will be
maintained properly if we must rely on the Homeowner Association to do the maintenance
(look at the recent Miami condominium failure for a homeowner organization failure).
Third, UIC wells in the ""triangle pond"" are very close to my underground well. I am nervous
these will contaminate my and neighbor's wells.
1. Erosion Control: See response to Public Comment #154, Item 5.
2. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public
Comment #27, Item 2.
3. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3.
4. Water Quality and Flow (Residential Wells): Public Comment #1, Item 1.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
135
Sincerely,
George Brandle"
Public Comment #217– Brandle, George (08-31-21) Response to Comments:
"Hi Lori and John,
Sorry, I forgot to include my address on my comments sent a few minutes ago:
12906 East 40th Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206"
1. This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS.
Public Comment #218– Thesis, Jared (08-31-21) Response to Comments:
"Hello - my name is Jared Theis, and my spouse is Krystal Theis, in which we live at 4219 S.
Madison Rd. Spokane Valley, WA 99206. We are writing this email as a public comment for
the Painted Hills Planned Residential Development (PRD) project, file numbers PRD-2015-
0001, SUB-2015-0001, EGR-2016-0066, and FPD-2016-0007
(https://www.spokanevalley.org/paintedhillsdeis).
In particular, our concerns related to the flood control plan outlined in the DEIS, specifically
the cost to maintain and/or replace the flood control system that will be the responsibility of
the HOA once the development is completed. The HOA will not have the financial means in
the long-term to support the system without incurring significant and unsustainable fees on the
residents expected for this type of development (estimated at more than $1000 just for this fee
without consideration of any other HOA costs in an area that is planned for ""affordable
housing""). If that is met, then the city will be responsible, which would be a significant
liability that is not the proper use of taxpayer dollars for an area previously designated into
perpetuity as a flood plain with a golf course as highest best use. Not to mention, but the
environmental impact that it will have on the surrounding area with lower level lands, Chester
creek (which is a fish bearing creek per the WDFW), the triangle pit, and Gustin ditch for flood
control is not a viable and appropriate solution. The potential flooding to lower level areas for
current property owners also has not been adequately considered (building up the level of the
ground will have a significant impact on the flow of water, which does not appear to be
adequately addressed and will significantly damage property values in the area). I do not
understand how the City of Spokane Valley or FEMA would approve this plan, especially in
light of other potential liabilities in the long-term (see ""Phillips vs. King County, consider the
National Flood Insurance Program, etc.).
Additionally, the DEIS report for schools appears significantly flawed. The school district
does not have capacity to take on the increased number of students which they have previously
indicated, especially in light of the new school (Ridgeline in Liberty Lake) that is only serving
that area and not planned to reduce the burden, especially with the significant increase in
population in the valley experienced in recent years that is expected to continue for the
foreseeable future. The DEIS indicates only a few homes with school age kids (recall 15 or so
estimated in the study), which cannot be a reasonable estimate given the 580 units planned that
1. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public
Comment #27, Item 2.
2. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3.
3. Construction-Related Traffic and Fill: See response to Public Comment
#149, Item 2.
4. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3.
5. Public Services: See response to Public Comment #126, Item 4.
6. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment
#6, Item 1.
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
136
are family units for a neighborhood in this area that likely will have one or multiple kids per
households (as a comparison, they are clearly way more than 15 kids per 580 homes in the
adjacent housing areas). This needs to be reconsidered and properly assessed on the impacts
to the local schools, which are already very near or in many occasions over capacity for proper
support of students and their education.
Traffic safety and maintenance, which is another responsibility of the city, also does not
appear to adequately address 1) the number of trucks and damage that will occur to move in
the fill needed to start the development (over 35,000 truckloads estimated, which are heavy
equipment and severely damage normal roads), and 2) the increased traffic that 580 homes
will bring to the area that will cause issues relative to school zones, current traffic
lights/intersections, and other area roads (incl. sidewalks, street lights, and supporting
infrastructure) that will cause significant cost to the city.
There is also other necessary services that will be impacted, including fire department
support/evacuation, police support, ambulatory support, utilities (water, sewer, garbage), etc.
that do not appear to be properly assessed and addressed for the impacts to the surrounding
community and City of Spokane Valley resources.
This is certainly also not ""affordable housing"" given the expected price tags that will be
needed to support the developers costs with the number of units, so doesnt actually address the
housing needs of our area. Overall, while I recognize the need for more housing in our area to
support the population growth, this is not the appropriate solution for the aforementioned
issues.
Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for you consideration.
Jared and Krystal Theis
509-750-4382"
Painted Hills PRD
Final EIS Comment Responses
March 2023
137