171_-_2021-8-16_Julie_RosenoffFrom:Julie Rosenoff
To:Lori Barlow
Subject:Comments of Draft of EIS Painted Hills
Date:Monday, August 16, 2021 6:22:49 PM
Attachments:Rosenoff comments on painted hills PRD.pdf[EXTERNAL] This email originated outside the City of Spokane Valley. Always use caution when openingattachments or clicking links.
Ms. Barlow,
Thank you for your time explaining many details about the Painted Hills DEIS
and comments this afternoon. I appreciate your kind patience and clear
explanations very much.
Julie Rosenoff
jrosenoff@gmail.com
Spokane Valley, WA
Here are my comments. I have highlighted key words and phrases to add clarity
to my long letter and hope it will make tallying my comments easier. I have also
attached it as a pdf document for your possible convenience.
Painted Hill DEIS Documents
One of my biggest issues is how to protect the wetlands values as well as the flow to ChesterCreek and our valuable Dishman Hills natural area is not compromised in any way. I willpersonally miss the peaceful bucolic aspects of my daily walk in the future.
We need clarification (education) on why this area does not include wetlands. Those of us
familiar with this area for many years know that a pond forms on the south side of 40th Ave.that frequently covers the roadway. Redwing blackbirds have lived in the area. It appears tomany of us that the surface water is significant there and nearby, although it is not permanent.I respectfully submit that the public needs to be educated on how this general area is notclassified as a wetland.
The report is contrary to wide-held beliefs of the area. Conclusions of Larry Dawes in theEnvironmental Assessment, page 16, states: “No wetlands occur adjacent to Chester Creekbecause it is not influenced by a high water table. … Chester Creek loses water to theunderlying sands and gravels all year long preventing wetlands from forming.”
Another one of my major concerns is that the increase in traffic and inschool children will be underestimated. How accurate are the projections ofincrease in people, cars, and children? Projections somehow must reflect hownearby areas are building up. Somehow the future growth seems to outpacecareful long-term planning. I have seen this repeatedly in my life time whereschools are full the minute they are opened. I read the anticipated occupancy ofthe multi-family units would be 1.77 persons per apartment. Really? In this area?
The documents stress that this project will just effect things incrementallywhen it comes to traffic being made worse or stay the same. Yes, there areother factors involved, but projected growth in one small area is likely to bequite different than using general projections.
I am also concerned that the environmental impacts might be much greaterthan projected. I would like to know of other examples in our area wherediverting waters elsewhere has a neutral impact.
I read that exterior lighting will be included (with shields), but will there beunlit areas at night that draw undesirable activities? That was originally aproblem with Browne’s Park.
I agree that the intersections of Highway 27 with 32nd avenue and 16th avenue
will continue to be areas of concern. 16th Avenue and Pines (just west ofhighway 27) is already a problem. There are many days when it is difficult toturn because of so much traffic.
In the future, will we be able to see a drawing of a possible E-W 10-acrewildlife travel area through property plus 30 acres of open green?
I personally would prefer a mixed use of the area that includes green acresto solely single-family dwellings with no open land.