Sullivan & 16th Education Service Center
~ a654i °-~407 ~.~L.~GIf ~34~ t~~~ UU~1 C1~11~~~5'7S~lA ~tYl"r'i~k~ 04/~'~/77 ~'A~ U~I~'~
F] FiE li~~'~'~IVCb UM lPfNl~t~VED rar~,~~ LA~l~ Ii~l~'I~. T~T~I~. ~
~1C~~.,~ ~CitM:~ V~tLlJ~. ~CFt~S ~1RLUE ~G:~C~S VALU~' ~~ALU~ VALI~E YI~ ~X CO~~ '
~o~Q~ ti~~c~a ~~ao~ ~ao
~ aLoo ~ :~~oo ~~ooQ ~ Qa
. OG ~ QQ ~ J~'0~? 4 ~~44 ~30~~
~a~ ~!i ~~f~F Y ti~' ~S 20~"T
~.3 i ~r' 7
~~14 i -0~#~ ~ ~ ~Yh~[:S G{°IR~~'T1~lA ~pX ~
1/L`~~~~t~L~ l.~A ~~U~7
p~~~.3rb 1~~1~~1 J'~1l='~S° T(7T~L ~~f=IF~ C~41~.~~ GChI`.IAX U~~'~~'t~ ~J.W~E~I? U~l~'ll.~A~
~X ~ ~~..t~0 1 ~.~3QO ~'.34U0 ♦ On A ~3U~ . O~ O Op ♦ 5Q ~30~ ! 0,~
~40 i~"0~ 1"8~~ ~~Q00 .a4 .t~0 .00 ~40 ,00 .00
S A(~U ~ f~ ~.I~i~ U. W~~h:~+ !~i~F`I).1 ~1X C:X C~~l:, YF~ ~'T lJ T~;E. U~ WCED U~lF'~' . TAX L~ X C(7I?~
~f~ ~T o~~ . d4 i 40 3
(.~H~~t'Tl~A faY~~1~,~ VEI~FI ~lS30f"'f C)F ~1;'4FT C ~3~
~ ~f 97
~q44 ~ 1 F~09 S S'l~Ll.Z1~+A~! 14D ~s~`QKA~J~
I~LT ~'if~ ST Fi'fi~5 T~I~hM~ ~TH,S' ~~S"i~l ~CJN~S` (~r'~~ C(~~lD C"~' f~0 1DW GD lJW I"~I~ ~~S ~'AT ~i`2T
t. i~' 91 0~~ 03 0 i ~ 0041 ~ ~4 3
A~~ Sl~f~ ?~K ~oF'T GAC~ S~F' lJS~ UNT'S' L~1T SIZ L.~C'~~A ~l~k~l~~ S. ~(~Ti~ ~.~'~'~CC~ ~~'f= (l
,~r a~ oa ~ ao ~ ~ ~a~o
~
~LA ~ 'Jf~l~ ~L~ ~ ~~L ~iLD 3 ~'~I..
OOt ?~(~Q ~000~04
zc~~~ ~~~~r r~~~~ ~~~n~ a~~~~~r~~~s~~
g U 3~'
M~~41 W04U~ ~I_~GI~ 3~ ~-1 ~14 7 rp01 ~4~~4 V~~iA J.1~F~ ~J ST C~~t~7/80 T AX ~'A~.U
1=~I;L° I~iF'F~~V~~ E11~~MC''C~pU~~ TOTAL L~~ID TM~'f~~ rq~'Al.
~C~,~~ (~~~,CS V~iLUC ~1C~(kS' V~L~.~l ~L"~;E~ ~Al_U~ ~~~~..~lk '~AI.U~ Y~' L~ ~:(JJ~~
~350n ~'3~~G 83 4~4(~
~.'3~44 73~~~ 14~
~ VU A VV .t ~~~/14 ~~',.~..~V~J
'~~f`~ I~~l~~l~'T ~~l" ~w7b~"'~ OF
T~ 1~'7 ~XL ~l~ a~ i& ~XC i~g 3Ui`Y ~I° Ei ~'~~'I"
~'t~~~~-~{~~~19 ~ ~ll F~~ 11~f~ U1ST ~ i5 604 ~.V~~GI"~ECI~
~I•'01(f~1~~ ~J~ 9'9?f w
o~~:~~~~ ~.n~~ ro~rr~~. c.~'zF~~ ~.w~.c~ ~~:~~~~T~x u.~~~~ u~~a~~~ u~~n.r~~
~X CQ~ ~~~~aU ?~~00 r UU .5U ~ ,~U~ , ~ ~ , OU . 00 ~ 0(3
~~0 ~~SUp G3`.i~0 . C~0 . UU , Oq ~ 00 . n~ . Q~
~ QQ(J. N~'f~l~ U. Wl~.f ~ l1~ll-'~ ~ T~~! h= X GCI~?E YI"~ ~ST U. F~f~~' U. WEEU U~F'D w T~n ~'X C~~~
sr
~
~}~:.f~eA Ihil~ ~r~r ~E~,~ w~~t~~-~ r-_~~~~~~r t~r- ~ f~~
~ T~ i.xc ~t~~ r ~ ~xe ~~;~~i= r or ~;~~a~r
~a~~~
~s r ~~M,~° ~+~i~~t~,~ ~ ~i~IS 1~S~fT C~1;~S F~f~rC~ G(~ND I~ ~w ww ~r~ r~~+ ,rs F~n t ~ ~ t
~
y~r~~ ~i~~ c,nr~~ ~~~s~' U~1~ ll~lT~ 1~0~' S:l.Z L.~rd~:~ p~►~~~~ s. n~~r~ `=~r~rc~ ~i ~r~• a
SI~. C~31,34177 ;'~3U~n tJi544$~4
~L~ ~ V~tL ~~~.D ~ VAL ~ VA~.
~~1~l~' H~~i T I~C~~]~' ,~xDC AF~F~~;~ CS~~
04
~ ~c,~4~ ~Q4~ ~(`~'~.Y1 ~~-a~9? ~~~1~~~~~~~ t~~i~l"hAl_ V SCHqf~~, 0~/31I~33 TA~ Ui~h'D
IL ~I~'C ~~fr'~q~~l:~ ll~lT~f~'hqVF~ ~'~~'Al. L~~l~ li~F'I'z. T[~TAI~
~ ~',C{il'S ~GI~C VAI lJC' ACl;~S ~rALU~ ACi~~~ ~A~..~1~, ~~Al UE VA~.II~ YI~ CX ~q~~
~OU(~ bUUQ 8~ i ~f~
' ~QQ~J bt~qU ~~4 i ~t?
~ no . ~o ~aa~
v~.~~ w~~~:> ~ c~~~ ~ ~ ~
~~(3C+' C1F ~+~.i~ 1~'~
~f~541-~J~A51 ~L~.~ 4 C~'i4T~~1~ ~ALLE:~ ~Gl~i ~1 ~ST S ~ r~~WD,[~~-I i~D
~f'~K~~C Wf~ 99:'.Ob
O~a1 T~33 ~_C~~l~ 1i~1-'~° Tq1 l1~. G A~• ~~,C A WC~~? CINkT.1'AX ~1 A~~.i~~ ~l Wk~~ U~l~'~ .~'~X
LX C;C?~ f~0~0 ~►{?OU . U4 .00 a Qq . 4A .Oq
~ 44 ~DOU ~a~UU . 0~ . ~q s 4~J .Oq . ~0 .00
~ 9QU. ~~'I`~,L l~. W~k.S~ UN~~ a TAX EX t~(~I~C YF~ S' T l~. x~E U,~(~ ~A U~F'D . T~1X Ex (~~~DE
,
YF; ~ 1' . UU ~ ~ 14~ ~~0 ~ '
.
~1rr~_ ~1 a~~~~~,. ~'l~ ~1~~~~ ~ Q~' C5~ ~ Qr ~t'~~ .1
1~r
~ ~Q ~ a~ ~~~~i ~
~
~
~
~~~ai :f ~~b ~33-o~~w ~U~o~~S~oo C~r~r►~A~ ~ s~~:~at~~~ ~sr~~ ~ aX ~~v~~~
~~~'hCIVED ~a~~r~t~~avc~ rar~~ ~A~~ z~r~. ~oi~~
' ~~LR~ s r~C;r~C~~ ~rALlti~ A~~~~ v~~.t~F ~~~~~sy ~~~.u~ V~~.u~ ~rni~,u~_ ~i~ ~~x c~}~~ ~ J
~~OOQ 9g0(~U 1~q 0
~ aoa ~ s aac~ ~~a ~ ~
.oo .~a ao~ c~~ ~ 1~
v~r~~ ~~~r ~.xc ~~T~~ .
~ ~xr w~a~ ~ ot~ ~5~ ~ ~ c~~ ~a ~ ~ A~~_ ~i it ~ ~
a
Q.
~ ~
d7~ia~i-~5~~?~t~~ i~~P~TRA V~I.,~Y S~I'I ~iS'T ~S" i?,~ ~~~1Wnl~fl N~~ v
l~ A
S1=~C~KA~E WA ~~+~~Qb
t~61 `P~~ l_A~D ~,i~NS 7~TAl.. G. i= ]~i~ l~~~D CEl~T. T~X lJ .I~ ~I"11: l!, lJ~~,~ U~I~'~.1 AX
~~I~ ~1000 5'~ a~(? . QJ ~ U~J .0~ .Oq , OQ ~ UO
144 ~'14U0 s~►100t~ ~~4 .QO ~Qt~ .Qt~ .4U
4 40U ~ h~ 1 f~L 1J . WCCD 41~l~'U.1 AX ~.X COD~' Yk ,5~7 U. i-~1~i~ U ~ WE~~? 1JNF`D CODC
Yfi ~T . Qf~ ~4. ~ 4~ ~3n ~
~
~E~1' h~l~ V,S'GHQ01_ VL-C~~ ~~LK i 9~ EX(~ r~a' ~ ~3
3 ~ f,:XG W~ CJ~ 0!~ ~3t} ` ~ c~LL ~LI( i 9~3 _ , ~ - -
~
_ I
I '
~
tl d !
~1°
~
M404 PIM RMD SRGKANE 1AdA 99206 1•S09•828•9240
~
LETTER OF tIRAWSAA1TTAl DATE 2M1. September 1983
T~~ Jerry S i mms _ RF, EDU'CAT l`ONAL SERV'I CE5 CENTER
~
Spokane County Engitlaering
Gentlemen:
Encl'osed herewith please find ~ copies af the follawing ,terras
❑ Shop Drowings CM Prints ❑ Color Selecfions ~
'Q Speciflcdtions C15omples ❑ Other
DESCRIPYION: Pre I iim inary P1 a,n for CentralI Ua I,l ey Ed,ucatli ona [ S,erv i ces Center.r
S i te P I an, Scheme E
These ore trtinsmitted as checked below
0 Approved as Noted 0 As Requested 0 For Approvol
0 Returned f or Corrections Cl For Revaew 8R Comment 17 For Payment
(M For Your Use1 CJ Ohller 0 For 6isbursal
REMARKS:
C'r• - -
SIGNED.
~
,
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT '
.
~ STATEMENT
~
EDUCATIONAL SERVICES CEN°TER
,
s ~ 1viARCH 1983
s
~ LEAD AGENCYm
Central `lalley School Dititsict` ,
~ No. 356 '
~
~ ~
0
0
'F INAL
ENVIR'ONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
~ EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, CENTER
•
Proa`ec't Sponsor:
Central Va}l l ey Schoo1 District No. 356
0
0
March _19831
•
Le,ad Agency:
Cent ra'1 Ya 1'1 ey School Di st ri ct No. 356
6
•
'Pr,epared by:
HAWORTN AND ANDERSON, INC.
West 621' ,Mal 1 on 'Avenue
e Spokane, Washmgton
99201
0
~
INTRODUCTION
This document, to9ether with the previously puDlisned araft environmen-
tal impact statement (Novemuer 3, 1981)9 comprises the final environmental
~ impact statement for tne proposed Central Valley School District Education-
al Servtces Center. The project will eventually consist of a 74,000+-
square-foot core structure housing central warehousing, building/grounds
maintenance and administration, Lransportation maintenance and administra-
tTOn, an Tnstructional materials center, possidle kitcnen and laundry func-
tions; a 20,000-square-foot central administration building; and four ve-
~ nicle storage buildings (two each for 38 buses and two each for 40 smal l
vehtcles). It will be constructed on a 14.4-acre site located near the in-
tersection of 16th Avenue and Sullivan Road. The proposed pro,ject also
calls for a landscaped earth berm to be constructed along the perimeter of
tne site as necessary to buffer the warehousing and bus storage facilities.
The proposed project wtll be constructed 1n several phases.
•
Since the issuance of the DEIS on November 3, 1981, the Oistrict has
sol d a one-acre parcel to F1 re Di stri ct 1 for a future fi re stati on. Thi s
parcel, as shown on the schematic on the following page, is located in the
northeast corner aiong 16th Avenue. The parcel is 180 by 242 feet in di-
mension with the longest side fronting along 16th Avenue. The site design
• will oe alterea slightly as a result of the new configuration. The north-
ern ous storage and small vehicle storage facilities (future phase) will ue
moved south to adjoin the Pnase II facilities (wnIch will not be altered).
This will set the facilities back approximately 200 feet f rom 16th Avenue
(as compa red to approximately 60 feet under tre original proposal). Tne
total numder ot storage spaces will be reduced from 48 to 30+ for buses and
~ 40 to 30} for small vehicles. This change would result in a slight reduc-
tion ot tne environmental impacts discussed in the DEIS. These include
moving of yard area (and noise generated from bus varm-up) further from the
residences along 16th. The displacement of the structures further south of
16th would also reduce visual impact on these residences. The fire station
(wnen constructea) would also provide vtsual buffering. The change will
` reduce the District's potential vehicular storage capacity, however.
Tnis environmental impact statement was prepared in accordance with the
Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (RCW 43.21C) and the SEPA
Guideltnes (WAC 197-10-580). The EIS generally ana]yZes the impacts asso-
ciated with the development of the proposed project.
~
The material contained in this document represents the product of the
draft environmental impact statement review process and contains comments
received from the consulted agencies and other interested pa rties. The
document al so contains comnents received from the publ ic in a heari ng hel d
on December 21, 1981. Responses are provlded to appltcable written and
~ oral comnents. Tne final date for receipt of written comments was Qecemder
8, 1981. For purpases of clarity, the surtrmary of tne draft EIS along with
the taole of contents of that document also have been included in this
document.
This final EIS was prepared under the direction of tne Central Ualiey
~ Scnool DhstrTCt as lead agency with the assistance of the consulting firm
of Haworth and Anderson, Inc., West 621 Mallon Avenue, Spokane, Washington.
• ~
Sixteenth Avenue ~
- ~ ~ .
,
Flre Dlstrlcc ~ f
~
I BB1
~ StorsDO 8aial! Ve11loh
8ultdtag r8torpgo 8ulfdJnp
30 v$ hic s tut Vers Po wer A
, Ws:er
, 30 Yehicles tut.
I
I
p I
L8msq Veb/ofe
~ 6ua ~
8tor~gs 8ulldtap
S~orepo
S
evridu,a
~
O
C
sni.s ~
~
-
~
~ = I
• ~ 08s Pufncs
~
w. diep
~ . ~ „ ~~Ad00ftQf/0(f a ~ l!1 ~ I
- Ifalnronaaeo~ aturv! btrlCt
A nU Ie !00
• i - - ~ '
e ~
► 6 ry ` ~ I
I ~ V rv ; ~Y
Y L
1
• s c V A y i~l~ E,fOt~F ~ <
o u ~ F.
O~ Or F
LBGZND
1Vote: Slte p/ens ;
Phan i
on pages 1 l,12
end 13 dsplc! i ~ 2 PbM Q
i
~
3 Pbaee 8
~ orlg/na1 s/te p/an ~ TruQ ~A
se,rtee voAlcr.s e Futm PhaEft
•
Revised Site Plan
1z
~ HA1IDA77t 6 AYpFIRSUfV /N4`. 0 i6v
~ Concallar+u m im-rrorrmrfUal analynr pfumrlny, rrvrrown ~
•
~
Backgrouna datd 1n support ot tt►is aocument may de fiound at tne otfiices ot
both the lead agency and Haworth antl Nnderson, lnc. The ofticial date ofi
issue ot this tinal EIS is March 22, 1983.
~ Tne circulation of this dacument is prescribea in tr►e SEPA Guldelines
(WAC 197-10-600) Wh1Gh dirpcts tnat the f1na1 EIS must go to "the depart-
ment of ecology, office of tne governor or tne gavernor's aesignee, tne
ecological commisslon, tne leao agency, agencies witn ,jurisdiction, and
federal agencies with jurisdiction Wh1Ch received the draft EIS". It is to
be made available to tne puDltc in the same manner and cost as the dratt
• EIS. Cost for the final EIS is the cost of reproduction ano mailing.
f
•
•
♦
~
i
~
!
~
TABLE UF CUNTENTS
INTRODUCTION i
e, TA6LE UF CUNTENTS OF THE ORAFT EIS................................... v
DISTRIBUTION LIST vit
1. SUMNIARY UF THE ORAFT EIS 1
~ II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 9
III. FINAL EIS CUMMENT LETTERS 17
A. Letters Hot Requiring Responses 17
B. Letters Requiring Responses 23
• IV. HEARING COMMEPfTS AND RESPONSES 79
APPEPIDIX A: PRdJECTED COSTS UF MNKING EXISTING FACILITIES
COMPARABLE TO PRUPOSED PROJECT 113
APPENDIX B: PUTENTIAL SERVICES CENTER SITES CUNSIDERED BY DISTRICT.. 117
~
APPENDIX C: EFFORTS TO CONSIDER OR NEGOTIATE ALTERNATIVE SITES...... 120
•
r
•
~
~
iv
~
~
TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THE DRAFT EIS
INTRODUCTION......................................................... i
LIST OF MAPS AND TNBLES iv
! DISTRIBUTION LIST v
I. SUMMARY 1
A. Project Description and Obj ectives 1
6. Impacts 1
C. Alter~atives 3
0. Mitigating Measures 5
~ E. Unavoldable Adverse Impacts 7
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 9
III. CATEGORICAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 16
A. List ot Elements of the Environment.......................... 16
B. Elements of the Physical Environment......................... 18
1. Earth 18
• 2. Air, 21
1 Water 27
4. Flora 37
5. Fauna 37
6. Noise 39
7. Lignt and Gla re 47
~ 8. Land Use 48
9. Natural Resources 59
10. Risk of Explosion or Hazadous Emissions.................. 59
C. Elements of tne Human Environment 61
1. Population 61
2. Housing 63
~ 3. Transportation/Circulation............................... 67
4. Public Services 79
5. Energy................................................... 85
6. Util~t~es 81
7. Human Health 91
8. Aesthetics............................................... 92
• 9. Rec~eat~on 94
10. Archaeological/Historical................................ 95
11. Addittonal Population Charactertstics.................... 95
12. Economic Factors 95
IV. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SNORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT
ANO MAINTENANCE ANO ENHANCEMENT UF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY....... 98
• V. IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES.......... 99
VI. ALTERNATIYES TU THE PROPOSEU ACTlON 100
A. No Action Alte~native 100
B. Alternative Site Locations 103
C. Alternative Uesign Concepts 109
VII. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 113
• REFERENCES 114
APPENUIX A: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND PLANNING INFORMATION........... 115
•
v
!
~
LIST OF MAPS AND TABLES
Vicinity Map 10
Site Map 11
~ Site Plan............................................................ 12
Phase One............................................................ 13
Topography 20
Non-attainment Area Boundaries 22
CO & TSP Monitoring Sites............................................ 23
Sumnary of Suspended Particulate Matter.............................. 24
~ Expected Contaminant Removals Using Grassed Percolation Areas........ 29
Aquifer Recharge Area 31
Water Quality Sampling in Site Vicinity.............................. 34
Water Quality Standards 35
A-Weighted Sound Levels and Human Response Characteristics........... 40
Noise Receptors...................................................... 42
41 Generalized Land Use 49
Zoning 51
Generalized Comprehensive Plan (1980) 54
Site Plan 57
Population Growth in SuDareas by Census Tracts for 1970 and 1980..... 62
Sumnary of Spokane County Subarea Growth, 1970-1980 63
41 Census Tracts 64
Housing Units Dy County Subdivisions with Incorporated Area Totals... 65
County Subd~vistons 56
Average Daily Traffic 69
Traffic Projections for Central Valley Services Center (1995)....6.60 73
Accidents Along Sullivan Road 78
! Schooi Locat~o~s 82
Central Val ley School Di strict Enrol lment, 1971-1981 83
View Orientation 93
Assessed Valuations of Central Valley School Facilities.............. 96
Alternative S~tes 105
•
•
•
•
vi
•
~
DISTRI6UTION LIST
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
~ Washington Archaeological Researcr► Center
Washington Office of the Governor
Washi ngton State Departnent of Archaeol ogy and Hi storic Preservati on
Washington State Department of Ecology, Ecological Commission
Washington State Department of Ecology, (2, one to SEPA Register)
Washington State Department of Ecology, Spokane
iWashtngton State Department of Game, Olympia
Washington State Department of 6ame, Spokane
Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Oiymp9a
Wasnington State Department of Social and Health Services, Olympia
Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Spokane
Washington State Department ofi Transportati on, Olympi a
a Washington State Department of Transportation, Spokane
Washington State Energy Office
Wasnington State OffTCe of Ftnancial Management
Washington State Superintendent of Publjc Instruction
Planning and Communlty Affairs Agency
Spokane County Air Pollution Cont rol Authority (SCAPCA)
• Spokane County, Boa rd of County Commissioners
Spokane County Building Department
Spokane County Conservation District
Spokane County Engineeri ng Department (4)
Spokane County Hea 1 th Dis tri ct
Spokane County Parks and Recreation Department
~ Spokane County Planning Department (5)
Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney, Civil Division
Spokane County Puolic Lidrary, Va11ey Branch (2)
Spokane County Sheriff's Office
Spokane County Utility Department
Spokane Regional Planning Conference
• Spokane City Planning Department
Spokane Publ ic Li brary
Spokane Transit System
Spokane Valley Chamber of Corrmerce
Central Ualley Scnool Board
Cent ra 1 Va 11 ey PTA
~ Fire Oistrict #1
Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company
Valley Garbage Service
Vera Water ana Power District
Washington Water Power Company
Spokane Oaily Chronicle
• Spokesman Review
The Valley Herald
Oon Stone, Attorney
Stan Schultz, Attorney
•
• vii
~
1. SUMMARY UF THE CONTENTS fJF TNE URAFT EIS
A. Pr ect De 4~
a~ scriptian and bjectives
~ The praject unaler review is tMe construction at a propased EducatiQnal
Services Genter far the Central Ual1 ey Scnoal Di stri ct #356. The devel op-
ment, upan fina l campl eti on , wi 1l consist af a 74,000-square-fiaot care
structu re housa ng central warenousing, bu11 dy ng and grounas maintenance and
administrati an,transportatian maintenance an+d aarni nistration, a curri euT urn
~ library, and patential kitchen afld laundry functians; ,a 20,000-square-foot
central admiRistration building; and faur venicle storage building5 (tuva
each for 38 buses and two each for 40 smal l verricl es). The site al sv wi 1l
be devel opea with a four- to ei ght-fovt-nigh landscaped earth berm al ong
1ts entire perimeter. The site is 15.4 acres tn area. The project wi11 be
develaped in pnases a5 aescribecl under Sectzon af this EIS.
•
Trie pr7mary obJectt ue of the prapased praaect i stn increase tne effi-
ciency dna reduee tne casts at District operations. Additional objecLiwes
are as fv1 l ows : (1) ta praui de as'te and faci1 ttrt es that wi 11 meet the
anttcipated future support neeas vf the Central Uaj 1 ey Scnoal Dhstrict; (2)
ta qain tne aduantages and econnmies of cansolidation of facilities on a
~ single site; (3) to 1 ocate tne praject so tnat i tis cent ra i ta the ext st-
i ng and future acti vity centers of the Di stri ct (acti vity centers are be-
fined as scnool s and otner Ui strict faci1it1 es and (4) prpvide tne Dis-
trict w1th faciltt7es that 1t does r1at currently have but does need, 7n-
c1 uding cold storage, central warehoustng, a~~ bUilding/grouncis mainte-
nance.
!
B. Impacts
Elernents af the Physical Environment
Eartn
0 * 1}isruption, d7splacement, a.nd reaistrlNtian Dt the s1te`S soils.
* Constructian of a four- to e1gnt-t00t-h1gn eartn berrn alang the
perimeter ot trce site.
* Alteration of topograFhic cvntours.
Air
• * Temporar°y oust and particuiates auring construction pnases.
* Increase zn traffTC-related emissions.
* S1 ignt ana tempvrary aaor duri ng paving.
* S1 7ght ad4r fram di esel bus operatons.
Water
• * A1 Leration of site' s runvft aRd ansorption cna racterisLi cs .
~ Increase in irnpervious coverage to 79% of tota1 site area--54%
paving/walkway5, 25% roottops, and 21% 1andscdPing.
* Additt on of contami nants to Spokane Val 1 ey aqui fer vi a storm water
runatf.
.
* Aoaition of contaminartts to Spokane Va l1 ey aquY fer v1 a septi c
~ drainfield effluents unt11 nooked into sewer system.
1
~
~
Flvra
~ Remaval fram pro0uction ot approximately 15 acres vt cui ti vatea
agricultural land.
~
Fauna
* Wildiife species will be dispZacea tempararily fram the site during
c on st ruct i an .
* Existing nabltat (whicn Zs perladica1ly disruptea oy cultivation)
wi l1 be repl aced oy domesti c 1 awn grass, snrubs, trees, and natirre
grasses over landscaped ar" , whicn wlll be more dzverse and staole ~
thaP1 Whdt preSBTttly +2X15tS.
Nai se
* Tempvrary increase in noise levels during canstruction.
* Increase of averal l noise 1 euel s fram on-sTte operations.
* S17gnt increase in averali traffic nartse levels.
~ Increase in peak no7 se 1 evel s duri ng departure and return of duses
at access poi nt5 and alang 16th Avenue and Sul van Road.
Li ght and Gl a re
* New ] 1 gnt sources created.
!
Land Use
* Cnange fram agricultural to institutionart use.
* Potential Confllct with adjacent land uses, particular1y resiaences
to tne nortn.
* Some Tvca7 resicientS nave abjected to the proposed project because
ot perceived land use ana zofling conflicts. ~
Natural Resources
* Cansumptrton ot energy resources during construction.
~ Energy eonsumption far neating and vperati on of Di strl c't veni cl es.
* Reduced fuei consumptyon re]ative to tne Dystrtct's existyng trans-
portatlan site. ~
Risk vt Explosion or MazarOaUS Emissions
* Fue1 ana vther potential ly nazardous material s stored vn-site.
Elements ot tne Human Envirnnment
~
Popu7 atian and Hausing
* Preclusion of housing and population growtn an the affected site.
Transportati on/ci rcul ation
* Increase 1n truck and equipntent traffYC during pro,Tect constructian
prra ses . ~
* Graaual incredse in tratfiic generated ay an-site operations tnrouqh
various tanstruction pr►ases.
* Prajectea veht ci e tri ps per scnool aay for tota] aperatians (at
full build-aut (15 to 20 years in the future)): apprQximately 1,370
trias per day (approxtmately 570 employee trips and appraxirnately ~
BU2 aperations trips).
Z
•
#
Projected bus trtps cturing sCnool year. morning (6:30 a.m. ta 9:15
a.m. 148; noon (11: a0 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. 48; ana afternoon
(2:uu p.m. to 4.00 p.m.), 164.
* Morning peak naur trdffic generation,, approximately 190 inoouno aRd
~ 45 vutbvund.
* Increase in accioent poten~iai between vehicles and bicycles or
pedestrians,
* Intrease in acciaeflt patential Det ween tnrough vehicles and turning
aeni cl es.
* Construction of Dus and smal 1 veh7 cl e starage aul1 dings : 95 bus
~ spaces, 80 small vefiicle spaces.
~ Exteriar parking for staff rremders and visitors: 346 spaces.
Puol Ic Services
* Increaed paterttial for fire an(i snerift aemand on praposed si te.
Improvea security over existing sites.
Ert e r9.Y
* Consumption ofi en€rgy during cortstrUction.
* Cansumptian of energy or heating (e1ectricity or natural gas).
* Consumptjon of fuels for vehicular trdnSpOrtdtlbn.
Lower fuel arrd energy consumptiQn relative to existtng s1tes.
UtYlities
* Extension (or coRnectiorr ) of water, power, communicati ons , ano pos-
sibly natural gas lines ta the site.
* Generatlan of ~torm water, sewage, and solid waste.
* Corisumptian of water.
~
Human Healtn
N/A
Aesttietzcs
# * A]teration of aesthetit cnaracter of tne site,
* Patential aesthetic conflict witP adjaceflt residential properties.
* Some 1oca1 residents have objected ta the propaseb project for
aestnetic reason5,
Recreatian
~ ~ /A
ArehaeoI4gzcal fnistorical
* NOfter
Econom3 c s
Potential increase in taxes ta Distrlct residents Ypr construction.
* Savi ngs to Dist r1 ct resi dents frorn con5oli dation, 0U1 k purchasing,
rnore etficient aperatian.
C. A1 ternatives
~ No Act i an Alternat t ve
* 5ite would r+emain in agricultural use for indeterminate t7me per-
iad.
3
•
~
* Potential fior a range of resldentldl to commercial/office aevelop-
ments.
* Potential for environmental impacts ranging from lower than to
similar to the proposed project (for most cases lower than). ~
* DisLrict would operate trom existing facilities and sites at addi-
tional casts to Dhstrict taxpayers.
* Redeve] opment of exi sting Di strict si tes or acqu isi tion ot new Dis-
trict sites for facilities.
* Possidle loss of ability to consoiidate facilities on a single
site. s
* Potenial relative increase in transportation costs.
Alternative Site Locations (see tne map on page 107)
* Phystcal impacts similar for construction on either proposed or al-
ternative sites.
* Traffic, noise, dnd land use impacts would affect adjacent residen- •
tial uses in similar ways at alternate or proposed sites. Degree
ofi lmpacts would depend on number ofi resldences ana existing noise
and traffic environment.
* Severdl sltes consldereb by Dlst rict but reaected Decause ot poor
geogrpanic location, poor traffic circulation, high land cost,
property not availadle, and nearby residences. ~
* 4th and Conklin site considered as alternative: site size marginal;
land cost high; lower potenttal for land use contlict; possIble
Zone change to restricted industriai; fewer adjacent residents; po-
tential circulativn problems; lower existing traffic noise environ-
ment, thus qreater relative noise impact to residents; increased
vehicle mileage ana fuel consumption relative to proposed site, out •
w711 decrease somewhat over the long term.
* Site east of Central Valley Hign Scnool considered as alternative:
cost unknown; siZe potentially adequate, zone c+►ange not anticipdt-
ea; shoreline area ot Shelley Lake; adjacent residents to south;
potential land use conflict; no street access, out potential access
to Sullivan througn the hign school site or to 4tn Avenue; noise •
impact from stte operations to adJacent residents; nearuy resi-
dences directly overlook site from anove; geographic location less
advantageous than proposed site, out better tnan the 4th and Conk-
1 t n si te.
Alternative Design Concepts ~
* Continue existing operations and acquire and deveiop sites for in-
dividual or combinations of facilities when expansion is required.
* Consolidation of facility on adequately sized site has following
advantages: operational efificiencies; savings to D1strict patrons;
room for future expansion, rpduGed overall land and Dulldinq costs;
better overall planning; better inventory and quality control; bet- •
ter communication, fewer areas in tne community impacted by opera-
tional actlvities.
* Construction ofi project on more than one site has following advan-
tages: potential for satellite ous facilities over the long range;
samller site sizes required, operational impacts ot site not con-
Centrated in one area. r
* Potential split site alternative: 4tn and Conklin for transporta-
tion, warehousing, and ouildings/grounds maintenance; retention of
4
•
~
existing transportation/aaministration site for expansion of adm7n-
istration onto reduced transportation site with satellite busing
from site; satellite bus facility at Libery Lake in long term; kit-
~ cnen and laundry facilities as presently exist with new facilities
in new schools.
D. Mitigating Measures
Elements vf the Physical Environment
i Eartn
* Erosion and runoft control during construction phases.
* Landscaping completed sTte and long term development areas.
Air
Dust suppressants to reduce construction dust generation.
* Cleaning of construction and operational vehicles to reduce dust
carried off tne site.
* Paving of all driving and parking areas.
Wate r
Drainage control ana runoff plan approved oy Spokane County Engi-
neering Department.
* Connection to sewer system when available witn interim sanitary
waste disposal in accordance witt► Health Ohstrict guidelines.
Flora
Landscaping of site, lncluding landscaped earth berm around peri-
meter of the site.
* Maintenance of lanascaped earth oerm.
* Increased diverstty ot plant species compared to existing condi-
tions.
* Permanent flora habitat, uninterrupted dy agricultural activities.
~
Fauna
* Increased diversity ot trd and small animal haoitat byincreaseed
diversity of plant species and planting of trees and shrubs.
Noise
Stanaara construction noise aoatement tecnniques.
* Berming and landscaping to reduce operations noise to off-site re-
ceptors (can be placed prior to actudl construction on-site).
* Plan for scheduling and locating ear]y morning operations to mini-
mize oft-site impacts.
* Control bus driving techniques and departure/return routes to lower
• peak noise levels received Dy residences adjacent to access points
at tne nortn end of the site.
Light and Glare
* Use iow density lignts and direct to specific areas to reduce ott-
site intrusions.
• * Landscaping will screen lignt and reduce diffusion to off-slte
properties.
* Use of non- or low-glare ouilding and roofing matertals.
5
•
~
Lana use
* S1te design to reduGe Tmpaets on adjacent properties•
* Landsca.ped berm for Screening exlsting residentidl ana po55ible
future resiaentia] uses. ~
* Low bui lding prof i1es and design to reduce appearance ot oulk.
idatural Resources
* Nare.
Risk at ExpZ 4si on flr Hazardaus Emiss ions ~
* Speci al storage area far pater►tial ly hazardaus cnemical S.
* Handle matertals in aGCardance w7th appropriate pracedures.
* Urrdefground fuel starage.
Elements of tne Human Environment
~
Popul ation and Housi ng
* Non e,
Transpartatlon/circulatyon
* Improvement ot 5u1 livan Raad to ft ve i anes and 16th Avenue to four
1 anes wt tn signalization of Sul Z ivan /16th intersecti vn . Eventual ~
four- to fi ve-l ane improvement of Su] 1ivan koad to 32nd Avenue.
* Provi si vn of 1 eft- and right-hand turn lanes i nta site.
* Careful design of southern access points to ensure adequate sYte
di st,ance.
* Separati on ot various types of vehicl es using access points and
internal ctrculatTOn. ~
* Provlsion ot sidewal ks ana bikeways to recluce potential vehicularJ
bicycle,/pedestrian confi ict.
~ CUDra1 fldte access aesT gn witn Spokane County.
PuL11i+C Sef^rf1Ces ~
* Sitc and facility design features to reduee potential Reea tQr po-
lice and flre services, i.e., secured buildings, storage areas and
fuel storage areas, security llgnting, use afi nan-flammanle nuila-
1 ng rnaterl al5, etc.
Energy ~
* Centrat locatton requces venicular fuel consumption relative to
exisfiing sites.
* Use ot efi fici errt heating sources ,and conservati on techniques.
* Encourage Use afi transit or carpaol ing Dy District employees.
Uti 1 ities ~
* Caar(iinatj Qn witn uar1 ous uti 1 it7 es i n terms of si te clesi gn and
constrttcti an schedul ing,
* Connecfi to se+wer 11 ne w"en avai1 abl e.
~ Consider developing recycling program far liquid and so1id wastes.
Human Heal th ~
N/A
6
•
~
Aesthetics
* Sensttive site design.
* Landscaped earth berm wltn natural flora.
S * Use of materials and building deslgn to reduce appearance of dulk
' and provide well-malntained appearance.
Recreation
N/A
i Arcnaeological/nistorical
* Notify approprlate autnorities if items of potential signlficance
are encountered.
E. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
~ Elements of the Physical Environment
Ea rt n
* Disruption ofi on-site soil.
* Approximately 79% of the site's surface overcovered oy Duildings,
waikways, drtveways, and parking areas.
Slight alteration of the site's topography.
Air
* Potential uncontrollanle dust from construction activities.
* Increased emissions from vehicular traffic.
* Slignt and temporary odor firom paving and diesel dus operations.
~
Water
* Alteration of existing ausorption and runotf patterns.
* Slight contaminant contrioution from storm water in spite of adher-
ence to county's storm water management quiaelines.
* Slight contaminant contributlon from drainfield effluent until
• sewer hook-up.
F1 ora
* Removal of aoout 15 acres ot land from agricultural production.
Fauna
Reduction ot overall naoltat area for on-site wildlife species.
Noise
* Generation ofi constructton noise during various phases.
* Traffic generated uy site activities will have a slight impact on
overall traffic noise levels.
• * Un-site operatiorrs will potpntitally increase noise levels receivea
dy aajacent properties.
Light and Glare
* New light sources to local area.
~ Land Use
* Potentiai land use conflict witn adjacent residential area to tne
north.
7
•
~
Natural Resources
~ Energy coMSUmption in constructi an and operatZOn of proposed pro-
ject.
40
Ri sk of Explos7an ar Nazardaus Emt ssions
* NOne.
Elements of tne Human Environment
Popu 1 at ifln and HQU s i ng
* None.
Transportatlan/cY rcuiation
* Temporary increase in traffic during canstruction phases.
* Permanent 1 ncrease in 1 aeai area traffic(approximateiy 1,370 ve-
rricle trips per scnool day, with a reu uet ian of bus : kitchen, a,nd ~
laundry related trafflc (luring sct►+oQI vacations or ho1ida,ys).
* Increase in Dus and truck trips on Sul livan Road. Some increase in
bus traffic aiong 16th Avenue.
* Access points far some auses near existing residence$.
PutiIi c Services ~
* potential dernand for Qolice and fire services.
En er9.Y
* Non-renewabl e energy resou rces consurned during construction and
project operatian.
~
Utilities
~ Use ofi sept ic tank and draintiela fior interirnsewage di sposal ,
* Generation of sewage and sol zd waste.
* Water cvnsumption.
* Increased oemartd on el ectrical ana telepnone systems.
•
Human heaith
N/A
AeSthetl G5
* A]teratzon of aestnetic cnaracter af Lne site.
* Project wi11 difter in scale and nUlk from surrounding structures ~
to tMe nartri.
* Perceivea as adverse by some lotaj praperty owners.
Recreat ian
N jA
•
Arcnaeologica1/h7storica1
~ Nane.
Econornics
* PoCential 1ncrease in taxes to D7strict residents to fiund canstruc»
tion. ~
8
•
~
II. DESCRIPTION UF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed pro3ect, the Cent ral Vailey Schoo] District Educational
Services Center, is sponsored dy Central Valley School District #356. As
• shown on the fol l owi ng vi cini ty and si te maps, the proposed proaect 1 s 10-
cated on a 14.4-acre site near the southwest corner of tne i ntersection of
Su 11 i van Road and 16th Avenue.
Information related to ionfng interpretation is included under Spokane
County Zoning Admustor File No. I-3-80.
~
The proposed project will be constructed in several phases, all of
which were discussed in the draft EIS. The initial phase will involve the
constructi on of a core structure that wi 11 eventual 1y be added to and wi 11
house the central warehousing facility, possible central kitchen, possible
central laundry, building/grounds maintenance, vehicle maintenance, and in-
~ structional materials center. The functtons contained in this initial core
structure will include (1) administrative space, (2) building/grounds main-
tenance, and (3) some central warehousing. Outdoor covered storage and
parking and loading areas will also be developed. Tnis phase will also re-
sult in the construction of a landsacaped berm around the perimeter of the
site. (The proposed site plan and phastng are shown on the following
~ pages. )
The second phase will involve the addition of a vehicle maintenance
faci1 i ty to the core structure. A vehi cl e wash faci 1ity, a 40}-stal 1 bus
storage building, and a 40+-stall small vehicle storage building will also
be developed. Paved parking and yard area will also be developed in con-
~ junction with these tacilities. The third and subsequent phases will in-
volve addltlon to the core structure, the District administration duilding,
another 30+-stall dus storage bullding, another 30+-stall smali venicle
storage building, and additional covered storage.
It ts anticipated that the tnttial phase will commence in 1984 and the
~ second phase in 1986. The timing for the subsequent phases has not been
establishea at this time. The timing and extent of construction of each
phase (after the first phase) will be dependent on district financing
(througn uullding fund) and economic analysis. The draft EIS discussed the
impacts of the proposed project at full duild-out.
~ Although the specific construction details for the project have not
been developed at this time, it is anticipated that the structure housing
the warehousing and maintenance functions and the vehicle storage Ouildings
will be tilt-up concrete construction. The exterior treatment of these
structures has not deen final ized at this time, but the use of flat earth-
~ tone colors has been suggested. The roof will be a polymer spray-on mater-
ial i n ei ther a bronze, grey, or off-white col or. The roof pi tch wl 11 ue
minimal in order to maintain a low building profile. The core structure
wl11 be 20 to 25 feet in height, and tne venicle storage facilities will be
auout 16 feet in height. The Oistrict administration building is antici-
pated to oe one story in height. Lanascaping will be provided along the
. perimeter of the site as well as in selected interior locations. All land-
scaped areas will be provided with an trrigation system.
9
•
• • s • • • r ~ • • ~
~ ~ S ~
IIL
r
i ' 1~ w.o1J J_ ~ A
M1
I7- ~ ,
J~ ~1 I
q
'a ionyw M
Atf*V vuir Wer
rr ~ ~ ~ { ~ ~ f
T Y em
4
I I y' f - ~4, ~ I
( Y. ~ {.`p < * r /_p~
Adi A.x
n. . ~ a : a. ~ snan~r = ~ C
~ t a~ ` r ~ 1 1010 L ~ ~ lfbulr it1• Q
C t
~ ~ ~ cd
40
~t~' t a ~ _
Ate S
r y
~ ~ • 'Fr~`~ L"la.(i~ ~ A, ~L' C\ f~
MMy ~
r F ~ ~
M
~ a
<
a
O
r~
ouniar ~ouao.~t
Vicinity Map north
h o
IInrooaTn C nvurestax i%c~ 1 Mae
~ ~
\ Can+uhantc in rmvunmrnttl armlydi pk1u~U{~ tt6Wirrttr~
e ~ - - ~ - 1
8lstesatb Avenne
I I
• I
~
I '
1 II
.
VERA WASTER & POWER
I
~
B ~ b
0
~ = p
~
_ o
~
1 °
' S'te
. ~
I ' 4
~
.
I I I
~
I K
I I
s '
~ no:te
~
- s ~ , ~ ~ • ~ ~
Q 18o,
I
I
~
~ S'1't e Illl ap )
~ NAI~l~~T1ii6 A11~DERCOJ, IV~,
Cc
~ ntuiltartu /a tntd►wtrrteautJ amolyd#
plannU~ .cuyiuenrn /
~
•
, /100 ~
Sixteenth Avenue
+ .
a• ~
:
x
~
i
N ~
~ 11n w c'
~ Bta~O~ aisau vaelcra
QnNdlp 8towago fylfdAp
; . : e
. c
I^'
I
1 eo-~
~ ~ ~,s.e~r v.eroh
dtori0e B+r1JdlAo
8tao'ape
z
QI►"m
O
~n,.. ~
r- -
~
1 ~ N
UMTMTI I I I I I I I -
I ~
. IM_ ~ PotnO/ \J~~1 1 1 l 1! 1 V
\
IYI blA~ ~
~ _n t iistpoit~tro atws, ti~'iTdf ~
^ ` afwt~u~~er~ ~nNnfanaUo~
.
x
0
O
. Oor F ~ a
o > - ~
' ~ ` ► ~ r r o s ~ ` ~ e ~ ~
ph~1
~ Z Ph~!
i ~
PSa" s
~ ~ .
Seirlce VsA.lale• F ~ phuft
I
• I
Site Plan ~
1z .
HAbWR7'N t ~1~phRSUV f~~i. 0 ~
~
ta,u,Junni ~n e.nyrrnenvm~J ,owlyu~, oWnrH~ awru~rn
~
•
a / - -
~ Slxteenrg Avenue ~
I
•
I
•
I
1 ~
• ' I
~
,
• B I o
I °C
~ m~ ay~ t~' e
~ Ser ~e ~
~
_ Z
~
4 y ~
~ ~ 1 I
'
Administration ~
Service
Vehicle Park(ng - I
. ~
~n
Fenced kt ~ c-
Covered Storege-
.~r.
• Building ~
~ Maintenance Ceniral Warehousing ~
I I~
I
w p
(
e
(Phase One hor`h
o i Zo'
kniMaTM t AaDr,&stJ.% M
~ ' CunrrfWnre,in artrin~nnccRtaf mc~lyuti'plr~ub~~r ceow~iud~ /
~ \ - - /
13
~
Construction of the proposed project will involve the following types
of impacts to the site: grading for building foundations, parking and
driveway areas; excavation for utility lines, and storm and santtary waste
water disposal; and overcovering of soils with paving and structures. An
• internai czrculation system (wtth employee and visttor parking, loading and
off-loading areas) will intertie with Sullfvan Road and 16th Avenue. Four
access points will link the sTte to Sullivan Road. Two will De designated
for scnool buses, delivery trucks and maintenance vehicles, with the other
two for admintstrati ve stafit and visitors. There wi 11 al so be one access
point to 16th Avenue for school buses that would use 16th Avenue. Sanitary
~ sewage will be disposed of on-site via septic tanks and drainfields. The
on-site system wtll be designed to facilitate eventual hook-up to a valley
sewer system when available. Storm water will be disposed of on-site dy
dry wells, grassed percolation areas, and other means acceptable to the
Spokane County Engineer's Office. It is anticipated that runoff from roof-
tops will drain to dry wells and that grassed percolation a,reas usea in
~ conjunction with dry wells, siltation ponas, or oil separators will dispose
runoff from surface impervious areas.
Tne site of the proposed project is within the planning and zoning jur-
isdiction of Spokane County. The site is presently designated for Urban
use urtder the Generalized Comprehensive Plan (October, 1980) and zoned for
~ Agricu 1 tural use under the Zont ng Ordinance. The fo11 owi ng deta i1 ed def i-
nition of the Urban Category is excerpted from the Comprehensive Plan:
A. Uensi ty Characteristi cs :
Residential net densities snould nave an approximate density
~ of 1 unit per acre to 17 units per acre.
B. Characteristic Features:
Since, UrDan a rea s will be th e most i nten sel y deve 1 oped of
all tne Categories, it is primarily a resieential Category of
single family, two family, multiple family, and condominium
« outldings along with neighborhood comnercial, light industrial
ana public and recreational facilities.
Agricultural activities will be very limtted and considered a
seconda ry use. The aesthetic settinq will be predominantly man-
made structures with occasional natural or planned open spaces.
Most areas in an Urdan setting may not have a view of natural
~ areas and open spaces will most likely consist of park and/or
scnool grounds.
Low to moderate levels of noise and air pollution will most
likely exist in Urban a reas due to the intensity of activities
and the high voiume of traffic generated.
The more intenslve land uses such as light industrial and
. nelghoorhood commercial will de located near the heavily trav-
eled streets while the least intensive single family residential
uses will ue isolated from the noTSe and heavy traffic. Multi-
family structures will usually be a transitional use located be-
tween single family resiaential and the more intensive areas.
~ G. Puolic Facilities and Services:
Urban areas wi 1 have publ ic water systems, sanitary sewer
systems, storm sewer systems, and utility systems such as elec-
14
•
~
tracal, tel epr►ane, gas, and cabie servlces. Streets wi1l be
curbed and paved. Street i i ghts and si dewal ks wi l1 oe common tQ
restdential, RuD11c, and commercial areas. Specialized pathways
may alsa be commvn 1n tne Urban area.
Publi c faci 1ities incl ude e1 ementary , j un ~or hx gh s a11d hi gh
schoal s. Parks wi11 norma7 ly be assocl ated with school s but nat '
exclustvely►, Putilic libraries, manned fire stations, meclical
facilities, and government offices and Rvst offices may be dis-
persed throughout Uraan areas.
Other services typica7 of Urban areas may include police,
publ ic transit, refuse col l ectian and remaval, animal control, •
and 5tree4 IlfaIn4enanLea
0. Nan-Compat i ale Uses.
Que ta the va,riety and mix af land uses and artivitoes faund
in the Urban Category, the re a re few I and use acti vi ties that
would be inapprapriate. Many uses may requlre screening ar ~
other performance standards to maf€e them eompatible with one
anotmer.
Mining, major commercial UsES, heavy industria] uses, and in-
tensive farmY ng wvul d not be cvmpati b l e within Urban areas.
The proposed praject woul d genera lly meet the use def lniti on for the ~
Uroan eategory. The lvcatian of the site ad,)acent to 16th Avenue artd Sul -
livan Raad, aoth heavYly traveted streets, and tne use of l andscapea aerm-
ing d 1 ong wi th other design t0n5iderat7 4n5 to reduce Impact vf the faci1 i-
ties ,wou1d be withi re the criteria af th i s category.
At tne present tlme the Spokane County Zoning Code has not spetiifieally ~
EnVl S 10rled the Construction of a School U1 Strict a(imi nistrati on and ma 1 nte-
nanCe center 0n a site W1thaUt a sChoo1. Therefare, assuming that the eit-
i stt ng zoning coae j s appl tcable, the exi sting zoning may potentia11y re-
quire the fol 1 owing rezone and permits : adrni ni strati vn offa ces and curri-
culum liDrary^-conditivnal use permit; centra] storage facility , central ~
kitchen, and rnai ntenance areas--zone change to either commercial ar i i gnt
industrial; and nus and srnal 1vehicle storage--conditional use permit. The
Spakane County Zoni rig Code is uneergo3 ng substantial revi sion, howeuer, ne
date Mas been s2t for adaption at this ti rne.
~
~
S
15
•
~
III. FIMAL EIS CaMMENT LETTER5 RECEIViD
The following pages Contain tne comment$ received an tne Central Valley
Scnool Distrrtct Eoucattonal Services Faci lity draft EIS. The written cvm-
~ ments received from consulted agenczes and ather interested parties are re-
praduced i n the form i n which they were recQi+ved. The f irst secti an con-
tai ns letters whicn requi re no response. 7ne second secti vn incl uaes let-
ters to whrtch respvnses were mdde. Eacn camment to which a response was
g1 ven and the approprf ate response is numbered.
~ A. L.etters Not Requiring Responses
•
!
40
~
•
~
~
77
~
NOU 2 cl t"8' 0
nl' N '~f 11 r RI'V I,t
6t t -rlit ir
04~
ti I I t sl 11 ~ ti1 Iltic ,1 r~.
DIYAR rNILNT OF 1 ~ANi,51101%'l riON KF-01
November 20, 1981
•
iMr. Dave Jackman, Faci1 a ti es Planner
Central 1Jalley Scnov7 Dtistrict No. 356
S. 123 Bawdish Road
5pakane, Washi ngton 39206
Central Va17 ey Schao7 ~istrict
Educatianal Services Center
Draft Envi ronmentai Impact Statenient
Dear Nr. Jackson;
We have revjel+red the sub,ject dQCument and have rio corrtments to ~
affer regarding the proposaZ.
Thank yvu for the opportunYty tQ review this informatian.
Sincere]y,
y ~
RQBERT S. NIELSEN
Assi stant Secretary
PUb1 ic Transportation and Plannirtg
,
By: JoSEPM BELL
. Mana ger
Planning Implementation
and EnvirQnmenta7 PaTicy
hiN:sab 0
J$r QH
cc : W. R. Horni ng
•
•
~
1 ~3
o,~,•
JOHN SPEILtitAN XIXV(XLXX X~6X
GovernAr ~
X~NXXX'X
ST ATE ()F 14 4I.ti( , I c;N
WASHINGTON STA fE ENE-IZGti' Of FICE
~ 4W E Unron 1s( fbor ER-11 • (Xvntptd Wa,hutgfnn11li 104 • (106) 734 U;R)
November 24, 1931
!
Mr. Dave Jackman, Director Re: Central Yalley School Dist
Facilities and Planning Educational Services Center
Central Valley School District No. 356
• S. 123 Bowdish Road
Spokane, WA 99206
Dear Mr. Jackman:
SUBJECT: Review of Oraft Environmental Impact Statements
!
.
We have received your recent Environmental Impact Statement. Current
budget constraints, however, preclude the review of such documents
by the Washington State Energy Office at the present time.
49 In the event that we may in the future allocate resources to this
purpose, we will 6e glad to offer our comments and observations.
Sincerely,
~ Richard H. Watson
Acti ng Di rector
.
RHW/ jc
~
•
•
• .
19
p' ` '
= ~1""~ S C L ~
I
~t~ ~w
I(~~ I~~ '►PEI I i+'~l~N
m~ 1 lt ~i~.t) ~ f k'l ~1~ jf y4
~~~)~~'ff1131 v'rr « ~ ~ ( ?i!'IK 11 i
S1 1TE ( * ~X ti-Hftit, t+ IN
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLf )GY ~
t1.1t1 tilrrf~ - f 1 ~ ( 1r}rt~Nd ~1d~J'~rna{tr~1 'H't+r~l ~ t_IN~~ ,f5~1{~fXN)
*
December 1 9 1981
~
htr. Qave Jackman, Director
Central Walley School District t10. 356
South 123 Bowdish Road
Spvkane, Washington 99206
~
Dear Mr. Jackman:
'I'hank you for the opporturtity ta review the draft environmental
impact statement far the Educatiaaal Servic,es Center. Dep3rtment
staff have reviewed th+e document and have rio comments to offer.
~
If you have any questiQns, please call me at 459--6026.
Sincerely,
ldlt 0/ < 9 • ~
~
Debbie Fristae
Env;ranmental Review 5ection
DF:I1c
0
1 ~
~
I
~
~ 20
• TIo
~
IOHN SPELLMAN IACC)B THONU►S
Govetnor Mecta
~ STATE QF WASHlNGTON
OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORiC PRESERVATION
11 I West TwenlrF'mt Averwe. K[• 11 • Olympra, VNashrn8tor► 98504 •(?Q6) 753-4011
,
Oate: December 4, 1981
Log Reference: 276-C-SP-08
~ Project Title: Educational Services Center
Mr. Oave Jackman, Director
Facilities and Planning
Central Valley School District No. 356
~ South 123 Bowdish Road
Spokane, Washington 99206
Dear Applicant:
We have reviewed your draft environmental impact statement and
~ find there are no historic or archaeological properties on the
State or National Register of Historic Places, or the Washington
State Inventory of Historic Places, that wi11 be impacted by the
project.
In the event that unknown archaeological resources are inadvert-
~ ently unearthed during construction activities, please notify
the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in Olympia,
and the Washington Archaeological Research Center in Pullman,
Washington. '
,
Si ncerely,
\
Sheila Stump
db A►rchaeologist
•
•
•
21
Fnrm AEIP R-E (2181)
m* *
~
~ 7
i ~ ~ ~ OF1tZ~~ C~R
COUNTY UT1L1T[ES ~
WI1L1AM R. DQBRATT
UTILITIES DiREC'rOR
N. 811 JEFFERSOW ST. 456-3604
k sPoaAac cOuKrY GaVIVT aouat SAQKANE{ WASHINGTQN 99260 ~
Dec. 3, 1981
~
Dave Jackman - Director
Faci lf ti es & P'1 anni n g
Gentra ] Ya 11 ey S+cftaaZ Distri ct #356
5. 123 Bowdish Rd.
Spokane, Wa. 99206
~
Subject: Educatianal Service
Ctr - Draft EIS
Dear Mr, Jackman:
fihank you far the apportunity to review the draft EIS far Central ~
Val1 ey Sctroal aistri ct's praposed educational servi Ce center. The
County tJti1iti es Oepartment has no catrments.
Sfncerely, ~
_ Wi11 iam R. Dabratr. P. E.
, Uti7ities Di rector
~
B ~
y ~
drnes A. Leo , IF.T.
Uti i i ti es En4r.
JAL/tw
•
~
.
22
~
B. Letters Requiring Responses
•
~
•
•
~
~
~
~
.
~ 23
~
~ ~ . Urnted States Soil Itoom 350 JEC
Department ot Conservahon N S. Courrhotlse
Agriculture Serwce Spokane, % shingtun 99201
~
Dcc:e ber 138_
Oave Jackman, Director ~
Facilities a Planning
Central Valley School Distriet No. 356
S. 123 Bowdlsh Road
Spokane, Washington 99206
Dear Mr. Jaekman: ~
The Soil Conservation Service has reviewed yuur 1,•.ni't et,ti ironment: 'imllr, -
statement for Central Valley School Disrrixt's p1.1l+oseci Educatione a Serv&Lus
Center. lti'e offer the following comments and ions for your conbid~.~rat.Lc:,
Page 2, Faima • <<'e Question the cited temporat v d` 1--,pl3cesaent of wz idl ifa spc.: _ 1 ~
sin.e, as you state on Page 7.E.Earth, "Aprroxl %tely 79% of the site's r: 1LE
(wil l be) covered by builciings".
Page 3.C.,Alternatives• It should be nated these Garrison gravelly silt Loam 2
soils are, by SCS criteria, prime agricultur,il lands.
~
}'age 7, Water• Regarding "Slight contair3nant ro;trihutian from ~tf3rm ZvaTer 3
it is our understanding the Spokane Caunty Atltitfcr ivater Qitalit , Ntanagti., ac
Plan of 1979 does no± al low for any varlance fri} n the Plan critei,,-, Whenevc•:
variances occur, it ls our recommenciation the i,laii be referred tr
Fage 21,C Nfitigating Aieasures • Change rhe tivard "s}iould" to "wi i ' 1, Y . e . 4 ~
wi 11 be maintained with a protect ive grotincicover..and i 11 bi.
lanciscaped
Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft.
Sincerely, ~
,7
r/
~
LYhN A. BttOhN
State Conservationist
r
24
ihp 5001 cnoma► 11 ir "NtvICE •
~O~ • , "',Vr
Responses to letter fram 50i1 Conservatlon Service
1. See page 38 of the DEIS.
2. Tnts camment is noted. See page 37 of the DEIS (Section 4.4, Agricul-
tural Crops).
3. See Rage 29 of tne DEIS. The table showing expetted contaminant
remava 1 s using grassed percal ati on a reas (as recammended ay the coun-
ty ) indicates that cemp] ete contaminant removal wi l1 1 i ke7y nat ne
achi eved by the imp7 ementatian of the methads requi red by "Guidell nes
for Stot'mwater Management" (1981). Therefore, sltght quantitles of
eontaminants may be CbntP7buted to graund water even by using county
approved storm water management techniques,
4. These comments are noted and includee in this FEIS.
25
/ ( W 4
~ sTE~ IF ~~r uEI~AR"'d~: I ~~.e~~ ~ ~ ,1 ~l~ , ~ •
o~.,
, : wAS»lNG rOtv ti ~ ,t , , , ~ . .
^ John Spellman
Got ernoe
December 8, 1981 dic 9 W ~
Dave Jackman, Di rector
Facilities and Planning
Centra1 Valley School District 356
S. 123 Bowdish Rd.
Spokane, Wa. 99206 40
Subject: Oraft E.I.S., Proposed Educational Servit.es Center
16th and Sullivan Road
Dear Mr. Jackman: 40
I have reviewed the subject E.I.S. dnd have l.he following comments:
l. On page 19 the project will involve site grading foo levesing. al- ~j
though this leveling may not be extreme, the soils in thiy area
have very little top soil. In removing this top soil, tne coaric; ~
sands and gravels become exposed. This coarser material has iimita-
tions for on-site sewage disposal. Now will the school distric*
mitigate this effect as the reasoning outlined in "c" on aage 21
is really directed at erosion and surface runoff.
2. On pages 89 and 90, the sewage system proposed for the iiiterim 1s 6 ~
septic tank and drainfield. What is the projected sehagp loadir,g
for the various phases? Since a majority of the site wi;l hA paved
where is the proposed drainfield disposal area? Will the storm
runoff infiltration areas be in the samL general area as tne arain-
fields? Have any test ho1es or soils analyses been perfurmed t:
determine if the site is suitable for on-site sewage and storm ~
water treatment for a complex of this site?
3. On page 36, paragraph 3, chemical storaye will be provided tar on ~
proposed site. This office sees a definite concern of no} only
the handling of such chemical but in the way they are usEd and
disposed of. Many of the solvents and degreasers used conlain in ~
soluble organic campounds that, if entered inta :ne Qrour:awater
Pven in minute quantities, cari cause ser•ious health conce}n5. T~,,
E.I.S. only addresses an emerqericy spill procedui-t and n.),,. Jay-L.,-ciay
procedures. How will solvents and degrPvsers be dispnsed of? Vr'tll
there be any wash down of trucKs using nestir_ides and herh,ridric
and how wil i this be disposeL of7 Wit'► :era _..a:,perty i..►ny ad- ~
jacent and a proposed wel l s-e thi s w.hele sectic i on cherr,cal s
and their disposal neEds to 5- expaiidec
This is the extent of our comments at this time. ~hojld you n3ve any
questions feel free to contact thic office.
•
Sincerely,
cc. uary P1 ews - Johr ticen
01 1ler'a Wdtr r & Pawer•
41"Z
eGe4orwg. 5ch1 ender 5i'°l an° i• r:
~
Environmental ist 26 'Yukdiw Li.. Uti 1itiez,
~
Responses to letter from Department of Social and Health Services
5. Soils in proposed septic drainfieid areas will be tested for suita-
bllity prior to construction of Grainfields. Should these areas nave
• unsuitable soils for drainfields (because of coarser materials), top
soils that have been graded from other portions of the site can be
usea to reach appropriate drainfield fill depth. In any event, drain-
fields wlll be constructed in accordance witn the regulations of and
under the approval of the Spokane County Health Distrlct.
• 6. The proposed loadings for the various phases are as follows: Phase I,
maxtmum occupancy of 30 persons, generati on of 15 gal l ons per person
per day, for a total of 450 gal l ons per Di strict work day ( 750-gal l on
septic tank with 150 lineal feet of drainfield); Phase II, maximum oc-
cupancy of 60 persons, generatjon of 15 gallons per person per day,
for a total of 900 gal 1 ons per Di st ri ct work day ( i ncl udi ng Phase I,
~ 1,350-gallon septic tank with 375 lineal feet of drainfield) ; Phase
III, maximum occupancY of 60 persons, 9eneration of 16 gallons per
person per day, for a total of 900 gallons per District work day ~eet
in-
cluding Phases I and II, 2,250-gallon septic tank with 625 lineal of arainfield); future phase (administration Duilding), maximum occu-
pancy of 100 persons, generation of 15 gal l ons per person per day, for
~ a total of 1,500 gallons (1,500-gallon septic tank and 417 linear feet
of drainfield); and future phase (central warehousing and vehicle
storage), maximum occupancy ot 50 persons, generation of 15 gallons
per person per day, for a total of 750 gallons (750-gallon septic tank
with 210 lineal feet of drainfield).
~ The proposed placement of septic tanks and drainfields includes a
2,250-gallon septic tank and 625 feet of drainfield north of the cen-
tral warehouse ana east of the offices (approximately 4,000-square-
foot drainfield area); a 750-gallon septic tank and 210 feet of drain-
field south of the central warehouse (approximately 3,000-square-foot
, drainfield area); and a 1,500-gallon septic tank and 420 f eet of
drainfield east of the administration bullding (approximately 1,200-
square-foot drainfield area). This results in a total septic tank
capacity of 4,500 gallons and 1,255 lineal feet of drainfield.
The storm water infiltration areas wlll de in the same general vici-
~ nity as the septic tanks and drainfields, but these areas will not
overlap. Adequate area will oe set aside to meet the separate re-
quirements for grassed percolation areas and drainfields. No test
holes have been exca vated at this time.
The projected sewage generati on of the ful ly devel oped project i s
~ equivalent to 15 singie famlly houses. Further, these are maximum
projected daily loadings WhiCh will occur only on school days (180
day s per year).
7. Solvents and degreasers used by the transportation and buildings/
grounds maintenance shops wtll be collected and stored in bulk con-
~ tainers for recycling. Use of such chemicals will be within shop
areas over concrete floors. Spills wi11 be contained within the shop
areas and will be cieaned up wtthout discharge to areas where perco-
~ 27
~
1 ation to the aqui fer coul d 4GCU1". Storage of these materi a1 s wij 1
al so be cantained with in tne shop faci 1it i es. Waste oil wi] 1 ne (as
is presently done) stared Irt bulk containers fnr collection and re--
cyc l 1 ng. A71 ma7 ntenance invol ving waste oi 1 s wi 1] take pl ace with Y n ~
tne snop area over cancrete surfaces. 5team cleaning of vehicle
motors, chassi 5, anci undercarriages wf l1 be p+erfarmed in a destgnated
wash area. This area wi l1 be encl osed to contal rt the wash residue
(olls, soapy water). The residue will be drained to an oil separator
and trien di scharged vta a dry wel l. (The o11 separator wi 11 be de-
signed to process the oi l/detergent/water mixture. ) Tanks conta i ni ng ~
nerD1 cides and ferti 1 i zers wi 11 be washed an a cancrete pad (the D1 s-
trict presently uses two tank rigs wTth 250- to 300-gallon capacity).
The wash water w#11 then ne applied tv the grassed percalatian areas
or Zantlscaped areas af the perimeter berms. Na direct infiltratian
Into non-vegetated soiZ will de permitted.
Tne Dtstrlct will al so comply wtth Chapter 773-303 WAC (Dangerous ~
Waste Regu 1 ations ) a nd Chapter 170.105 RCw ( Nazardaus Wa ste 0isposa l)
Inits usage of va rious chemical s an-s it e. The Dist ri ct will alsa be
required to obtain permits for undergrvund fuei storage and comply
wittn County oullding arro safety regulati ons. The procedures for un-
derground tank instal 1 afiian a re autl ined i n the foj 1 awi ng infarmation- ~
al bulletjns: "Installation of Ltquid Petroxeum Tank and Equipment"
ana "Insta] lation of Undergraunci Flammable Liquid Storage Tanks"
(avai1 ab1 e from the Spakane County Bui 1 tflng Department
~
~
~
~
•
•
Spo ~ane County
Hea th District
I ~4
e• = s~`
~~TIt11tT1 N
West 1101 College Avenue Spokone Washingtun 44201 t
....~~~A
Novemt+Pr 1?, 19A1
~
Central Vatlev Schnol District #356
Atimi ni strative 4fFiceg
5. 1?3 Bovdish R~ad
• Snokane, Washfnf►ton 94206
Attentinn: Aave Jeclrman, ni-Pctor - F'~^i' P•~- -1-4 pl pnnine-
~f~' Fet'V I.!`i+$ r["ntey'
• '"o-rt tr••ir^nmental Imn-rt fitatpment
DeRr Sirs •
Plea^e be A3v1sQil tha►t thiR Rreney has -rtvi e•vr#d f~irt nT3ft F11R/Z roT1^ p•it-0 TTPnct
StAtPment rrPpare~i f or CPntral Val1ev S,.~r'►~ 1 r'~ ~t •.i ~t' ~~+r0roS~d Flii: i nnnl
SeY'v'I cPg rPntPT' . We hmYP 'Fr1vt1[j ♦hs' i'!B*►.~i►~ fi a t~.~-r vs ~ t n bn rsolts+ri1 i- l`C►TrtTi C'te.
~ wpll-xritten, Pnd infnrmat.tve. We dn wir)I. ~~t'••I~jrR+r~ ~r•~ rrake thp f,i 1nwinP
commAnt•
Thrcauphout thP docurnPnt, referPnee to th^ -^tpvlinl ds-a-rndatiaira -P *~hrt ;'r"kn^A 8
AqUifPT bv RPVare effluent 14 inade. Thi• r►-s r,,%-,I in-riive4 the uee nY 3r on-0tP
sovar;e di spc+sFtl faci ] itv (sertir tank - firnin+'i ~1-1);Rnd IMmediatA (-nnnPctian tn
FL pub13 c seaere coll Pct3 on s,ystem i s pT1't if` iY'►n 1.^d ^ - -,nnn as one i wavni 1 abl e.
The potPntiql impArt, of thP drainPiel d~i qv^t°An on t.hP ARUit Pr i s diq-
cus9ed in detail ; but notPntial depraintinn nf *bp .`flnPi1T1P R;••-r -lot. ThP
future collection at seWare frnm tbt- SR ~,It,h ultivr*j+~ ~i^rr),q+l t,1a
the Spoknne Rivpr after treatmAnt e.t tt+A city ef qr,,knh- Pewar^ Trpitment F'lan#
GnUld/Wmi1d nntenti,01v i^'r1^t t'}1p Ri'ro-- Tk ..~..+..es..+~n~ nf fho% ~+rr•rn~-~s~ F'rjl-ft_
• t.] A11Rl fOTt'i^e'i rC`T1teT to thP r11t13'"Q' of V- 1 1 -r R .•o•- " .P.r ~ 'j t`io•~ f r'i t6- jA a i + jPiyr•^ 11
ct^v° j"- tC? +),t+ r2 t'vlq~: tv"Pnf "r rt r2•. j l j # ~ , n.. , i ~ ~ ~ r, l ~ th^ "'',`eV `1t'°9 T;i •r~sv-
Wp- PpPl thi s Tnj"t sho-31d ho zddregsAO 1-1 +~,M b ~ . T•..r~ ,a•~ ~e ti+~M,.~f ,
'!'hnnk Vota ft►>r th° r`T'ri:lrt11[lltV t+o Gfa'='1S"#"1" -a 1. • a~ }.s.. Tf V-•1 1'In,rrs tijtv
r! *^"R-
i ^^.A . ri ~•r^.• fPPl I*r#-P ±e, ••nntirt v- ni
~ Iler•.l Tru1v,
FNV~IF~~N4F*1'T'Ate T1T,'ALmI1 1i ; T;'Tr)rd
I
~ •
~
~
nnr•rl r, . R,;~, ~
Fm•irennm tr.l ftentth t`r-(-{ajiist
Adniini4irczrion 455-3630 F'm(.tflq' HRad. Xh 3613 Elw",--intulWE'n'01 45h*0%
Clirnc 456,0M0 Vo►u! Stat d')G 3h70 Lulwijtc°ro 4 50
An Equa1 ONpvrtunily Employer
• n~~/~~w 29
~
Responses to i etter from 5pokane Caunty Heal tn Di strict
8. WM1 eit is true that sanitary waste materia 1 from the propvsed pro-
ject wi1l De treated py the C1 ty of Spokane } s sewage treatment plant ~
anQ wf l1 u] timatel y be disposed of i n the Spokane River (when cannect-
ed to the pr+oposeci val 1 ey sewer systern f t Is aeyond the scape af
this Ex5 to address this issue. The appropriate arena 1n wh1Ch tp aa-
dress the issue of dlscharge from the sewage treatment plant into the
Spakane River was ettner the approvai of the treatment plant o r the
approval of the val1 ey sewer. See the fol lawing dvcuments for a dis- ~
cussian af this Issue: "SpofCane County Campreoenslve Wastewater Ntan-
agement PZ an, Uaj umes I and I I" (SpoCcane County, July I981) ;"Draft
Envlranmental impact Statement far trte Comprehensive Wastewater Man-
agement P1 an" (EPA, Regi an X, Feorua ry,1981) ; and "Fina 1Env i rvnmen-
tal Impact Statement for the Comprehenslve Wastewater Management Plan"
~
(EPA, Region X, August, 1981).
!
~
~
•
•
~
30
~
~
j. N0~ ~ n 1981
1-i L .
~ , P.~`~~ •
~ A'r COUNTY ENGINEER
ROBERT S. TURNER
COUNTY ENGINEER
SrosM.vM 9Wass~t~.vOroM 99260
SPOfrANC C011tAtr C01fAT MOYSt
I3ovember 19, 1981
i
T0: Dave Jackman, Facilities Planner
F'ROM: Jack C. Finney, Traffic Engineer ~
SYTB.TCCT: Draft Environmental Impact State+nent - Eclucational
~ Service Center
The Spokane County Engineering Section have revieaed the subject document and
submits the following comments•
~ TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
1). Additfonal Right of Waq will be required on Sullivan Road to 9
accomedate the proposed road improvements, relocatiteg of the
existing B.P.A. poles and "208" road drainage requirements.
~ 2). Some interim road improveinents may be required prior to building 'O
permit approval, if the proposed Educational Services Center is
completed prior to construction of Sullivan Road by Spokane County.
JCF:lb
~
~
~
~ 31
~ 1 1~11 .t -n.~~ ~ r~w.•~ C►1~ l.~r.r c~v-tAh ~:r~) 1R11_1.%:1%n+nrl Q47o;n (,;n9) 016-w1!
~
Responses to letter fram 5pokane County Fngineer
9. The Bhstrict is aware of the need for additional right af way and will
GOOperate with the county re5alutian af this requirement. ~
10, The Di stri ct wi l l a 1 so work wi th ttre caunty to sati sfy these requi re-
ments in the event that tne county's proposed Sul l i van Roa4 improve--
ments are not completed prior to lrritiatian of construction of the
pruposed project. Basefl on the tounty's current schedule for tne Sul-
livan Road improwements, it 1s anticipa~ed that the road construction ~
(at least to 16th Avenue) wi1T be completed pr1or to the completion of
Pnase I of the prflpasee project.
~
•
•
•
•
•
•
32 ~
~ •
•
. ~
~ Cj 7
PLANIVIIVG DEPARTMENT
~
~ BRC:A,,WAV Lr!•~rr gV' L~ING I'? 721 JEg=LASc~N SfiFEET
r
' ~ji
456 2205
at
,61SN1d1(oTCN 99260
aPVAM~ Cnv.'Y ~e~R, N~~,S[ December 4, 1981
~ Oave Jackman, Director
Facilities and Planninq
Central Ualley School District
S. 123 Bowdish
Spokane, WA 99206
~ RE: Draft EIS - Educational Services Center
Dear Mr. Jackman :
The Planninq Denartment staff has reviewed the DEIS for the Educational
• Services Center findinq that most of the Department's concerns have been
addressed. However, we would like to offer the fallowinq comments in re4ard
to the proposal.
1) The site has been deslqnated "Urban" by the County Comprehensive Plan.
This cateaory is intended to provide the opportunity for develooment
of a"city-like" environment which includes various land uses, in-
• tensive residential development, and pub1ic facilities and services.
Public facilitles include schools, parks, fire stations, Qovernment
offices and nost offi ces Due to the va riety and mi x of 1 and uses
and activities found in the Urban cateaory, the Plan suqoests that
such uses mav require screeninq or other performance standards tA
make them compatible with other uses. Careful consideration should
~ be qiven to providinq screeninq.
2) The extensive use af everqreen trees and shrubs on the benit and with- ~Z
in the site will provide visual screEninn It is beinc~ assumed that
the landscapinq will appear throuqh the site and not limited to the
perimeter.
•
3) The aesthetics of buildinas should be a kev considerativn in achiev- 13
inq desian compatibility with surroundinn, residential develonment.
Perhaps a more complete description An the intent of providinq a"low-
profile" desiQn and color scheme should be qiven.
A
• 33
4
~
Oave Jackman -2- aecember 4, 1981
4) Eventhouqh the sectian on enerqy described conditians and energy
systems which wi17 incorporate conservation measures, na reference
is made to the use of soZ ar enerqy as atechn ique ta further reduce
enerqy consumptrton. The empl4yment of e7 ther sol ar devites andJor
passive salar desiqns such as orzentation of buildinqs (southern
exposure) should be evaluated for a project of this size. ~
5) in reference ta the secti on an R i s k of Expl as i on vr Naza rdous Emiss i on
it wvuld be strongly recommended that thi5 seetian be exuanded tfl deal
with the ri sl: af acci denti a1 spi i 1 age. The amounts of fuel and chemical s
ta be stored are significant enauqh to require a spill control plan
and installatian of devices far containment. The fact that the site ~
is lacated orrer the Spokane Aquifer canu«ands that these Goneerns are
mitiqated to the absalute.
If yvu haue any questians reqarding these comments, or we can be of furtMer
as5istance, alease call me at 456-2205.
•
5incerely,
, ,
ey
l k.ir, , ~ ~
Thomas L. Davis
Special Praqranis Adm7ni strator ~
TLD/pam
cc: 14al li s Hubbard, PZ anning Di rector
~
~
•
34
i
~
Responses to letter from Spokane County Planning Department
11. The District fully intends to provide site screening. The proposed
project cal l s for the constructi on of an earth berm which wi 11 be
~ landscaped around the perimeter of the site. (See pages 59 and 145 of
the DEIS.)
12. Prel i mi na ry pl ans envision that 1 andscapi ng wi 11 al so be providea
along the proposed warehousing and administration facilities and along
• the parking strips accompanying these faciltties. The area along Sul-
1ivan Road in f ront of the proposed admf ni strati on bui1 di ng wi 11 al so
be landscaped. Landscaping will also be provided at the ends of the
vehicle parking structures.
13. Low norizontal features, Derms, and landscaping will be used to reduce
• the visual impact of the complex. Off-white to soft beige color will
be used on the Ouilding exterior. A model depicting the complete pro-
ject is on atsplay at the Central Valley Administration Building, lo-
cated at South 123 Bowdlsh Road.
14. The energy design package wlll be incorporated to lnclude solar col-
~ lection and distribution. Areas specifically being considered for
active systems are heating of water for 1 aundry and bus washi ng. Sub-
ject to future engineering studies, passive systems may be employed to
reduce energy consumption. Insulation considerations will be given to
duilding orientation, use of solar lighting, vesttbules, earth berms,
glazing, insulation measures and shading devices. Openings facing
• north wi 11 be mlnimf zed. Arti fi ci al 1 i ghti ng source wi 11 be vi a h i gh
pressure sodium in warehouse, Dus storage, and maintenance areas and
fluorescent in administrative areeas.
15. See response 7.
•
~
~
~
~ 35
~
~
~
December 8, 1 9$1
~
Mr. Dave Jackinan
Facilities Plariner
C. V. School District No. 356
Sauth 123 Bowci i s h
Spokane, Washington 99206 ~
Dear Mr. Jackman:
Re: Draft EI5 -Educational Service Center
'Z'hank yau for the opportun i Cy tv comrner, t an the Dra€t Enviranmenta 1 ~
Impact Statement fQr Central ValLey's proposed Educational Seruice
Center. After reviewzng the sCatetnent, we Eeel that the schaal
districC has well covered every aspeer of the project, and Che tax-
payers in Central Valley Sehoal District shauld be rnade aware that
the job done by the staff, cortsultants, atxd eventually the schoul
board, is commendable. ~
We wish to go on record expressing some cor~cern with regaxd to the ~6
undergraund areas which would be used fvr the disposal of th.e uariaus
pol].utants and conCaminants. ,As indic~~ed in your gtiatement, the
p1aa For the facilities includes vehicle maintenance, apassible
laundry, kitchen facilitiesR dvmestic waste, etc. 0
As indicated to you in Qur prelirninary discussions, Vera awns land
adjacent to the land vn which the pxapasecl servi.ce center will be
located. Dur future plans involve construction vf apumping complex
on that s ite, whi.ch would pump 5,000 to 20,000 gallons af water
per rninute into our dQmestic water system, comrneneing fn 1983. ~
It is our intention to work closelg with you in the design of our
gumpi.ng cornplex so ft will harmanize esthetf,ca11y with your educa-
tional servfce center.
Qur concern at this time is that the p1ail.osvpliy, desi;n anr3 con-
structfon of your faci].ity be carried out as set forth in the ~
environmental impact staternent.
~
3b
~
•
~
Mr. DaVe .1ack1]IaY]
Page 2
~ December S, 1981
!
i W'e anticipate the eventual installativn Qf a valley sewer aystem.
~ Zn the interirn, we are canfident that you will place praper priorf -
tfes ora the disposal of any wastes, to i.nsure against possible
' contaminatian af the acquifer.
~ We appreciate the spirit of cooperation between our utility and
the school distrfct, and we lovk forward to working with pou on
this graject.
Sincerely,
!
VERA WATFR AND POWER
t ~
l
` ~ "
~
W ~.11 Idril r b
AS$1Sta~lt Mc'~T1S~, ~
WJ.T : C1IIb
132.1
781.56
!
~
~
!
~
37
•
~
Responses ta letter from Vera Water and Power
16. The Distritt is aware of potential use of your site for a pumpi ng sta-
tionw The Distri ct wt l 1 comply with al 1 appropriate regul ativns re- •
garding Sewage disposal and storm watel^ runraff dlsposa] and wark with
Vera Water and Power ta ensure such fatil ities are appropriately io-
cated. 7he District rvi 11 a1 so devel op appropriate storage faci1ities
and use procedures far various chemital materials used on-site.
17. See resaonse 16. ~
~
~
i
i
~
•
~
38 0
~ December 1, 1981
Dave Jackman- Director
• Facilities and Planning
Centnral Va1ley Schaol District No. 356
South 123 Bawdiah Raad
5pokane, Washittgtan 99206
~ Re: Draft Eavironmental Impact Statement on Eriucational Services Center (Bus $axzi) .
Llear Nir. Jackrn,an,
~ The follcmrirsg camments pertain to ,areas where I feel the above referenced DEIS is
inadequats, erroneau8 ar misleading. Ibave read the entire DEIS and feel that the
fallowing camrnents requ.ire your vritten response in an amended Draft and/or the Final
EIS, pureuant to WAC 197--10-420 et seq. Ifully expect a aaanplete ana,lysis af each
camment, arad not merely a"cament noted" response. This is du.e to the fact that I
~ feel the DEIS is critically inadequate in same respects and must he cl.arified sv that
the Schoal District and the publi.c can xeal..i~tically evaluate the true anvi.romental
im,pact of thg prvposed project at 16th and Sullivan, in the Spokarte 1Talley.
Comanents vi].1 reterence the DEIS by page and paragraph munber. . The fallawing comments
are only a part~al list of those Zfeel should be addressed in the DEIS. According].3r,
I am submitti ng3 in addition ta thase comments, several pages of sxgned petitior►s by
~ residents within the ].t11paCtEd area or wi.thin the ,7urisdiction of the lead agQncy*
You will ti.nd a sufficient number of eignatures on thesa petitions to requ.i.re a punlic
hearing on the DEIS, whi.ch allows for additsonal pualic commsntary, as provxded by
Chapter 197-10 W.A.C. At thxe hearing I pYan to submit, both orally and in writings
certairi additional points regarda.ng the DErS and -Lt s sectian on Alternatiue Actions,
~ that I feel are extremely necessary to your proper evaluation af the project impact.
In your cattplranee with Ghapter 197-10 ifAC and M'A, I ask that the public hearing be
~eld at CentraZ Va11ay Nigh Schoal during tYre even.i.ng haurs, so that yau may receive
alI of the input necessary to correctly anal.yse the true erlvironmenta.l impact af the
propased project at 16th and Sullxvan Road. The ti-me arid glace af this hearing ia
critieal eo as tv pravicie gou witln input in a meaningful manner. I wauld additionally
ask that you grortXde me with as rnueh prior notice of this heari-ng as is possible, so
tbat I may ixform those 3.nt.erested indi.viduals of Lhe time and place, t,o insure max-
3mum iRput of their valuable views, camments and concerns.
Comments: (See follrnwzng page9. )
~
~
39
!
i raft ~-_,ij, 1c/1/d1 u.V. t#tjs ItAilJ p.2 ~
1) P~e 9, "Description". Why was this D! 'S prepared at a11 when speciP-ic con-
structiQn detail.s and financing cert& t►ty are yet to be determined,^ How can
the true envl.rorimental impact be analysed with sv mariy unknown variables pre-
eent' Phrases such as "earth tone calors has been suggested", "roa.£ p1tch will
be minirnalrr, "anticipated... build:Y..ngs will be tilt up canorete", etc., used
here and throughout this DEIS givea the District artd the public abaolute3y na ~
Fuarantee as to what the fimshed praduct wi7,1 l.ook like. Why hai-Tre number of
storiee of each building not been gasitlvely det,ermined9 Is it not true that
the eventual bus.ldings could be 3 to 5 ar more stories tall~ To aesess the tru,e
env3rnnmental impact, you must lmaw exactly what is goi.rxg to be built.
2) page 15, last paraPraQh. In this paragraph, the U6IS states that a zone change
to Cammercia3 ar Light Industrial may patentially be needed at the lbth and
Sullivan site, (tahich is now zoned Agricultural), yet on page 106, in the an-
alysia of the hth and Conklin site the DEIS asaurss us that siiace part of thia
is zoned Agricultural, it " wo`ald require a zane change". You need to lazaw
whether the bEIS is exaggerating the negative aspects of the ILth and Cankl3.tY
site or whether it is failxng to disclose all nf the negative aspeats of tne ~
lbth 2nd SulUva,n site:
3~kpa;e9 18 and 19, SaiLls and TopographLr. I'he DETS states that the propassd pac`a- ~
ject at. l6th and Sullavan wi.11 have a 4 to 8 foot high dirt bunker or bem ar-
raund the perimeter. Nothing is stated abflut the effect of such a dixt bunker
to the immediat+a environment. Several prablems i=ediately came to mind. If yoU ~
would check the history of 5ullivan Rvad, sauth af 16th, yov wxLl fixid that blawxng
enow vften closes the xQ2►d dUring the winter. Junt imagine the effect of havirig
a 8 foot high soli.d wall of dirt alarzg the Sou#,h and West bouridaries of the site
wYll do to thYs condition. Ths snvw daci.fts created by nat,urs and these dirt walls
will cert$in1y keep Sullivan, Sauth of 16th and most probablp 16th, 'Ftest of Sul-
a.ivan, closed dur3ng evet-y major snaw storm. I1ow does the Dist;rict plan to cope ~
taith this prablem? Hvw w3_11 the Distriat keep its buses running'(wxll probab1.y
have to go back to Spragu,e, then West, tnan back :=outh9 rsn 't this a big waste
of fuel, energr and driver aasts to the I)istr-icts' ) 1,ho wi-11 pay for this snaw
removal? (Taxpayers" ) Can the Cflunty even harxdle this snaw renaval burdeng Ilow
long wi.ll it take? How much wil.l it cost citizens using 16th and Sullivan Roads
to detaur thz,s area"
What wYll be -Che effec#, of th+e melti.ng af all of this snaw lying au#,sicte of th~ ~
walle of the proposed project? (There are no sewers to cary, it away, and prabably
wan 't be for many years. )
The use af dirt bunkers arouind the prop+ased project alao means sizeable sn4w
drifts wi11 ba createrl inside tha walls. 1+Ihen all af thia snow starts melti.ng,
where is it going to go? ( attteide and fload 16th and Sullivan and riearby residences 7)
Haw wi11 the buses and adminietrative cars be able to negatiate these snow dri.fts'~ •
What w7.11 be the cost df snaw remava3, ineitie t,he walls" Where wi-ll it be removed #.a?
All af these aspects will certainly affect the impact on the envixanmeat Qf the
Central Valley and the added coste xiu be boxne by the taxpayers.
~
l~ ) Fage 19, fiJnfque Ph,~sical T"eatures. The DEIS s~.at,ed tt~is area to be tsa~ot applYCab e~~,
but it appears that the srraw situation with :jullivan Road, South of 16th is in fact ~
a very unique physical feature of thxs gropcrty, axtd its negative aspect wilZ be
increased, thus must be addressed adequately. The same ls true for paragraph 1.5,
(Eroslan), and must be tharaughly addressed, and appears to have l►navQidable Adverse
Impao ts.
~
4o
~ ~
~ I raft 1,1:~, 12/1/81 G.V. nUS i3ARts P.s
5) page 240 paragraph 3. Here, the DEIS tirmits t.hat no monit.ering for carbon mon- 22
oxide has occurred at 16th and Sulliv~u,, yet a.t goes on to state that ~~it is not
expected that there would be any violations of eatablished standards". It is quite
possible that there is currentl,y no violation of the standards, but how can ttua
• be assumed ,wnthout actual testing' What will be the affect of the addition of
1371 bus tri s and 570 light vehiale trips (total of 1942 trips) per day to this
part of the lley on its air quality? Won't this grea'fYp increaseEhe Carbon 1 ion-
axide and suspended particles in the air'' Won't we then be facing the aame Standards
violations that face the University City area7 Won 't, the addition of 1372 bus trips
per day aloa the traffic significantly an Sullivan and 16th (turning, lights, etc.)
thua further deteriorate the air quality'
•
6) pHe 25, last par ra h. Why does the DEIS use the figure of 1300 to 1400 vehicle 23
trips per day at the proposed eite, in figureing pollution emnasions, when ite ovm
table of estimated vehicle trips on page 73 shows that there will be 1942 tripa
per day" Which figure ie in error? Why does the t,able at page 73, whi.ch sliows that
of the 254 employeea that will be on the sif,e, only 31 of them will leave the site
! for lunch' Isn't this number (31 of 254) largely understated in relation to the
average figures for normal busineseea9 Won't there really be more trips per day
than thia table atatea'7
7) pMe 25, last para r~~aph, and page fl, paragraph 1-Population. Cons3dering the pas 24
present and future econamic and population condit,ions of t~e Central Valley, ian't
~ it unrealistic to expect that the population of #,he Southern portion of the Valley
xill uadruple ~r3.thin the next 13 years ( Your projected vehicle trip rate on Sul-
livan aliaWS a four-fold inerease to 20,000 by 1995•) Mow do you reconcile this es-
timated 400% populati on increase when, agericic►s Guch as Spokane County Health Dis-
trict, ( in a letter datsd 9/24/80 t.o Gary I'ergen of t,he Spokane ;ounty Planning
Departanent, found in the Final EIS for .he Camprehensive Plan) strongly feel it
~ neceesary to bep,in"depopulating the Valley in t.hP ~1' uifer Sensit~ve A,rea"'? (By de-
populating, the ea h Uistrict means ac~tualAy inplemenOng a p1.an to encourage
existint residenta to move North and West, and to stop further grawth of populatl on
in thZS portion of the Valley. )'1'i1ey fet_1 thi si.r essential to atop the potential
time bomb that will explode if we continue to contaminate the sole source Aquifer.
. Ilso, xhat effect will possible placement of a rep,ional mall in Dlorth Spokane in-
• etead of the Valley have upon population projectians for Central Valley"
8) a e 26 a,ragraph C(Mitigatin; ifeasures),Z and pages 67-76 Traffic. 25
The E states that the countids proposed impravements to ~~h anc~Sullivan will
mitigate congestion ancl vehicle related emissi ons . We have of ten heard that these
improvements were going to be made, yet tho county keeps puahing the target date
further ahead each year. Can the courity give ar~y writtaen guarantee when and if these
~ impravements will ever be made? Ien 't the fact that when a►nd If these 1.mprovcments
will be completed ie so uncertain that it ie qu.Lt.e likely that the traffic expected
by the propoeed project will c$use a large and unavoidable adverse i,mpact to this
area of the 'Jalley7 5houldntt you knaryi these potentzal impacts to be able to prop-
erly assess their impact on the environment'
• 9) es 33-36, uround :~ater Oualit . The vETS admit.s that slight quantities of run- 16
~ borne contaminants will percate into the aaui.fer. 3ince the aquifer is a very
sensit,ive sole source of our drinking wat,er, don you feel it is important that this
DEIS specify just what amounts of ca►ntaminanty will be exposed to the aqutfer and
what their 3mpact will be9 Also the proposed project will deal with me►n,,y toxic chem-
icals in large amounts, but the UEIS only states that "aPprapriate storage facilities',
~ and a"spill control propram" will be used. Don't you think we need to know the de-
tails of these facilities and programs to insure t.hat the potential environme,ntal im-
pact is as little as the DEIS writer thinks it is,
41
•
~ rift b4 ia, .1t-/ 1/til G. . . JU.j 13tlFtN P •4 ~
10) a e 37 ragraph 4.4 AgricUltural (raps. Since the pragerty in question is
t,e on the map of "Imgortaat Lan's T for ~paka~ne County, we need to kna~r►~
what the effect of taking this land aut of farm producta,on will be, as we].l as
the rerna3nder of farm land in the tract (40 acrea appxox. ) that th,xs progerty
was a prior part of, aince develvprnent vf this 15.4 a:cres wnll mast certainly ~
8pur on development af the remainder o-f the crigiwnal tract.
11) psge 59,_yaraeraph 10- ]Riek of Hazardaus Lma.sszana and Exp].osion.
~ia sect~.aa~ of the DEIS states t~h~►t there ~arill be r~o vn~avoic~able ~adQerse irnpact~a
frsxm the storage of chemY.cals end ~22- a QaD gallons of gasaline atxd diesel. Hara~+ever,
there xs no data concex~ni.ixg the prc~bability af lea.kage anr7or expiosion far star- •
age of this type and magnitude. Zan 't data avax.lable fro9n lArge private ar public
instaJ.latioAS storing similsr buZk fuels'.' Thie proposed starage is greater ttaan
faur times what is curreatly bei.ng st8red, thus is hatrdl.y camtgarable. Yflu w.i11 a.Z-
sa need to knaFf the probabilYties af spillage wh.i.ch may cantami.nate the aqu3.fer to
praperly snalyse the environmerrtal impact of this large storage of taxic fuels and
chemicals. Is it reaZly true that th.ie vi1l present na Unavoidable Adverse I-mpacts,
as the DEZ.S vriter states" ~
12) page 4+rpecognizes ar''aPr 3.6. 29
Zfie t~ie existence of a"blind spQt.', just NortM vf Su]1.:Lvan andAth,
for liorth baund vehi.cles. (Propased project ia located to the Piorth af the blind
spot) . 3.'he DEIS slso states ttxat, the county plans to eventuallg make improventents
fram Sprague t+a 16th cm Sullivarx, and possible up to the southern praFerty line af ~
t,he proposed site. Ta carrect the bland apvt, won 't imgravements ta Sul.lxvan hav$
ta be made nea.rly to 24th¢ a dist,ance far short vf where the oounty plans ta irn-
prave ta? Th.erefare, is it really true that, aa 3.s stated on page 79, there will
be na unavaidable adverse a.mpacts due to there being no significant increase in t
traffio hazard? (It laaks like there will be szgnifzcant 3mpacts). 30
Secand],y, to assess the fu11 +envirommenta1 ampact of thxs prvject, dvn 't you n+ee ~
ta shaw samc data stating haw much more road ixripravement cost to the caunty and tax-
payaers will be incurred frrnn extend.ing the impravements from Su1livan and lbtb to
the Southerr# property lzne of the proposed pro,7ect (this beiing the distance the count,~
had not orig3.onally intended to improve3 but has apparently agreed to cornplete if
the prapaaed prQject is approaed. ) Add~tiorrall.y, don 't you need ta knaw the tatal
add.itional cost that viIl he incurred in ac+celerating the county 's impravements co ~
. Sullivan and I6th, due ta havirtg to cvmplete these impravements prior to the cona-
pletivn of Phase I of the prapased project9Tsn 't this data nscessar3r tv a13ow you to
assess the true env3.rox3mental impact of the proposed project'
t ~ 31
3) gge 79, Par~raph 4.1.. Fire. The nEIS r+~cag~xizes #,~at there ~11 be at lea.9t m~.n
imal gotential risk of fire ar explosion from #.he storage af chemica,le and fuel in ~
large amauat,s (42,000 ga].,lans), 3ret does nat descrxbe wh$t specif:Lc "proper pra-
cedures" wi11 be implemented to assure this minimal risk. Don't these procedures
need tv be defined, and sbouldntt it be stated th$t there are at least mininal un--
avoidable audcerse impacts, wa th an attempt to define what 'minimal '=means l Otherwrise,
ths governmertt $nd public m$y have one idea of what "minimal," mea»s, and the DEIS
writer may have a far difFerent idea. ~
14} a.~.e 80 a~a~ra h lt. 2- Police. On page 81, t,~e DETS st~atns t~tat there will be n
u.r~avoa,e advers$ xmpacts. dased on the fal7 cwing possibilities, shaulan ~ t th3-s
sectian be rewritten to include the same" '!`he Di{aIS has earl-ier sha«m that the bulk
of the proposed praject Terill he encircled hy a 4 fi.a 8 faot earth b-anker or bertn, for
screerang saund, Light and glare, and ta maKe the pro,ject more a►ttractZVe. Oiven th3.s
situatian and the fact that "kids wi11 be kids", absolutely na security is prov-ided ~
far the project. Certa3.nly anyome old enough +o be in sehoal wilI be a,ble to climn
up the dirt bwnker and snter the project grounds at will. Once zaside,these individua:.s
42
!
~ i,raft LIS, 12/1/81 C.V. 9US FiARN p 5
will eaeily be able to hold large alr.phol and drug partiea, as well as any other
cr3minal acta that may enter their minds, includling rape. If, in fact, theae in-
dividuals are noticed by police or citizens due to craKd noiae, etc., aince all
• of the land to the South and TrJest is open fielde, all they would need to do is walk
over the earth bunkers and run through the fielals. During the Fall, Mhen the fields
are in grain or corn, it will be next to impossible to apprehend them. Statiatica
generally shaw that once difficult to prevent crime starts in an_area, it tende to
spread rapidly to nearby areas. One possible suggestion Would be to put a? to 8
foot fence on top of the dirt buaker (putting it in front xould erase the aeeth-
• etic features of the concept, end putt.ing tbe fence in back of the bunker providee
the same blind spot as there would be i,rithout the fence.) Hvwever, this alternative
probably konft xork either eince a 7 to 8 foot high fence on top af a 8 foot bunker
`rill give the overall project en..image of the State Penitentiary at Walla V1a11a.
Surely the District and the community do not want this image. The onl,y aolution
left is to retain armed security guards durixig norn,rorking houra. L-Ton 't the expeense
~ and imgact of this hava at leaet aome unavoidable adverse impacta on the eaviron-
ment?
15) mEs 81-85, ~araPraph on School9. On page 84,-a.s well as in numerous other refer-
ences ~ thegDEIS,, it is atateCthat the reason the proposed proaect 3.s needed is
because of auah things as existing facilities hav:Lnng "aWkward floor arrangements
! "inauf'ficieat storage and xark space", "inadequate size of buildings and "inade-
quate adninistration ofYicee". AsswNng these to be t,rue, a private bueiness, in the
same poaition, first generally calculates the cost of maYnng its exist3ng facilities
adequate. It then compares that figwre to alternatives, sametimea inclucling a totally
brand neat Pacil.ity. Thia DEIS completely lacks the first eleiment of thia decisio
maicing procese, namely the cost to make existing facilities adequate. Instead, it 33
S merely statee that the existfng facilities can be sold at a tidy profit, and a Bond
issue or two can be obtained from the taxpayers to pay for whatever the new facility
xill cost. Tan order to la1vK just what the environmental impact wM be to the Dis-
trict and the taapayers, of correcting this problem, shouldntt the DEIS pravide data
concerning the cost to make the existing facilita.es adequate?
16) s es 85-87, varagra h 5- Ener_ . The first full paragraph on pags 86 of thia DEIS
~ Ess £lraMe 11ma3or savings to be realized by the proposed pro,ect is 'Vehicle
fuel conauQnptian". AdaU.tionalrlF
.t it is atated that the proposed project will save the
- Diatrict a total of 20 miles per da or buaes.,over the existing location. Assuming
gas and diesel can be purch~►sec~'in Kik for around $1.00 per gallon and bus mileage
averages 5.6 m.p.g., the total savinge for buses is 3.6 gallons .'3.60 per day. Ad-
ditl0rib►lly., gTOUt'1ds,, maintenance and administratzve operatione v"e"fi c es iri=sav
• 1116 miles per da vhich tranalatea into 1.28 gallons or $1.28 per d~r (based on 34
~ stated m, p. g of 12.5
In total, a savings of $1~.8$ ($3.60 and $1.28) ger da~ ~rill be rsalized. ($968.00
per yea►r based on 1_~0 working days for buses and 250 for all othera. ) The DEIS fails
to provide data as to har, much additional fuel will be used by District employ+ees and
the public in transportation to the propoaed site for work and businesa. Don't you
0 need this data for a proper envirotunental impact analysis?
As the above data shoas, the District will save $4.88 per day or $968.00 per
year by "centraliaing" the proposed project. Can thia really be seen as aflIIa jor
Savinqs"? Accordingly, shouldn't this part of the DEIS be rearitten ao as not to
be misleading and to allov a realietic appraisal of the corresponding environmental
impact? Also, basing anry further aavings an an increaae in population in this area
0 is quite speculative, at best. Paet projections of population iacreaae for the Valley
are currently being rexritten to reflect thi$ changing pattera.
0 43
I raft 121I181 i:.V. BUS 6ARN p. 6 ~
17) page $7 and 88, paragraph 6- U*,Uit3.e:,- 1as. This sectlon of the DEIS acknow-
ledges that the Glosest natvral gas mai.ns to the proposed praject are at 20th
and Progress and at Sullivan and Bth. To properxy analyse the env:L-ronmental
iv~pact af the propasad project, shauldn 't the DE-IS be anmended to show the cost
af extending gas service to the site xOtherwise, a project af this magrtitude ~
would be qu3te crippled if it did nat have natural gas service to the site, and
to provide it to the sit,e after improvements to Su11ivan Road would be quite eastly
to the District or taxpay8.re.
18} pages 89 and 90, para.graph 6.4- Sewer. Much af this DEIS relies upon being able
to connect to sewer Iines of the +citYs to avoid Aatential carytaminatiort of tha ~
~
aquifer ( our svle saurce of drinlnng water). What will be the env:.ranmental im-
pact on the aqu.ifer if aew+erirtg cat7 not be comFleted for many yeare (as the ease
apgeara to be) or that the Narthern part af Spvkane Caunty 3.s sewered first ar
county funds never allow for sewerina clear out to Sullivan? ( Assurnirag Liberty
Lake Sewer IIietxict expanft to fuUy service Lib$rty Lake in the future) Shouldnit
attention be focused on thfs in the DEIS? ~
y
19} sge 9I aragraph 6.E~.. Solid Ilastea. T'his ULIS states t,hat. the praposed pra-~
'e~ct generate a gre►ater valtuaine af solid waste than 3s currently being gsn-
erated. How can the enviranmental inp$ct a►f this be ecamined when no specific
amounts are identified? dlsa, are existinp caunt3r faci].ities capabIe of nandling
ttiis increase of salad waste? ~
20} aLe 91 aragraph 7- Human Healt.h. 2'his section -L-as given a respvnse of lqIA in
t e D . sn t_'Th_ia quite i.mproper s3.rtce fiFha proposed site wi11 add traffs.c to
a elready aften congested area an Sullivan and wilI pose a great potential far
accidenta { ie. busea turning on SuZ.la.van and 16th l41so, since there are no
sidewalks nearby, won 't there be an increased ra.sk to life of ahildrea, b:xcylYSts,
joggers and ttorses with rxdexs':' Wtsn 't the storage t~f large amoeznts of fuels surely ~
pose life and heaTth threats both on and off the proposed projectr lherefoxe, isn 't
it samewh€xt nusleading aand erraneaus to 0/A thi9 section"7
21} es 92-9b, ~ra.~g~a 8- ,~esthetics, Isn '~t, it irnpossible to tru3.y assess the xm ~t
a~the aesthetic features af the praject when plans have ev:].dently nat yet been
fomed concerning such things as typg of fencing t,hat will be used, color and tex- ~
ture of the buildings and type of structures" Isn 't usmg words such as '9wi11 prob--
ably be., . 1' and "shauld be designed#. . " and " shou3d be cansidered, ambigious ,
Doesn 't this fai3 to provide agu.arantee that later decision mskers of the District
vill nat order cyclone fences arxd, ol.ive green 4 ster-y buildings be cozstructedl
This is very importatxt to the exa..stW, and yat, to be built resadence~ s-Ln.ce
th+e vast majoritg of the resai.dences aure aazd Terill be split level or twa story c+on- ~
struction.. ►,rith living areas clearly vzewing, the project above the earth bunkers,
not to mentian gll those individuals that w211 have to dr.Lve by the project often
22) pages 95-'~arap~r~h 1~~2- Economics. Accoardin~; t,o t~he data pro~.ded ~..n th1s secti bl.00 of besng able to camplete the very first gMase of this
pro,]ect. Further, it has abs4xuteJ.y „na furzding ava.:Llable" to construct phase 2 or 3. ~
Slnce a band issue will apparently be required to sven ;et the fi.rst phase campleted,
and additianal band issues for eacn later ghase, why is the Dl;IS naw being campleted
an+d Girculated" Isn It it quite possibl.e tha#.i 1n the ecortomy we have (Trrhich agpeara
now to be larxg lasting), anY one or all af the planned bond issues may be defeated
by the taxpayera? Also, asswming the District finds fund,s to get the first phase com--
plete+d, won't failure to get vvter agproval fnr +he svbsequent phases d+efeat the en- ~
tire purpase kf the pro'eat, leaving the Da.stmct u► a far worse position than cur-
rently3 ( ie. greatsr d3.stance betvreen f acilzties than currently) Wtqy then, are no
mitigating measureg propased irt paragraph C?
44
•
• Li aft L15, 1211181 l:.'V . BUS BARN page 7
We sincerely hope theae comments are of osaistance to,you. I would like to
thank you for thia opportunity to review the DLIS and comment thereon. The
Cen'tral Valley, is a rather close-lmit conannunity, and all of its residents
are extremely concerned over growth in the Central Valleyoccurring on a
~ rational and carefully analysed basis. If you,tirish to diacuss our concerns,
please call me at 922-3942.
Sincerely yo s, '
k-4hairmtn Trunkenbolz ,
of '~Concernedt Central Dalley Taxpayere group
• °
~
•
Z
Y
e
s -
• '
•
45
•
~
Respanses to letter from COnCerned Central Ua11 ey Taxpayers Group
18. The principai purpose of an EI5 is to provide informat7on cancerning a
proposed project to public officials, agencies, and jnterested citi- •
zens. The focus of the document i s upon the i cienti fi cati on and as-
sessment of potenti a1 adverse irnpacts an the envi ronment and an analy-
sis of ineasures to mttigate these potenti al ly adverse consequences. A
further purpase is to provide acondult for feedback from agencies and
interested citizens to ideRtify inadequacies or mistnfarmation pre-
sented in tne DE 1S. it is not the 1 ntent of the E IS proces s to pro-
vide unnecessarily detalled information. T"e EIS is alsa of greater
Vdlue to the deCis7on maker and the pub1ic when it 1s deyeiUped defore
the proposed praject is "cast in concrete" so that changes can ae made
in respanse to comrnent5 which may offer substantive crltlque or sug-
gestions to mitigate potentfal adverse impacts, if required.
•
The DEIS has Identifled the maaor engineering and design factars as
well as the potential timpacts of th~e proposed project. Specific de-
tails wh7ch have nOt been firmly decided upon have been so icientified.
Mitigati ng rneasures whi ch have heen suggestea a re recommendati ons of
the EIS wri tQr. Thase that tne Di stri ct has incorporated tnto the
cesign have been prefaced with "w711" vr "shall". ThQse that had ~
eitrrer not been firmly establisned ar cansidered by the aistrTCt have
been prefaced with conditional statements. The dectsinn as tv what
specif ic mi tigati ng measures and what speciftc Qesign detai 1 s wi1 i de
incarporated i nto the f i nal praject wi 11 be made by the Board.
The project a rchi teCt has provided a MOde1 of the praject (1 oGated at
the Distri ct Administrati on Bui1 di ng, South 123 Bowdish Raad ) as wel 1
as tentati ve si te pl ans. Trre model has been avai 1 abl e for publ ic re-
view s7 nce Ju ly of 1981. The proposed project wil1 substanti ally fol -
law tnese guidelines. Essentially, the anly impact that alteratians
of bui lding design detai ] s wi1l alter i s rri sual perceptions. The
ntajor impacts which the E IS addreSSed re1 ate ta the scal e and funGtian ~
of tMe propased project, and mi nor al terations of desi gn wi 1] not al-
ter these lmpacCs. The District is aware of the patential aesthetic
impacts of the proansed project and i s worki rrg to provi de a desi gn
wh7 ch wt Z 1 reduce the visua 1 1 mpact to tMe greatest degree possi bl e.
This t S an on-goi ng process whl Ch w111 nat be f i nalized unti1 the
f1 rlal drawings are campleted. 0
The neight of thc proposed structure$ Ts disCUSSed vn aages 9, 58, and
92 of the DEIS. It wi 11 de one ta twa stori es and no greater.
19: Tne statement made on page 106 of tne DEIS should be cnanged to re-
f1ect that a zorte change may potentially he needed. ~
20. Urifting srtow 1s a natural phenomenQn that does occur from time ta
time in the Spokane Va1ley and affeets the operatian of buses on Su]-
1 i van Raad as wel 1 as ather aistrict raute segments. Ttre Dj strict has
coped with such prabl ems 1 n the past and expects to da so inthe fu-
ture. The fol1 awing proceQures wi1l ne fa1 loweci by the Distri ct in ~
tne event of dri fti ng snow probl ems al ong Su11 i van fdoad or any Qther
road in the District: ( 1) cnal n the bus wheel s; (2) adjust routes ta
46 ~
~
avoid cjoSed raads; (3) open sclnools at a later time (1f roads can be
clearea); and (4) civse scnaol {Distriet schools have on vccasion oeen
closea 7n past years Decause of roaa closures}«
~ SinCe the wind dlreGtlon whrtth predQmtnates dUring t►ie winter mflntihs
originates from the nartheast, the berms al ong the western and north-
ern boundarles nf the sTte wi11 patentially result in drifring snow
accumu3 ation a 1 ong the Su 1 iivan Road and 16th Avenue s1 des vf t he
site. As with any oarrier, i ncl u(iing fences ana houses a7 ong the west
~ $iae vf Sul] ivan Raad, nortneast wi nds rrT 11 cause the accumul ation of
snow al ong the Su i 1 t van Road side vf tne property. Presenxly wind
b1 own snaw presents prob] ems between approximatei y20th a nq 24tn a l vn g
Su 1] t van Roaa i nthe segment which is cut be7 ow tne natural terra in.
Dependti ng on the extent of drifting, the count,y (which i sresponst bl e
for snow removaI on publ i c streets ) will use a truck mountect with snow
~ dl ade, a grader, or un0er severe condt t1 ons a 1 oader mounted wi th a
"`U" blade. Tne lo-ader has oeen used in the past to remove snow trom
the cut area between 20tn and 24th.
According to the county operations engineer, an dverage winter may
Rroduce two storms whlch Create tirifting problems tnat would necessi-
~ tate specia7 tlear3ng operations. Generally, the road can be cleared
in two t0 four hours. Tfie winter of 1965-69 (the worst 1n recent
years ) requi red a fu 11 cay #or snow removal. 51 nce tne probl em af
drifti ng snow is not art unusua 1 ace urrence i n toe area, the county is
equi pped to martage 1t.
~ Tne Vera Water ana Pawer site occupies appraximately one hal f af the
Sullivan Road frontage. The proposed berm on District property will
not be located directly aajacent ta Sul1ivan Road. The Su1li van Road
frontag+e sautn of the Vera Water antl Power site wvuid nat be bermed
since the future Distri+ct aamin7stration auiZbing would oceupy► this
area. Sinte Fire District 1 nas purcnased a one-acre site in the
~ northeast corner at the District site (242 feet trontage) along 16tn
Avenue, witri the exception of ashort section atong 16tn Aaenue, any
berming along the nvrth woula oe Set back trom lfath (approximately 180
feet ThUs, any snaw drifti ng attributabl eta the Qistrict `s s1te
aiang 16tn Avenue or Suilirran Roaa is expected ta de minimal and
c'iearance would be incidental to Rormal clearing under drifting candi-
~ ti ans.
The melting snow wOuld De nanoIed as it nas oeen in the past, cfirougn
natural percvl atian. TMe caunty is pl anni ng the use of grassea perca-
lation areas along Sullivan Road in carnpliance witn "208" require-
men 4 sr
~ Tne District nas snow removal equipment ta c1ear tne yard drea ana has
managed this probl em in the past. During the t,ypt cal wi nter, snow re--
maval is nat a si+gnititant problem, bUt It can present a prablem dur-
i ng winters sUcn as that of 1968-69. Snaw mel t wii 1 De disposed of
via tne grassed percvlativn area5 provided on-stte. It should be
~ painted out, however, tnat i t a storm exceeds design 1imitati ans (10-
yeaP SLOrrri)t exce55 water may aGCUmWldtE af1o leave the Site a5 lt
wou]d fur other facilities, incluaing Sullivan Road f ar storms in ex-
47
~
0
cess of design criteria. The site's topography would direct the run-
off or snow melt to the southeast corner of the site. Runoff from the
site would not flow upgrade to 16th except only that generated at the
northern periphery. •
21. The purpose ot this section Is to discuss impacts to unique physical
or geologic features. There are none on the site of the proposed pro-
ject.
The potentlal impacts of erosion on the site can be mitigated by the ~
measures discussed on page 21 of the DEIS. Thus, the potential im-
pacts related to erosion are avoidable. Once developed, the erosion
potential on-slte will be nil. Further, even during construction
pnases erosion potential is expected to be less than under current
agricultural use.
22. The volume of traffic projected to be generated by the proposed pro- ~
ject is well below the volumes that woulG be required to exceed the
established standards. It might also be noted that tne County Air
Pol l ution Control Agency had no comment on the air qual i ty secti on of
the DEIS. Further, the total bus trips is projected at 360 trips per
day, as shown on page 73 of the DEIS. The total of 1,372 represents ~
all vehicle trips including employees, business, buses, and other
ope rat i ons .
23. It is stated on page 73 of the DEIS that the total traffic generated
by the proposed project is proaected to be 1,372 trlps. The 570 trips
generated by empl oyees is a subtota 1 as identi f i ed in the tabl e. The ~
total is the sum of these 570 employee trips and the 802 operations
trips.
The numder ot employees leavinq the site for lunch is based on the ex-
trapolation of existing employee trips and the provision of a lunch
room for bus drivers. While it is possible that more employees would ~
1 eave for 1 unch, they often share cars. Even if more than 31 vehi cl e
trips are generated, the noon nour ts an off-peak period. Thus, this
trip generation is insignificant.
24. The projected traffic count of 20,000 per day through the 16th and
Sullivan Road intersection is an estimate provided by the Spokane ~
County Engineering Department (Memorandum, "Minutes, June 9, 1980
Meeting" of the Educational Services Center Task Force, June 10,
1980). While it is desirable to limit growth and "depopulate the val-
ley in the aqui fer sensiti ve area", there i s no guarantee that this
will, in fact, occur. There is sufficient land area that can poten-
tially be accessea dy Sullivan Road and its feeders to proviae this ~
increase in population and resultant vehicular trip generation. A
past constraint to the development of much of this land has been tne
lack of sewer. With tne construction of a valley trunk line and feed-
ers into the south valley area, expansive growth can take place.
Whether it will or not is anather consideration dependent on numerous
factors. In the event that it does not take place, the projected ~
traffic impacts of the project and future traffic growth would ue low-
er than projected in the DEIS. Although tne District's proportional
~
48
~
snare ot total tr~atfic {wnen fu11y canstructed} would be greater witn
lower total traffic growth, the ultimate traffic impacts would not ne
as great as Rrvjected.
~ There are two regional maiis proposed in the valley--Braaaway ana Sul-
livan, and 1-90 and 5ulliaan. The likelihooo of either of these two
mal l s ar trie North Spakane Mal l oeing constructed 3 s adaut equal. The
placement of a mall, wAile providing a stimuluus far corrmerc7al and
. PoPu j ati on growth, wnll not necessari l y retara papu i ati an growtn 1 f tt
dDes nat devel op. fihi s i S part1 Gu] arly true of the va l7 ey whl+ch haS
potential inaustria 1 and commerci a] arevelopment wni ch wi1] provi de the
stimulus for further residential growth.
25. The eounty cannut provide written gUarantee that the Improvements wy11
be made until the funding has been approved and abtained. At tne
present t1me, tne county is in the process of acquir7ng riglnt of way
~ for the improvements. Unce tne right of wsy is acquired, final fund-
1ng will be applied tor (funds hawe de,en set aside) ana aIds wtll oe
Zet. It i s anticipated that these actians wi 17 have been cQmpleted by
the early part of 1983. However, if right ot way acquisition is de-
layed, tne canstructton scheaw1e may be set aack to 1984. If sv, can-
struction is planned to QegIn in tne spring vt 1983. I n the event
~ that these actinns are nat aCcomplished, tne first pnase of the pro-
ject can De canstructee wx thout signiticant aaverse impact to trdtfiic
canditinns (provided traffic vo1umes do not significantly irtcrease).
However, a t the impravements are not carnpl etea tne constructian of tte
fO1 lvw1 ng phases wt 1 Z ha ve a s a gnificant tmpact on traffic'f ] ow i n tne
~ vicinity of tne I6tn and Sujlivan intersection.
26. See pages 28-29 of tne DEIS. Tn7s discussion provides the anticipated
degree of contaminant removal by the use of the grassed percolation
areas as established in the county's Gu1d+elines for Storrnwater Manage-
merrt. The arnount of cantaminants that may reach the aquifer has not
~ been quantifz ed by tne county or 1n past aqui fer studies. Tne Gounty
is presently undertaktng a stormvrater rnonitoring program to determine
st romwater cnemica] canstitutents. 5even starms wi l1 bp monitored y n
tnis program wh i c n 1s expected to De completed by Ma rch of 1983. The
program avi ll mon i tor c1 ry we11 s and adjacent we 1 i 5 tQ determine whether
or not contaminatian from dry wel1 s z s tak 7 ng pi ace and to wnat de-
gree .
Tne proceaurts tor- operatians i nuo I ving Ghem1 eal s are discussed in re-
sponse 7.
It 5hould be furtner RQted that tne proposed faclllty w111 ae designea
! to accommodate tne fuel and chemica] storage, as well as runofif. This
ls sometning that the District's existing tacilities (wnicM are a1sv
over trre aquifer) da not aa becawse of space and fati 1 i ty 1 tmi tati ons
of pre-existing structures.
27. The propased praject witi 1 prec lude tne agricuitural use of thi s par-
~ cel. It is very 1 y keZy trtat tni s woul d accur in the near tuture re-
garaless oi` the outcome of the proposed action. The area is aes7gnat-
ed in tne county`s Comprehensive Plan i`or resicential developmertt
~ 49
~
(either at urban or suburban densities) and is surrounded by residen-
tial development. The decision as to whether or not this parcel would
be set asi de for futu re ag ri cul tu ra 1 use has been made i ndependent of
the Dtstrict's action. Past development patterns, Comprehensive Plan
designation, and the future construction of a sewer line will be the ~
aetermining factors on the future disposition of these lands.
28. There is no data availaule from either the local office of the Depa rt-
mertt of Ecol ogy or the County Engi neer' s Office as ta the probabi 1 i ty
of fuel leaks from underground fuel storage tanks. While underground
tanks or lines have had leaks in the past, the occurrentes have been •
rare. It properly installed (to avoid damaging the protective sur-
face) and purged of excess water (which may cause tnternal rust) the
likelihood of leaks from unaergrouna tanks is very low. Accoraing to
interviews with local underground fuel storage tank fabricators, the
incidence of tanks being returned for leakage has Deen almost nil. In ~
addition, the county is developing guidelines to ensure protection of
the aqui fer with respect to fuel or other underground storage spi 11 s.
Preliminary reconmendations include tanks to be enclosed in sealed
concrete vau lts or doubl e-wal l ed tanks coupl ed with monitori ng to de-
tect leakage and the aDility to pump out tanks to facilitate mainte-
nance. The monitoring can consist of detectors to identify leakage or
close inventory to compare fuel arttounts placed in storage with amounts •
wtthCrawn and consumed. These methodologies can be incorporated lnto
the fuel storage faci 1 iti es used by the Dt strict.
The relevant factor in assessing the risk or probability of fuel spil-
lage is not necessarily the total volume of fuel stored but the number •
of storage tanks. A larger tank has no more probability of leakage
(if properly installed) than a smaller tank. The difference in risk
would be related to the total volume stared. Ifi undetected, a tank of
greater volume could potentially discharge a greater volume of fuel
i nto the aqui fer. This can be avoi ded , nowever, by cl ose moni toring
of total vol umes i n order to detect 1 eakage at the earl i est possi bl e ~
time so as to avoid larger volume spills.
Provided that the tanks are constructed and installed properly in ac-
cordance with building code regulations, the potential adverse impacts
associated with fuel spills can be avoided. Additional pratection can
De provided by the use of double-walled tanks or sealed concrete ~
vaults as well as close monitoring of stored volumes. This would be a
problem regardless of wnere the site was located along the Valley
f 1 oor.
29. According to the County Engineering Department (Jack Finney, November
of 1982), adequate sight stopping distance will be provided on the ~
grade for bOth ca rs and buses. Improvements will not be required as
far south as 24th Avenue. The county does not feel that there will be
significant traffic safety problems in this area.
30. The purpose of the EIS is to identify potential proolems that may re-
sult from a proposed project and possiole measures to mitigate those ~
problems. The responsibility for making the improvements beyond those
originally proposed tn the county's Sullivan Road improvement project
50
~
~
will be worked out in negotiations between the District and Spokane
County. There is no evidencce that the county is accelerating their
improvements to Sullivan to accommodate the District project. The
~ county's improvements to Sullivan Road will not be accelerated by tne
proposed devel opment of the si te for Df st r1 ct use. The proposed im-
provements to Sullivan Road will be completed regardless of the com-
pletion or abandonment of the District's proposed project.
31. The DE IS does not state that there i s any difference i n the potenti a 1
~ for fire hazard or explosion when comparing the existing volumes of
fuel storage and the volumes proposed in the new facility. According
to a conversation with the Spokane Valley Fire Department, the poten-
tial for fire or explosive hazard from properly constructed fuel stor-
age and distribution facilities is almost nil. This Is what "minfmal"
is intended to mean. Specific discussion ofi proper procedures is not
~ detailed because the requirements fall unGer existing codes and/or in-
spection requtrements of the Valley Fire Department and County Build-
ing Inspector. These consist of standard requirements which are ap-
pl ied countywide. The fi re preventt on section of the County Bui lding
Department inspects tank installation and plumbing to ensure compli-
ance with building codes. ACCOrding to the f7re prevention section,
• the rtsk of fire or explosion from properly installed tanks is almost
nil.
Underground storage of fuels canstitutes negligible risk of fire or
explosion. The only incidences related to fuel fire or explosion in
Fire District 1 have been related to vehicles colliding with above
~ ground pumps. This can be avoided by properly constructing pump
isiands to prevent vehicles trom hitting the pumps. Measures include
railed concrete islands with solidly constructed posts or barriers
around the pumps to prevent inadvertent collision. Potential acci-
dents resulttng from sptlls or explosion during transfer of fuels f rom
bulk carriers to tanks can De avotded by following the procedures pre-
~ scribed in conducting such operations. Essentially, this involves
grounding of fuel trucks and constant attention dy the fuelers to en-
sure pumps and couplers do not malfunction during fueling. (Also, see
response 7.)
32. The possibilities discussed In tMe scenario developed in this comment
~ are avoidable. The Spokane County Sheriff's Department is capable of
curtai1ing such acti vity on the site. The project architect wi11 work
wi th the Sheri ff' s Depa rtment to provi de secure faci 1 i ties parti cul a r-
ly where fuel, tools, ana vehicles will be stored to prevent unwar-
ranted entry. Sound detection devices can also be piaced at building
entrances to detect unwarranted entry. The facility has also oeen de-
~ signed to allow Sheriff's patrols to drive through the site to inspect
buildings and the yard area. If necessary, a fence can be constructed
in selected portion of the site to control entry. This fence can also
be designed and constructed to avoid adverse aesthetic impact. The
District does not feel that armed security guards wf 11 be necessary to
patrol the site.
i
51
•
~
Tne lotation of a fire station at the northern portion ot the site
would provide the possibility of 24-hour surveillance of activity on-
site, particularly during the nighttime hours.
33. The purpose of an EIS under SEPA is to discuss and disclose the envi- ~
ronmental and soclo-economic impacts of a proposed action. A full
cost/benefit analysis is not required. However, the following infor-
mation is included for review. Any additional information or camments
regarding the economic considerations of this project can be made to
the District Board of Directors prior to their decision regardtng the ~
proposed site.
Since the proposed project isintenaed to meet the 1 ong-term needs of
the District in providing educational support services, the following
discussion addresses doth the imediate as well as iong-term needs (in
other words, making existing facilities comparable to proposed facill- ~
ties). This analysis also considers the improvement of existing fa-
cilities on existing sites, rather than a consolidated complex on the
proposed site. It should also be noted that the analysis includes
only physical costs of facilities improvement and does not consider
t he increasing costs of operating Oistrict activtties out of existing
sites which a re not central to the Dtstrict (or the advantages of cen- ~
tral location). The total projected cost for making tne existing
facilities adequate to provide the same functions as the proposed pro-
ject is $6,262,269 in 1982 aollars (see the following table ana Appen-
dix A to this FEIS).
PROJECTED CUSTS TO MAKE EXISTiNG FACILITIES ~
COMPARABLE TO PROPOSED PROJECT
(not considering location)
Facility Immediate Long-term Total
Administration $ 37090001 ~
$ 3809000 $ 750,000
Maintenance 751,4182 468,000 192199418
Storage 9199967 398,143 193189110
Transportation 19568,076 192719665 29839,741
Curriculum library None 159000 159000
Central kitchen None 609000 803,000 ~
Central laundry None 409000 409000
Total $63,2623,269
IVotei:
Assumes that existing leased facility cannot be economically fit-
ted ta serve ddequate maintenance needs. An additional assumption is ~
that land not adjacent to existing administration buildtng of school
siteZ's purcnased (two acres at $0.751 per square foot).
Assumes purchase, renovation, ana expansion of leased maintenance
facility.
Source: Gottschalk and Associates. ~
52
•
~
34. An estimate of the difference in fuel that would be consumea by em-
ployees and District residents when comparing the proposed site and
the existing site would be specuiative and have 1lttle value in as-
sessing overall impacts. Tne primary components of the savings anal-
• yied in the DE IS are the Distri ct's own day to day operations. The
public is not generally involved in tnese operations and would have
little regular need to visIt these facilities. The District adminls-
tration facility wnich does receive some public traffyc woula, with
the present population patterns ot the Dhstrict, probabiy require
a0dittonal driving distance when comparing Lhe existing with the pro-
• posed s1te. However, this facility is projected to be constructed as
a final phase of the project. Population 1s projected to increasingly
snift to tne eastern and western portions of the District in future
years and this shlft wiil have become greate r than at present when the
proposed administration facility is constructed. While it is possible
that some visitors and employees would, for the immediate future, ndve
• a slightly greater distance to drive to reach the proposed location,
the primary concern of the District with respect to fuel savings is
its own operational budget.
The paragraph that oegins with: "Tne major savings that will be real-
ized dy the proposed project are related to vehicular fuel consump-
• tion." ts related only to school dus fuel savings. (This section
deals only with energy--not otner operational costs.) Further, tne
figures cited were Dased on 1981-81 existing route structures. Thus,
even with those existing routes, a savings in fiuel consumption was
projected. As the population ot the District shifts to the east ana
southeast and facilities are constructed to accommodate new students
• in these arQas, the locational advantage ofi the site (ana tuel sav-
ings) will become more pronounced. (The District is presently experi-
encing fialling enroliments in the nortnwest sector as population
shi fts to the south and east and is stuaying a shi ft in fact iities as
warranted.) Since the proposed project is planned to serve District
needs over at ieast a 50 year time span, the anticipated savings will
~ be realized over each yeat^ for the life of thp facility. It shoula oe
further noted that the savings discussed in this section do not con-
sider other operational expenses related to route distdnce. These
include driver salaries, maintenance, total number of vehicles, and
route miles. These factors will be compounded as the District grows.
~ ProJections must be based on long range t rends (with the best avail-
aole population information) for planning purposes. Vari ous unpre-
dictaale factors may influence these projections to either be overly
optimistic or too conservative. Nonetheless, the District has a re-
sponsibtiity to its patrons to plan, with the best availaole lnforma-
~ tion, tne future growth of the District and the prodable facilities
that will be required. Since the vailey sewer is proposeo to run
through the area included withln the Dtstrict, it is reasonaDle to
assume that the areas wlth access to the sewer will be developed be-
fore non-sewered areas, and at a greater density. A1so, the most re-
cent industrial ana commercial growth in the valley has taken place
, within the Distrtct. These iand uses provide employment base wh1Ch,
in turn, attracts population growth. These fiactors, assuming the lo-
cal and national economies will recover, make the undeveioped areas
53
•
~
within the District iogical areas for aslgniftGant srrare of future
va 11 ey growth.
TMe final EIS for the Spokane Gounty Camprehensive Wastewater Plan
~August, 1981} states the follawing: "In sumrnary, the comprehensive ~
and use pl an assumes a popul ati on accommodati on of 155, 0Oa persons
f rom I970 to 2000; the State affice of Financial Management proJeCts
an increase from 1970-2000 of approximately 89,000 persans; the Bonne-
ville Pawer Administration prajects an increase of about 120,000 per-
sQns from 1910-2000; and the GWMP [Comprenensirre Wastewater Management ~
P7an] projects that 171,500 persQns will be added to the county's
population between 1970-2000".
35. According to Washington Water Power, there wil1 ne no cast ta the
Di stri ct for extending the 1 f nes f rvm their present 1 oeat ions (16th
and Rrogress or 10th and Sul livan ~
36. At the present ttme, the coWnty is prvjecting that the prQposed valley
trunk sewer wi 11 be eamp1eted as fiar as Sul l i van Road Dy 1985. Even
if the District site Canrlot be hookea into the trunk 1ine imriediately,
tfie 1 oadl ng 1 s prajected ta be rel ativel y 1 aw (see response 6) unti2
the administrati on faci lity i s cvnstructed (such eonstructi an is nat ~
anticipated for a few years). This loadyng w111 be temporary and is
nat expected ta cause any permanent vr signi fi cant ground water con-
tamination.
37. Rega rdless of whetner the new facillty is constructed ar not, a growth
in Ihstrict enrollment will create an increase in solld waste genera- ~
t4o11. The pr4po5@d prQjeCt Wl l1 have nQ 1mpaCt On thTS CatEgOry w1th
the exception that centr^al i zed sol i d waste generat ian a nd col1ectian
will ailow more efficient means of contra1, separaCian, and recycling.
38. TheSe ltem$ nave been discussed under the appropriate sections of the
DEIS. Traffi c Ympacts have been di scussed vn pages 73-74 ana 78-79. ~
Impacts of fue] and chemi ca] storage have neen di scUssed on pages 59-
60 of the DEIS. A1 so see response 28.
39. The EIS is not intended ta guarantee the sRecific aesthetic details of
a propvsed project. As disGUSSed RrevYOUSIy, a purpose of the EIS
pracess is to consider comments that wi 1l assi st the decf si on maker in ~
not only aeciding the merits of a total project,but ai so detal ] s
which may mZtigate adverse tmpacts. Since final design details such
as exact colar or texture have not been specifaed, the EIS rQcommended
ttiat those parameters that have ueen preiiminartly planned be incar-
porated into the final design {as recornmended by the Services Center
Desi gn Comrni ttee (see pages 143-145 of the DEIS} It is the i ntent i
ofi tne District to minimize to the greatest degree passible the aes-
thetic impacts of the proposed praject. The Bqard has the authority
to establ i sh design crlteri a and specific detai1s that wauZd gutde the
project's eompletion. The Board will alsv consider specific reGammen-
dations and evai uate them i n terms of the functi onal requl rements of
the project, (See respanse 13.) ~
54
!
~
40. The purpose of the EIS process Is to discuss the potential environmen-
tal impacts of a proposed project and to suggest means to mitigate po-
tentially adverse impacts. Tnis is essentlally a lead document to aid
in planning decisions prior to the commitment of final project approv-
~ al which ts required prior to seeking additional funding.
Although it is possible that future bond issues may not be approved by
District voters, this does nat rel ieve the District of the responsi-
bility to pian for the long term demands of providing educational and
support faci 1 i ties.
•
The first phase of the proposed project is intended to provide facili-
ties that the District currently leases and to provide warehousing and
storage facilities which the District does not have. Since DEIS issu-
ance, interest earnings have boosted Phase I funding to $1,300,000.
This amount is in excess of the anticipated cost of Phase I. Subse-
~ quent phases are intended to replace obsolete facilities and provide
additional capacity to meet future Oistrict growtn demands. Failure
of bona issues necessary to fund future phases will place the District
ln the posit10n of operati ng out of faci1 i ti es that wi11 be obsolete
or of insufficient capacity to meet future District demands. It would
. also delay SuDSequent phases of the service center and encourage the
District to consider trre use of the proceeds of sale or lease of real
property to finance subsequent service center phases.
The Distrtct would benefit from whatever services can be centralized
whenever they might be developed.
~ The project site wi11 provide the Di stri ct with the 1 and area neces-
sary to meet the demands for future expansion. In the long run, it is
anticipated that these facilities will be constructed and the proposed
site will be used for them rather than to expand on existing sites.
•
•
•
•
~ 55
~
~
December 4, 1981
Dave Jackman, di rector
Faeilities and Planning ~
Central Valley Schooi District No. 356
South 123 aawdish Road
Spakane, WA 99206
Dear Mr. Jackman:
~
7'he S tate Env i ronmenta 1 P'o 1icy Act (R, C.14. 43.21C) has mandated that env i ron-
mental cansideratians be genuinely undertakert rn gaod faith privr to any agency
decision iRVOlYIfIg a major action having a potentially siqnificant effect on the
quallty af the environment. -
The purpase of the Environmental Impact Statement required by the Act is to pro- r
vide a rraluable a#d to rational decisFoR making fay thoroughly examininq all
realistic alternatives and balancing each according to equal consideratiions af
ecvnomic costs current technalagy, and environmental costs (i.e, unmitigated
sacrifices of the existing environment).
Central Va11ep School District has properiy, thaugh reluctanxly, acFnvwledqed ~
that su+ch a study i s i ndeed requi red by 1 aw ancJ ha s i ssued a d raf tE1S wF, i ch is
the subject of this 1etter. Herein please take note of comments, ob;ections and
suggestions per[aining to deficiencies in the EIS tqhich require farmal ack,nowledgment
and analysis in the final Et5 befare a practr'cally and leQally adequate statement
can be achieved.
As this state.ment and pr'tor procedures f6rm tF►e record for a judicially reviewahle
agency decision, it therefore is in the tiistrict's best interest to camply ful]v
with SEPA mandates of "an envi ranmental ful l disciosure law" 4arwav HF 1 1 v. Kinq
County Counci 1 $7 Wn, 2c3 267 (1976) ,v,h i ch are not tn he talen 1'r Rht 1 v as merP tv
pvst hoc ratianalizations of a dec#sion made far in advince of carefrai enviranmental
planning. ~
Thi s br i ngs forCh an in i t ial i nqu i ry into the t iming oF Che purcliase af the pranerty
a# 16th and Suif ivan. Although khe draft EIS claims that an "textensive site search"
was conducted pr ior to purchase (pg. 103), that search was based merelv an a proiected
gevgraphical cerater of the District analyzing aniy District cQnvenienee, land avail- ~
ab i lity and i and cost.
56 ~
~
Page 2
1. What other property was considered prior to actual purchase and 41
~ why was each rejected?
2. Was the decision ta construct a hus barn ackually made prior to 42
the purchase of the 16th and Sullivan property?
• 3. Was the seller of the 16th and Sullivan property informed of the 43
true intent of the District to use the land for a lius barn rather
than for construction of a school or educationally-relatecl can-
struction which would more logically fit within existing zoning
constraints?
• 4. Was the initial zoning approvai request (January, 1980) hased on ~
good faith disclosure of the District's actuai intent, or rather
on a misleading reference to school con-,truction?
It must be noted that not unti l after actual purchase in April, 1A8n, did tlie
transportation study and formal alternative site analyses heqin, and then only
. as a response to extreme persistence and expresSionS of concern from local flistrict
residents and taxpayers. A response to the above questions tqill sliFd some liqht
on the apparent nature of the draft EIS as merely a post hoc rationalization of a
decision made far in advance of any consirleration other than convenience and land
cost.
~ In addition, please address the foilotiving:
5. (a) Mitigating measures listed in the summary (pp.5-7) are phrasc-s ~
connoting actual Districe implementation, hoioPVer, in the hady of
the EIS, they are phrased in terms of "should..." (pp.19, 211, 26. 81,
88, 90 and 91); "May..." (P9.4E); ancf "cnuld. (pg.87). "!o real istic
~ assessment of actual mitigation is possiUle unless these vague terms are
replaced by realistic treatment oF wha[ will he done in each of the
above instances. Please disclose in more cancrete terms what actions
will be taken.
(b) Please clarify what "appropriate skorahr faci 1 ities" far fuel .ind 4s
~ chemrcals will entail. (pp.36, 60)
(c) I f the County i s not alile to i rtiprove Su 1 1 i van and 1 Etli as a resu 1 t 47
of current economic realities, what rnicioatinq factors does the Distrl `
propose in coord inat ion wi th the County Cngi nerr to reduce traff ic hazards
on streets not adequate for the proposed uce? (pq 78)
~ 48
(d) The "possihility" of fencing the t-arehouse, maintenance and tius storaqe
facilities must be clarified to actual descctn plans of their exact nlace-
ment on site in order to determine the visual nature of the entire pro)ect.
(PP • 81. 94)
~ 6. tio actual on site air quaiity monitoring was undertal(en to evaluate ~
existing carhom monoxide levels. Fxtensive discussion i+as undertaken
wi th regard to the Un ivers i ty C itv, Fast Va 1 1 ev EI i cih qchool and Dc►nderosa
sites. These sites have no bearing on the existinq air quality at 16th
and Sullivan and unless an actual on si'Le ineasurement is obtained, na
rea 1 ist i c compa r ison cau 1 d pos S i b 1 y he macle hs: ti-teen [he qua1 ity o f t he air
~ now and that projected after the huses are in Full operatian on site
57
~
Page 3
Please provide ah actua] measurement figure comparing pre5ent
eonditians and iuture projections. ~
7• Traffit resulting from this project rs cited in M45 to haue anly
a 7% increase in total tt-affic volume (E1S ficrures unreaitstieatly
equate bus and autv irnpacts) .
(a) Was the prajected populatjon incrEase basecl on previously
inflated growth patterns, or on a realrstic decrease in densitv
based not only on currenfi eeonomic exigencies but alsv the need
expressed by the Comprehens ive Pj an to depapulate the Iral iev in
the Aquifer Sensitive Area in which the EIS includes the proposed
si te and surrounding areas?
(b) Even given the unrealisticaljy hiah 1095 traffic projections,
since the actual operataon af buses is prQjected as earlw as 1c,84
(Pliase I1), impacts of traff i c f rom that date (1954) must be i nc 1uc[ed
far a ratronal tomparisvn.
8 Wha t spec if i c uses vf the sur round i ng proper ty mi ghC he f nc 1 ucied i f -
the D i stt` ict were ta obta r n the zane change i t i s seeki nq i n terms of
aeask harrnony with existing uses?
9. Reduced fuel consurnption is cite.d arid coopal'ed with current cvnsumption 5~
ne[t ing a say i ngs of Iess than $1 ,C~~7Q anhua 1 1y. !~s th is factor (reduc-
ing costs of District operations) is presented as the un(Rerivrnq
rationale behind the entire Rroject, a mnre substantral fuej savinras
amount in terms af overal i project cost is i n order. ^
(a) Afuel cansumption comparison is necessary between the proposal 55
and alternatives of:
i) Sateljite bussing.
2) Al1 apera t i ans at GVHS s ite andlQr 4th and Conlcli n site; and
3) Administratitre/edutattonal funCtions orr proposed sitP and
transportat,an/maintenance functions at CVNS and/ar 4th and
Canklin,
a11 af which quite pr-ababfy provir~~ ~~u,11 or -qreater prescr-
va t i on of natura I resau rces ancl, nicare intparkartt I y, taxpZyer
dollars.
10. Finaljy, and af bigqest cancern, a reall-,tic analysis of costs to the
taxpayers is no C on ly mandaCed by s t @tUte, but a1 so an t ndica t i on af
the quality of pistrict fiscal planning
(a) 14hat are the cvstrbenef, t ratios of
1) 5ate1 1 ite buss i n9,
2) Al1operations at CV115 site andlor- 4th and Cankl in site
3) Admr n istrat i ae/educa t i ona l Funct ians on proposed s i te and
transportat i an/ma intenance funct i ans at CVii5 and/ar 4th and
Gonklin?
58
Page 4
(b) If goad faith negotiatians were actua]1y canducted with
I respect to MISAth and Gankl in/ and Renz ro ert 5~
p p y, actual tvst
I figures rreed to be i ncl uded for cornpar isnn, The CIrHS s i te i s
designated "cast unknown" which reUeats no ciood faith effart
at ba rga i ning or even i nvest iga t i ng a1 terna t j ves reasona b 1 y
avaitable.
(c) In order to evaluate total costs, a total proaection ;s ah-
solutely requi red far the enti re project. The draft EIS divuiges
approxirnately-
$70-1 0D, 000 necessa ry tv comp 1ete Phase i
$z, oOo, o0o „ Pr,ase 11
no pro! ect i on " " Phase IIN
Certainly some reaiist1c e+canom,c cvst cstin7ate must be irtcluded
to pravide a reasonable view af the praject contemplateci and the
resuIttng tax burden to the ultimate Davors, the District residents.
As such a resident, I am vital iy concerned w,tli the fundamenta] goai of Gentr;iT
Valley ScttoQl District to provide the best edqcatian possik+le bv adminisker€no
assets in the manner most t i I;e1y ta acliieve that gaaj As a parent and educator,
! oppose detrime.nta1 effects of any sort if, ultimately, education urili suffer,
particularly in ITglit of recent legi 5lative cutk►acks and trends toward fai lure
of sclzool 1 err ies.
in pracee+ding with 3 decision wliNCh clearly ignaMes more ratianal alternatives
in nat an1y harmvniaus use but econamic responsihi liLyt the District is depart,nq
from i ts g+oa 1 and potent i a l j y al ienat i nn i ts awn hase of support ni ven nresent
econamic reairties, a thoughtful, planned and harmonious appr4ach must he under-
taken by our ei ec ted dec i s i onrnakers .
SMncerely,
wv;an, ( n7v;;~~
~ Linda G. Tompl tns
S. 1411 Gentury Raad
VQrad.a].c, washiA,gton 99037
~
59
~
Res pon ses to 1 etter f rom Linda G. Tompk in s
41. The Dhstrict considered 15 sites (including the proposed site) prior
to April 15, 1980 (date of site purchase). Subsequent to site pur- ~
chase, an additional 11 sites were constdered. A listing of these
sites with reasons for rejection is included in Appendix 6 of this
FEIS.
42. Prior to purchase of the 16th ana Sul 1ivan site (Apri 1 15, 1980) tne
need for a transportation and bus storage facility had been antici- +
pated for several years. Need for improved dus storage and central-
ized storage was seen as early as 1973. Funding for these facilities
was included in 1977 and 1978 bond issues. Improved facilities for
transportati on were among the needs Identi fied when the Distri ct began
seeking sites in 1979. For example, the site analysis for transporta-
tion/maintenance/warehousing/curriculum library/instructional materi- ~
als center prepared by the project architect was initially developed
on June 25, 1979, with subsequent revisions on July 2, 1979 and April
of 1980. The June and July 1979 site analysis included the 4th and
Conklin site and 6arker and Mission site. The Apri1 1980 site analy-
sis included the two previous sites and also the 16th and Sullivan
site. The Dtstrict had also discussed the prospect of developing an ~
educational services center inciuding transportation with the County
P1 anni ng Depa rtment and va rious property owners in 1979, pri or to ac-
quisition ofi the 16th and Sullivan site.
43. The seller of the 16th and Sullivan site was aware of the potential
uses of tne site prior to purchase. A letter from the personal repre- ~
sentati ve of the sel l er (Mr. R. J. Wal l i s, Apri1 18, 1980) states the
following: "It was only after consideraole consideration and viewing
possible architectural designs that it was decided to sell to the Dis-
trict. Tne seller continues to reside on and own adjacent property
and i feel should have knowledge of continued plans and/or any possi-
ble changes in District plans for this property." ~
44. The District approached the county regarding Zoning in December, 1979.
Un Decemder 14th, Mr. Jackman, representi ng the Dt stri ct , out 1 t ned the
proposed services uses to Gary Thompson, Assistant Zoning Administra-
tor. These uses were discussed in relation to eacn of 11 potential
sites. Mr. Thompson stated that the facility would De allowed on any ~
of the sites. This interpretation was confirmea with Mr. Thomas
Uavis, also of the county. On December 19, 1979, the District posted
a letter to Ms. Raines, County Zoning Administrator, stating that the
services center was intended to accommodate support services including
administration, storage, transportation, and maintenance. Mr. Thomp-
son's letter of January 2, 1980 confirmed the Uecember 14th conversa- ~
tion and specifically stated that administration, storage, transporta-
tion, and maintenance were included as proposed uses for the services
center. His letter stated that such uses were allowed in agricultur-
al, agritultural/suburdan, and multi-family tones. The distict then
reconftrmed the content of the conversation (of December 14th) by
posting a letter on January 9, 1980 to Mr. Thompson stating that the ~
District was proceeding on the basis of the January 2nd letter.
60 ~
s
45. The decision as to a mitigating measure being incorporated into the
proposed project i s that of the Distri ct Boa rd of Di rectors. The E IS,
in the case of most mitigating measures, is making recommendations
~ that should be aaopted in order to mitigate adverse impacts. It is up
to the Board to require these mitigating measures be adopted and car-
ried out.
46. See response 70
' 47. The county is currently acqulring adaitional right of way along the
Sullivan corridor to complete the proposed improvements. Construction
is planned to oegin in 1984 (see response 25). Completion will take
place prior to construction of any of the bus storage facilities on-
site.
~ 48. The possibility of incorporating fencing and its potential location
has not been definitely established at this time. This is a decision
that will be made by the Board wTth input from the proj ect consultants
and concerned citizens.
49. The volume of traffic at tne present time is not sufficient to warrant
~ air quality monitoring, nor is the volume traffic to be generated by
the proposed project projected to measurabiy degrade extsting air
quality.
50. 8us and automodile impacts are discussed separately on pages 74 and 75
of the DEIS. They have not been equated.
~ 51. The traffic projections were based on information provtded Dy the
County Engineer's Department. As far as "depopulation of the valley"
I5 concerned, neither Lhe Comprehensive Land Use Plan nor the Compre-
hensive Water Management Plan woule indicate such action. In fact,
these plans indicate that the area contained within the Priortty Sewer
~ Serv ice Area ( PSSA ) wi 11 recei ve a 1 a rger sha re of the overa 11 val 1 ey
development since this is the area that wtll initially be sewered and
have access to sewer. Most of the undevel oped area within the PSSA
lies within the Central Valley School District. While it may be true
in general that denstties will be reduced, this is intended to take
place in the areas outside of the PSSA or areas that are not slated
~ for future sewering. The densities within the areas that will receive
imnediate sewer service (Phase I service) will be greater in order to
fully utilize the sewer and reduce unit costs.
52. Assumtng tnat the entire project was fully completed in 1984 and
reached full operatlonal capacity, the traffic lmpacts of the project
~ would not vary provtded that the proposed Sullivan Road/16th Avenue
intersection improvements are completed. If the projected non-project
related traffic does not grow as greatly as cited in the DEIS, the
overall traffic impacts will not be as great as discussed in the DEIS.
The District share in relation to overall traffic will oe greater, but
this will not alter overall traffic conditions.
•
~ 61
~
53. Since the District has no control over the property surrounding the
project site, it is impossible to describe specific uses to which tt
may be put by present or future owners. Based on the Comprehensive
Plan designation for the area and the trend of past growth, it is ~
probaDle that some form of residential use may be developed in the
a rea. Lands surrounding the site that have specific use proposals in-
cl ude the Vera Water and Power site for uti1 ity use (ad jacent to the
northeast corner), Fire Protection District 1 for a fire station (ad-
jacent to the northeast corner), and the property east of Sullivan de-
tween 16th and 24th avenues which received preliminary plat approval ~
in July of 1982 for 284 homes (125 acres). The general uses to which
adjacent property along Sullivan might be put would include neignbor-
h0od commercfal, offices, and single or multi-family residential as
menti oned on page 58 of the DEIS.
54. The objectives for tne proposed project are included on page 1 of the ~
DEIS. Fuel savings is Dut one of the major rationales for the pro-
posed project. Also see response 34 for a discussi on rel ated to fuel
savings.
55. The alternative of sateliite uussing was considered by the District
and discussed in a report completed by Pupil Transportation Supervisor ~
of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction at the request of
the Services Center Comnittee in June of 1980. This report (July,
1980) is incluaed on pages 133-138 of the DEIS. The evaluation of
satellite or auxilliary dus parking areas concludes dy stating: "Use
of a smal l satel lite in tne western part of the district, fol lowing a
move of the main facility f rom its present location, may result in ~
some very limited cost oenefits. However, in nLv opinion, tnese would
be more than offset Dy costs of maintaining the second area and the
difficulty Wh1Ch wlll be experienced in supervision, administration,
and maintenance." It is probable that an eastern satellite would re-
sult in fuei savings over operating all of the buses out of the pro-
posed site, Dut this would be offset by other costs as cited above. ~
Tne options of operating all activities out of the 4th and Conklin and
Central Valley High School sites are discussed under the alternatives
section on pages 106-109 of the DEIS. Operations out of the proposed
site would provide fuel savings over the alternative sites discussed
in the DEIS. Since the major components ofi District fuel consumption ~
are pup11 transportation and maintenance activities, operating the ad-
mini strati ve/eaucati onal funct ions on the proposed site and operati ng
the transportation/maintenance functions out of the alternative sites
woula not result 1n a savings over the proposed site.
56. See response 55 for a discussion of satellite Dussing. The purpose of ~
an EIS under SEPA is to discuss and disclose the environmental and
socio-economic impacts ot a proposed action. A full cost/benefit an-
alysis is not required. However, the following estimates of cost com-
parison between sites are provided for review. Any additional intor-
mati on or comments rega rding the economi c cansi derati ons of the pro-
j ect can be made to the District Boa rd of Directors prior to i ts deci - ~
sion regarding a site.
62
•
+
If tne existing District vehicles were operated out of a site locatea
ei ther east of the Central Val l ey Hi gh School or at 4th and Conkl in,
the cost of such operati ons woul d oe roughly the same. The anti cipat-
ed savtngs within the next few years (as faciiities are developed in
! the southeastern and eastern portions of the District) from operating
out of either of these sites would be approximately $102,360 when com-
pared to continued operation from existing District sites. The pra-
posed site (16th and Sullivan) is anticipated to provide an operation-
al savings of approximately $129,240 per year as existing District
vehicle operations (to be included in the proposed services center)
~ are consolldated in a central location. It would cost tne District
approximately $26,880 more each year to aperate existing vehicles from
either the 4th and Conklin or CVHS sites than from a site within tne
prime area (wh1Ch includes 16th and Sullivan).
The District anticipates that annual operational savings ofi this ar-
~ rangement for existing District vehicles would be about $115,800 when
compared wlth continued operation from existing District sites. It
would thus cost the D►strict about $13,400 more each year to operate
existing vehicles under this arrangement than if all vehicles were
based at a site in the prlme location.
• It should be pointed out that these estimates are oased on anticipated
District operations wlthin the next several years, the existing number
of vehicles, current fuel pri ces, and current 1 abor/dri ver wages. As
the numDer of vehicles anG total route miles increase and the opera-
tional costs increase, the relative advantages ofi the proposed site in
terms of cost savings wiil become increasingly pronounced. Also as
~ servlces center components (wnich presently do not exist within the
District) are added to District facilities and operations, addittonal
operational savings will accrue as a result of the relative mileage
savtngs. Operational savings will also increase as current contract-
ural agreements are implemented, phasing out the two-hour "minlmum
• call Dack" for bus drivers.
57. Constderation and attempts to negotiate on the 4th and Conklin proper-
ty by the District took place Detween April 24, 1979 ana February 3,
1981. Efforts were made to determine availability and price ofi the
land east of Central Valley Hign School between July 7, 1980 and Feo-
• ruary 3, 1981. Efforts were made to ontain costs ot the Renz property
between July 7, 1980 and August 4, 1980. A summary of tne contacts
made during these periods is included in Appendix C to this FEIS.
58. The estimated cost of Geveloping the entire Educational Services
Facility is shown on the following taole. Again, the inclusian of
. these figures is provided for informational purposes only, since this
type of information is not specifically related to the envlronmental
and socio-economic discussion and disclosure as required by SEPA. It
should also be noted tnat the OiStrict will proceed with subsequent
phases of construction only when they can be justtfied on economic and
aperattonal grounds.
•
63
•
ESTIMATED CURRENT DDLLAR COSTS FUR FULL
BuILD-OUT aF EQUCATIQNAL SERVICES CENTER
Estimated Costs: ~
Slte (assuming 16th and Sul7ivan usea) $ 2009000
Phase I 1,0159000
Phase II 2,6129000
Phase III 3,1519000
Yotal $19104, 0OU
Estimated vai ue of exi sti ng Dz sCri ct assets freed ~
by proposen services center:
Present admi n i stration/trartsportation site $ 9059000
BarkEr center, land only 2519000
Total $1,156,000
Estimated net cost af praposed services center: ~
EstfmaLed cost $721049000
Estimated val ue af existf ng assets f reea 19156,000
Net services center cost $5,9480000
~
•
~
~
•
•
I
i
I 64 ~
I
~
December 5, 1981
~ Dave Jackman, Director
Facilities and Planning
Central Valley School District #356
South 123 Bowdish
Spokane, WA 99206
Re : DEI S on F,ducationa 1 Serviees
' ~nter (Bus Barn)
Dear Mr. Jackman: C
The following are concerns we feel are inaclequately addressed in the
DEIS.
40 Ground Water Qua11t 59
`~e DEIS states t at the Spokane/Rathclrum 11qu1rer is thc "solc sourc~ '
of drinking water for the Spokane MctrapAliran area. It necds to spc-
ciFy what quantities of pollutants wi1l hc exposed to the Aquifcr and
the xmpact this exposure will have on tlie AquiCer's quality of water.
The School Distrlct states that they wtll connect to sewer lines as
~ soon as "it's available". What time f rame are we looking at and what
irreversible damage will bc done before the Valley sewer system is
available.
Risk of Explosion or Hazarcious Emrssioiis so
Paragraph IU, Page 59 and 60 states tlie prapcased project wlll hotise
~ potenfiially flammable anci explosivic el1em ir.tls . jVhat specif ic measureS
will be taken to ensure proper hanciling, storage and unauthorized
entrance to these volatile substances.
Public Services - Police s~
Page 80 states that budgetary cuthachs h~~vc forceci the closure of the
~ Sheriff's substation located at Fire Station 01 (E. 10319 Sprague).
The reopcning of this substation will depend on future budgetary con-
straints. The closure of thZS facillty ZJ111 increaSe the response timc
{or Sheriff deputies to respond to ca11 s involving theft, vandalism ancl
illegal entrance into this facility. Page 81 states the llistriet
"should" consult with the Sheriff' s Uep.1rtment in orclcr to dcveloP
~ addit i onal measures that would rCCluee uri.iiic lior i zcci cnt rv to t hc
facility. What guarantees do we have that this will in fdrt hc clonc.
AS a resldent and taxpayer of thc Gentral Valley School Uistrict we
are concerned with the quality of eclucation aur chtldren are receiving.
In 1 ight ot' recent hudget restr ict ions , wc .fecl a more YCa11 St1C and
0 senslhle approach sliould be made hy the School Board concernijlg the
proposed rroject.
Si,nrprely, ~
16 ~ r
` i,► ld t+t t~~14.( t/~
~ A1r. a»rl Mrs.` llayne L. NicLaughl in
S. 1520 Century
Veradal c , {VA 99037
0 65
~
Responses to letter from Mr. and Mrs. Wa,yne L. McLaughT i n
59. Two potenti al sou rces of cnntaminants w1 ll exist art-site wh ich may
contribute sl i ght quantiti es of contaminants to the aquifer. These
are starm water runoff and effluent fram septic drainfields. Storm ~
water runOff wt 11 be treated i n accordance wi th Spok,ane Caunty' s
"Guidel # nes for Stvrmwater Mana+qement" (1981). As shown on the tahl e
an page 29 of the aErs, mcost cantamirtants wrt 11 ae removed from storm
water treated acearding to the c+ounty's guidel tfles. The quantity of
contamTnants that wi 11 actUally reach the aquifer ha$ not been deter- ~
mi ned by tne various agencies that have tested aqul fer water qua] ity
over the years. At the pre$ent time, the county is canducting astudy
of grourtd water in t#te viclnity of dry wells in the attempt to deter-
mine eontaminaRt loading. The prvjected laading of the septic drartM-
fTe]d system is discussea in response 6. Agai n, the quanti ty of con-
taminant ] oading that wt 11 reach the aqui fer cannot be defi nitive]y ~
determined.
The valley intercepLor (aiong Sprague) is expected py tne county
Ut 1l1 ti es Depa rtment to be compl eted to Su11 i van Road by► spring of
1985. Extenslan of trunk 1ines to the Di strict site wi l i be accom-
pl ished when a ULI D has been apprvved and funded. Thi s acti on coul d ~
De accompl ished as the Interceptor constructi on i s taking pl ace. The
earllest that the praposed facility cauld be cannected would be in
1985. If a ULID is rrot put tagether ay praperty owners in the area,
the Oate at whi ch cannecti on is made could take much 1 onger. Essen-
tial]y, the timing iS dependent not only on District desrtres but also
on ] acaZ proAerty owners' desx res. The Di stri+ct will coaperate wlth
1 ocal property oamers in funding the apprapriate UL I Q.
60. See responses 6, 7, and 28.
61. The closure af the substatioR has r~esuZted in fncreaseQ response time
du1r1 ng the tlmes when shift changes are bei ng made. When shifts have ~
Deen pl a ced i n tMe fiel d, hoUVeYE'ri respanse ti me is no di fferent than
with the suDstation. It should be added that the Qate of sudstation
reopening has not been establ i shed at this ti me.
The Qistrict will work with the Crime Frevention Unit of the Sheriff's
Department to coordinate design and security features wMich will con- ~
trol unwarranted entry.
It snould also be noted tnat Fire Pratection Dzstrict 1 plans to lo-
cate a fiire stati on on property adjacent ta the D'i szr7 ct s i te. Thi s
stativn will be manned 24 hours per day and will provide Substantial
security to the proposed services center site. ~
~
66
~
~ LAW OFF1CE5 OF
PAINE, LOWE, COFFIN, HAMBLEN & BROOKE
1400 WASHINGTON TRIJST FlNANCIAL t:ER1TER 99204
ALAN P O KELLY LAURENCE Fi HAMBLEN (I9381
JONN HUNEKE 1215 WASHINGTON MLrTIdAL gU1LO1NG 99201 AL•+y tv p41NE .ta5as
R08ERT L SIMp50N R E 6pWE (1972)
7 RlCNApD D McwiLLiAMs SPOKANE, WASHINGTON w s cJLecar o 19e13)
WM FREMMIMG NfEL9CN aRPo W GILOERT 4RfY IsitlOa
IAWRQNCe R 5MAL6 PHONE (5081 455 6000 EOwIN q RABERtS (qET 1981)
JOMN A OUINLAN PMIt4P S OROOKE JR (RET 19811
FREOERiC G EMRY 11
GURT18 L SHOEMAK£R TRf-CITIES OFFICE
A~ ~At~NSEL
oAvID L eROOM
JERRY K BOYO 7601 W CLEARWATER KENNEWICK, WA 99336 PN,LkPS eaoOxa ea
GARY A pAH1.KE PHON'E t 509 +~82 40~0 Mw~Ok~ ~L NFpiN
OANIEI E MCKEI.VEY JR
TIMOTHY W CUIfiK MORT0IV Mp'qMAN
~ OONALD G 3TONE ASSOCIATCS
PNll.lp 5 BRAOKE 111
9COTT L StMP50N OAYrD J MEYER
AM S M KALAMON G December 7, 1981 SHA1lh M CROSS
FHaNkLIN J 5t.A23LE
JAME9 9 KING d61hlN C RISEB.)HOlJON
D"AN@ M HERMANSON
NANCY'L KAGELC
WIIL AM J 3CHROEpER
aARY R 6NGLISN
~
Mr David Jackman
Facilities Planner
Central Valley School DYStrict #356
South 123 Bowdish Road
• Spokane, Washington 99206
Re: Draft Environmental Impacti Statement/Bus Barn
Dear Mr, Jackman: '
~ This is to acknowledge receipt of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement circulated by the Central Va11ey SCh001 DlSti'1Ct with respect
to the construction proposed on 15 4 aGres in the vlcinYty of 16th
Avenue and SuIlivan Road in the Spokane Valley.
~ Wh11e I have not had the opportunity to circulate the Draft En-
vironmental Impact Statement among the appcoximate 1,000 residents of
the School District opposing this project, pursuant to WAC 197-10-480,
we wouid formally request a public hearing on the School District's
proposal as required by law. A petition is being circulated and should
reach your office with the approprrate flfty signatures.
~ In reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement provided lo
me, I would submit that the proposed draft provides insufficient datz
from which to evaluate your conclusions regarding negative environ-
mental impact. Simllarly, the lack of test data daes not permit adequate
foundatYOn for any analysis by engineering experts Accordingly, a
• request is made for the oppnrtunlty to inspect and copy relevant mater-
ials or test results utilized in your Uraft Cnvironmental Impact State-
men t.
•
67
•
. ~
, Mr. David Jackman
Page 2
A review of the matenals submitted to us daes canfirm that our ~
prfncipal concerns of noise, traffic, ai r and water palIuttan, and ex-
plosive hazards are well #ounded. The location of your prapased €a--
cility adjacent to cesidental areas, and in an area designated as utban
residentiad for purpvses of the County''s comprehensive glan, and your
proposed use of the facility as a warehouse, c4rnmercia1 3aundry facility, ~
cammercial eookYng facihty, and bus barn demonstrates a Iack of com-
patibiltty vrnth existing and anticipafied futuce use of the area.
Using your proposed anaIysis of nozse pallution impact as a start-
ing pvint, I would submit that the Distrlct's analysis of dBA ratings far
buses is erroneaus. Reference ta the rnanufacWxer maxi.murn standards 4k
enuncfated in WAC 173-62-030 indicates maximum sound Ievel, dBA~ at
86 dBA, with a reduGing s#andard with respect to new motor vehicles,
to include buses, to as lvw as 80 dBA While I recognize that the
District's buses may or may not produce In a given circumstance a
maximum saund Yevel less than the amount reflected in these regulations
affect-ing manufacturin.g standards, I wauld szncerely question your 0
assessment that the noise from your existixtg buses would produce
maximum sound Ievels in the range suggested by the Impact Statement.
Accepting yaur test data, and acimissaon that bus departures may
generate nvlse levels ranging from 60 dBA L~a 75 dBA ,I sincerely
questivn the assessment that peak aceeleraLinn noise levels can be 0
reduced fram a range of 73 to 75 dBA to 60 ar 62 dBA through t.he
mitigatian measures referenced in your draft Impact Statement.
First of all, ta piace the problem in perspective, a"'dBA►" is a unit s3
of saund, based upon alogarithm~ic scale Her~ce, a unit of one in
reality equates wlth a factor of one, such that a 10 dBA variatian ~
actua]ly refers to a sound i'ncrease of a factor of 10 Hence, yau are
Iooking at a sound increase of ten times the prevlous saund canditian,
accegtrng an increase of "only" 10 dBA I sincerely questivn the
reliability of a mftigatian rneasure depenulenE upon instructlan to your
bus drivers to minimize accelerataan and aeceleration rates to reduce
this impact upan the restdences adjaining this proposed facillty. 0
Yvu also suggest t.hat t.he higher !he proposed berm, the better 64
fihe noise reduction, which tn itself .has negative envirnnmental impact.
Anyone whQ has any famtliarity whatsoever wlLh the vicrriyty of yvur
project knows that Sullivan Raad frequcn tly is closed beea use of snow-
drtfts in that area. The particular area cijusing the most problem 1s 0
immEdaately south of your propased site, where the surrounding land
raises above the grade level of the road rperCi1iLtt1'1g CIS"tft5 to accumulate
during the winter. Use of your propased berm or bunker wlI an1y
operate to permit additional snow accumulaLians ta Qccur, lunitrng access
to your proposed site and pasing a substantial traffic hazard in the
vicixii ty . ~
b8
•
~ •
Mr. David Jackman
.
Page 3
! On the availability Qf services to the District's proposed facility, I
would submit that you rely extensively upon the proposed widening of 65
Sullivan and 16th to accommodate the traffic generated frorn yaur fa-
cility. While your Environmental Impact Statement is in conflict as to
the amount of proposed trips generating from this facility, it is common
~ knowledge that the introduction of even 48 buses, four times a day,
particulariy during peak traffic hours, will serve to congest existing
road facilities.
Besides being concerned abou t our c}uldren, and other pedestrians 66
customarily utilizing the existing area, we would subrrut that construc
~ tion of the road facilities is part of the "cost" of your proposed pro-
ject. The only solution you suggest is that these roadways are sched-
uled for improvecnent at some time in the fuLure, which may or may not
equate with your development of the area We find that the proposed
use of this facility in generating substantial amounts of truck and bus
traffic substantially alters the existing use of this area, and that your
~ proposal contains no mitigating components other than ultimate reliance
upon the availability of county funds to expand services to your fa-
cility
In addressing the necessity of this development, the map provided 67
of district facilities to be served by this site confirms what we have
~ asserted previously to the effect that the great majority of locations to
be served are located to the west of your proposed and a1ternate sites.
While the Sulllvan corridor may form the geographical center of the
district as it extends to the state line, it is not central to existing
sites. Even assurrung proposed sites to the east are developed, the
majority of development remains to the west. What the Environmental
~ Impact Statement ignores is the effect that such cross-traffic servicing
the east and west will have on existing streets, lights and traffic
patterns, particularly if Sprague Avenue and the freeway will not be
utilized as the main travel route. If the latter route is to be used, we
feel that your present site on Bowdish, or an alternate site in Lhe
commercial zone adjacent to Sprague, is most compatible for your pro-
~ posed bus barn and commercial complex
There are numerous other objections to your proposed lmpact
Statement, to include the admission that 1 he proposed sile has poLentialsg
for accidental spillage of chemicals and fuels into the aquiter, along
with no provision for waste water and sewage mc-inagement Your cover-
~ ing of the property site with pavement ~1nd buildings by a factor of 79%
leaves us with substantYal question as to whether adequate disposal has
been provided for protection of the Spokcine aquifer Use of sedimen-
tation ponds, drainage of rooltop runolf tnlo dry wells, and limited soil
~
69
•
~
MF. David JaCkman
Page 4
~
absorption daes nat take care of th is prabl em . To the Cantrary, , it may
create attractive nuisances to children, fvster the breedtng of tnsects,
and invite further accumulatian of pallutants into the aquifer While I
do not uncierstand the extent of "be.rm" propQSed for thls facility, I
- also question why the School District concIudes that such would be ~
capable of absorbin,g groundwater runoff, or for that matter, why the
D,strict antici.pates na soil eraszon problems by grading a four to eight
faot hill around the perxmeter of your property.
[Ne realize tlriat the pxinc'lpal purpos+e of providing the berm or
bunker is to minimize the sYte pvllution assaclated with this project ~
While your report recagnizes this as an objertive, it provides no spe-
cifzcs fram whlch we can evaluate the sitE pollution of the proposed
facility. As we understand 1t, all is dependent upon the availability af
funds and buildmg pIans yet to be completed
You have speclfied that "tilt up ca.ncrete" canstruction Ys antYCi-
gated of va.rying helghts, and that sueh will be pafnted in earth t4nes;
however, you faz1 to indicate the amaunt of rt3eiaa material to be utzlized.
Ynu alsa fail to state hQw such building materials assist in absvrbing
sound.
You fail to yndlcate whether the existrnce o#' a chainlink fence wtth I~ ~
triple barbed wire at the tap ~vill be uLiliz+~d l~ar securi°ty af this pro-
p4sed facility, and how that wilI appear to resiaents of the arear as
well as to members of the public triaveltrrg tn this viclnity While we
know that security Xs a problem due to vandalysm to school property,
even as experienced with yaur existing facility, whzch is located i.R a
highly nan-vistble area, mernbers af aur vrganizatton do nat laok far- ~
. ward to Lntroductian af a facility af I.his type in a residentia] neYghbor-
hoad It not only invites vandalisrn, but produces the appearance of a
detention faeility. We also assume thaL it wiZl have to be lighted on a
24-haur-a-day basis, which will produce ylar~ into the area, however,
your repart reflects no develapment nf a lighting pZan and suggests no
adequate rrutigatiQn far impact of thls an the surrounding cammunity
Your propQSal regarding cador c,~xislenr.e and lack af mttigal.ing
measures suggests onZg that the coinrnLtnity musfi endure Lhe citesel?2
pollution expected Frvm yaur capcrat ion circ,,a T'urther, it says nothing
regardYng the likely odor emissions I'rom Lhe proposed commcrcial
kitehen for the entire School D3strict, the comrnerctal laundry, and the ~
praposed warehouse whtch will likely be frequented by large trucks Ifi
is of little comfart that pou suggest thciL the nori-attaininent area is
appraxitnateiy ane anci ane--half miles lr om Lhe site of your proposed
facir7#.y, when we cansider the impact of I.he air pollutian IikeIy asso-
ciated {with this use in a residential area
!
7a
~
~ •
, Mr. David Tackman
Page 5
~ We predict that as acknowledged in your report, the introduction
of this facility will have substantial Ympact on housing in this area. 13
Your suggestion that it will have no impact on housing virtually ignores
the pattern of development in other areas of the County. More spe-
cifically, your commercial use of the area will invite others to see.k
~ commercial zone appucations. Housing introduced to the area will then
suggest the need for a"buffer" zone of multa-family housing (apart-
ments) to mintmize the negatrve visual impact of your facility on resi-
dences to be built in the future It provides little solace when you
suggest that such is dependent upon the actions taken by others when
it is your proposal which opens the door to this type of development in
~ the future.
We would request your action in making the appropriate test data
available to us at your earliest opportunity. For once, we would also
appreciate as rauch advance notification as possible regard.ing the public
hearing, and would propose an evening hearing at the Central Valley
~ High School in order to give the working people and people with child-
ren the opportunity to attend. Thank you
Very truly yours,
•
Donald G. Stone
DGS. bw/W
•
•
~
~
71
•
~
Res onses to letter fram aana
P 1 dG. Sto ne
52. Based on manitoring results of actual bus operatiaMS and autamobile
accel eratf an , there i s a rel ati vely sti gn i ficant difference i n the ~
noise levels generated by rapid acce]eration as compared to slow, ,
gr'a(luai acceleration. As an exampZe, most indiviauals have experi-
enced the noise 1 ewel generated by a dri ver "gunni ng" his engi ne and
rapidly accelerati ng from a stap sign as oppose+d to a narmal, gradual
accel eratian fram a stop si gn. The efferti veness vf such a measure,
a5 your suspicioRs polnt out, is dependent on the individual drirrer in ~
adheri ng to tht s type vf mi tigati ng measu re.
63. Th1s rts true when discussing rel ati we sound energy, but not true when
referri ng to rel ative 1oudness. For exarnpl e, an inerease i n sound
leve3 from 60 dBA to 70 dBA (an increase of 10 OBA) wil1 result Yn a
ten-fold tncrease in reiattve sound eRergy wh11e the increase in re3a- ~
tive 1 oudness is appraxi rnately dvubi ed. The rel ative 1 audness i s the
sound Rercei ved by an ooserver. An average indivi dual can just detect
a change f n saUnd leael of two deciael s under iaeal ]aDaratory Condi-
ttons where orre sound stimulus is presented after anather. Under nar-
mal listening conditlans it migtit ne expeeted that a change of fram
three tv fi ve dBA would be required far the average 1istener to per- ~
cei ve a change (Chalupnik, Dctaber, 1981). Al so, see response 62.
64, See response 20.
65. See response 23 far total trip generation pro3ected far the proposed
project. The school bus aperatzons through the Su11 i van/l6th i nter-
sectian would take pl ace primari iy during the aff-Reak traffic haurs.
According to the QEZS (page 70), morning traff ic peaks oetween 7:00
a,m. and 8:00 a.m. wlth a 5nort peak oetween 6:45 a.m, and 7: a4 a,m.
then a greater peak oeginning around 7:30 a.m. Morning bus aperations
are presently scheduled for departures between 6:30 a.m. and 7:15 a.m.
and returRS between 8: 30 a.m. and 8:50 a.m. Thi s might resuit ln a ~
short conflict witr+ existing traffic between 6:45 a.m. and 7;00 a.m.
duri ng d+epartures wTth no canflicts wi th peak traffic dUri ng the rnarn-
ing recovery perlad.
Mzdday bus departures ano recoveries are praJectea to oe low tn valume
and will not affeGt the midday traffic peak (which is significantly ~
lower tnan Che mornrtng and afternoon peaks). Tne afternoon bus aepar-
tures (2;00 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. ) and recaveries (3;30 p.m. tv 4.30 p.m. )
will not conflict witn tne peak trafffc perioe (5:00 p.m. to 6:00
p.m. It shou] d further be poi nted out triat the bus starage faci 1 t-
ties wT 11 not be constructed unti 1 Phase II of the proposed praject.
By the time this phase is +eonstructed, it js ful]y expected that the ~
praposea improvements to Sullivan Rnad and the lfith and Sullivan in-
tersection will have been tampZeted.
It snoula Qe nated tnat the Uistrf ct present]y d4ES not aperate 48
buses, but 33, on adai ly basis. See page 71 of the DEIS which states
that 28 ouses operate 7n the morning, 10 at Raon, and 32 in the after- ~
noon.
72
~
~
66. These improvements to the Sullivan corrldor are planned to oe complet-
ed regardless of the Oistrict's use of the site. At present, con-
st ru ction of these improvements i s pl a nned to begi nin ea rly 1983. I f
this sthedule is held, the road improvements should be completed prior
~ to the operation of the Phase I facility.
67. The services center is sited to serve District needs for an indefinite
future--50 to 70 years at least. Populatian is moving to the south
and east. The District is purchasing sites in these areas. School
population in the north and west parts of the Oistrict is declining to
~ the point that fewer school sites are likely to exist there in the
future. The crittcal intersection when considering traffic impacts is
the 16th and Suilivan intersection. Cross-dist rict traffic will not
be heavily concent ratea either along a single corridor or during a
specific time period. Several routes are expected to be used by east/
west traffic. These include 32nd, 24tn, 16th, 8th, Sprague, and
# Broadway. No signi fi cant impacts wi 11 be created dy Di strict traffi c
in the use of these streets.
68. As with any project or activity over the aquifer, there is potential
for spillage of contamtnants that would potentially reach ground
water. This potential hazard can be miti gated by appropriate control
~ procedures. Please see responses 6, 7, and 28 for a discussion. Pro-
vi sion for storm water runoff wi 11 be made in accordance wi th the
county's "Guidel ines for Storrtarater Management" as discussed on pages
28-29 of the DEIS. (In bOth cases, disposal and control of liquids
wili be significantly better than that now occurring.) Sanita ry waste
• will be dtsposed of by septic tank and drainfield until sewer is
available. Septic tank and drainfield location, constructton, and
maintenance will be completed in accordance with county environmental
heaith guidelines and under county approval (see pages 36, 89, and 90
of the DEIS).
~ 69. The construction of a landscaped earth berm varyng in height from four
to eight feet will be completed in the first phase of the proposed
project. The funds necessary to complete the berm have been allocat-
ed. A model of the project showi ng the proposed berm i n rel ati on to
proposed structures has tieen avallable in the District administrative
office for puDl i c inspection si nce July of 1981.
~ 70. The major components of the proposed structures will be concrete or
masonry matert al . Metal wi11 most 1 i kely be used in mi nor components
such as door and wi ndow frames and possibly roofs. The total amount
of inetal to be used in the exterior construction of the structures
will not be determined until working drawings and materials specifi-
~ cations are developed. The exterior materials proposed for the struc-
tures are not intended to aDSOro sound.
71. At the present time, tne project architect does not feel that a peri-
meter security fence wlll be necessary. All equipmenta materials,
vehticleS, etc., will be housed within a building or inside interior
~ fenced areas. If such a fence is constructed, it is the intent of the
District to desi gn i t to mi nimi ze visual i ntrusi on on the surroundi ng
iand uses. The District can reouce the threat of vandalism oy limit-
73
•
~
ing potential window access, providirtg secure door5 and pravidting
sound manitori ng qevices to detect unwarranted entry. Access tan al so
ae made avat 1 able to caunty 5heriff's wehi c1 es so that patrol is fa-
c111tated. The location af afi re stati on at the northeast corner of ~
the si te wi 13 pl ace fire personnel adjacent to the proposed servi ces
centeP pn a24-hou r bas 1 S. Tne prD jeCt des igr1 w7 th reSpect to door
and windQw security, sound monitoring, lightiRg, and traffic patterns
to facilitate abservatton of potential entry paints w11l be coordinat-
ed wttil the Crime Preventian Unit of the Sheriff's [lepartrnent.
The facilit,y will be provided with limited security lighting (hign ~
pressure sodium). Such 1igi1ting wf 11 be designed to i ncorporate 1 ow
g]are light sources Iacatea so as to Tlluminate specific areas af the
51 te wi thout creati ng exeessive glare that woul d i ntrude uporr ad jacent
residences. The use of 1 ow-1 eve] i i ghCs with shades to control glare
entitted to off-site sources as well as screening vegetation can effec- ~
tively limit glare intrusians to aff-site properties. 72. Diesei odor rapidly diffuses wlthtn a shart distance 4f its source and
will not be cancentrateo in the vicinity of exlsting residences. Die-
sel powered buses which wi11 produce p4tentially Qdoriferous emisslons
wtl] be those exitng the site. Residents engaged in outside activi- ~
ties near the ex1t poi nts al ong 16ttr and al ong Sul li van may natice
diesel odars of short durdtion duri ng periads of bus Qperation. There
are no mi tt gating measures proposed for this potential impact, except
that rtd7ing time De minimiaed at the exit points. TMis, hvwever, is
beyond the control of the drivers in that entry to the streets wi l1
depend on traffic candltions. ~
The aistrict now operates major preparatian kitchens on three sites.
To the District's knawZedge, no complaints of vdors fram katchen oper-
attans have oeen noted in the past and, theref4re, such odors are not
anticiaated in the futur^e and they are not perceived to be an adverse
impact shou 1d the District u 1 ti matel y centraliae foad preparati on ac- ~
tivities at a cQntral site.
The Di strict current ly aperates i aundry faci1iti es at most secondary
scnools. Np adverse odors have heen reported as vriginating fram
these operativns. Tne District nas na reason to oelieue odar wouid ae
created if these operatians were on a single site. ~
73. The proposea praject wi11 not al ter tMe exi stt ng pravision of hou si ng
i n the si te vie1 nity. It wi11, however, precl ude the use af the si te
for future hous Tng. The genera 1impacts relat1 ng to 1 and use of the
Rropase❑ project are discussed on pages 55-58 0# the nEIS.
~
~
74
~
~
~
Dave J"a.ckman--Director
Facilities and. Planning
Central Va.lley Schaol District Na. 356
S. 123 Bowdish Rd .
~ Spvkane, Washingtan 99206
DEIS on Educati.onal Serviaes Center
Dear Mr• Jackman,
~ The f ollowi-ng comments are rnade and require realis tic responses, as we f+eel that the
DEIS is in error in many of its statements, and therefore inadequate for ar~yone to
evalua.te the true and rea,listic impact on tl-ieproposed site at 16th and Sullivan.
W3.ll ref+arenae each eomment with title anci/vr sub--title, and gage.
~ AESTlWIGS (PP • 92-93) The DEIS states that "•the re4idences between Newer and JQ
Su.l~.ivan rr~ads a.re ariented east-west and wilI not v~.ew the site directly." Wha~L the
bEIS fails to state, as is canszatent thraughvut, is that those xesidenees between
Newer and Sullivan, al1 have bac}cyard.s, sun decks, pool, hot tub, etc. which when
util.ized during the wa.rmer months of the year, will be looking directly at the "Bus
Earn." They also taa-1 to mentian the residences facing south on 15th between Newer
• and Pxvgress, who will a1so have a view of the "Bus Baxns," Theref vre the statement
noted above in quotations is in error.
13.ALTERNATIVE SI'I'E LOC,ATY(?NS (p. 143) "Pxiar to purchasing the prapased site the District completeri an extensive site seasch." May we remind yau, Mr. ,Tackrtan, that.
~ it was only after residents demaru3,ed a. search for a1ternate sites, was it investigated
at a11, and then paorly so.
LiMEA FRC1N1 ROY BAUMAIJ, PUPIL TRANSPOKA'TION CC}aRUINAT4R (p. 138) Page 6 of lettex 1~
unc~er "Qther s~.te Altez~rxatives" s{~Althot~gh n~a other s~pecif~.c site ~.ocations were eva1-
uated dtiiring the study, it was nated that there axe ather parcels of undeveloped
~ propexty in the general area of the Sullivan site. No ef-fort was made ta determine
availability, oast of acquisition, ar Qther f acto-rs . However, based an Zacation alone,
all of these parae].s of suffYCient size, and located within ane mile of the Su].livan
site, cauld be considereri as viable op~iona." Ma.,y we s-uggest tha.t you investigate
these "viable options".
~ A. IKPACr'S (p.1) A IR: "Slight ador fram ciiesel ?ms operaLions," S1ight is an inter@
estin g descri p tion for the odtir that will be generateci b y some 25-30 d~ ~se1 buses,
minimum.
FAUNA (p.Z) "Existing Mabitat (wh-Lch is periodica.lly d1sxupted by c:ultivatian) w-Lll
l~e reglaced by c~omestic ~.awn ,~rass, s~ul~s, trees, ~,nd n,ative grasses ov~er la.ndscap4~d
# area, Which will be more diverse a.nd stable than w}~a-L presently exists." We feel this
statament is totally erroneaus, in that the land as it exlsts now has been an en joy-
able szght far us, tv watch the rlatuxal farlnlng of the land, and aur appreciaticn of
iLS value in our community,
#
75
~
~
' NOISE (p.2) "Temporary increase in noist ?evels during construction."
"Increase of overall noise levels froin on-site operations."
"Slight increase z.n overall traffic no3.se levels."
"Increase in peak noise levels during depaxture and return of buses at
access points and along 16th Avenue and Sullivan Road." ~
Taken individually, anyone of these may be tolerable, but when putting them together,
and together they will be, it is absolutely intolerable, and this degree of noise
level is totally inappropriate for a residen(,ial area. This section in particular,
must certiainly be addressed thoroug:zl~ , Compl e;el;~ , ~,ud realistically.
80
RISK OF EXPLOSION CR HAZARDOUS EMISSIONS (p.2) "I+uPl and other poter,tially hazardous ~
material.s stored on-site." Surely, a poss3.ble Lhreat such a.s this, in the middle of
a residential Community, muat be responsibly ad.dressed and discussed.
e~
TRANSPQRTATI4N/CIRCULATION (pp. 2-3) "Increase in accident potential betweea throug
vehicles and turning traffic."
"Inc.rease i rr ar,cidenL pol.entia,l beLween vehicles ~
and bicycles and pedestria,ns."
Most of the children in this area attend Adam'S Elomsntary. They are not allowed bus
service, and therefore many of the childreri walk ar ri3e bicycles to and frorn sehoal.
There are ao side walks. The traff ic on 16th is already a ma jor concern of all the
paxents. Wha.t do you propose our children do when this "bus barn" is completed and
the inf lux of traff ic is at a very dangerous level f or a residential area? Has this ~
high priority concern been honestljr addressed7
We c ould continue to respond to the rest af the titles and sub-titles of the Summary,
but feel that rre ha,ve raised some very per:inent qupstions concerning the lack of ad-
equa,te and concrete irYf ormation of many phases of the ,UEIS.
~
As taxpayers a.nd property awners in thr C',entral Valley 5chool District we beleive
that it is your responsibility and obligation to adequa.tely address realistieally che
questions and concerns raised herein.
_ r
- BrettWOLclman
~
Sue M. 4leidrna>.n
. 1
}
v
1011,
~ • t~' - (
i ~
~
76
•
~
Responses to letter from Brett and Sue Weldman
74.~ This comment is noted. Residents of the area in addition to those
directly facing the proposea project may be able to view the site from
~ rear yard aecks, rear and side windows, and rear yards. A purpose of
the proposed landscaped berm is to screen the interior of the site
from potential viewers in this area. The use of the site recently
purchased by Fire District 1 for a fire station will also provide a
visual Duffer.
~ 75. See Appendix 6 to this FEIS.
76. A1 te rnat i ve si te 1 ocati ons investi gated by the Di stri ct are shown on
page 105 and discussed on pages 103-109 of the DEIS. Also, refer to
Appendi ces 6 and C to th is FE IS.
~ 77. See response 72.
78. The present use of the land is mono-crop cultivation. The introduc-
tion of various landscaping species will provide greater diversity
over the exi sti ng use.
• 79. Noise impacts were discussed on pages 43-47 of the DEIS. As discussed
in the DEIS, the major permanent noise impact of the proposed project
will oe that of buses exittng and entering the site, primarily accel-
erating buses. These Duses wi11 generate noise directly opposite ex-
isting and future residences as they enter the street. Activities
within the yard area will be ouffered by the proposed earth oerms.
~ With the acquisition for the one-acre site along 16th Avenue, the bus
storage faci1 iti es wi11 be moved further from 16th. Whi1 e thi s wi 11
not reduce the noise generated by ouses entering and exiting 16th, it
wi11 further reduce off-si te noi se i evel s of i dl i ng buses. As ei s-
cussed in the DEIS, these noise levels will not de continuous but will
occur during three defined periods of the day during school days.
~
80. See responses 6, 79 28, and 31.
81. Measures that can be implementea to reduce pedestrian/vehicular con-
flict include marked pedestrian crossings at intersections, sidewalks,
and pedest rian zone warning signs. In addition, the District monitors
~ traffic conditions tnat would potentially affect the safety of its
stuaents. If the District feel s that• a hazard exists, attendance
Doundaries can be adjusted or students can be bussed across the haz-
ardous streets.
♦
~
77
•
~
IU. HEARING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
The following pages include the comments received during a public r+ear-
ing on tne Ed,ucational Services Facility draft IE'IS. The hearing was he,ld
~ by off icial s of the Cent ra,i Va 11 ey Scriool Dist ri ct on December 21, 1981.
The ,purpose of the nearing was to a`llow verbal commentary on the d+raft EIS.
A transcript of the heari,ng is reproduced in the following section.
Appropriate comments to WhtCh responses are given are numbered. The re-
sponses follow tne hearing; transcript. Gene'rally, onl,y comments which
specitically~ address the draft EIS are given res'ponses. Comments express-
ing Yop=i nt on, either f,or or agai nst the proposed pro~,ect but not speci fica 11'y
addressi ng the E1S are not gi ven a response.
r
t
n
~
~
w
~
79
•
~
SERVICES CENTER DRAFT EIS HEARING - DECEMBER 21, 1951
(Hearing Officer's Comnent)
~
Dave Jackman
It's 7:00 P.M., Monday December 21, 1981.
I'm Dave Jackman, Director for Faciltties with Central Valley School District. I ~
am also the designated District official responsible for the site development under
the State Environmental Policy Act.
Central Valley School District is considering locating an Educational Services Cen-
ter on a 15.4 acre parcel lying south and west of 16th Avenue's intersection with
Sullivan Road. The Services Center will support operations at each of the District's ~
various school sites. The Center is described as follows:
The development, upon final completion, will consist of a 74,000
square foot core structure housing central warehousing, building
and grounds maintenance and administration, transportation main-
tenance and administration, a curriculum library, potential kit- •
chen and laundry functions; a 20,000 square foot central adminis-
tration building; and four vehicle storage buildings (two each
for 38 buses and two each for 40 small vehicles). The site will
also be developed with a four to eight-foot-high landscaped earth
berm around its perimeter. The site is 15.4 acres in area. The
project will be developed in phases. •
The District has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, otherwise known
as a Draft EIS, outlining the effects of using the 16th and Sullivan property for
- the Services Center. The Draft EIS was published November 3, 1981 and was distri-
buted to various agencies and individuals. Since its distribution, we have rece-
ived several written comments. We have also scheduled tonight's hearing in acco rd ~
with YJashington Administrative Code 197-10-480. Notice of the hearing was mailed
to each recipient of the Draft EIS, and was published in the December 16, 1981
Va 11 ey He ra 1 d.
Tonight's hearing is for the sole purpose of receiving additional comment on the
Oraft EIS. My role is limited to conducting the hearing in an orderly manner. I •
cannot respond to questions unless they relate to the conduct af this hearinq.
In line with the Washington State Environmenta7 Policy Act, questions or comments
made at this hearing regarding the Draft EIS will be answered in writing when the
Final EIS is prepared. Copies of the Final EIS will be mailed to all of those who
received the Draft EIS, and also to those testifying tonight.
•
Tonight's proceedings are being recorded. It is important that everyone present
who desires to speak have a chance to do so, and also that an accurate record of
these remarks be kept. I viill therefore ask that the audience not comnent while
a speaker is speaking, and that the speaker:
- 1. Use the floor microphone.
- 2. State your name and address. Please spell your name if you
feel that woul d be hel pful .
80 ~
,
- 3. Confine remarks or questions to the Draft EIS.
- 4. As a courtesy to others who wish to speak, please confine
your remarks to 10 minutes. You may wish to indicate ag-
i reement with points raised by previous speakers rather than
to fully develop each point yourself.
If you feel your comments will extend beyond 10 minutes
please wait until others have had a chance to speak be-
fore you,begin your remarks, and
•
- 5. If you plan to present written material, please do so
at the beginning or at the end of your testimony.
We are now ready to receive your remarks at the floor microphone.
!
~
(Testimony Begins)
•
Don Stone - Mr. Jackman, for the purposes of the record my name is Don Stone and
~ as the sole recipient, I should say individual recipient, of the Dratt EIS of the
School District, I feel it only appropriate that I take the opportunity to first
add ress the record in this matter. I should point out as well that the only other
individual recipient of the EIS was Attorney Stan Schultz, who I understartd is re-
presenti ng, i s acti ng, i n the capaci ty as attorney for P1r. Tupper or Tupper Real ty.
I am not positive of this fact, but other than that to my knowledge and other than
~ potentially the couple of copies that were given to P4r. Trunkenbolz, who requested
them through your office, I believe that we are the only individuals prior to this
evening who have had the opportunity of reviewing this particular document.
Now, at the onset, I wauld note that this document is 145 pages long. It is now
eight minutes after the hour and unfortunately, I understand, that two of the ra-
~ dio stations who were involved in publicizing this particular hearing, incorrect-
ly announced the time as 7:30. Accordingly, I would feel it appropriate to re-
quest that perhaps we take 5 minutes to give the other people in the hearing room
the opportunity to examine the particular document. I believe you did provide 5
or 6 copies at the table, some of which are being circulated at the present time.
If that would be permissible - otherwise I'll be forced to proceed.
~ Dave Jackman - Mr. Stone, that is certainly fine with me. In the matter of the '
proceeding of this hearing the guidance that we'll follow will be whatever is
convenient for the audience, and gives each of you the maximum opportunity to make
81
•
`
your remarks. If the audience in general would like afive minute period to review
the document, that is certainly fine.
Don Stone - Thank you. Just for the purpose of the people in the audience. There
are two copies remaining of the EIS over there, there are a couple being circulated, ~
and somebody is welcome to my copy. I'11 tell you it is 145 pages long and recog-
nizing even if you are speed readers, you're not going to see it in five minutes,
but if you'd like to take a look at it while some of the other speakers are talking,
feel free to do so.
(A five minute intermission occured). ~
Dave Jackman - lJe have had a five minute review period for those of you who had not
previously seen our Draft EIS. For the benefit of those folks who joined us in the
last five minutes, I would ask that anyone this evening who would like to offer tes-
timony on this Draft Statement use the microphone. Please give us your name, your ~
address, please do confine your remarks to the EIS, and also please try to be con-
cise in offering them, because there are a number of folks here who may wish to tes-
tify. Would you please begin your testimony on the statement?
Don Stone - Thank you Mr. Jackman. I don't propose in ten minutes to be able to
discuss in full detail 145 pages of proposed environmental impact, with respect to ~
this facility. I would first of all point out as the beginning speaker, the scope
of this particular hearing, is provided under the State Environmental Policy Act
and speclfically under the Administrative Code of the State of Washington that a
public hearing shall be held when requested by the appropriate number of people re-
siding in the community to be effected by the proposed project.
Incidental to preparation of the EIS, the leading agency in this case, which happens ~
to apparently be the School Di strict, i s required to research i n detai l various as-
pects of the so called environmental impact that will result from a proposed facility.
The public is given the opportunity to comment not only as to what the effect might
be, say on air and water pollution within the area, it's invited to address every as-
pect of the environment; every aspect of the proposed facility; every aspect of the ~
proposed need of the facility. Now, as indicated in my written commentary that has
been submitted to the School District previously, I would submit that on behalf of
the citizen group of the area, and specifically that so called the group is the
Concerned C.V. Taxpayers Association. There are several principal concerns which we
feel have not been adequately addressed by the impact statement and which we would
like to coinment on here this evening. ~
Now, in not any particular order preference, I think we can start off by saying that
the EIS, as submitted, is totally lacking in sufficient detail regarding the test;
the studies conducted by the School District to support the rather conclusory state-
ments as to a negative EIS. Now, specifically, I realiie that a provision of the
'.ldshington Administratzve Code provides that engineering drawings and technical data ~
shoul d be avoided. However, thi s i nformation i s to be kept by the School Distri ct
and is to be supplied upon request of any of the requesting agencies, or for that
matter the indlviduals concerned. Such a request was made by myself on December 7,
ta the School Di strict, for any and al i rel evant data rel i ed upon by the School
District in the formulation of their conclusions regarding naise impact, regarding
any other environmental impact relied upon 7n the statement. Tilis is for simple +
purpose of referring to this matter to engineering experts who can then try to sort
out the conclusions relied upon by the School District in asserting a negative en-
vironmental impact. To date, there has been no response whatsoever to that. The
82 ~
~
provisians of the Washington Administrative Codes specificaTly provide tha't sWch
infarmatinn is tQ be kept, and such information is to be supplied, at the cost of
reprvduction and the cost of mailing and to date nathing has been pravided ta us
~ fram which we can then derive the basis for the various conclusions.
Now, beyand that principa] point, there are a number of specific concerns we have
regarding the impact of thisprvposed faci I i ty an the area where we 1 ive. 5pe+cz fi -
ca]1y we draw your attention ta the pravisians of the EIS detailing the naise de,~
velopment that will occur in this particular area. We woul+d address the traffic
~ condi ti ons; we woul d address tFre propased air and water pal l ution probl erns 1 ikely
to result fram the facility; we wil lpoint to the fact that it's indicated in
yau r E IS 3 n excess of 129000 ga i] ons of fuei, gas, explosi ve materiaT swT 3] be
stvred in thisparticul ar~ faci ] 3 ti es , next to aur homes.(I mi ght poi nt out the
present faci 1ity stares appraximately 5,000 ga11ons of such fuel); probTerts affec-
ting 1 i ght and g1 are, prob] ems affecti ng housz ng develoRment in the area, and fi-
~ nal ly the site pal l ution.
Ithink that we can draw upon first of a11, the general staternent provided an pag @
58 of your EIS stating that "the propased project wiil be in cQntrast to existing
residential land uses adjacent to the north of the site. Additianal vehicular
traffi c and nvi se everrts, as wei 1 as the v i sual character of the site,, rnay be per-
~ c@iVEd as adverse impacts by adjacent residents". Wel1, Mr. Jackman Iwoul d sub-
mit to the School Di strict that fi rst of a] i i t's not aust the residenees to the
narth that will be effected, it"s the resTdenees tv the east, the residences to the
south and the re$idences to the west of the prapased site. Anyone familiar with
the site i s very fami1 i ar that i t does contai n agr-tcul tural Zand, and that for pur-
poses of deve7opment its prime residential use.
i
In terms of the proposed Camprehenslve Plan, ar the Comprehensive Rian that wds
adopted, the area speciflcally is categorized as Urban under the proposed Campre-
hensi ve P1 an . Under exi s ti ng aoni ng ordi nances i t i s requi red to be agri cultural
use.Now, i t's Rot ta say that the new zoni ng ardinance wi Z 1 not have add itonal
prav is ian tor uti1 ization of this area; however, what i tdaes say i s thart i n the
0 irnpact statement submitted there are same very interesting characteristies of thi s
praperty whi ch we do feel is adverse ta the interesfi of the peopl e 1 ivi ng i n the
rri c i nity.
I wQU]d like to address the sub,ject of noise first of aTl. As pointed aut to you
iri the camments submitted and, again, alot of people in the alldience have not had @
! the opportuni ty of reviewi ng thT s data, aut wi th reference to the noi se character-
istics it's anticipated by the School distriet that the nais+e leve] in the area
wi 1l increase by a factor of 10 decibels, Now, far purposes of peopl ewha are nat
familiar with decibel ratings, adecibel is a unit of saund measurement which is
on a logarithmic scale. It does nat mean that an increase factor of 10 means that
it's simply an increase of sourtd l evel of 10 points, That's not what ifi means at
• all. It means, just for an examp7e, that if you have an increase of 10 decibeTs,
it's 1 iteral7y a doubling of the existing noise level in the vicinity. A three
decibel tncrease results in a doubling of the acoustic energy emitted from the
site. However, because of the so called weighted D8A utilized by the Schaol Dis-
trict, it takes a 10 decibei increase ta literally double the naise level as it
woul d be perce i ved by area res i dents .
•
Now just ta get this in praper compar~ison, assuming an average, now I wauld point
out that the E I5 indicates that wi th rap i d accelerati vn the peak 1evel noi se fro.m,
say, a bus departing your faci 1ity wouldbe between 70 and 75 DBA. Ta get thi s i n
83
~
~
perspective, the average, and I might point out the average noise level as indica- g5
ted in your report was 65 DBA. To get this in perspective, a D6A level of 65 is
sufficient to awake an average person. That means that the people living in the
vicinity of this development can well expect, at 6 a.m. in the morning, to have
suffi cient sound produced from the area to 1 i teral ly awake tfiem from thei r sl eep. a
Now to some this might be a very desirable alarm clock but I would submit that for
most of us it's not. I would submit that the mitigation factors that you proposed
such as this berm, or I'll call it a bunker, around your proposed facility of any-
where from 4 to 8 feet in height do not adequately reduce the sound characteristics
of the area to make it acceptable to the area. It's indicated in your EIS that
this berm will reduce the sound level DBA's of 5 to 15 levels - 15 points. ~
I would submit that in a recent similar EIS for the Creston Coal Fired Proj ect de- 86
veloped by the Washington Water Power Company, a noise expert by the name of Tom
Arnold specified that in terms of DBA reduction that a 3 to 5 decibel reduction
would be produced by a planting, literally, of 100 feet depth of trees. Now to
give you an example, that means of 100 feet of trees,and that is even depending on ~
the type of tree and considering that they are fully developed, it will take a
depth of 100 feet of tree growth to reduce a decibel rating of 3 to 5.
Now your EIS also fails to indicate the net effect of combining sound levels of g~
multiple buses operating from the facility. It's indicated that you used some sort ~
of sound measuring devicd and literally mdasured bhe sound as buses were departing
from your existing facility. I would submit that in terms of sound, their acous-
tical engineering, that the net effect of even having two vehicles side by side
emitting the same sound increases the decibel level by an additional 3. So, if you
take all of these things into consideration and the concept that there may be 48
buses right now operating out of this facility, as many as four times a day, you're ~
going to be talking about a sound level generation approximating 70 to 75 DBA. I
would submit that for a residential area that's totally unacceptable.
Beyond the noise to be generated from the facility, there is a factor of traffic. 88
As pointed out in your EIS, it's your assertion that under the six year plan, sup-
posedly, for the Spokane County, which is already behind schedule, the development ~
that you propose at 16th and Sullivan would require expansion of Sullivan Road to
four or five lanes from the area of Sprague and south to 32nd. It's further indi-
cated in your EIS that you would anticipate the widening of 16th Avenue to four
lanes from Sullivan Road clear to h1ica-Dishman Highway. Now we submit that that
type of development, simply to accommodate your facility, is not justified. We
feel that the 7ntroduction to traffic to the area which will result from your ~
buses, the introduction of cross traffic to the area and specifically in an a rea
which is not designed to accomodate that, is an infliction of detriment to the
entire development of the Valley.
Those of us who have lived here for a period of time, and I submit that I've only
been in the Valley since 1965, we're well awa re of the traffic patterns that have ~
evoived over the years and specifically the area of Sprague. The County has look-
ed at that area for a long period of time and presently is considering even a de-
velopment along 4th Avenue to provide a parallel route to Sprague with the princi-
pal purpose of confining traffic to those particular areas. The other arterial
development in the Valley has primarily been in the area of Argonne and the area
of Pines Road which intersects with State Highway 27. Sullivan Road has been re- ~
garded as an arterial and is, in fact, designated as an arterial and is, in fact,
used quite extensively fram the area of 16th and proceeding north to the freeway.
84
•
~
However, beyond 16th it`s been traditianally an agrlcultural suburban area; an
area that does not provide acc+ess to the hi11s that extend to the south, and we
wvuld like to keep it that way in terms of the traffic and congestion that is 1ike-
~ iy to develap. We don't want to have another Maple Street, another tlonrae, for
that matter another Argonne or far that matter another Pi nes i nadjacent to our
homes. As far as the cross traffic, we certainly don't want any more Sprague Ave-
nues extending right across the heart of the residentiai area Qf the Va]1ey, name-
ly, 16th and, potentially, even 32nd. We feel that your EIS indicates that at the
time thi s faci lity i s to be ful ly canstructed and at the time that i t i s to be
~ fu]1y utilized, that you're going to have approximately 1800 vehic3es going in and
out of that faci 1 i ty vn a daily basi s. We feel that is una+eceptabl P. We feel that
is an intollerable infliction upan our eommunity and we dan't want it.
Now I know that there are a lot ather things and I suppose the thing that gets to
me the most is the fact that there in the EIS it's c]early abvious that the 5chaoi *
~ District does nat have a pla,n to deal with the variaus otMer probiems likely to re-
sult. As a far i nstance, 7 i ght and gl are, Pages 48 of your EzS i ndicates that
1 i ght produced by 24 hour ] i ghting, ar at Ieast evening 1ighting, wi11 produce li g ht
i n the area,On a ni ght 1 ike toni ght when we start about 4: 30 wi th da rkness, it wi 11
be ali ghted area there thraughout a gvad pvrtion of the day. 7here is a]so the
gl are to be emi tted fram schoo] buses and trucks enteri ng th+e fiaci 1 i ty and exi ti ng
~ the facility.
Your oniy mitigating force i n that particu7 ar impact, to mitigate that impact, has ~i
to do wi th tel1 ing us that i f a prraper plan i s dev►ised it shaul d haue a ntinirnal im-
pact, Wel1, what daes that teZ l us7 It te11 sus obsol utely nothi ng. In terms af
effect on housing of the area; it`s stated on page 67 of your EI5 that it will have
40 na effect on housing in the area ather than precluding the hausing development an
tMe site. We11, I would submit Mr. Jackman, that that is a total deregation of the
intent of the EIS, a$ it is dew~sed, Under the Washington Administratiwe Code. It
wil1 have effect on hous i ng i n that area, it wj ]l have effect of commercial devel ap-
ment, and your anly response to that has to do with the fact that weZ1 - that wi17
be something that sam+ebody wi11 ha►ve to cansider at a iater date.
#
4ur abjection to the introduction af your bus barn and, for that mater, the ware-
hause fact Z i ty, or the carrmerci al 1 aundry faci 7 i ty, ar, far that matte~~~, the com-
merci a7 ki tchen faci1ity i s that that 15 of the type that can be easily regarded
as camet~cTal deve]opment and wi1 l be used as a svurce for others to seek appli-
~ cation for commercZal developrnent in that zane. In essence, you opened the doar.
In terms vf housing i n the area, it's n4 great secret that already there are pro-
posal s i n mi nd to develop what is known as "buffer zones" around your proposed
faci 1ity. Naw a buffer zane to the uni niti ated has to +do wi th apa rtments and +con-
darniniums and things af that nature, muiti-family housing or* for that matter,
corrmercial camplexes whYCh are used to buffer an industrial or commercial area
i from residential use We wha live in this community do nat want that kind of de-
velopment. We want orderly development. We want places where vur kids can graw
up and 1 ive in a fashian where we are nat cancerned about their personal safety
every tirne they get close to the main arteria7 where we have a great deal of traf-
fic with no pravision far sidewalks; where there is real1y no prouisi+an for regu-
latian af traffic, where, in poznt af fact, it's nat very we11 patraled and any-
• bady who dri ves that da i 1 y knaws that there a re cars pass ing each other right in
frant of your proposed facility.
Sa
~
~
Now there are lots of other things that I can't even begin to talk about them in
10 minutes. I would propose that in terms of specificaTly addressing your impact
statement that you pravide me with the necessary detail, the necessary data, whet-
her it be perculation test, whether it be decibel data as to your sound emissions,
and the test that you did so that we can have them appropriately evaluated by en- a
gineers who are capable of fully responding to your statement. You know, it doesn't
do a whole lot of good to sit there and present us with a 145 pages of material, a
lot of which is literally stock material and which really tells us nothing other
than that the School District finds, either that there is no environmental impact
or, for that matter, that there are mitigation factors available to reduce the ne-
gative impact. ~
About those buses, specifically, the only mitigating measure other than this bunker 93
a round your facility has to do with telling your bus drivers not to accelerate and
decelerate in a quick fashion. You propose that by doing this you can reduce the
sound level generated from 70 to 75 decibels dovnto 62. Precisely, Mr. Jackman, `
that's the problem. We feel that with however many buses are going to go in and
out of there everyday that bus drivers will not have adequate concern for either
the safety of our children or, for that matter, the noise that will have to be
endured by members of the community. We feel that your study is inadequate as to
the noise factor; we feel that it's inadequate as to the traffic flow factor; we
feel that you have not made proper measures for storing of explosive hazards, or, ~
for that matter, to insure us that we don't have further pollution into the aqua-
fier.
I know that I have probably exceeded my 10 minutes by a few minutes and I will cer-
tainly stay a round to say my two bits worth after other people get the opportunity.
Thank you. ~
Dave Jackman - Thank you, Mr. Stone. Do we have others who care to comment on the
statement?
Jerry Trunkenbolz - Good evening Mr. Jackman and members of the audience. For the
record my name is Jerry Trunkenbolz. I live at 15307 E. 16th. I am currently a ~
cospokesman for the Central Valley Concerned Taxpayers group. I previously submit-
ted a letter dated December 1, 1981 concerning several points that I felt the Draft
EIS was in error or inadequate on. I have a few additional points tonight to make
regarding that EIS.
The first point concerns pages 39 through 47. This is a paragraph relating to noi- 94 r
se. The Draft EIS states on page 41 that the noise levels at 16th range from 53 to
65 decibels with an average of 60 decibels, and that the individual noise peaks
were from 61 to 76 decibels with the average being 65. The Statement goes on to say
that existing bus ya rd only experiences an early morning warmup noise level of be-
tween 58 and 60 decibels, and that these readings were inflated due to reflection
from metal buildings. hlany citiZens live on or near 16th and Sullivan and cannot ~
understand how a fleet of 20 to 40 school buses warming up in the early morning
hours, at high revolution per minute on the engines, can make the same or less
noise than the average of one automobile every 3 to 5 minutes that currently tra-
vels 16th. This seems incomprehensible to us and we therefore feel that the data
in the Draft EIS is in error and should be recomputed. Additionally, it is stated 95
on page 45 that the total bus departures from the proposed site will be 75 to 90 •
per day, including the evening traffic. But on page 73 the table shows that the
anticipated departures to be a total of 180 departu res per day. Whichever figure
86
•
~
is erroneous should be changed to reflect the true amount. Also, page 45 states 96
that only 12 to 15 of these 180 departures w111 use 16th street. Surely this fig-
ure is in error since the stated purpose of placing the buses at 16th and Sullivan
is to give a more direct and centralized access to the remainder of the District
~ population that lies to the west. Therefo re, to obtain the economies that the
Draft EIS claims, far more buses will need to travel 16th in a westward direction.
Please reevaluate this number and change it to reflect the true number of buses
that will probably travel 16th so as to allow for a proper analysis of the project
impact.
~ Under mitigating measures for this section we question the possibility and feasi- 97
bility of limiting the construction hours. This is the hours that the construction
workers will work, on the proposed project, to 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. I myself know of
no contractors or construction workers that work those hours. A typical starting
time seems to be somewhere between 5:30 and 6:30. How will this 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
curfew be made possibie and supervisied? Also, how much will the portable noise 9g
~ barriers cost the District? The Draft EIS indicates that portable noise barriers
will be posted around the construction area. I haven't seen what portable noise
barriers look like so please let us know through the Draft EIS. Also, we feel that 99
you need a more detailed analysis on just how the District plans to police the bus
drivers to see that they accelerate "gently" on 16th. This seems an insurmountable
, task, thus, its reduction of noise should probably not be taken into account in the
Draft EIS.
The next point is on page 47, paragraph 7 relating to light and glare. The Draft 100
EIS is totally devoid of data concerning exactly what kind of lighting system the
proposed project is going to employ. Now can a true environmental impact of light-
~ ing and glare be assessed without this information?
Next point regards pages 48 through 58. This is a paragraph concerning land use.
This section of the Draft E b has several omissions that I feel should be included.
They are: The first point - the discussion of density possibilities in the urban
and suburban c]assification of the comprehensive plan as stated in the Draft EIS
~ is actually correct. However, the Draft EIS does not take note of the policy and
guidelines stated by the County in its Final EIS for the comprehensive plan. I
reference specifically to the response by Mr. Gary Fergen to Item 10 of the Sep-
tember 24, 1980 letter by Mrs. Joan Nonnican ta Mr. Fergen. The question posed
P1r. Fergen was whether density determinatiors were to be made in the future based
on existing densities or allowable densities. P9r. Fergen responded by saying that
, the guidelines are intended to reiate to "maintaining existing environmental con-
ditions." This policy is necessary to insure that the Eomprehensive Plan is not
seen as a tool to avoid a large history of past Washington and Federal case law
and statutory law making spot zoning unconstitutional. Therefore, even though
the plan allows for eventual densities, up to the maximum stated, this cannot be
read to mean that these maximum densities are allowable at once, at any point
~ within the classification. Such request for maximum or increased density will
sti 11 have to be compatl bl e wi th "exi sti ng envi ronmental condi tiiiong. " Fuhther
sirtce there is absalutely no simiiar high density, commercial or light industrial
usage closer than nearer Sprague Avenue, isn't a proposed project asking for high-
er density usage than is available under the existing Comprehensive Plan? Thus,
necessitating an amendment to that Plan, to be in compliance with it? How much
~ tivill it cost to get the Plan amended and what are the chances that this amendment
tti11 be granted?
87
•
~
My next point: This section of the Draft EIS speaks to the probability that im-
, provements to Sullivan and 16th wil] exert a pressure on nearby landowners to con-
vert usage of their land to higher density and comniercial uses. This theory is
very true in most cases; in those cases however, the existing 1ow density usage is
generally older and rundown single family residences, where street improvement soon ~
cause the highest and best use of the land to become a higher density, as a result
of low revenues being generated by these homes and the low total cost experienced
by the demolition of these homes.
The situation between 4th and 16th on Sullivan is uniquely different than the usua1102
situation described above. Much of the property here invalves large, new expensive ~
residences that are generally owner lived in. Therefore, the cost to demolish these
homes and construct new comnerci al bui 1 di ngs i s goi ng to be very hi gh for many years
to come. The total loss wi11 be so great that the highest and best use of the land
will remain single family residences, so to a11ow corrmercial and light industrial
uses of the proposed site will not provide the alleged pressure to convert to high ~
density. The Draft EIS should be rewritten to cover this, which will a11ow for a
proper analysis of this iack of positive impact.
Point 3. The Oraft EIS states that County approval of the proposed project can
have sufficient canditions attached concerning that property so as to remove the
precedent setting impact to the nearby area. Condit7ons such as these can be es- ~
tablished by the County, but it is essential to note that these conditions have
no legal effect on nearby property.
The fact that a project of this size and magnitude may exist on the subject praper 103
ty immediately causes the highest and best use of nearby vacant land to become high
er density. In other words, multi-family, light industrial and commercial, since a
a feasibillty of building single family residences nearby is drasticaily reduced.
In other words, who would want to build a new home of average cost of $80,000 to
$120,000 next to a high density user, such as the proposed project? Thus the fact
that the Educational Services Center would be where proposed, creates a stonq pre-
cedent that can hardly be overlooked by County decision makers when nearby owners
of vacant land applied for permits for apartments, commercial and light industrial ~
usage. In effect, what is probable to then happen is that this area of the Central
Valley will become a new commercial and industrial park. Shouldn't the Draft EIS
be changed to include this dramatic impact of such an increase in high denstty
usage to be able to more probably evaluate the true environment impact?
My next point relates to pages 100 through 112 of the Draft EIS, and this is a ~
paragraph relating to alternatives. On page 103 of the Draft EIS, it is stated
that the expansion of support facilities can be accomplished in three ways, in-
cluding: 1) the use of existing facilities and expansion by means of satellite
locations; 2) acquisition of the new site to contain the entire proposed project;
3) leaving certain facilities where they currently are and acquiring new sites
for the remaining facTlities in need of expansion. According to these alterna- ~
tives the District recognizes that various possibilities are present, however,
the remainder of the section indicates that the District only cMose to evaluate
those sites that could contain the entire proposed project and discarded sites
tha.t were not seen as large enough for the entire project.
Why has the District not analyzed those sites that may be large enough to accornriio- ~04 !
date certain facillties in need of expansion, yet not large enough for the whole
project? How can the District properly analyze the possible alternatives when it
has set its criteria this high? Shouldn't the District investigate the availabi-
88
•
~
1ity of such smal ler parceis of praperty to get a praper perspectf ve? Further,
why were there na fYgures reiating to the cost of upgrading present facilities far
maximum utilization and the addition af $mall sites for the excess? The Draft EIS
seems to take it for g ranted that the 16th and Su 11 i van site i s the oni y feas i ble
* site with disregard for rriable a1terrratives; since th,e Dr-aft EIS is nearly devvid
of data concerni ng these al ternatives .On page 104, and innumerous flther refer-
ences tMroughout the Draft EiS, refer+ences made to the fact that "present parcel s
of 1 and used and owned by the Di strict fotr transportati on and ather functions have
a large potential for corrunercial value", and I put that in quotes.
~ It seems to be the pl an of the Di strict to se1 l aff thi s cammercial 1 and fot^ a ti dy
prof7t, then place these essentially cvmercial uses in an agriculturalZy zaned
area, next t4 exi sti ng residences and poc#et the profi t. Why i s the Ui strl ct en-
gaging in land speculatian with taxpaye rs' dv1lars? Why is it farcing a few ]and-
owners in the D7str-ict to suffer the cansequences af this profit taking through
]ower property values to these iandawners? Isn't this essentitally a vzaiativn of
~ due process and unconsti tutional due to their bei ng a taki ng of private property
without fu11 artd just compensatian? Shauldn't these prob]ems be discussed in the
Qraft EIS so that their impact can be aseertained?
On pages 104 through 106 the Draft EIS indicates that the efifect of i mpact of the 1Q~
propased project will be essentia~ly the same whether the land in questian is cur-
0 rentTy zoned agricultu ral or restricted industria1 or cvmmercia1. The Sprague
corridor, which i nc1 udes the s 7 te of 4th a nd Cvnk1 i n, has sl aw1y experienced a
natural transition to higher density usage. with this in mind, how can it be said
that the impact af such a project wauld be the same as it wauld in the midd]e of a
purely residential and agricultural area? SureTy such statement is in errar and
needs to be carrected. The Draft EIS goes on to state, fln page I09, that the envi-
~4 ronmenta1 cost of cqnsolida ting a] 1 faei1ities an site "woul d nat appear to be s 3 g-
ny f icantly different urrder either approach," and this was contrast7 ng that to sa-
tel lite si tes . Thi s statement is tota11y contradiced an page I1l where the Draft
EIS states, "Separatir~g the variaus facilities on different sites would have twa
advantages from an envi rnnmental aspect; fi rst, it wauld reduce the cvnc+entratiart
af impacts on a s 7 ngl e area; second, the mast traffi cand noi se i ntens ive faci 1 i-
• ties could be located in an area where fewer residences wvuld be impacted," Cer-
tai nly the concentrati on of impacts theory seems more rea7 i st7 c. Shoul dn' t the
Draft EIS be changed to eliminate this inconsistency?
That i s the sum af my camments and Ichovse to submit that a] so in written f-orm
so that it coul d be nf the record and be analyzed in the Fi nai EIS. Thank yau.
~
Dave Jackmart - Thank you, Mr. Trunkenbalz. Uo we have others this evening who
wouldli ke to c omment ?
John Rarrett, Sr. -My name is John Barr~ett, 2306 S. Vera Crest, Ueradale, The 10~
thing that I would like to ta7 k abaut and bri ng vut is that no where have I seen
~ in the newpapers, radio, tel evi s ion ar anywhere el se what thi s project is costi ng .
We have never had a chance to laok at whatever yvu have. So far, T don't know of
any fi gures . I am sure f rom what I have heard about i t, what I've read abvut i t
is that the buildings there - by the time yau get through your three ar four
phases, whatever i t' s goi ng to take to cornplete thi s, you're tal ki ng abaut several
mill ians of dollars. Whieh Tn turn, if the funding is proper, 1 don't know how
4D much of the money that the Baard has already set up for this bu71ding, but I'm
sure its under a million dallars. This being true then there is going to have to
be at least two bonds probabTy set up and passed to be able to fund this pro,ject,
8g
~
~
We're asking that the total amount of money that's going to be expended for this
be released to the newspapers, radio and television, so that we can have some idea
of what it would cost.
The next thing I would like to bring out is that for the past year, year-and-a-half 108 ,
the enrollment of students has been going down, not up. With the present site that
you folks have and the administration building that you folks have, that you have
taken care of the strongest enrollment that probably this Vailey is going to see
for a number of years to come. This also brings out the question as to why you have
to have new buildings to be able to take care of something that you can already take 4
care of with your present buildings. The next thing is talking about the adminis-
trators building a bigger administration building to take care of the administrators.
This would indicate that there is going to be a number of more administrators hired.
Why is this taking place when the school teachers have been laid off and the other
school employees have been laid off? Now we have finally found money to where we
can go ahead and build a building and hire more administrators and still cut the ~
teachers when we're in a depression. I would think that if the facilities that you
do have now are competent: then this thing should be put off for at least a number
of years before going ahead with this new site. Thank you very much.
Dave Jackman - Thank you, Mr. Barrett. Other Comments7
Frank Mutton - N(y name is Frank Mutton. I live on E. llth, right off of Sullivan. ~
(E. 15622 - llth)
Dave Jackman - Sir, could you spell your name for me please.
Frank Mutton - Frank Mutton, M-U-T-T-O-N, just plain old sheep. I recently moved 109 ~
here, back to Spokane, from Ulympia, 4lashington. I a~ent into and looked for resi-
dence throughout this area and I picked that area because it was residential far-
ming area. Later on this school bus situation on 16th came up. Well, I called the
School District at that time and I talked to a gentlem,an, I forget his name now,
and I said what if the people don't want it? Ne said, "We11, we'll buy the proper-
ty anyway, it's a good investment". At that time I had no knowledge that the School ~
was in an investment type situation. Now, the thing that I would say, being a re-
tired deputy sheriff, I know what schoo1 boards and bus barns and that bring a lot
of unsavory individuals into a neighborhood. I remember many cases of gas siphoning
from school buses and this and that and the other thing. I don't know, being a tax-
payer and that, and not having any children going to school I'm willing to pay my
50'1A of my taxes for the School Board. I don't believe in a bus ba rn in a residen- ~
tia1 a rea and what I have understood and what I have received from the individual
telephone calls and things, it seems like to me that no matter what the individ-
ual who are paying taxes, the School Board is going to put that bus barn there.
I don't see what the difference between 16th or over on the other side of Sprague
near the Industrial Park where there are industries. blhy ao they have to come into
a residential farMing community and put a school bus barn? ~
The other things that they are contemplating on putting in there...there is going 110
to be traffic from that along with the school buses and I just don't think the tax-
payers should have to put up with ttiidening Sullivan and thinels of that nature just
because of that industrial type situation out there. I know that law enforcement.
You put up that type of facility and there are going to be more incidences within i
that area. I know it. I don't know why the School Board didn't attempt to find
some other place where there are no residences, like over by the Humane Society.
90
~
~
I'm sure there is some 1and over through there that could be a bus barn. They say
r they do not wish to come across Sprague, but yet they will come across Sprague to
get over on that side of the town anyway. I just don`t see anything, or why it
has to be in that or has to be put in that area. That's my whole comment. I know
~ that if the school bus barn goes there, which I'm sure it probably will the way
they're going about it, that my taxes are not going to go for school anymore as far
as I'm concerned, because I won't pay for that because that's not an educational
thing. I would rather see more teachers in the classroom with the children than
seeing a bus barn or a laundry facility or an administrative facility that all
~ they're doing is going and sitting in an office and not putting any input whatso-
ever to that child's education. I cannot see it. That's my view of it and I'm
sure my County Comnissioner will find out about my view. Thank you very much.
Dave Jackman - Thank you, sir. Do we have other comments?
~ Linda Tompkins - My name is Linda Tompkins. I live at S. 1411 Century Road. I
personally requested a copy of the EIS and spent a day reviewing the measures that
the District is proposing and I also have some concerns about some deficiencies
that I see in the EIS. This is also in regard to a letter that I did write to the
Board and it's just in the way of a reiteration. I am concerned about the storage
facilities that are proposed on site,for not only fuel, but hazardous chemicals.
~ The EIS states that appropriate storage facilities will be provided but does not
go into any detail, which I believe would be absolutely necessary before we can
evaluate the impact of the area. Further, if the County is not able to improve 1~2
Sullivan and ls not able to improve 16th, as provided by the EIS, it would appear
that it would be necessary to see the mitigating-factors that the District would
be going through to reduce the traffic, the noise and the hazards on current streets
S that are plainly inadequate for the proposed use of the site.
In addition, the possibility of "wire fencing around the area" has been included 113
in the EIS, but no specific clarification as to actual placement of the fencing.
6Ji11 it be on top of these bunkers; will it be close to the warehouses? Uisually
what sort of, if any, effect are these fences going to have.
~ No actual on-site air quality monitoring was done at 16th and Sullivan to evaluate 114
the existing carbon monoxide levels. Extensive discussion was undertaken with re-
gards to the University City area and the comparison between University City, now
and later. In order to get a valuable measurement of the existing on-site condi-
tions, now and after the proposed development, I would say that an actual on-site
~ air quality monitoring is absolutely necessary. Further, traffic resulting from
this project was sited as per 1995 conditions and yet, according to the EIS, Phase 15
II could be in effect as early as 1984, in which case that leaves half of the buses
proposed would be in full operation. It would appear that the EIS in order to be
adequate, would have to indicate the impact of the traffic and the noise from 1984
not 1995
•
Finally, and of highest concern: Is the reduced fuel consumption that is purpor-
ted to meet a net savings of less than $1000 annually at the completion of the
project? Again, as it was mentioned earlier, there is absolutely no projection as
to the final cost of the proj ect. We have approximately $70,000 to $100,000 pro-
j ected or necessary to complete Phase I and according to the EIS, $2,000,000 is
40 estimated for Phase II, with no projection far Phase III. We're at least talking
in the multi-million dollar price range for the cost of the total project and it
would seem to me that a reduced fuel consumption of less than $1,000 annually is
91
40
~
hardly a justification for a project of this cost.
' Further, I believe that the citizens that you have before you now, are vitally
concerned with education, and are vitally concerned with economic planning, and
very responsible planning on the part of the Board and, as such, we would request ~
that the Board take a look at the study and not use it as some sort of a post hoc
rationalization or decision that has already been made. Please do spend some
time and in good faith listen to our comments. Thank you.
Dave Jaclunan - Thank you, Mrs. Tompkins.
41
Ed Ranniger -My name is Ed Ranniger, I live at 2306 Carnine Court. I see by your
EIS, which I got ahold of tonight, that you're basing a lot of this on the recon-
struction of Sullivan. I'm in the road constructian business and am aware of how
di ff i cul t i t i s to get money to rebui 1 d roads i n the whol e State of Was hi ngton .
Mr. Turner informed me that it would probably be 5 to 10 years before Sullivan
would be rebuilt at this present time because of the lack of money to finance it. a
I drive down Sullivan Road two or three times a day back and forth to work. The
traffic there now on the rush hour is unbearable, especially around the school be-
cause of school buses. Another thing that hasn't been brought out is the fact of
the smell from diesel smoke. I also have a fleet of trucks and equipment that is 118
quite large and when these trucks start up, mainly the trucks, they do emit a
large amount of black smoke and a heavy diesel smeli. I don't think very many ~
people realize how bad that is because diesel is now coming into its own. It's
coming into car engines, they are finding a lot of trouble with it as far as
health purposes. I don't think anybody has looked into that, I think it should be
looked into.
Richard Solberg_- I'm Richard Solberg, I live at 2210 S. Vera Crest Drive. First, a
I want to support what the knowledgeable people have said ahead of ine. I plcked
up my copy of the Impact Statement during the day. I was overwhelmed by its mag-
nitude. Very briefly and quickly I looked through the thing trying to find what
this was ail about. Most of my prior information came from the news sources and
I was certainly expect7ng to see information in here concerning the necessity of 119
a bus garage, because this thing was initially presented to us as a need of a bus, 0
maintenance, storage facility I have not identified in here yet where it speci-
fically addresses the need of bus storage other than stating that they will be
able to use the added facility when it is available to them.
As I note on page 13, Phase I has nothing to do at all with bus storage. What I ~Z~ ~
am standing to address is the credibility of the Administration and leadership
of District 356 in passing this off to us as a bus facility and that is not real-
ly what they have done. When I think back, we have lived in the Va11ey 16 years
now, and during that 16 years I can recall the building of the current Adminis-
tration Building on south Bowdish. I would submit that if their long range plan-
ning is good for only 15 years we better check our hold card. That was given to ~
us as a long range facility. We would not be coming back to build a multi-million
dol]ar facility in what has become prime residential area. I think the time has
come for the Directors and the Administration to call spades spades. If they want
to say "we messed up," let's say we messed up but don't tell us we need a bus ga-
rage and then show me on page 13 where they're building another administration
building. I was - I have been in the Administration Building before today on both ~
the business and also personal school-related business and I've never seen a need
experienced to me that they did not have sufficient to take care of the demands of
the time. If all we are trying to do is build one more ivory tower in this day
92
•
~
and age. Business has had to cut back, everyone is cutting back, personal families
are cutting back. I think maybe it is time that the School District also consider
where their dollars are coming from and address it from that standpoint. Thank you.
~ Dave Jackman - Thank you, sir. Ar~y other remarks tonight: Anyone else?
Don Stone - Mr. Jackman, I wonder if we again can take about a 5 minute recess at
this point.
IP Dave Jackman - Certainly.
(A five minute recess followed during which tilr. Stone spoke to the audience en-
couraging those present to address the record.)
Dave Jackman - It is now 8:18. I'd like to call our hearing back into session
~ please. May we have any other remarks that you would like to make on this Draft
EIS.
Bob Gustafson - My name is Bob Gustafson. I live at S. 1904 Vera Crest Drive.
Though I recently moved into that area, so I'm not probably as we11 informed as
some af the other people here tonight. There seems to be a couple major points
~ that need to be made. One is that it seems that this has been not well conceived;
not very well planned and put together and thirdly, it would seem that there is
grass arrogance on the part of the School 6oard to contlnue to pursue this parti-
cular location and the facility in general. Thank you.
Dave Jackman - Thank you, Mr. Gustafson.
~ Dave McDermott - My name ls Dave P1cDermott, I live on 1203 Progress. I would just
like to comment the fact that I moved to Veradale to get into a residential area
and to get away frorn large buildings and large concrete structures and whatnot.
It would upset me greatly to think that I would have to pay taxes to have a build-
ing built that I feel would be an eyesore and would personally upset me to have
~ next door to me. Thank you.
Dave Jacknian - Thank you, si r.
Andrew Lynch - My name is Andrew Lynch and I live at 14913 E. 20th in the Valley.
While I'm new to Spokane - we've been here for five years - let me offer an ex-
~ perience of living in California. I think what you people are doing today is the
same thing that those folks did thirty and forty years ago. I think you're very
short sighted in urban planning and it will come back to haunt you. I've only
had about 3 or 4 minutes to read your EIS but what comes to my mind is my seven
year old daughter. She's extremely precious to me and it seems that not too long121
ago on the corner of Pi nes and Sprague a young nan was ki 11 ed . Now it vras hi s
~ fault clearly, he was 11 or 12 years old and he ran under the tandem whee7s - on
his bicycle - of a very large truck. I have yet to see that kind of information
addressed in your study. You take Sullivan Road, which is not frequently used,
as it will be used when you put your bus barn in. Thank you.
_ Bert Ewers - My name is Bert Ewers, N. 206 Adams Road. I would like to say this,
• that I hope that the School Board does gtve careful consideration to everything
that has been said here tonight. I think that there is a great deal of depth to
it and much consideration has to be dealt with before a decisian is made. The
first thing that I heard when I first heard about this; I heard, of course, the
93
~
~
figure of $10 million dollars. Looking at this I see you're talking about 46
vehicles and that figures out to $200,000 dollars per garage. In reading fur-
ther, though, I see that you are going to put up a warehouse too and some offices,
so that relieves me there. A$200,000 garage is a pretty good garage. One other 12Z ~
thing that I don't see in here is this: Has the - I don't expect you to answer
this but I would like it answered - In a quick review of this there has been no
consideration given, as far as I see, to having a contract services for bus pick-
ing up children and delivering them to and from school. I would imagine there
are some businesses in the area who would be happy to accept a contract to do
that and provide these same housing or bus or garages for the buses and their ve-
hicles too. Thank you. ~
Dave Jackman - Anyone else?
Jeff Waters - Jeff Waters, at South 1519 Limmerick. We decided to move to the 123
Valley. We wanted someplace that had half-way clean air. I'm an asthmatic - my ~
children are. We've had circumstances of taking her to the emergency room sever-
al times. So this climate or this area was ideal, plus I grew up around range.
I want someplace where my kids could have animals. The house where we live is on
a little over an acre property. We have chickens, rabbits, and a horse. My un-
derstanding of all this pollution of noise as well as the air, I'm going to have
some dead animals and sick kids. I would definitely like to go on record as being ~
dead set against this.
Also, the cost. Everybody is cutting back, all businesses, school enrollment is 124
dropping, with Kaiser having problems and other big businesses in our area there
is quite a few people moving out. I can't see where we need an additional facil-
ity. I can't see where our tax dollar needs to go there, and in their study I ~
know they're looking at this land was cheaper then buying an already comnercial
property of the north side of the river. But did they take into consideration
the law suits they're going to get by going into this residential, the delays
they're going to have? I think it was totally ill planned, looking for specula-
tion figuring they could ramrod it past the people. It's not going to be done.
Thank you. ~
Dave Jackman - Thank you, sir. Other comments?
Dan Carlson - Dan Carlson, S. 1419 Century Road. I object very much to having to 125
live next to a facility like this and I object to the eventual depreciation of my
property. If I would have wanted to live next to a commercial development facility ~
like this I would have saved myself a lot more money and mortgage payments and paid
a lot less taxes to the School Board. It's ironic that the taxes that I pay in the
h»her property value of my property gaes to a facility that in turn depreciates
for the values of my property.
Dave Jackman - Thank you. Other comments. ~
Delores Solberg - My name is Delo res Solberg our address is S. 2210 Vera Crest
Drive. We've lived in Central Valley School District for 16 years, we've had our
fourth child gradUate from Central Va11ey High School. We travel Sullivan Road
two and three times a day back and forth from work and I vioiently resent the
School Board trying to ramrod this down our throats when obviously the residents ~
of the area are totally agai nst i t. Thank you.
Dave Jackman - Thank you.
94
•
~
Joann Day - Joann Day, S. 1113 Rothchford Drive. I'm very emotional about th3s
issue, both for all the reassons that are being stated, the cost, the higher traf-
fic, but on a more personal level for me, we've lived in the Valley for 15 years
and we were just recently forced out of our home, over off of Pines Road. We
~ lived there, we moved there in 1970, and it was a lovely residential area at that
time. The County changed the ionings. The first thing you know we had "Resident-
ial Office", they called it, up and down Pines Road, which meant doctor offices,
very low level type of usage. The first thing you know there were comnercial en-
terprises moving in. They were against the zoning laws, but the County does not
~ have the power, nor the time, the men, the man hours needed to police these kinds
of things. Even though we called and complained they said, "we're sorry, we're
vertually---our hands are tied to do anything about this." So, we had these kind
of commercial businesses very soon following on the heels of this zone change.
The next thing that happened was because it was such a nice wide four lane road 126
~ now, instead of two, that there was a good arterial access for anartment hbuses
to go in. The next thing we knew we had a nice lively complex at the end of our
street. We were very upset because we were not notified. It just kind of surrep-
titiously started construction one day. You put up with these things and you
think, "Oh tisk, that's too bad, I wish I had known, I might of said something",
but it was too late, it was already under construction. The next thing we knew
, they were down on the corner arresting men for assault and rape and I have school
aged children. I have a teenaged daughter. These are the kinds of elements that
were brought in. It was ane insidious little thing, after another. It's a very
deep concern for me because we moved into our acre lot over here, we too, have
the animals. I want to keep that kind of a country essence. You can't do it with
the creeping and croaching commercial establishments that will follow your bus
~ barn. I've lived through it once and I don't want to be forced out again. Thank
you.
Oave Jackman - Thank you, Mrs. Day. UJhat el se do we have?
Don Stone - Mr. Jackman with your permission. Iindicated that I'd like to get my
~ final two bits in, and I don't mean to cut everybody off, but, I think I'd like
to review a little bit just where we are in terms of this particular facility as
it was proposed.
Dave Jackman - For the record this is Mr. Don Stone.
~ Don Stone - Excuse me, yes, my address S. 1812 Vera Crest. Now, in terms of the
facility itself, I somewhat regret that the model is not here for examinatian by
the people who came out on this cold night so they can see what this thing looks
like. It is down at the Administration Building and I would submit that of course
it's j ust a model and there's no guarantee that what you see there is what you get.
In terms of what is proposed at this particular facility, if you could envision
~ for a moinent a 15.1 or 5 acres, whatever it is; of land at the corner of 16th and
Sullivan which has a portion of it sort of cut out, it's around the area, I think,
of that little house, if anybody's been out there, a portion of which that land
belongs to Vera Power. Around this proposed facility it's indicated that the
School District is intent upan building a 4 to E foot berm of ea rth, which then
supposedly will be covered with various types of ornamental shrubs and that sort
• of thing with access points on 16th and on Su1livan Road. In terms of what this
thing is going to look like, its been proposed that the buildings constructed on
the site would be of concrete constructim, and that with the combination of buil-
dings and parking lot, that a total of 79,04 of the surface of that 15 point what-
95
~
0
ever acre s waul d 1 T tera1 ]y be cavered wi th asphalt or bui Y dirrg . Around thi s pro-
posed faciitty, 1n dddZt,tion to this bunker, will be a security fience. The Schooi
Di stri ct most recently, at f ts exi sti ng faci 1 i ty, canstructed at taxpayers ex-
pense, asimi lar type af fence. It's a hi gh chai nli nk vari ety and, 7 f I reca11,
it has same wire araund the top of ?t but I can`t be absoluteiy certain ~
of that. However, I don't think it takes a great dea1 of imiginatian to see some-
where on thi$ prvpased facility, whether it be on top vf the bunker, in frant of
bunker, or behind the bunker, a steeI fence of the chai n 1 i n fc wariety at 1 east 10
to 12 feet and perhaps with the usual three barbed wires around the tvp of it.
The facility as it's propased, of course the concept has been patinted out, has ~
changed fram the time of the in7tia1 prapasal. Qur understanding was that the
School Di stri ct had i ni tial ly prvposed a s impl e bus barn whi ch vuoul d be i nserted
an agricultural land in this vicinity and the purpases of this bus barn was to
suppl ement, or actual ly repl ace the exi sting fa+ci lity which, agai n, if peopl c
haveh' t seen it, aecause I would submi t there are a 1 nt of peopl e who haven` t
seen this site right nvw because it's totally out of the view of the average per- !
son, You'11 see that it's located imediately adjacent ta the present Adminis-
tration Bui1d7ng and that this is where the buses ga in and out at least four
times daily. When it became apparent that the, some sort of an applicatiQn had
been rnade for acquisitian; well first of all for prapased use of this land for
a bus barn and for that matter when it became apparent that the Schoo] district, ~
for the first time, was annauncing the purchase of this proposed 1 and, a noan
meeti ng was he1 d by the School 8oard, on a work day withaut noti ce; essenti al ly,
to peop1e in the area, of the fact that what was goi ng to take place. At that
poi nt in time, Z know I took off from my day of work and went befare the Schoal
Baard to, basically, to te71 them that as far as what had been advised regarding
the use of this particular land for thzs type fa+cil ity, that they did not comply ~
wl th exi sting roni ng law. af course, Mr. JdCIGman y4U a i n turn, had indz +cated tv
the Board that you had spoken with Mr. Gary Thomason and had obtained tentative
approva 1 of th is parti cular site and, Qf course, it wa s aduanced at thi s point in
time that was being built here was nat just a bus barn but a so called Educativnal
SerWices Center. Specifically, the Center as it was nvw knawn or for that matter,1~~
"t#~e campus',"' as th+e Schoo7 Di stt ct wauld l7 ke tv r~efer to thi s no~t, consist nat ~
anly of the bus barn but a central kitchen facility, a curriculum library, a com-
mercial 1 aundry faci 1ity, a eentral war~efiousi ng faci1 i ty, a bui1 di ng maintenance
facility and a district administration building. In course of talking this over
with aRPropri ate personnel i nthe Planni ng and Zonir,g Gflmmi ssion, i t became ap-
parent that as far as preeedent for the type of praject that was being proposed,
that the anly precendent exYSting in Spakane Caunty was 1rr the Chene,y area, where ~
the (Cheney) Schaol District had constructed a bus barn imrnediate7y adjacent ta
the administration bui1 di ng . There was na provi s1 on anywhere i n the Caunty for
COrtstruCti Qn of a bus barn faci 1 ity on the type ofi acreage that was bei ng proposed
i nthi s particul ar instance. We feel it dvesn't take a great amount of deductian
that the so ca1Zed "need" that was generated by the Schaol District was, in fact,
to s uppart the bui lding af the bW s barn and not to bui 1 d faci1iti es which it i n- ~
deed needs for present use or fvr that matter future use.
I'm not just talking vff the top of my hat in terms of what the facility either Ts
gaing to be vr for that matter what the need is. If you look back, I have before
rne svme staff studies that were dane by the SchooT District dating back, I bel7eve,
I dvn't know when you fi rst joi ned the School Di strict Mr. Jackrnan, but at least ~
1et' s just taice the warehousing faci1ity.
96
i
~
Now, the warehouse, for people who don't know what that is, this is a place where
the School Di strict's suppl i es wi 11 be central 1y stored. We wi 11 have truck traf-
fic visiting the site, probably daily, and this will be the place where trucks, in
turn, will then distribute the various supplies that are now stored in the various
~ schools to the sites around the District. As late as 1979 the subject of central-
ized warehousing was, in fact, discussed, and it was stated at that time - and the
date of this staff study, I might add, just for the pruposes of the record, April
17, 1979 - it was addressed to Mr. David Jackman and h1r. Mikesell from Mike Gordon,
who is the Purchasing Agent for the District warehouses that presently exist. Sum-
mary vf the opinion page 3: "It is obvious that there would not be a sufficient
~ dollar savings in the cost of supplles to pay for the acquisition cost of a cen- 128
tral warehouse, as well as the operational cost - at best. The dollar savings
and supplies would only offset the operational cost."
Now. that just deals with the central warehouse facility. We're also faced with
the central kitchen facility. In terms of the EIS there is nothing said really
~ about the central kitchen facility. There is supposedly some odor that will be 129
distributed to the area but we don't know whether its going to smell like baking
bread or for that matter rotting garbage. All we know is that there is supposed
to be something there and surely there wi]1 be some odor emissions, there will be
some traffic generated by this facility as purportedly the School District seeks
to take the food that is produced and again distribute it around the District.
~ It will take trucks to do this, it will take peaple to do this, it will take traf-
fic and this will, in fact, add to the congestion of the area.
On the subject of the central laundry facility, I have not seen, exactly, what
this is supposed to be and again it's not really addressed in the EIS at all.
I presume that with any commercial, as with any comnercial laundry facility of
• any magnitude, whatsoever, again there are steam emissions, there are various
types of emissions into the atmosphere to say nothing of the truck traffic
associated with this facility, again, as it distributes items throughout the
Schoo1 District. In terms of service to the School District I thought it inter-
esting to note on page 82 of the proposed EIS, for the first time, I saw what I
considered to be at least an accurate reflection of the sites to be served by
0 this facility as it's been proposed. Now way back when the needs of this facil-
ity were first being discussed and when the bus barn was the principal issue, the
School District relied upon a study that was done and it's mentioned in the EIS
indicating the cost savings to be effected by running these buses out of one
place at 16th and Sullivan as opposed even to just down the road to the 4th and
Conklin site or in corrmercial areas adjacent to Sprague to include the existing
0 school facility in the vicinity over in Greenacres. I thought it interesting.
Of course, we have not been abie to see this particular document. I sincere1y
question the cost savings to be effected when I looked to the map. Those of you
who perhaps have it in the audience, it's on page 82. 0n there, the School Dis-
trict lists not only their existing site facilities, but their so called propos-
0 ed site facilities. Now we recognize, and I've heard the term utilized by the
School Dlstrict that they're looking at the so called "70 year window," as it's
being expressed, and visualizing the need for the facility as proposed 16th and
Sullivan. If you look to that diagram, you'll see that it's true that the site ~30
of the proposed facility is in the approximate geographical center of the Dis-
trict. Remember, that the Central Ualley School District extends all the way
0 to the Idaho border. blhen you look to that map, and it's not exactly in the geo-
graphical center, but if you look to the existing sites and proposed sites, you
will see that the present site facility at, on Bowdish, is in fact more central
to those existing sites than is the proposed facility. If you'll also look to
97
0
~
tine same diagram, with respect to development of the - to the east - and Y'11 re-
r cognize that certainly perhaps when times get a little better there wi11 he some
developmenfi in the 5altese Flats and Greenaeres area. But, if you laok ta the
prvposed schooZ sites, there is only vne that even arguably 3s pff the rnain tra-
veled road of Sprague. The rest of them are r7ght dawn an Sprague or in that ~
v i c i ni ty, ar for that matter, 1 acated i n Liberty Lake.
Maw, arrybody who's driven around here at all knows that you gvtta go down to
Sprague to get ta Li berty Lake, ,you don "t drive orrer the mauntafns. Maybe there
wil1 be a road sameday, but it isn't in, at least in the Caunty plan at this junc-
ture, so I think we alZ have gat to ask a logical questivn and that's if this thing 49
is so central and if there is so much money to be saved, why is it that when we
]ook to that map that in all reality there are abaut three sites ta the east of
t h7 s praposed facility wi th by far majori ty } some 85%, of the propased si tes lvca-
ted to the west of the fati 17 ty and i ndeed surroundi ng the present location of rtot
only the Schaol District's bus barn, but i ts admini stration compl ex.
0
LQt of us in thi s area are greatl y di sturbed wi th what i s taki ng place wi th the
Schovl Di stri ct. In terms of cost, we know that costs are escalati ng . We also
know that as busf ness men, or women and indeed as fami 1ies that what it casts ta
1 i ve in thi s wor1 d and ta ma intai n ary ki rid of a standard of 2 f ving ta wh1 ch per-
haps we' ve become accustamed, that thi s takes maney and it takes effQrt and any- 0
body who's runn7 ng a business krtaws that ri ght now i snot tMe time that we're
making personal expenditures whieh down the rQad are going to require us to pay
large amaurrts of money. Anyane of us wha's 1n business realizes that the tax
burden that we' re al1 havi ng ta bear Y s substantz al . Particul arl yta those pevpl e
who are facing declining incomes.
In terms of peop1e wha have been translating this into so many dollars and cents, •
the Schoo] District, of cnurse, in Central Valley, even before your t7me Mr. Jack-
man, has enjoyed ane of the best budgets of anywhere i n the State. We have al sa
enjoyed one of the hi~her per capita tax expenditures to mainta7n the type of
school s that we desi re i n thi s parti tul ar 1ocati an and, persanally, I don' t have
any trouble with that. But, what I do have trouble with is when i see the develop- 0
ment of bui 1 ding programs which don't real l y take i n to accaunt the truer needs of
the Dz strict. I get di sturbed when I read i n the newspaper and fi nd that the num-
her of teachers we have, we're having to cut back on because we can't affvrd them.
Iget cancerned when I find that vur schoals, as they exzst, are not adequately
i nsuZ ated . Iloo k to the a peratioRS i n maintenance budget and i fi nd that our
existing school facilities lack adequate funding to even apen the davrs on a 0
dai1y basi s. I get coneerned, Mr. Jac{tman, when I wee that the School Di striet i s
intent an building a facility which wiTl not add anything in terms of cast savings;
at best, wll ] real ize only an affset and whicit i ndeed wi 11 requi re the taxpayers
of thTS community to make addltional expenditures for operatians and maintenance
j ust to maintain what they' ve bui 1 t. Why i s i t, 51 r, that the Schvo1 District 13~
car~not rely up~an e~cisting faci li ties and pa rticular1y at a time when, Y ndeed, the 0
budget, as it exists, is tight far a7l of us? Why is it that the School Distrlct
at this present tYme is considering the clasure ar alternate use of two existing
faei liti es in this Schvol Di strict to accotrrodate the grawtfi, i n fact, the bui ldi ng
of two additivna7 faci1 i ties that are presently taking pl ace? In 4thE1" W4Y`dS,
transl ated, why, 5i r, does the Schoal Distri ct not us~ exi sting faci 1 ities and why
i s i t that the 5choal Di stri ct again i s el ecti ng to I3u1 ld bul ld1 ngS and fi 1l them 0
with pevpl e at atime when the real need of the Schoal Dz strict is one of educa-
tivn for aur children; in seeing to it that we have teachers in the classroom, artd
98
~
~
seeing to it that the numbers of students don't over burden the existing facilities
and the teachers that we have? IrJhy is it, Sir, that existing facilities cannot be
utilized for what you propose with this bus barn and its tangents?
~ I can rattle on a little bit here about my feeling about the Oistrict administra-
tion. I am not a member of the School Board, and frankly I think it's one of the
most God-awful things to ever heave to go to, as to sit through a school district
board meeting, particularly on Tuesday night. For those of you who haven't attend-
ed, it is kind of an exercise in what i would consider the total opposite of democ-
racy. The input there is very limited. The people there are dedicated, they're
0 there for a variety of reasons and some of them are there for a genuine interest
and concern for the educatfon system of this community. But we would submit, Mr. 13Z
Jackman, that with respect to this so called proposed Educational Services Center,
the School Board and the Administration has, in fact, lost sight of not only the
public's needs in this community but the publjc's wants in this community.
~ I want to say one thing, and that's that we're not going to give up. In terms of
what has been set forth in the EIS, again, I point to the lack of data from which
any accurate conclusions can be drawn by either side. When the real test comes,
in terms of going before the Planning and Zoning Commission, and in terms of what
is in your final proposed EIS; I would hope that in addressing not only the envi-
~ ronmental concerns, but the human factor analysis, which you are required to do,
that you take into account that there are people out there who have to fund what-
ever it is you get the right to build. When it comes to the ballot box it's a
lot easier to vote than perhaps it is to walk up here in front of a room full of
people and talk on a microphone, particularly when you're not used to it. So,
when the time comes, Sir, when the School District does have to face a voter, we ~33
~ submit that this facility, as it's proposed, will not be approved. And then, Sir,
it wi11 be the option of the School District to look to alternative capabilities
in terms of either contracting with somebody at Spokane Industrial Park; as for
instance, a warehouse or for that matter continuing the lease arrangement that is
presently utilized by the School District, continuing the use of the proposed bus
barn facility, continuing the use of the existing administration building which
~ just this past year was improved - I forget the dollar figures - it was approxi-
mately $50,000. Take into account that the voters of this District cannot afford
what is being proposed. Just as our environment cannot afford it - we cah't af-
ford it and 1 hope the message gets through. Thank you sir.
Dave Jackman - Thank you, Mr. Stone. Do vre have any other comments?
~ Bi11 Schwiger -(►ly name is 8i11 Schwiger and I live at S. 2018 Vera Crest. I
was going to avoid coming up here, but after considering just one of the propo-
nents of this DEIS, I felt compelled to come forward and I also feel compelled
afte r reading this to question the competency of our School Board, Mr. Jackman -
yourself, and let me tell you why.
~ On page 60, and maybe you would ca re to turn there, something very interestinq
shows up. They are talking about the probable impacts of thib fuel storage. Let
me just read this to you. "The proposed project will house various types of ac-
tivities that will use potential1y flammable and explosive chemicals. None of
these chemicals poses unique or unusual hazards when handled in accordance with
~ proper storage and use procedures," further down it says, "the proposed fuel stor-
age facilities would include 2,000 gallons of unleaded gas and 10,000 gallons of
regular gas and diesel'°; now catch this, "it is anticipated that these tanks would
be refilled one or two times per week by bulk tanker." So that means truckin' down
99
•
!
Sullivan now, you have a tanker truck. O.K., now let me just te11 you what hap-
pened when I was a kid. Si x years ol d I Mear the fire ertgi nes a nd T go ri di ng
down where the fire engines are. Tn the middle af a resndential district is an
avertu rned tan ker, spi lling gaso11 ne, How do you put itout? It' s running dawn
the gutter,there's kids running around. Wnat happens if that ignites? A 1ittle
kid runs across the street, the tanker truck puts his brakes on. What's going
to happen, can yvu answer that? Then it goes an to say under Item Q, "llnarvoidable
Adverse Impacts - None." That`s irtcredible, this is idiocy. Can you answer that?
Would you care to7 My kids are goirig to be usirtg Sul i i van to drf ve as wel l as t^ide
u p and dawn. Thi sis i ncredi ble. I woui d say that ifwe buy thi s, we' re sel1 i ng ~
aurse] wes. I thi nk we shoul d use al] possi bI e means to make sure tMat this doesn "t
get any further. Thank you.
Bdb Gale - Bab Gales E. 15814 - 14th. In answer to that question yau had on what
happens when they explode, ga back a few years to Burland, Nev~~ Yoric. One vf th~ase
tankers expl oded, taok hal fthe vi 13age out, pl us hundreds of i i ves and when we ~
had that snow starm the other morni ng, the traffic was 1ined a11 the way from Sul-
]ivan to 16th. You couldn't even make a left turn into 14th. So, far my infvrma-
tion and what I've seen in Cal i fornia, when you' re rarrmi ng thi s dawn aur thraats,
i n a few years that wi11 be i dl ed a rrd they' 1 i he sel 1 i ng i t. Thank you.
Uick 5able - Qick Sable, 14920 F. Ilth Caurt. IlTved in this area approximately 40
20 years - transplanted from Chi cago+ I chvse ta 1 i ae i n the Spokarte 11a1 ]ey due
ta t~e fact that it was wide open spaces nat wall to waZl houses. I am firmrty 13~
against carm~ercial devel~apment in a residential area. I fail to see how the Schoal
District can prapose tht s project when they are Z ay*ng aff teachers and parents vf
the Di stri ct have to pay for the schaol sports. 7 guess what T want to say i s: I
don't want your sehaol bus barn out in the Va71 ey, I dan't want a 7-11, artd I can- ~
not and wi11 rrot support any operations where it's going ta cost me tnoney in the
future. Thank ,yau,
Dave Jackman -Any other comrnents? Anyane eTse?
Steven Nelson - Steven Nelson, S. 1415 Limmerick Drive A numb+er of things have ~
been stated i firmly agree with, and that is I think cost are going through the
cei17 ng i n a 1 at of areas I fi rmly bel i eve that the ecanomi c si tuation is one of
a dowrtturn and it probably wan't get better 7n the near future. Witn the reduced
papul ati on in the Va11 ey I feel that as far as students are cvn+cerned that exi st-
ing faci1 it1es shauld be reeval uated, maybe upgraded; but nat an additiortal faci-
l7ty created at this time which wou7d mean maybe a little bit further planning an *
the School Board `s part better prvject-i ons. I feel that to establ 1 sh a commer-
cia1 faci1ity out there at trii s time wauld be negati ve impact upon taxpayers. I
would also like ta sort of summarize - maybe I shouldn't - but I will anyway, and
that is that since I've been s3tting hbre and, I believe, sZnce I got here a half
hvur l ate in di scussing the subject, i t appears that no one i s i n favor af the
faciiity. .No ane has corne ta th Y s meet7 ng to voice affi rmati ve reacti'on to the
EIS and voice a positian that they firmly believe that this is the answer ta the
Distr7ct's prablems. It wou1d then appear ta me that the District School Board
should look at this community reaction and say to themselves - we shouZd look at
ather alternatives. Thank you.
Uave Jac6cman - Thank yvu, Mr. Nelsan. Da we have any vther comment§ thi s evening? 0
E. J. Ze1eny- M,y rtame is E. J ZeTeny, I live at S. 1379 Timberlane. I'm agin'er.
I don't see any Rositive effect of this bus issue, nor da Isee where it's been
~
100
~
exonerated at all by this proported EIS. I have, however, one over-riding concern.
As long as I can address the School 6oard an tape I'd like to be able to do that.
I don't see that it will happen by fiat so I feel compelled, somewhat, to implore
~ the Board and Administration to be responsible when it comes to funding for this ~38
bus issue, as well as for teaching our kids something. I don t see the two have
anything to do with each other. I would like the taxpayers here to at least con-
sider a responsible attitude about funding, and to separate these ttivo when it comes
time to lay the bucks down and make this a separate issue. I don't have kids in
school here, maybe fortunately or unfortunately, but I would hate to see my money
~ go tied up to a bus issue when it really shou1d be to teach the kids something.
For Gods' sakes Board Members, keep any funding for this bus barn out of ineaning-
ful programs for the kids. Thank you.
Dave Jackman - Anyone else?
~
(Test7 mony Ends )
~ Dave Jackman - I appreciate the comments that each of you have made this evening.
They will become part of the record as we've indicated to you. They will be re-
sponded to in writing when the Final Environmental Impact Statement is prepared.
Each of you who have spoken this evening will be mailed a copy of that Fina1 En-
vironmental Impact Statement. The hearing is adjourned.
•
•
•
•
•
101
r
~
Responses to Heari ng Conxnents
82. See pages 92-94 ofi the DEIS.
83, Unner exi st T ng ton ing the si te is nat required to ae T n aqricul tural ~
use. Page 52 of the DEIS drscusses a variety of uses a7lawed Within
tne Agricultural Zane,
84. This Comnent is nated.
85. Thi s noise 1erte1 i s an exte rior noise 2evel. Tne noise 1 evel received ~
withi n a home wi 11 be reduced oy 13 to 21 QB with windvws open and 25
ta 30 dB wTth wlndows clased (page 46 o# tne DEIS). It is entirely
pvssible that sounds generated by buses exit7ng the site and acGel-
erating along 16tn (and Sullivan If nomes are constructed east of the
site) wili be of sufficient levei to awaken residents oppasite the ~
ex7t points. As noted in the DEIS on pages 41-43, departing buses can
generate nai se i errelsin the range of 75 dBA a nQ over BO dBA if a# r
hra6ces are engaged. These noise levels wi] 1 not ae steady but wa 11 be
in the form of noticeaole peaks. These notse peaks can awaken sleep-
ing 1ndividuals.
86. Tne District Ts proposing as the prirnary notse aarrier an eartn aerm ~
with landscaping. The earth berrn will provide an effect#ve notse bar-
rier. The 1andscapi ng i s nat intended to be provided as a sound bar-
ri e!' .
87+ The not se 1evel s generatea by Duses warming up and aeparti ng tfie ,yard
ar~ea are discussed on page 41 of tMe DE IS. These 1 evel s were deri ved ~
fram actual monitaring. Tne nalse generated oy clepartirtg and return-
i ng buses is based on monl toring of indlvidua 1 auses, The noise i ev-
els generated Qy these buses constitute momentary er►ents as tne Duses
accel erate or decelerate and pass ny an abserver. Whileit i s true
tnat two busQS generata ng ideRtl Gdl noise 1errel s and located side by ~
side will generate a compasite noise lerre1 3 dBA higher, this 3dBA
ierrel is not ad4itrtve for eaCh add7t1017d1 bus. As the difference 1n
no1se level DeLween tne existing and added noise sourGe Tncrease5, the
amaunt ta t~e ad#ed decreases (with 3 as a max7mum). Tnis is because
of the 1ogarTtnmic nature of the decibel unit.
It wou ld take 10 ur,ses each generaLing a naise i evel of 60 dBA tQ in- ~
crease tne campvsite noise level ta TO aBA, for example. Each add`t-
tional bus generatlng a60 dBA noise level wauld aaa Iess tnan 0,5 dB
to the tatal . Thi s would decl ine to an increase of 0.1 d8 fior each
aaaitional aus afiter 20 bUSeS. This increment wau}d be true if the
rt Rdi vieual 1 evel of each bus was 60 dBA, 70 dBA, or 100 dBA, Whi 1 e ~
several buses may ae runnt ng engi nes si de by side at one time in the
yard whi le warmi ng up in tne morni ng or afternoon, the distance frarn
existing resio€nces as we11 as berming would attenuate the perceived
naise levels (a deA decrease wttM eac.h doubling of distance. Saund
intensity decreaSeS inverse]y wlth the square ofi the distance from the
source. ) The primary generation of noise whi ch wauld affect existing ~
and future reside,nces wi11 result from Duses entering 16th Avenue and
Sul I i van Rvad. finis wi] 1 result from Tdl ing buses wai ting to enter
102
!
~
these streets and accel eration ofi tnese Duses. The id 1ing buses will
not generate noise levels that will be additive to the degree of sev-
eral ouses running up side by slde Tn the yard area. Each succeeding
bus in the line will generate decreasing levels of noyse as the dis-
~ tance from tne oDServer increases. In addition, two buses will not be
entering the street at the same tyme, thus, the camposite noise levels
will also be lower tnan tn the yard. As stated previously, however,
individual accelerating buses can potentiaily create noise peaks that
will be in the range of 75 dBA.
~ The pri ma ry operat ions Wh 1Ch wi 11 invol ve buses depa rt ing the site
will take p 1 ace for a 45-mi nute peri od duri ng the morning and a 30-
minute period in the atternoon. Otner operations will involve only a
portion of the Dus fleet departing around noon and in the late after-
noon. Further, these duses will not all depart at tne same instant,
. nor will they all depart tne same entry/access point.
Please note that the District presently operates 33 buses daily, not
48. Also, see page 71 of the DEIS which provides the 1980-81 bus
operattons--the maximum number of trips was 32 during the afternoon
routes.
~ 88. The proposed improvements to Sul]ivan Road or possiole future improve-
ments to 16th Avenue beyond that in tne present county proposal are
planned to take place regardless of the District proposal.
89. The area south of 16th al ong Sul l i van Road and the hi11 s to the south
• and east have been devel oped in a reas for residential use. Numerous
plats are approved for addittonal restdential development south of
16th, including the area apposite the District site east of Sullivan
Road. Finally' thE Dhstrict has no control over county policy with
respect to arterial designation or widentng. (Also, see page 73 of
the DEIS--total projected trips are 1,372.)
~ 90. See response 71 regarding lignt and glare.
91. See response 73. The potential 1and use impacts of tne proposed pro-
ject are discussed on pages 55- 58 ofi the DEIS.
~ 92. The Comprehensive Plan Map for Spokane County designates the area to
tne west and south ot the site as UrDan whicn (as discussed on pages
53-55 of the DEIS) would a11ow multi-family development as well as
commercial use at appropriate locations. Thus, it is possible (also
depending on future Zoning) that multt-family developments could occur
in the vicinity ofi the proposed project.
~ Tne proposed improvements of Sullivan Road and 16th Avenue provide for
signa]ization at tne intersection of 16th and Sullivan as well as
sldewalks along Sullivan Road. At the present time sidewalks are not
likely to de constructed along the entire length of 16th Avenue, but
only along the portion west of Sullivan Road that is improved under
~ the presently planned roaa project.
~ 103
~
93. Ott►er measures for yara aperations have heen discussed on pages 46-47
of the DEY5. Dnce the Duses are in positian to exzt the facility and
are on the street, the measures to mitigate are lirnited. Sound ernis-
sions can de reduced either througn mecnanical means (reducing noise ~
autput oy engine, wheel s, fan and exhaust systems) or by operation
(driyer techniques). Driver technlques related to acceleration and
deceT eration ean reduce the 1 evel of noise emi ssion. Thf s measure, as
stated previ ously, w1 l1 depend on individua] dri vers. An addi ti ona7
measure that may be uti1 ized 15 to sthedule early departures sv that
they use the Sul livan Road ex i ts . Tni s woul d reduce ea rl y marn t ng im- ~
pacts an lbth Avenue residents.
The Distrlct 1S strongly tnterested and conCerned aoout stueent safe-
ty. Bus drt vers are requi red to partici pate in a qual i f i cation pro-
gram priar to certification. A driver's manual 1s provided to aut]ine
praeedures rel ati ng to operation a nd safiety. The Di stri ct has a safe- ~
ty cammlttee. EaCh drfi ver is required to participate in annual safety
meetings as weil as other periadic safety meetings. Individual in-
struction is pravicied as required. The District can dlsmtss driaers
who do not ab1de by operattonal guidelines.
94. See page 41 of the DEIS for clarif7cation. Tne 53 t0 65 decioels with i
an average of 60 decibels refiers to L ar peak noise levels. The
awerage noise levels (L50) as stated inlPhe sentences previaus to tnis
statement duririg the day range from 42 to 44 dBA with the average af
aRproximatel y 44 dBA. The ROi se 1 evel s of 58 to 60 dBA was in r+efer-
ence to initial start and warm-up. After thls initial periad, idling
buses generated naise 1evels in the range of 48 to 50 d8A. ~
95. The f t rst fu] 1 paragraph on page 46 (which imme0iately fol lows the
refierence(i paragraph) states tne falxowing: "The above projections
apprvximate the impacts of the inittal operation of the bus stvrage
faci 1ity on-si te (Phase 1I). At fUl l bui1 d-out of the faci 1 ity i t 1 s
estimated that 70 to 75 auses w1i1 be departing and returning to the ~
5ite for morning and evening rautes". Far purposes of clarifirataan,
the table shows 74 departures for tne marning routes and 82 departures
far the afternoon routes. Ttie 82 afternoorl (iepartures al so include
activity bus aperati ons whi Gh wi11 nat taice place at tne same time as
normal afternoon routes.
i
96. Given tr►e locations of exi sting Di 5trict faci1 ities, Sul 1 i van Road is
praposed to be the primary feeder from which eastJwest rautes will be
accessed. These east/west rautes in additian to 16th Avenue 1 ncT ude
32nd,24th, Bth, 4tM, Sprague, and Braadway. As the Chstrl ct eeuel ops
new faci1 i t1 es they wi1 i be 1 acated in the eastern and soutnern por-
tions of the Dzstrict. The use of lbth Avenue, once the Phase II fa- ~
ci1ity ts operationa1 ana routeS are estaD] ished, is nat expeCtea to
recet ve additiana1 bus rQUtes. The new addea routes wi11 use Sui 1ivan
R4ad to feed east/west routes aeeessl ng the sauthern and eastern por-
t7on5 of the DT strict.
97. Tne requiremerrt to limit the hours ot canstructionm i n wnicn noi se ~
Creating actlvities (whic#i wouZd impact local rQSjdents) are taCcing
place can be stTpuiated tiy contract as set farth by the Dlstrict.
1a4
~
~
98. Portable nolse barriers can consist of movable panels to which sound
absordtng materiai has been attached. Essentially, it would oe tn the
form of a temporary sol id fence. A1 so, refer to page 46 of the OEIS
(under C. Mitigating Measures), wh7Ch states: "The following noise
~ aoatement measures may be used This statement prefaces the list
of recommended mitigating measures Wh1Ch includes the one referenced.
Further, it is not likely that this particular measure would be re-
qulred since the landscdped berm (which Would serve the same purpose)
will be in place.
~ 99. ThIs measure can be implemented in the following manner: (1) place the
requirement in the driver's manual; (2) brief drivers as to the re-
quirement and driving techniques; and (3) periodically monitor and
remind dri vers to ensure that the measure i s bei ng fol l owed. Drivers
who do not comply can be dismissed by the Distrtct.
, 100. Tne lighting system has not been developed at this time. The purpose
of the DE IS i s to iaentify tn1 s as a potential probl em and recammend
that measures be taken for mitigation. The District architect, at the
direction ot the District, can be instructed to develop a lighting
plan which will use lighting types of a low-glare character, avotd
~ llghting placement that wauld directly intrude on nearDy residences
(or future residences), and provide screening that will reduce glare
emission to off-site properties.
101. The Comprehensive Plan as discussed on pages 54-55 of the DEIS states
that light industrial uses and commercial uses can be located in the
. Uroan Category near neavily traveled streets and major intersections.
It is not anticipated that a comprehensive plan change will be re-
quired in order to develop tne proposed project.
102. The DEIS may have been unclear on this matter. The intent of thi s
discussion is not to imply that existing residences along Sullivan
~ Road will be demolished in order to develop more intensive resldential
or commercial uses. The pri mary poi nt of tne di scussion was to poi nt
out the possIbIlity that the vacant lands along Sullivan Road could be
developed into more intenstve land uses than presently charactertzing
the area. The DEIS also stated that such development might occur as
Sullivan Road is extended further soutn from the 16th intersection.
~ As with the development wlth any scenarto relating to future develop-
ment, tn i s may or may not take pl ace.
103. While it is possible tnat county decision makers would vtew the devel-
opment ot a publIc use facility as presently being proposed by the
Dt st rict in the same l ight as a privately proposed comnerci al project,
~ it is unlikeiy. Tne purpose of tne proposal is not to engage in com-
merctal enterprise, but to provide educational services. Thus, the
precedent may not de as strong as perceived by some. As stated in the
DEIS it is possiDle tt►at higher density developments may take place in
tnts area. The Comprehensive Plan, artertal system, and future sewer-
ing of the area also establish precedents that would favor development
~ at higher densities than have hlstorically been developed in the imme-
diate vicinity of the site.
s 105
~
104. See responses 33, 41, and 56-58. A1 so see Appendices A through C to
this FEIS.
105. The District is not engaged in land speculation. The purpose of Dis- .
trict land purchases is to provide sites for anticipated future fa-
cilities. Existing properties Wh1Ch are surplus to District needs are
sold in order to dispose of excess property. There is no evidence to
indicate that property values in the project vicinity will be devalued
as a result of the proposed action.
106. It is assumed that the reference oeing cited is the following: "As ~
discussed above, the physical environmental impacts of this site will
be essentially the same as for the proposed site (16th and Sullivan)."
This statement is in reference to the following statenent: "Since the
soil, topographic conditions, ground water (Spokane Va11ey aquifer),
flora, fauna, natural resources, energy, utilities, and public ser- .
vlces characteristics are basically the Same far the alternative sfte
the differences in impacts will vary little f rom the proposea site."
The impacts that wt 11 vary from site to site will be rel ated to traf-
ftc ci rculatl on and its rel ated impacts and noi se impact on recei vi ng
properties. Given tne existing land uses wlthin the immediate vicini-
ty of the 4th and Conklin site, the impacts on exzsting residences ~
f rom traffic and noise will be lower than for the proposed site De-
cause there are fewer affected residences. ThIs is so stated at the
ena of the cited paragraph: "Given this land use and zoning situa-
tion, it would appear tMat this site [4th and Conklin] would have
lower potential lana use conflict than tne proposed site, at least at
this time."
~
The sentence following that referenced on page 109 states that: "The
environmental difference is primarily afunction of location." This
aspect of tne discussion is also reiterated on page 110 of the DEIS.
The statement on page 111 of the DEIS is not inconsistent with the
above statements w11en taken in context of the entire discussion. The ~
statement that "separating various facilities on different sites would
reauce the concentration of impacts on a single area" does not contra-
dict the statement on page 110 whi ch states that "This concentrati on,
on tne other hand, placeS the burden ofi the greater cumulative impact
on the residents near a specific location rather than placing lower
impacts over a more wiaespread population." The second point, that ~
"the most t raffic and noise intensive facilities could be located tn
an area where fewer resldences would be ImpaCted" is also consistent
with the preceding alscussion. Concentrating the facilities on one
site will pl ace the impact of tre total proa ect on a si ngl e neighbor-
hood. By separating the facilities in different sites, the most in-
tenslve uses (such as the bus storage facllity) could be placed on a ~
site which has similar existing uses while the administrative facili-
ttes which have lower noise lmpacts could be plated on a site such as
the one proposed.
107. See response 58.
•
108. The District is planning a facility that will meet the long term (50
to 70 years) demands of providing educational services in Central Val-
106 ~
~
ley. W1tn continued growth and enrollment increases, the District
will require expanded facilities. Further, the project will provide
facilities that the District presently does not have or are leased.
These are the facilitles presently under proposal. It is not intended
~ tnat all of these facilities be deveioped at the same time. The pro-
ject is phased for this reason. Faci 1ities wi 11 be deveioped as the
need arises and existing facilities become outmoded and overcrowded,
and in view of operational economies. In order to provide these fa-
ci1it1 es in better than a haphaza rd manner, the Distrl ct must pi an to
anticipate future demands and factlities requirements. The funding
~ sources for facilities construction and the employment of administra-
tors and teachers are separate and are allocated under independent
criteria.
109. The District feels that this is the most suitaole site for the pro-
posed project takTng into consideration factors such as location,
~ size, prtce, and availability. Furthermore, the industrial park is
not wi thi n Distri ct boundaries.
110. The widening of Sullivan will take place independent of the proposed
Distri ct proj ect. A ma jor criteri a for 1 ocating the project at the
proposed site is its location relative to existing and future District
~ facilities to which service wi11 be provided.
111. See responses 6, 79 28, and 31.
112. At the present time, the county has scheauled tfie completion of tne
street improvements prior to project development.
•
113. The use ot security fencing is, as stated in the DEIS, a possibi1 ity.
However, the specific type fencing to be used (if installed) or its
exact location nas not been determined. In any case, it is the intent
of the District to minimize potential aesthetic impacts on neighboring
properties if such fencing is used.
~
114. Since existing traffic volumes along Sullivan in the slte vicinity and
future traffic volumes generated by tne proposed project are below the
magnitude that would create violations of air quality standards, no
monitoring was completed. It should also oe noted that the Spokane
County Air Pol 1 uti on Control Agency was on tne di stribution 1 i st for
• the DEIS and made no comment.
115. The DEIS analyzed the impact ot the proposed project at full bu11d-out
in order to provide a worst case condition. The noise impacts of the
project at completlon of Phase II would be less than at full build-
out.
•
116. Tne objectives of the proposed project are outlined on page 1 of the
DEIS. Altnough reductYOn in fuel costs from bus operations is a con-
sideration in the construction of the proposed project, it is not the
primary criteria. The tota1 project cost is identified in response
58. A1so, see responses 34 and 55-57.
•
107
!
~
117. Tne proposed improvements to Sullivan Road are presently planned to
Degtn in 1984. Thts wi11 depend on the length ot time required for
right of way acquisition which is underway.
118. Emissions from engines burning petroleum-based fuels contain whole ~
engine exhaust, whole partfcuiate emissions, extracts of the particu-
late fractions and gaseous fractions. According to EPA, diesel exhaust
contains a mixture of gaseous and particulate matter consisting of
9,000 to 12,000 different compounds. Polynuclear aromatics, alde-
hydes, ethers, ketones, and phenols are organic compounds found in ex-
haust. Inorganic compounds include carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, ~
and the oxides of nitrogen and sulfur including sulfuric acid. Benzo-
(a)pyrene, a known animal carcinogen (cancer causing substance), has
been identified as a constituent of diesel exhaust.
Diesel exhaust particles (essentially soot) can cause odor and visi-
bility problems in concentrations. They also have a tendency to re- ~
main afloat for long periods of time thus making tnem prone to atmos-
pheric chemical reaction and joining with other chemical compounds.
These partlcles are also microscopically fine, thus are capable of dy-
passing the Dodies filtration system (such as in the nose) and being
inhaled aeeply into the lungs where they can lodge for considerable ,
pertods of time. Here they can act as primary irritants to the lungs
as well as carry harmful gases ana liquids.
Thus far, the long-term health effects of concentrate0 diesel exhaust
are uncertain. Althougn studies indicate that carcinogenic compounds
are found in diesel exhaust, other studles have thus far shown no ~
evidence of ca rctnogenic effects from whole diesel exhaust. It is
unknown whether or not whole engine exhaust particles (from gasoline
or diesel engines) are tarcinogenic. Neitner diesel or whole engine
exhaust has so far been found to be carcinogentc when inhaled by
laboratory animals. However, in EPA-supported animal skin tumor ini-
tiation studies, extracts of diesel exhaust materials have been found .
to contain substances that nave potencies to cause mutilation and can-
cer similar to extracts of gasoline engine exhaust, roofing tars, and
coke-oven efifluent.
Tne following is extracted trom the report of tne Health Effects Panel
of the O1ese1 Impacts Study Committee of the National Research Coun- •
cil. This report (Impacts of Diesel-powered Light-duty Venicles:
Health Effects of Exposure to Diesel Exhaust, 1981) was commissioned
in order to study the known i n format ion rel ated to di esel emi s sion as
a resu 1 t of increased use of di esel -fuel ed vehi cl es.
The Health Effects Panei has examined the health effects ~
of exposure to diesel ext►aust in four areas--mutagenesis,
tarcinogenesis, pulmonary and systemic effects, and epidemi-
ology. No epidemiological studies nave been conducted on
the mutagenicity of diesel exhaust. The available epidemio-
1 ogt cal informati on does not revea 1 an excess ri sk of human
cancer of the lung or any other site in the population ~
groups studied. Thi s i nformati on is based entirely on occu-
pational stuaies that have numerous deficienctes in research
1(l8
•
~
design. Only two studies approach even the mtnlmum require-
ments of an adequate epldemiologtcal study, and neitt►er of
these accounts for smoking habits. There is simi1arly no
convincing evidence that inhaled wnole alesel exnaust is mu-
~ tagenic or carcinogenic in laboratory animats. However, in
animal cell and whole animal skin-application tests, organic
extracts of diesel exhaust particulates have been found to
contain substances that have mutagenic ana carcinogenic po-
tencies similar to extracts of gasoline engine exhaust,
roofing tar, and coke-oven effluent.
~
The apparent discrepancy between the effects of exposure
to whole diesel exnaust Dy inhalation and tMe effects of
diesel exhaust extracts on laboratory specimens may be due
to the absence of environmental and pnysiological factors
. (dispersion, transport, transformation, bioavailability, and
possible environmental synergistic, potentiative, or dddl-
ti ve interacti ons )in the 1 aboratory studies wi th extracts.
It mnay also be due to differences in the amounts and routes
of exposure. In the epfdemiological studie5, exposures to
the exhaust constituents were likely to have been lower and
. the route of human exposure (inhalation) less direct than
application of the exhaust extracts to cells, tissues, or
the skin of laboratory animals. Thus, in spite of the nega-
tive evldence that has been accumulated from epidemiological
studies, it is possible that dlesel exhaust is carcinogenic
or mutagenic in animals or humans exposed by inhalatton, Dut
, at a level too low Lo De detected in studies conducted to
date.
From available epiaemiological, clinical, and laboratory
animal studies, no firm conclusions can be drawn about pos-
a SiDIe pulmonary and systemic effects of diesel exhaust ex-
~ posure. Although a comparatively large data base exists for
pulmonary and systemic effects of certain indlvldual gas-
phase exhaust components--e.g., nitrogen oxides--there 1s
little basis for making judgments on the cardlopulmonary ef-
fects of whole diesel exhaust--even though some of the indi-
vidual components are known to exert adverse effects. How-
~ ever, evidence based on laboratory animal studies suggests
that inhaied diesel exhaust affiects the lung clearance mech-
anisms, produces nonspecific histopathologic changes tn the
lung that may or may not be reversible, and adversely af-
fects the pulmonary defense mechanisms.
• 119. Page 84 0# the DEIS in the final paragraph prior to the discussion of
prooable impacts, discusses the present inadequacies of the existing
transportation facility.
120. The oojectives ot tne proposed project are discussed on page 1 of the
OEIS. The proposed project envisions serving District needs over a
~ long period ofi time and the present administrattve functions will not
be moved for a few years.
109
•
~
121. Exlsting traffic hazards and probadle impacts of the project are ad-
dressed on pages 77-78 of the DEIS.
122. The District has cvnsidered contract busing. Most Washington State ~
districts which consider contract busing share one or more of tnese
characteri sti cs: (1) inability to sattsfactorily maintain their bus
fleet; (2) inabllity to purchase new buses; or (3) relatlvely small
proportion of students dependent on bus transportation.
The District's present transportation department has provided satis-
factory service, even operating from marginal facilities. Central ~
Valley is a semi-rural district and relies on buses to transport a
relatively large proportion of its students. Tne Distrlct's transpor-
tation system thus affects many of its patrons.
Since tne District must rely on patron support of levies to operate ~
and maintatn its schools, the transportation system must, therefore,
be responsive to needs of those patrons. It i s fel t by the Distrl ct
that this responsi veness can be Dest assured by sel f operati on of tne
system.
123. Neither tne noise 1 evei s nor the vehicul ar exhaust emissi ons are ex- ~
pected to create such an impact.
124. This comment is notea. The project is intended to meet the long-term
needs of the District.
125. This comment is noted. There is no evidence to indicate that property ~
val ues wi11 be decreased by such a project.
126. TnIs comment is noted. Future planning and land use guldelines and
decisions affecting the area are the responsibility of the County
Planning Department and Board of County Commissioners.
127. The purpose of the proposed pro,ect is to provide sufficient area to ~
nouse facilities required as a result of the future growth ofi the Dis-
trict. The bus storage facility is but one of seven such potential
services presently envisioned for the site. The project objectives
are di scussed on page 1 of the DE IS.
128. This comment is noted. ~
129. The odor emissions from tne proposed kitchen wi11 be similar to exist-
ing District kttchen facilities. To tne District's knowledge, no com-
p1 ai nts of adverse odor have Deen made regarding existing ki tchen op-
erations. The projected trip generatlon rates for the proposed kit- ~
chen facility are shown on page 73 of the DEIS.
130. Given the route structure of the Di strict, even with most of the ex-
isting school facilities in closer proximity to the existing site than
the proposed site, the total mileage driven by the buses would be less
from the proposed site than from the existing site. This was dis- ~
cussed in the DEIS on page 86. As stated previously, the purpose of
tne project is to serve long-term District needs. Population trends
110 .
~
indi cate a rel ati ve shi ft to the southprn and eastern porti ons of the
Distritt, away from the northwestern portion.
131. The obiectives of the project are outlined on paQe 1 of the DEIS. It
~ miqht De noted that additional ob,jecti ves of the project aside from
transportatlon cost savings includP planninq for the long range fa-
ci 1 ities needs of the Di stri ct , repl acing outmoded faci 1 ities and de-
velopi nq faci l ities that the Di stri ct prpsently lacks. Further, the
ent i re project i s not i ntended to be const ructed in a si nql e effort.
The project i s pl anned to be phased. The vari ous phases wi 11 be cie-
~ veloped as need arises and funding becomes available.
132. This comment is noted. Refer to the Educattonal Services Center Task
Force Report on pages 115-128 of the DEIS. A minority report of the
same committee is included on paqes 140-142 of tne DEIS.
~ 133. This comment is noted. The District, in its improvement to the admin-
istration buildinq four years aqo, spent approximately $20,000.
134, Such impacts are avoidable if prescribed safety measures and normal
precautions are taken. In the event that such an accident does occur
. there is potential for fire and explosion.
135. This comment is noted.
136. This comment is noted. The staff budqet is entirely independent of
capital costs (construction of new facilities), except that new fa-
• cilities can increase the efficiency of Oistrict operations. This
increased efficiency can, in turn, free up monpy for staff and proqram
needs.
137. Tnis comment is noted. See response 136.
0 138. The purpose of an EIS is to provide information to decision makprs
reqardinq the potential Impacts of a proposed pro,iect. It is to so11-
cit information wr►ich would be of value to decision makers. The pur-
pose is not to exonerate a pro,lect. Support services such as the
seven patential services proposPd for this site, are necessary in
order to operate proqrams for tne students and maintain thQ school
~ buildinqs wt►ere educational proqrams take piace.
~
~
111
w
~
APPENDIX A
PROJECTED COSTS OF MAKING EXISTING FACILITIES,
COMPARABLE TO PROPOSED PROJECT
~
Estimated present dollar
cost to make eomparable,
_Faci 1 i ty di s rega rdi nq 1 ocati on
0 1. Admi ni strati on - Irrmedi ate
,
Expand present building to in................... $374,000
clude printshop, space for
itinerant personnel (5,000 sq.
ft. x$74. 00) and'15 addi ti ona 1
~ parking spaces
Long Range (estimated)
Expand presently needed faci 1 i;-
ties by an additional 5,000 rsq.
• ft. (5,000 sq. ft. -x $74.00) ,
add 37 additional parking
spaces ...................................-.......$3~0,000
~ Tota1 to meet projected administrative
needs............................................ $750,000
~
2: Maintenance - Existing leased maintenance
~ facility cannot be economically
fi tted -to adequately serve,mai n-
tenance needs. It might however,
' be remodeled and enlarged to
serve the District's storage
_ needs. See cos t unde r"S to rage".
•
Estimated cost of new maintenance facility.
6uilding
Immediate ..................................$6a6,078
~ Long Range .................................$468,000
(additional)
•
• 113
,
Es timated present doi 1 ar ~
cost to make comparable,
Faci 11 ty di s regardi ng 1 ocati on
2. Maint+enance - Continued)
Land ~
2.0 acres @ .75/sq. ft. (assumes
mai ntenance faci 1 i ty i s not bui 1 t
adjacent to an acbninistrative or
school site) 65,3&40
•
Tota1 to meet projected maintenance
needs ...........................................$1,219,418
3. Storage - Inenedi ate
Purchase ex3sting leased maintenance ~
facility 3009000
hlinimal remodel of existing maintenance
fiaci]ity 1259400
, Expansion of existing maintenance ~
faci 1ity to 32,670 sq. ft. (169674
sq. ft. x$29.69/sq. ft.) 494,967
Long Range (estimated)
Expand facility to 46,080 sq. ft. (132414 ~
sq. ft. x 429.69/sq. ft .........................A 398,143
Ar
Total to meet projected storage needs...........$1,318,110
•
4. Transportati on - Inmedi ate
Denrolish existing transportation
mafntenance building 59000 ~
Bui1d new transportation maintenance
building on existing site (building only)....... $ 5782573
Purchase adjacent ]and as site for bus
storage to accomadate 10 busses and 40 ~
small vehicies (1.85 acres x $3.00/sq,ft........ S 2a11758
(Estimated Value of existing improvements
on adjoining land is included in the land
cost).
Build additional storage for 10 busses.......... g 989875 ~
Bui1d additional storage for 40 small vehic]es..$ 249,360
Site improvement 21992A5
•
114
i
40 Estimated present dollar
' cost to nake compar,able,
Facil ity disreqarding location _
4. Transportation - (Continued),
1•
Vehicle washing & fuel ing faci 1 ities. $ 1759265
Long Range
Purchase adJacent land for additional
0 bus storage (3.6 acres x $3.00/sq.ft.
including estimated value of improven-ents.......$ 470,448
Build storage for 38 busses and 38 small
vehicles 6019217
~
0 Site work 2009000
Total to meet projected transportation needs....$2,839,747
0 5. Curriculum, library -
Imnedi ate,
No substantial changes needed in physical
_ faci 1 ity. G
0 Long Range (estimated) il
,
P1i ght use more central i zed Di stri ct ~
space. Estlmated remodel cost for
access and shelving $ 15',Q00_
~ Total to meet projected Curriculum
Library needs......................~.............,$ 159000
6. Central Ki tchen -
~ Immedtate
No major changes needed in present operation:
Long Range
~ Establish central kitchen at Central Valley ,
High site.
Enlarge existing C.V. kitchen by 1,000 sq.ft..V 809000
~ Total to meet projected central kitchen
space needs 809000
•
115
~
Estimated present do11 ar
cost to make comparable,
Faci 11 ty disregardi ng 1 oCation
l. Central Laundry - Inmediate •
Does not apply - no central facility
raw exists. Do not envision central
laundry in near future.
Lang Range - (estimated) 0
Enl arge CeRtral Valley High bui1ding by
500 sq♦ I Lr •■•r•••s■ • •••a• 4V70Q0
Tatal to meet projected central
laundry space needs 40,0O0 0
Es tfmated cost of making present faci]ities camparable to
the prroposed project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $6,262,269 0
~
•
~
. !
i
•
i1~
~
.APPENDIx 6 POTENTIAL SER11I CES CE NTER ,S ITES CONSI DEREO B,Y DI STRI CT ~
~ I. Properties Considered Prior to December 1979
Parcel Comment
A. Present sites Inappropriate location, restricted siZe,
District does not now have sites fow
•some needed support services.
B. 4th,& Conkl in 'Not geo,graphi cal ly central , too smal l
for projected needs, costly (informally
. offered at $32,670 per acre), poor ac-
cess, not suitable for administration
• site.
C. 4th &lConklin See "B" above; leased maintenance
Maintenance Site building not suited to long term main-
tenance use, costly (offered,at $351,000 -
4 substanti al ly over apprai sed va,l ue
•
D. 6arker Center Geographically remote,'site too small,
adjacent owners not willing to sell.
Existing structure not suited to long
term central services needs.
!
I I. Properties Consi dered December 1979 - Apri 1 19, 1980
.
Parcel Comment
A. 4th & McDonal d, Geographi ca11y remote, ;too smal l,
~ NW corner limited access.
B. 4th & Evergreen, Not geographically central, too small,
NW corne r limited access.
C. 4th & Adams, Property not,available for sale, too
~ SE corner small, limitediaccess, not geographically
central.
D. 4th & Sullivan Not geographica1ly central, poor east-
NE corner west access, costly, awkward access to
• Sullivan.
,
E. 4th & Sul l i van, Not geogr,aptiical ly central, too smal l,
,SE corner substantial improvements already on
property, poor east-west access, awkward
access 'to Sul 1 i van.
•
~ 1117
!
Parcel Camment
F. 16th & Sul l ivan, Gaad east-west and northwsouth access,
SW corner i rregul ar shape, ampl e size ! geographi _
ca11y central, adjoining "public" use. i
G. 16th & Sulliaan, Good east-west and north-south actess,
SE corner potenti al ly amp] e siae, geographi+cal ly
central, westbaund busses would have
to crass Su11 i van.
~
H. 24th &Sullivan, Goad narth-south access, marginal east-
lVE corner west access, ample siae, geographically
central.
I. 32nd & Sul li van, ifery good east-west and north-south
NW corner access, not geagraphical1y central,, •
margi nal size, part of proper#y al ready
improved, 1ega1 problems involved with
sale.
J. 32nd & Sullivan, Property nat available far purchase in
NE corner 12-15 acre parcel , access good. Nat •
geographi ca11y central.
K. 32nd & Sul l i van, Not geographi cal ly central, some im-
SE corner provements 4n property, atcess good.
Not available for sale in 12-15 acre
parCel. ~
ZII. Properties Cansidered After April 15, 1984
Parcel C°mmnt •
A. Vafi leyway & Sul livan, Not geographi ca71y central, marginal
NE corner east-west access, costly, awkward
access to Sprague.
S. Narth af Val 1 eyway. Poar access, too smal1, mul ti p1 e awner-
West of Conklin ships, potentially castly, not geographi- ~
cal ly centra7.
C. 5outh of Valleyway, See 94 abave.
West of Cankl in
D. North of Sprague, Goad east-west access, adequate north_ ~
south of Valleyway, south access, not geographically central,
west of Conklin costly.
•
~
118
~
Parcel Conunent
E. 32nd & Sul 11 dan, °See 11 -"I" above. NW, corner
0 F. NW of Uera Crest Dr. IVo direct artertal access', geographically
{ central,-re1 atively costly, restri ctions
~ on development.
G. D1rectly east of Very poor access, not geographically cen-
0 C. Y. N1 gh si te tral, not avai 1 abl e for sale.
H. East of,Conklin Rd., 'Artp1e s1ae, poor access, not geogrAphically
south- of rai l road central . costly (pri ced at $30,492 per
right-of-way acre).
0 I. ' 4th & Su111van Rd., See I I-"E", cost'ly (prlced at $359330±
SE corner per acre). J. South of 24th Avenue. Poor access, not geographically central.
West of Best Road substantial improventents on propert,y.
S K: +17th 8 Adams Rd., Ins'ufficient,size, improvenents alreadjr
NW corner 1 n pl ace, i nconvenl ent access .to major
arterlals.
•
I
1 q
~ L
s ,
•
119
•
APPENDIX C ~
EFFORTS TO CONSIDER OR NEGOTIATE ALTERNATIVE SITES
(4th and Conklfin, near Central Valley High School, and Renz Property)
4th and Conkl i n Propert.y
4/24/79 The School Board asked Gottschalk to evaluate this site for ~
maintenance, transportation, and warehousing.
6/18/79 Gottschalk's report said 4th and Conklin was preferable to
the Barker Center site because it was closer to the Distr9ct's
geographic center. 0
6/25/79 Gottschalk recommended consldering purchase of 4th and Conklin
& and the adjoinfng maintenance building. Scope of the Services
7/2/79 Center project di d not inci ude the Di stri ct admi ni stration
building at this time.
7/18/79 The District administratlon recommended to the Board that the 0
District consider purchasing 4th and Conklln and the leased
maintenance building.
i
7/24/79 District 6oard authorized negotiations for purchase of 4th
and Conklin and the leased maintenance bullding as the site 0
for maintenance, transportation, and warehousing.
7/24/79 District retained Walt Peterson to negotiate for purchase of
_ 4th and Conklin property and leased maintenance facility.
8/79 Owner of 4th and Conklin and Peterson negotiating. Owner was 0
interested in long term lease rather than sale.
• 12/10/79 School District approached owner of leased warehouse main-
tenance facillty re. a sale price.
12/11/79 At Distrlct's request, T. J. Meenach appraised 1) 4th and 0
Conklin at t40/sq. ft., and 2) land under maintenance
faci 1 i ty at $83, 500.
12/12/79 Owner offered 4th and Conkl in property to District at $.75/
square foot.
` 12/16/79 Owner of leased maintenance facility offered it for $351,000. 0
12/20/79 Value of structures on maintenance site was ap,praised by two
& appraisers at $204,000 and $1299750, respectively
12/24/79
•
7/19/80 Grant Person, Ralph Rice (owner), Paul White (owner's attorney),
Wes Sodorff, and Dave Jackman met to discuss possible purchase
of Rice property. 4th and Conklin was among sites discussed.
8/80 Wes Sodorff worked with Rice to discuss purchase of property.
8/28/80 Rice's attorney said that Rice was not interested in selling 0
at this time.
b
120
49
~
1017l80 Grant Person approached Ri ce re. purchase of property -
Ri ce ~quvted 75 sq. ft. ($32,670. 0alacre) for 711 acres
at 4th and Canklin.
~ 12/29j80 Grant Person comnun f cated hi sbelief to CVSD that Rice
did not care ta sel I any property.
1 f b/81 Bob Jayne and Chuck Stocker, School Di stri ct admi ni stra-
tars, ta1 ke+d wi th Ri ce re. purchase of property.
~ 1/7181 CVSD admi ni s trators i ns pected Ri ce's property, f ncluding
the 4tft and CankT insf te.
1I12/81 Chuck Stocker tried to get an appointnent with Rice - fai1ed.
1I13I81 CYSD Baord asked administrators to approach Rice re, sale
~ of property.
l I2fil'B1 Chuck Stocker trf ed to get appoi ntment wf th Ri ce -#'ailed.
2/3J8I Chuck Stacker tried to get appointment with Rice - failed.
•
~
~
•
i
•
121
~
~
Property Near Central Val7 e,y Hiqh Schoo]
District cvnsfidered two s1tes between December 1979 and April 1980.
Site Comment ~
4th & 5u11 ivan, NE corner rlot geographical ly central,poor east-
west access, castly, awkward access to
Su1lYVan.
4th & Sul1 fvan,, SE corner Nat geographical1y central, tao smaZ 1,
substantial impravements an praperty,
pQor east-west access, awkward access
to SullTVan.
The Di stri ct did not consTder a si te east af Central Val l ey High at ~
that time because such a site rvouldsuffer poor road access and po-
tential canflict with State's shoreTine iaws.
6J80 Ad Hvc Educational Services Center Task Farce requested
that the Di strTCt pursue 1 and east of Central 11a11ey High.
Wes Sodorff, a citizen member of the Task Farce, eantacted ~
Mr. Rx ce . In July 1980 Ri ce, White, 5odarff. . Persan, and
Jackman met in Sodorff's office to cansider sale.
7/7!80 Ad Hoc Task Force discussed Ri'ce property-
7/B0 Mi ke Vantine, citizen member af the Task Force, tal ked with ~
Rice re. availability of praperty.
8/80 Wes Sadorff was i n contact wi th Ri ce during August 1980.
8I28I80 P. White said Ri+ce was nQt interested in se11 ing.
9I12f80 Sodorff cal7ed saying Rice might be interested in selling to ~
District but would not name a price.
10J8/80 Person apprQached Rice re. sale af land by Central Valley Migh.
Rice quoted prices for land e1sewhere.
12/22/80 Ri ce ta1 dPerson he di d not want to se13 1 and near GVHS. S
12/29/80 Person said Rice nQt mativated ta se1l.
1181 Stocker and Jayne talked with Rice re sale. Rice said he
mi ght se11. ~
1/7I81 CUSD admTnistrators inspected property east of the Central
Va11ey High Schaal site.
1J12J81 Stacker tried ta meet with Rice - failed.
•
1/13J81 Board asked that administration approach Rice aqain.
1I26/81 Stocker tri ed to meet wi th Ri ce - fa i1 ed .
2I3/81 Stocker tried ta meet with Rice - fa9led.
122
~
~
Renz PT'D perty
The fallawing Renz properties were cvnsidered hetween December 1979
i and April 1980:
Site Comment
A. 16th & Sui 11 vdn i Cood east-west and north-south access,
SE carner potenti a11y ampl e size, geographi ca'i 7y
• central, westbound traffic would need to
cross SuZlivan.
B. 24th & Su11 ivan, Good narth-south access, margi nal east-
NE carner west aecess, potentia71y ample size, geo-
~ graphical1y central.
In June 1980 Ad Hac Educationa1 5ervices Center Task Farce requested
that we pursue Renz}s land.
Schaal District asked G. Person to ?nquire re, Renz property.
~ 7/7l$0 Ad Hoc Task Force discussed Renz property.
7/11/80 PQrson talked wi th Tupper re Renz property.
7J24/80 R'ersan reports Tupper offer vf land at inside of Renz
~ vwnershipJust bel aw Ridqemourit far $i 3,50illacre and
subJect ta seve ra1 restrictioMS.
7/28/80 Ad Hoc Task Farce di scusaed Renz property wi th Persan.
8J4/80 District wrote letter to Tupper (Renz's agent) rejecting
~ Renz's property an terms offered and asking for Tupper
to contact us if the terms cauld be changed.
~
~
M
]23
•