The URL can be used to link to this page

Pre-Incorportion BRB 555-01 OFFICIAL RECORD - Volume 2 1 2 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 3 4 FOR SPOKANE COUNTY 5 6 7 CITY OF SPOKANE, ) 8 ) Appellant, ) No. 2002-02-00111-9 9 ) 10 vs. ) 11 ) 12 WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY ) OFFICIAL RECORD REVIEW BOARD FOR SPOKANE ) 13 COUNTY, SPOKANE COUNTY, ) VOLUME 2 14 SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE ) 15 PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 8 ) EDWARD J. MERTENS as Chairman, ) 16 COMMUNITY ACTION COMMITTEE ) 17 And as an individual, with JANE DOE ) 18 MERTENS,husband and wife, the ) 19 COMMUNITY ACTION COMMITTEE, ) PHILIP RUDY and JANE DOE RUDY, ) 20 Husband and wife, the CITY OF ) 21 LIBERTY LAKE, and TOWN OF ) 22 MILLWOOD ) • ) 23 Respondents. ) 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 LAW OFFICES OF 31 HERMAN,RECOR,ARAKI,KAUFMAN, 32 SIMMERLY&JACKSON,PLLC 2100-116TH AVENUE NORTHEAST BELLEVUE WASHINCTON 98004 (425)451-1400 FAX (425)451-1689 alirran OFFICE OF THE{LVl(71V7A14AGER SPOKANE808 W SPOKANE FALLS BLVD. • S509)POKANE,625-626WASHINGTON 99201-3303 ( September 11,2000 Pr FAX (509)625-6217 Rob Nebergall,Chair Washington StateEXHIBIT. Boundary Review Board for Spokane County EXHIBIT, SI 1026 W.BroadwayAvenue SSS Spokane,WA 99201 Re: Notice to Incorporate the City of Spokane Valley;Request to Modify Boundary Dear Mr.Nebergall: • The City of Spokane formally requests that the boundaries of the proposed City of Spokane Valley be modified pursuant to RCW 36.93 to exclude all areas designated as the Interim Urban Growth Area (IUGA)for the City of Spokane. After more than two years of work by Spokane County and its incorporated cities and towns, the Spokane County Commissioners adopted the Interim Urban Growth Area boundaries in February, 1997. A part of that process was the identification of lands appropriate for urban development that could be provided a full range of urban services. The major purpose of adopting the IUGA was to distinguish the urban and rural lands and establish responsibility for the subsequent development of comprehensive plans by jurisdictions located in the County. Since the adoption of the IUGA,the City of Spokane has conducted substantial analyses of areas within the boundary and adjacent lands as a part of its comprehensive planning process.These studies have provided assessments of growth capacity, capital facility / service requirements, urban services currently provided by the City, and existing interlocal agreements. The Yardley and Alcott areas are included in these analyses and are considered Joint Planning Areas assigned to the City of Spokane pursuant to the IUGA adopted by Spokane County Commissioners and approved by the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearing Board. The City is the service provider for both water and sewer for both areas.The extension of these utility services, particularly to the Yardley area, represents a significant investment by the citizens of the Spokane community and consumes capital resources that cannot be applied in other areas to support desired growth. Additionally,in anticipation of future actions, the City has entered into an interlocal agreement with Spokane County Fire District #1 to address mitigation of impacts at the time these areas are annexed to the City of Spokane. • The comprehensive planning process is nearing conclusion with the selection of a preferred growth alternative from among three choices. The Yardley and Alcott areas are retained in each of the three growth alternatives.Both Yardley and Alcott will be included in the City's proposal for the final urban growth boundary. • In closing, please remove the Yardley and Alcott areas from the boundaries considered for the City of Spokane Valley. Respectfully, • '/City y 4,er 00307 EXHIBIT S RECEIVED 3R66-ssp1 OCT 2 3 2000 seilecce BOUNDARY REVIEW BOAR[ October 10, 2000 Ms. Susan Winchell, AICP Washington State Boundary Review Board for Spokane County 1026 West Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99260 RE: Waiver of 120 Day Review Period for the Proposed City of Spokane Valley Dear Ms. Winchell: As the proponent of record for the Spokane Valley Incorporation, I hereby agree to a waiver of the 120 days described in RCW 36.93.100. This is being done to allow sufficient time for the preparation of an incorporation study, its review by government agencies and interested parties, and the public hearing process as described in RCW 36.93.150-180. Sincerely, CQ r 4 Ed Mertens, Chair COMMUNITY ACTION COMMITTEE • 00398 AO, / y _ 6 6/ , • otace..S ' ,• 411,o=eg .,_ EXHIBIT 3 2---- „ . . • . , -,— it ' _, - - g - _ Ta J - , / g ts:2-Zett.:26_ __Ar /•:-.. - 67 t ,,,S __ treent -----e-t-ct _40 a 40 A -- 474-- --L-441,1 11". / / 4'. -- '' F' Aff: -;.•IgAstrc,''z.----,10 ta._..?_, c-:-- -47-_-,... - as • _, -- c„, 57.....6—r„a....: 00.309 cam.,. ide Q I�- /oZ �- RECEIVED APR 1 rzr BOUNDARY-REVIEW a0Ara, y. % • EXHIBIT-IL 0 0 310 ewinhope BAB 5 c-e "In the heart of Spokane's fastest growing industrial district" IRRIGATION DISTRICT * NO. 7 --- --• - - ----- - - == OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY SPOKANE, WASHINGTON • April 12, 2001 • Ms. Susan Winchell Spokane County Boundary Review Board swinchell@spokanecounty.org 1026 West Broadway Avenue Public Works Building,2nd Floor, Spokane, WA 99260 Dear Ms. Winchell, The Board of Directors of CARNHOPE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Number 7, wish to inform you and the BRB that as the elected officials of our water district, we believe it is in the best interests of the citizens within Carnhope Irrigation District Number 7, that the entire district remain within the boundaries of the new incorporation as presently proposed. It is critical to the district it remain intact and within the new city. We respectfully request you not dismember any part/neighborhood of the Camhope District. The ALCOTT SCHOOL addition mentioned in the article quoting you, was annexed last year after Camhope having served the Alcott area for a great many years- To exclude any part of the Carnhope Irrigation District Number 7 from within the proposed new city's boundaries would do harm to the citizens and patrons of the district. Sincerely, / �, ( .4c 1 Carl W. Cliff, Chairma %v CC: Spokane County Commissioner Kate McCaslin KMcCaslinna,spokanecounty.org RECEIVED • APR 1 3 2001 BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD "WATER IS WEALTH" 00311 Winchell, Susan From: loisrich@foxinternet.net sent: Saturday,April 14, 2001 1:00 PM EXHIBIT S 3: Boundary Review Board Subject: Inclusion in new Valley City BRB I live in a PU.D. called Woodland Ridge located in the NW corner of Northwood. I strongly oppose the inclusion of my area and any others in the proposed city. I believe that given growth patterns and fiscal considerations the better, more efficient and effective route is for the City and County to merge. Neither the City of Spokane or any new Valley "cities" gain from further dividing the tax base on which both depend or from competing with each other. I share many people's frustrations with the current City Council and fully expect that the disruptive members, if not everyone, will be turned out by the voters at the next election in which they run. I found the County Commissioners to be a not very reliable, respectable group when I first moved back to Spokane in May 1995, but I note that the current three Commissioners seem to be doing a good job without all the name calling, and other upsets we see in City Council meetings at present. I do not, therefore, see the City Council problem as a barrier to merger. Lois Richards 1 00312 Winchell, Susan From: Lode Hutson [LorieH@SPOKESMAN.com) cent: Monday, April 16, 2001 8:59 AM ): Winchell, Susan EXHIBIT Subject: FW: City of Spokane Valley 3RB"5„5_,a-La Susan: Here is an email response to the story about the Spokane Valley city boundaries. I sent a note to Rick letting him know I was forwarding this to you. Thanks, Lode Original Message From: tennisric [mailto:tennisric@gwest.net] Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 5:05 PM To: lorieh@spokesman.com Subject: City of Spokane Valley Hi Lori, In response to the article in the Valley Voice this week I would like toexpress my opinions. First, we are at 901 S. Willamette and in order to be able to connect to the City Sewewr system ( and get off septic tank ) we were required to sign a statement that we would not fight annexation by the y. That irritated me no end but I figured that since a secret vote would ....I required FOR annexation no one would ever know that I voted NO. I really don't think they could make that requirement stick in a court of law. Secondly, if the City of Spokane Valley were to be voted in and my neighborhood were not included then the City would promptly attempt annexation of our neighborhood. We would be like orphans between Spokane and The City of Spokane Valley. With that in mind I want, strongly, to be included in the proposed City of Spokane Valley. I am presently satisfied with the situation as it exists but if it changes I DON'T WANT TO BE IN THE CITY. Richard Clark 1 00313 Winchell, Susan From: Joe& Linda Connor[Connor@cet.com] 'ent: Thursday,April 12, 2001 10:43 AM a: Boundary Review Board EXHIBIT Subject: City of Spokane Valley BRB 555-0 I "Where do you live?" "In Spokane Valley." "Oh, you live in Spokane?" "No, I live in Spokane Valley." "You mean you live in the Spokane valley!" "NO! I live in the city of Spokane Valley." "Well, isn't that part of Spokane?" "NO, I live in the city of Spokane Valley. It's a city like Spokane." "Where is it?" "In the valley!" Need I say more? It's a good time to say something alright! COUNT ME OUT OF THE CITY OF "SPOKANE VALLEY". Isn't it time for the "old guard" of the valley to give up this attempt to keep the old "city/valley rivalry" going? It's past time for us to become part of the city of Spokane. Wouldn't you like to have a say in those things that affect us all. How did you feel about the Lincoln Bridge, the Science Center, verfront Park, Riverpark Square, the Davenport, the waste to energy plant, ine Boone Street Barn and the arena? Do you enjoy the entertainment that comes to town? Have you ever attended or participated in the "B" Basketball Tournament, the Lilac Parade, Hoopfest, Bloomsday, the Chiefs,? Did you even once wish you could vote in a "hot potato" issue like the mayoral race and the city council makeup? Do none of these issues have an effect on you or your lifestyle? How would you like to be a bigger city with a bigger voice infused with new blood. How would you like to have more votes to fight the powers on the west side of the state? Does a broadened tax base to help with needed services make sense? Does another "whole government" in the valley sound like a good idea? Just think of all the fun the city of Spokane and the city of Spokane Valley could have arguing over which city was going to get any new business or federal funding. The dollars it will cost to mount these fights (and there will be fights) will cost us all. We cannot afford to let the "old guard" of the valley and the "old guard" of the city continue to live in the past. It's time to step into the future and become a working voting part of the city we have always been a part of the CITY OF SPOKANE! Linda Connor SPOKANE, WASHINGTON Lifetime Valley Resident t 00314 Winchell, Susan From: ptebo@banrbank.com ent: Thursday,April 12, 2001 8:26 AM a: Boundary Review Board :XHIBIT g Subject: Boundaries 1R6 5SS-01 I live in Painted Hills which I feel should be included in the new city. Much the same as Ponderosa, PH is encapsulated by the terrain so that its outlets are toward the heart of the new Valley city. That is where most residents look for their services and is the community of which they feel a part. Pat Tebo t 00315 Winchell, Susan From: RJAN1955@aol.com • ant: Thursday,April 12,2001 10:51 AM a: Boundary Review Board EXHIBITg1 Subject: Spokane Valley city boundaries 3RB We live at 11011 E. 50 th Ct. in the Ponderosa Neighborhood and are not currently included in the proposed city. We do not want to be included in this scheme for numerous reasons, primarily because it will create another level of government to support and the advantages are nil. In talking to other people in what is called the Ponderosa, most that I have talked to prefer not to become part of any city. In looking at map of proposed boundaries that is in todays Review, it would seem the logical boundary in the West from 16th and Dishman-Mica should be Dishman-Mica out to 32nd and the Southern boundary from 32nd to Evergreen. Also, we are not interested in becoming part of the city of Spokane. Sincerely, Richard & Paula Janssen 11011E. 50th Ct. 928-9206 1 00316 Winchell, Susan From: Hans Krauss [wingnuts@cet.com] 'ent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 3:33 PM o: Boundary Review Board EXHIBIT /° Subject: New Valley City 3RB>�5t5 D I I would like to know how this would affect my taxes. Will I be paying more or less? Will I have to pay county as well as city taxes? Are there any tax breaks for senior citizens over 70? If this is going to take more of my fixed retirement income then I would prefer that the area West of Dishman-Mica between 16th and 44th be removed from the proposed city. Thank you. Hans Krauss 1 00317 Winchell, Susan • From: Ed Mitchell [edmitch@ieee.orgj -entC Thursday,April 12, 2001 3:59 PM _ 1: Boundary Review Board EXHIBIT-IL Subject: Proposed City of Spokane Valley 3RB , a , We are writing to indicate that we do not have a desire to be in the proposed City of Spokane Valley. From a previous map, our backyard property line is also the northwestern boundary of the proposed city, hence, we are barely inside the proposed city limits. Cities generally begin with people having a common community around a central core. We have few or no common interests with the "core" of the proposed city (e.g. Valley Mall, Pines/Sullivan and south of 1-90) and do not see how this proposed city has any meaning whatsoever for us. In fact, it would be far, far more logical for us to become part of Millwood than part of a sprawling distant city. However, no one has proposed this logical extension as part of city incorporation. Our choice has been limited to Spokane Valley yes or no, and not a range of possibilities including a hypothetical Millwood option, or even a separate city that unites people within this area. A related issue is how fire services are delivered. Our backyard property line is also the boundary of Fire District#9. FD #9 serves the area behind us, and also an area to the west of us. Valley Fire station #2 is the primary response to our neighborhood, even though FD #9, Station 4 can spond twice as fast to our neighborhood (about 3 and 1/2 minutes versus aoout 6 to 7 minutes for Valley Fire) . Valley Fire's response time will become even worse than it already is after the Argonne Rd./Spokane River bridge is cut to two lanes for the next 18 months during reconstruction of the bridge. Thus, the current method of delivering fire and EMS services to our neighborhood is far, far from optimal. The proposed city boundaries merely solidify this poor boundary allocation between the fire districts and it is not clear how this, or the proposed city, serve the interests of the residents here. We can see no clear benefits to being part of the proposed City of Spokane Valley and would prefer that our neighborhood not be included. A previous survey published by the Spokesman Review indicated that few people in this • area favor the proposed city. Edward Mitchell Kimberly Anderson-Mitchell 7717 E. Princeton Ave Spokane, WA 99212 1-509-893-1855 Email: edmitch@ieee.org, emitchel@gonzaga.edu, kflvy@amsat.org 1 Winchell, Susan 0 0 31. 8 From: The Rev. Dr. Jacqueline S. Dickson [Jackie@mail.cet.com] ent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 10:12 AM J: Boundary Review Board PSubject: Valley Annexation EXHIBIT 3RB=2) .. What is it about "NO!" that those who want to incorporate the Valley don't understand? I am tired of their attempts to wear us down and to force us into complying with their desire to incorporate. The issue has gone to the polls repeatedly and the voters have said, "No." What else can we do to defeat this issue? We live just West of Sullivan and South of 8th Avenue. What are our chances of opting out of the proposed incorporation? 1 00319 Winchell, Susan From: Honey Poppe[hpoppe@mail.ewu.edu) ent: Monday,April 16, 2001 1:17 PM r Boundary Review Board CXHIBITL-1_ Subject: Valley Incorporation Boundaries 3R5 S S ta I would like to express my concern about Wellesley being a dividing line for east west incorporation. In the valley, Wellesley is not a through street. In fact the line goes down the middle of our property with no street. That would put part of our property in the proposed incorporation boundaries and part of it out of the boundries. The boundary division road in my opinion should be Upriver Drive which is the main east west road in the incorporation area. Please consider this as your first choice for incorporation boundries. I would also like to be put on record to oppose the valley incorporation. Thank you for your time. Honey Poppe 4721 N Vista Road Spokane Wa 99212 924-3333 t RE; SVUNDARES of PROPOSED NSW CITY EXHIBIT 00320 9R6_�y I 1026 W, So. .,t Stt , I;J cL Is 240 FROM - S - /Qt'Kut- 01s . RECEIVED 4104- N. YhasuuA- Rk, APR 1 7 2001 ,S r l" \A)a, q`1 Liz-135G BOUNDARY REYIEW BOARD jean �va,A Ps4 tn& NjA. 1 4J4,.4._ mA.- L & antasz. AIV\ -VeS R Va -i V tc& K. tilejirini +L. Nw.4:3. .± .l,e AncpAQAA..).,.c un n,cz..w-10 � "-"• wa,�. @V✓ _ f..�Jtei.�1 J A�C,V.JA 2 4� 0./ j knA:tLi. 4 .+0 4-0,11_ ,ry -tip p �,. � k -,n � to .. ,� , 6.44- awt„.o�`�,tJr &/ Jif . 4 (Tun_ 1:6� rJ��2 ke d J � tv P v ' c9. .) at. willo'i w iNIL9 tt.to QC act-e.P� P,�C.e.��Ag-i— c�< Tiv, rt- of., .07 32A, Au," AAtm , aAArf vet Mut_ c,Cx.Q a.� 42 Ana aA IN4ott,Abia Tuyth iti- k ;A (La- L;mftaa .44A ‘ Fes- eik st- ; r>yma _ wk_ -14$ Aqo- -t?* ,c,Mtc-,. tZeg, O ,. -,kms.& 4n.aiv\ Ut WWJ4 6 i Apt 44_ EXHIBIT. /f , BAB ,S3-5-01 00321 MR. & MRS. JAMES W. GANTT - E. 20202 NORA AVENUE GREENACRES, WA. 990167,/Cian �/) /^✓ 2& /- • - . '- - ; --ZeLy---/ecci "7-r 411, /)a RECEIVED / APR 1 7 2001 ✓ (5. A'L a.- BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD 'lit (> 790/6. EXHIBIT Ric' 494/ 0032 :3RB.SSS I "Se* )jI«,J See' ti/direeieifrfrA, thtk i.i's yider per« ve aizey gylaworAiir /e aizzAsp deatialA_Atioit So m d� dido %"f .E),etiz/aee2V -' 1 hied C�zy . Vow/ &ita 1:412;7/- 9.gd nlailAgd RECEIVED 97f7 APR1g2001 BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD EXHIBIT 0 0 3 2 3 3RB5"I Spokane, Wa April 18, 2001 Boundary Review Board 1026 West Broadway Spokane, Wa 99260 RE: PROPOSED SPOKANE VALLEY CITY BOUNDARIES We would like to go on record as being opposed to inclusion within the proposed Spokane Valley City Boundaries and respectfully request the Board to consider all factors in the final decision. A major consideration forexclusion:of the area South of 32nd Avenue and situated between State Highway 27 and the Dishman-Mica Road should be given based on the voters soundly voting NO on the issue of creating a new City. The Board is encouraged to consider this fact, as every time the issue went to an election, and the area was included in the proposed new City, it was soundly defeated. The Board is also encouraged to consider this same data and attempt to exclude those Boundary areas from the proposed City that also soundly voted no on the previous issues. As we have so often heard spoken: "HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO SAY NO?" Another layer of Goverment is exactly what we do not need Thank you for your consideration of our request. Robert D. Miller and Alice E. Miller \\ 3718 South Union Court Spokane, Wa 99206-6321 (509) 924-1994 • RECEIVED APR t g 1001 BOUNDARY RE mvecARD 00324 Winchell, Susan From: waiter bonsack[wkbonsack@worldnet.att.net] 'ent: Thursday,April 19, 2001 8:21 AM o: Boundary Review Board EXHIBIT_ Subject: City of Spokane Valley boundary SRB i5—o Boundary Review Board Spokane County We have looked at the map of the boundary for the proposed city of Spokane Valley, and we are concerned that the residential area in which we reside is sandwiched between the proposed city and the city of Liberty Lake, but is not included in either one. It is difficult to imagine a good reason for this; we hope it is just an oversight which can be corrected. The area in question is just east of Henry Road, south of the intersection of Henry and Sprague. According to the map posted at your web site, the proposed city boundary runs south along Henry, with the new city west of Henry, and unincorporated land on the east side. The city of Liberty Lake touches the intersection of Sprague and Henry on the northeast, but does not run south of the intersection. Running east from Henry just south of Sprague are three roads: First Ave., Fourth Ave., and Cloverdale Ct. These are only a few hundred yards long and terminate at a range of hills, but they are fully developed and built with house lots approximately one acre in size. There are few, if any, vacant s on these streets or the connecting road (Ashton) and Billy Jack Lane (a cul-de-sac off 4th). The area becomes more rural south of Cloverdale Ct, with larger properties, some of which are used for crops and livestock. The text posted at your web site indicates that the proposed city boundary is to include Fire District No. 1. Our property on First Ave is in FD No. 1, and we assume that the rest of the residential area is as well. It may be, therefore, that your intention is to include the area in the city, but that the map was not drawn quite correctly. In any case, it is our view that the residential area described above, which includes our home, should be included in the proposed City of Spokane Valley, and we ask that you consider adjusting the boundary accordingly. We are Walter and Sally Bonsack; we reside at 20409 E. First Ave, Greenacres 99016. Our telephone number is 509-928-4120. Please contact us if we can be of further help. t 00325 Winchell, Susan From: Lode Hutson [LorieH@SPOKESMAN.com] -ent: Monday,April 23, 2001 9:54 AM Boundary Review Board Subject: FW:Valley City EXHIBIT._/ - BAB s 5 Another message from a Valley resident about incorporation. Thanks, Lode. Original Message From: Wilglad195@aol.com [mailto:Wilglad 195@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 4:36 PM To: lorieh@spokesman.com Subject: Valley City My husband and I live in Greenacres, at 18506 E. 4th Ave., between Greenacres Road and Barker Road. We definitely do want to be included in the Valley Ciy. I am not sure about our neighbors as some of them have horses, and we have not discussed the situation with any of them in recent years. But we have been in favor of incorporation for several years now. We do hope that we will not be cut our of the new city, should it actually come in to being! Wilbert and Gladys Fritz RECEIVED APR 2 3 2001 BOUNDARY REVIEW LARD 1 gt94";t7.67 .:77-49617" . 00326 . /•3- '6‘ , &yrIaL- . . . peda.4, nz4 -./ e_ .;;_t‘O sheadecera . EXHIBIT -R°--- ,3Fig..... ..72 .0" •'- ' dr - ./. . ,i•-' , 1 - tot/• -• ? / f 1 ' j. e_e,i,„ ltd KYdla4e_e_ f i / '' ta---Xsceitt Xeco----' II If 1 / I / 1 . . - / / " - Lr / „r via- 417:1, 441 tf ----4,t-e_. r- - it „ .09 --_, , / 40,,, I / • , .7c/sad_ .. ...- • „ 0-0ek..i. - -i . / e " °' '' 4Ofet-744.- / Of ... _ __.._. y, 4 • afdezX „ ,,, ,, ,/ • ' „ r ,, , ,, / • 410 AW409401 e / 4 0/d 7 i 7:4 i i ,a , , de.treceete '(te . e.L ...24. r C ,: g ' Or S it ' if:---eXT gat , 061jr---let-Cie -•'- / '4 -472 ' I. Rerectv HAY oi 2ogi BOUNDARy RE, lial BOARD . . ....._. . . ... PREPARED at PACE - -- DATE°03 2 7 1 ' 1, __ II \CI:Ig 7, 0 , or Al.40 yi 0 • IP..../- -64 CV 4,:/4' ' a _ . . ..a # 417: ./.......4,I ' .0 • Or i 11 i ) irfAtefril et.' 4 z 7 Air e:te Vat . . / 2 / / ... . 11 #14,ifec j L try, „Aree t, ),,, , /r - ,.. ,[ le3P-711 12-.4f S tAiir..406 I -1 Or 1 a I 1 • II . _ .... .. .. !I i !; . Odee41 n, ler r -ay J' .. . ... ._ ; de7L9V ' 1 . . . _ . . . . . .. .. . . . !I 1 i 1 . • . . 11 , E , 1 1 i PF.T.:FA P.?!I.) ?:'.' I".Vizi-2 00328 Winchell, Susan From: VRauer@aol.com ent: Monday, May 14, 2001 11:46 AM EXHIBIT_ab I u: Boundary Review Board SRB Subject: Valley City Boundary -o It appears that the boundary was a simple "dart thrown" at the Fire District. It doesn't make sense to include the area north of the Spokane River and west of Pines Road due to natural boundary of the river. The size of the area being considered for incorporation is very ambitious in RECEIVED square miles except for political purposes. MAY 1 4 2001 BOUNDARY REVIE`,v BOARD t 00329 Winchell, Susan From: Oosrv@aol.com Tent: Wednesday, May 23,2001 1:26 PM EXHIBIT Boundary Review Board Subject: (no subject) :RRB Sy s I live in the part of the Ponderosa that is part of the proposed new city. l'am not in favor of this! The services I receive from the county are very good and I am sure they cannot be improved on without additional taxes. My tax $ has gone to build up the comfortable reserve that the county has -why would I walk away from that?There are only two roads into the Ponderosa. The new city incorporates both enterances. If I'am part of the new city, then my tax $ goes to plow the snow for the people in the Ponderosa who contribute no tax to the city. If the snow is not plowed soon enough for them do they call the new city and complain even thou the do not contribute? This would be a mess. Either all the Ponderosa should be included or none of it. I vote for none of the Ponderosa to be included in the new city. Robert V. Oos t Page 11.1 830 EXHIBIT -23 BRB �sS 0► Winchell, Susan From: lagrimas [lagrimas@gwest.net] Sent: Wednesday,August 01, 2001 10:49 AM To: Boundary Review Board Subject: city of the valley My wife is a born and raised valley person and I have been her most of my life. We live in the valley because we didnt want to live in the CITY. We have voted against all the past city movements. I am against this "chicken little"approach to government. Every time the city of Spokane threatens to annex a . small area this group of people with their own individual agendas push for another vote at taxpayer expense. We have services in place that work fine and our taxes are less then the city of Spokane. I would like to see these people who had to pay for votes (signature getters)to go away. They should have to pay upfront for the cost of the election. I would also like my area excluded from the proposed boundry of this "city". Thank you, John and Leanne Pardee, 14806 E 10th, VERADALE,Wa. 99037 • 8/6/01 LXHIBR Page 104 3 31 3RB 5.55-01 Winchell, Susan From: Cstapasaja@aol.com Sent: Wednesday,August 01, 2001 9:27 PM To: Boundary Review Board Subject: new city of spokane valley recieved the flyer today...I am a lifetime resident of the Spokane valley, and i have and continue to be against the formation of a city because of the 100%certainty of higher taxes and stupid people trying to run the new city. Look at the city of Spokane and the farce that is their city government.. They all are a joke. Everything is fine now,why try to fix something that is not broke?Why waste money sending me this flyer?The last vote was not even close...doesnt anybody get a clue? The only reason to even consider this is the encroachment of the pathetic city government that is the city of spokane, and their appetite for more of my money. NO NEW CITY--- 8/6/01 EXHIBIT .2S 3RB 0 0 3 3 2 s ] Winchell, Susan From: Gehret, Becky 'ent: Friday,August 03, 2001 12:40 PM o: Winchell, Susan Subject: FW: Proposed new city of Spokane Valley Original Message From: Oos, Robin [mailto:a015006@allstate.com] Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 12:35 PM To: WebMaster Subject: Proposed new city of Spokane Valley To the Boundary Review Board for Spokane County I live and own a business in the Spokane Valley and am 100% against incorporating this area. I feel that we have adequate to great services at the present time. I cannot imagine what another level of government could possibly provide except more taxes. It is impossible to create a city and hire personnel to run it without increasing the revenue needed to perform tasks and duties that are now taken care of under the County umbrella. iank You Robin Oos ph: (509)926-3733 fax (509)926-2525 e-mail a015006@allstate.com • The Company reserves the right to review all e-mail. Your sending of e-mail is your consent for the Company to review the content of your e-mail. Communicating via e-mail does not constitute an offer of coverage. Eligibility requirements and coverages can vary by state. Allstate coverages are subject to the policy terms, conditions, and exclusions detailed in the insurance contract issued at purchase. Quotations on insurance are provided as estimates and are not an insurance contract. t EXHIBIT a(1) 7333 Winchell, Susan From: Larry Blanchard [Igb@foxinternet.net] 'ent: Friday, August 03,2001 5:14 PM o: Boundary Review Board Subject: new city I received your notification of the public hearing on the new city of Spokane Valley. I will be out of town and unable to attend the meeting, so I'm sending this email. In brief, what about "no" don't they understand? I've lost count of the number of times the developers and political wannabe's have got this on the ballot. I'm sick and tired of it. I'd like to see the law changed so that each failed incorporation attempt doubled the time before another could be inflicted on the public. Larry Blanchard - Old roses, old motorcycles, and old trains My heart is warm with friends I make, and better friends I'll not be knowing; Yet there isn't a train I wouldn't take, No matter where it's going. Edna St.Vincent Millay • t 0 0 3 3 4 EXHIBIT <Y7 • BAB a.)1 TRUNKENBOLZ ROHR I DRISKELL PLLC CARY P.DRISKELL 1.509.928.4100 - LICENSED IN WA RESPOND TO: SPOKANE • driskell@dmi.net • RECEIVED JUL 302001 BOUNDARY REVIEW rti7v" July 27, 2001 • Susan Winchell Boundary Review Board 1026 West Broadway, Second Floor Spokane, WA 99260 Re: Request for inclusion in proposed Valley City Dear Ms. Winchell: This letter is to serve as a request for inclusion of property owned by Packet Place, LLC, and Outlook Development, LLC, in the proposed boundary for the new Valley City pursuant to RCW 35.02 and RCW 36.93. The subject property is comprised of approximately 40 acres, and is adjacent to Highway 27 beginning at what would be 44th Avenue if that street existed there. The parcel numbers are as follows: 44031.9130; 44031.9131; 44031.9132; 44031.9133; 44032.9134; 44032.9135; 45344.9136 and 45344.9137. My clients own an additional approximately 40 acres immediately north of the property sought for inclusion (beginning at what would be 42"d Avenue), and that northern portion is already in the proposed boundary. This property is located within the proposed Final UGA, currently being considered by the Board of County Commissioners. On July 23, 2001, the BOCC voted to include this property as part of 640 acres constituting an expansion to the Interim UGA in that area. We understand that a final decision will not be made by the BOCC until August 7, 2001, but ask that this property be included in the event the UGA boundary includes the subject property. It may be appropriate for the Boundary Review Board to include all of the 640 acres being added to the original Interim UGA, and consistent with the boundary of the Final UGA, as ultimately adopted by the BOCC. This area is defined as urban under the Growth Management Act, and should be included in the proposed new city to be consistent with RCW 36.93.157 and the Growth Management Act. SPOKANE OFFICE- 12704 EAST NORA,SPOKANE,WA 99216;PH.509.928.4100;FAX 509.926.6314;trdvalley@dmi.net COEUR D'ALENE OFFICE- 1400 NORTHWOOD CENTER Cr.,SUITE C,COEUR D'ALENE, ID 83814 PH. 208.769.7100;FAx 208.769.7200;trdcda@dmi.net 00335 • Susan Winchell • July 27, 2001 page 2 If you have any questions or comments or need any further information to process this request for inclusion in the proposed boundary for the new Valley City, please feel free to call me at 928- 4100. Very truly yours, TRUNKENBOLZ ( ROHR I DRISKELL PLLC CARY P. DRISKELL CPD/pd c: Bernard Daines cpd\clients\dainses\valley city\w inchell letter 7-25-01 naci OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 3 3 6 SPOiKA,.N ~ 808 W.SPOKANE FALLS BLVD. SPOKANE,WASHINGTON 99201-3335 414q (509) 625-6250 JOHN T.POWERS,JR. MAYOR till ) ) „ 1 1 1 1 EXHIBIT BRBSSS-j August 8, 2001 Mr. Rob Nebergall, Chairman RECEIVED Washington State Boundary Review Board Public Works Building AUG 19 2001 1026 W. Broadway Ave. BWNOARYREvlEfygpgRo Spokane, WA 99201 Dear Mr. Nebergall: Re: Consideration on Boundary for the Proposed City of Spokane Valley The City of Spokane again requests that the boundaries for the proposed City of Spokane Valley be modified pursuant to RCW 36.93 to exclude the City of Spokane's Urban Growth Area. Attached is a map that shows the Yardley and Alcott areas requested for exclusion. The Spokane County Board of County Commissioners designated both Yardley and Alcott as Interim Urban Growth Areas associated with the City of Spokane in February of 1997. On September 11, 2000, City Manager Hank Miggins sent you a letter requesting the exclusion of Yardley and Alcott from the boundaries of the proposed City of Spokane Valley. At that time, the City of Spokane was still in the lengthy process of completing work on its Growth Management Act compliant Comprehensive Plan. That process, which began in 1995, included assessments of growth capacity, capital facility and service requirements, urban services currently provided by the City, and existing interlocal agreements. The City of Spokane's new Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City Council on May 21, 2001. Adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan also confirmed the Yardley and Alcott areas as part of the City's proposed Final Urban Growth Area lying adjacent to the City's current municipal boundaries. The exclusion of these two areas from the proposed boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley would be consistent with the factors to be considered by the Boundary Review Board pursuant to RCW 36.93.170. These are both areas recognized through actions of the City of Spokane and the Spokane County 00337 Mr. Rob Nebergall Page 2 August 8, 2001 Board of County Commissioners as Urban Growth Areas associated with the City of Spokane. The actions of both the City of Spokane and Spokane County were done pursuant to the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A, and the County- Wide Planning Policies for Spokane County. Both areas are adjacent to the corporate boundaries of the City of Spokane and are addressed in the City's Comprehensive Plan adopted pursuant to the Growth Management Act. Also, the City of Spokane provides municipal services to both of these areas in the form of both water and sewer pursuant to the Spokane County Coordinated Water System Plan and the Spokane County Coordinated Wastewater Management Plan. Additionally, on October 26, 1998, the City of Spokane and Spokane Valley Fire District #1 entered into an interlocal agreement pursuant to the provisions of the Growth Management Act and RCW 39.34. That agreement contains the procedures for addressing impacts to Fire District#1 in the event of annexation by the City of Spokane. That document also contains agreement for joint planning of location selection, design and construction of station facilities, as well as operational planning of services to these areas covering mutual responses, training, and possible joint station use. The exclusion of the Yardley and Alcott areas from the proposed boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley would also be consistent with the objectives of the Boundary Review Board found in RCW 36.93.180. In particular, this would achieve the preservation of logical service areas that are already in place for , water and sewer. In closing, we ask that you consider all of our efforts in complying with the Growth Management Act and the County-Wide Planning Policies, as well as the substantial investment by the City of Spokane in infrastructure to serve these areas. Please remove the Yardley and Alcott areas from the boundaries of the proposed City of Spokane Valley. Respectfully, 720-C4-1--// ' • John T. Powers, Jr. Mayor, City of Spokane c: John Mercer � — ��,3 � 00338 ±Lti• t�i- � °".`t' I. tIsi 76 1I — of : r t- ., L t [ I. �,- ,_e.,..,,, t-1 y,,.- dl ! a` . - 7-111t--10;4 l 1 1'3ti *1 �r ;tee t; Cl `9 tai t I 1 �� : J ,%t --- r �1��.} yl �, $ j sww,e e+a+n —1 I. 4iver \ tp.17 a _ MN042-19 D MI/ °Ir;: I.'it s y14": a\tl — a k 7 1. Jrig s.MOM " +j �� .y.t T z Ir 4' .w�PI " al rT s I�� ' F •2 v f r`)li �c'1x k..��c 4 Ye,::,t I SI cv�° r > >" xS r a- s 6rQ zz znaIl r \A ``�� 1Y , F t ' i 111 i — 111 Aa ka t --I y d Ar 7 5 ; 011.111 ([ d MIMS V,11.):21.;[...,.. 1”:1 r o f 3 M r • 351 r yr k 1il`F rZxs �- ; _ ' t s f' _x f Mil a �. i ,_ grtri- ,-prawers_t_ -. .. 2±....d. t 1 ...._„, i •, , M • "tiniM - [sH [' „ie� .� yS} t t • .0,2-el . e 0 it 42H4o-pg4:41:;;A::-,-- -- • % eit I— -_17=1417,4-kitc -1 ----=)111 moi. a Iy'%4x f ;:Q J ,,s �� tg ,ray>�F _, r��/� :� SL... . vd fi "11- • r,‘ �/ my e'i��- � 4:171 OA 1 I 11MEI ,.:,,,C,rte' it °I a m f 44 1 �� Vb-r ; zz ease - '` 1 EPPS .... to ' ilete ... R, ,....1—pro--- -.:673t-; 1\ 3.,_ II yog, ..... . , i„.. ic . is Ne„, in-- pin4 :, ,__ ,,k-1 lek J ' �._JFd. Legend . a, Mile City of Spokane Spokane City Lim ,,its Areas Requested ffi :B) for Exclusion ,'$ Proposed City of Spokane UGA and 2 0 A Iv-4::>•E t-tAreas Requested for Exclusion 1;@® Pa,U g N1997 IUGA Boundary rmnrwrxraaawomen SYINNE �� pwr!� w�h.R Proposed ValleyInver ration ... r.ww ^ .lMte:108/20010di i , , " y,:,'•'.r !r'.. :.y, 1, �aWw1.11!a'' E!a`:; .� 44 Q ' a ":s2: d. ;.• '.>; r•.t ; ., �VjaX" .fri� ` 'Vi " < � t a'" Qx/:u' � 'mo l '' :,L f •�' ,,� „ :RR+ 1E • \� a ' : 5 w \�`\ z, « :' e ' nT � ' q aa - r `�i. ; t �)r' ri cS rX 1,. :t\ .++ / �1" ' ' aiC< 1@ titY1� \. iu �" ,g... ei ^ W 0'"4;140>•X'''' ,444144" ' ,t r 'A4rn•el',�i � >, �r4, ' . ;: a,L�, 04* \U\ t\ E, "1�.,\'R� ";rc' o,w, l,Al -“ fi: . . 'maw,/ 4`fi.y, J'" , , ,,, ,¢ ' f'9 �".,.. r;' w h �K.�': . S-:',, . / Ail " ., <LePZ"/ YL,a •, A�< " " � 'ki..�. maQ:14? �' ,yeD .I;'n R1,.f %,v Y ;' 'fA➢ Y%."w� � JZ ,,X;f.,F Y S t .rt e4t.:;�;, » µ fi „ ie� S. t�rM ®i' a r� ,a , tt wz -ev a ' ar. vt , i }...ah:„� �' rtj? 'i. 4. , u �Gfi, � 4 e � , t : ' 5 1, � Yj'.n ; ' '� B ° ' �C, ''°';'°' �.4 .,+ s;• , , "I ' k{,.' , ' �a ' ' 'ta � „h1o :d. :Ea " /'ti$F0,1: ;r ' ^ r., rAr ./4 ". ff., , ,. „.„ 0,.' . '. 45;e:: s ,i4j'in , ;433.,. . = 3„ { 43i . .„ sE� �M . Y,t4 � �, , ,Vt . ",k/� W � ' e ‘I'C' u. ��_' E4j� i t�. „z ; t . , . r . Y1.,•:#4,4,A",,<."",. , h.✓, .� , l , „ 2 ,:d" ' p,:f,n'r`` - "aa. ii, ,. . :1 ."P w:� fy- 4: 4 / 'J.,1, f zy � j ;7 , �,-7...t ,nS%w s :.,” i.Sk1V er'» -n�.j�+ % •: . o�r !ie- - at k Vy = ,* Yf -ff .:., A ,..i. 'Pk. I,."x r„ <M „r , F, , ,• .4 ryL� .1.,. —;. r _ f 'i4 , ' ,� z ,n ~ ' rzcI; to < >:.siz , "b1/4 .•,^ y %` L LY ., c•b•. • i y � ...fp,. � ' 1 • �x f �.3. 9, ` itl.ci.' , Ss,r.� ,_,•' r,:..:�Yf"�t: �.W1Ye "iNi:4fR � '$,' Yh ''f ,n : nsRi5f, 4M4t . 1,' nritY:k ,ar .• � hp '..,14.2""J5.1944 .e.:,. r. ,4:q , f< k .141,3tt.9v.i :s} ; ,±�rw»ea ; r? o- r?, ' , s 'Atri T Jv+` x� i %.,. ,, _ ', js ,rc'p ` , -4ir ,sA ; •< ; /; ;‘,044 ru / 4, �i:it,^ • xa .F,; 'I'Fi " ieriy, a,:, f '`3 . k .tduyei Sge, �' It 1 '' ' ,. •i :.l._.0 Y.;1'�.•Lfis".z "vtk , a :s. Y. , k , . hY +£ :r- '/c . , ;�0,4�1+�r ;f:! - aN • .N f 'Y`"?.;a�/ Nqv'4,:teii'affsFgS! _,flnA ;19yfreAreiri_.;"tei�'t; 'd� .: rs�M".<° - �'n" .i' t ^ a � i � = p��: `«S::'i ? %' ' , .:x » g y : u<� � M�� d ^ ;ff1 �p " 'i 's&"us 0 �� • $i „- fe ... . ` .�. £ „ 3' 1 ' . � ,7 • r .YG ` .,*44fwr"Ta .4.$4t `, ai• G7_ ,4j ,• , ^ "irt. { '3 ...1 ti l (- 'y,� , f L. . �5 ;:'• � % 1 �. $u , ¢ C�." ;@ i,. y „ 4S ;7 <2 ,, - rE , 4>A .3 . '` .;�, ; g, s 1',;' , Ji RL' r.7 ,u:^". ; ` ,xis._,, r.^, " " tsy" • ••••43;',0:4".2d 'iF _7" ,yl :r: r 1 ,i ' k.1' „. ' C � i ” i,.1“. :_' £ c°ax � i?.•- S ,r ?. , ,, 1s+ , :r`• ,x%• .'4:'r; + 4u:: : ' � ,i' a ' - ryy ^�f 'q�` 4, » E ' % ..«:.,.•'" .^ff Sd.Q4'. fV > �S�`` , ,,,I;Ili *Y1'4..! :.: :,0� {v '{ '�'N 4:4 r fi , i.' �iT.iV,,y`r�" � aA�.P 4"..a7.1a . n ?�abg,...i g,qo.:; :".,Ai�N+ k'" =t ;pA : , ,»*, •.' ' ': :U P. . 1:: ��; i•.,i1 } ! 0,-,,,‘.- ' 4tFt -ic '' 3 , �` �4 , T. ,`�5 ", ..,� a«"-ur : „ � f; .,, ., ', :i ., i'.1,f''k'1” , ^;t • ,"! ''CM ,,':,. '"� ?;E,. i.i'i"} !:...,i ��iEa' AiI!! iF .. " ' .<< ` n .i : �;: 00340 oat ofpf • SPOKANE VALLEY FIRE DEPARTMENT �'Frrt��111 -j s Spokane County Fire District 1 10319 EAST SPRAGUE AVE. • SPOKANE,WA 99206-3676 • (509)928-1700 • FAX(509)892-4125 Spokane Valley Fire Department— Established in 1942 The annexation of Yardley will move emergency response boundaries that have existed for over 59 years. In that time both the Spokane and the Valley fire departments have built stations and planned for the effective and efficient provision of emergency services. If the boundaries are moved there will be adverse economic and service delivery issues for the Valley and Spokane's fire departments. Long term Planning Saves Lives, and so provided these station locations. Valley Stations Address Year Constructed ALS or BLS #2 8011 E. Trent 1960 ALS #6 6306 E. Sprague 1961 BLS Spokane Stations #7 1901 E. First 1961 BLS # 14 1808 S. Ray 1992 ALS • # 8 1608 N Rebecca 1992 BLS Why 1.5-mile travel distances, the diamond? The Washington State Survey and Rating Bureau defines the need for engine companies with needed fire flow and travel distance of 1.5 miles. The 1.5 miles also provides for timely emergency medical service delivery. • \\FIRE1\E$svfd\Department DataWdministration\Rider\Yardly\Yardly Information for BRB.doc 00341 Response Distance Comparisons These distances were compiled using City and County roadways not private. Current Proposed Current Proposed Boundary Boundary Boundary Boundary Fancher Thierman Havana Fancher & Trent &Trent & Sprague Sprague Valley BLS Unit V-2 1.3 V-2 .7 V-6 1.3 V-6 .3 Valley ALS Unit V-2 1.3 V-2 .7 V-2 3.4 V-2 2.4 Spokane BLS Unit S-8 1.5 S-8 2.1 S-7 1.9 S-8 2.7 Spokane ALS Unit S-14 4.4 S-14 5.0 S-14 2.0 S-14 3.0 Closest BLS Unit V-2 -.2 V-2 -1.4 V.6 -.6 V-6 -2.4 Closest ALS Unit V-2 -3.1 V-2 -4.3 S-14 -1.4 V-2 -.6 Fire and Emergency Medical Protection Service Area Agreement Pursuant to the Growth Management Act negotiations were conducted between the City of Spokane and the District in the fall of 1998 regarding the proposed Yardley annexation. An agreement was reached and implemented in October of that year. The principal components are; • • The City will not annex the Yardley area before January 1st 2004. • The City will provide two years written notice prior to any annexation attempts. • The City will negotiate, in good faith, the adverse impacts on the District. \\FIREt\E$svfd\Department Data\Administration\Rider\Yardly\Yardly Information for BRB.doc 00342 Incident Volume- 518 response in 2000 Economic Impact 2000 Assessed Evaluation Havana to 1-90 and Elisabeth, Tracks to City Limits $ 117,007,790 Havana to 1-90, Tracks to Sprague $ 8,558,860 Total $ 125,566,650 Fire District Tax Revenue in 2001 (regular & special levy 2.93) $ 367,910 This revenue comprises approximately 2.7% of our budget and if lost would have a larger impact on the rest of the citizen's taxes to maintain the same level of services. (Figures courtesy of John Mercer— Spokane Planing Department) \\FIRE1tE$svfd\Department DataWdministration'Rider\Yardly\Yardly Information for BRB.doc • 00343 Comments, The citizens and businesses of the Yardley area have been supporting the infrastructure of the Valley Fire Department for over 59 years. If they are removed from the incorporation boundaries and are annexed by the city of Spokane, they will be required, without a vote, to pay for the building of the Spokane Fire Department's infrastructure. An example of this is the recently passed 21 million-dollar bond! They will also receive slower service at an increased cost. The city will need to build another station to cover the Yardley area at a cost to all of the citizens of the city. The Valley Fire Department will have a million-dollar a year fire station one hundred yards from Spokane's boundary. We will have a station that was positioned over 40 years ago in an inefficient position. From that station we will need to respond over a mile along the city border down Sprague to service the area that the city doesn't want or can't annex without the waivers. We hope that the BRB doesn't decide this issue because of water and sewer lines. This issue should be decided on a 59-year-old history of building infrastructure to save lives and property. A decision to not have the opportunity to be part of the new city will set this situation up in the future. The Spokane City Council recognized this concern when they agreed in 1998 not to annex Yardley area until all these issues were mitigated. They saw the logic in leaving the emergency service response areas alone. The Valley Fire Department has the people, apparatus, facilities and history of providing effective, and efficient emergency services to Yardley. A decision to redraw the jurisdictional boundaries of the Yardley area will compromise emergency services both in Yardley and the City of Spokane. The Spokane Valley Fire Department is asking the Boundary Review Board to allow the Yardley area to remain in within the incorporation boundaries. • Respectfully, 2G<-r2,i 7- Larry T. Rider - Assistant Chief • \\FIRE1\E$svfd\Department Data\Administration\Rider\Yardly\Yardly Information for BRB.doc :--:■---•" —� INV III ,8 \ ----yl�rrarunm i■■ ■ ■r,tri s - e. ■■G■ O" �� ® �Ol�� @EES nr�ti� n�i�■■a-■ == � � � SLAC Ado," tii,:,,,,mil, ,:.., remisrop . . ,. ,,.2. , ...„,,,. ., ',:: u y _ ari � SSS"` 17 /,I'...... JO ,1 1 4 . 1 /� \{ Fs i ti M NF^ u : 5�t .: s\ r 11t ��(!�l�� i ' 4' nell • , W 4 n:''' r'- ® ' i\1�-�oi„ �. z u v r r I,.2. zr v a x e 'i 1•---� 4- 5 �f�i3 41.:,: Axw b!!Y ".�. it �. 1 J, it IS- I �'`_ , ® > ,cn�m h: ,art •� a ... .1 ,d p� -'�1►7 • I .:.,.?,,,,,i.,,,41� f r+ y y,s •, gitial- EFIrw, 3a- I —��• —��E� field ,�® •e�E� "1 . y E/y�E�R. / IL\�t ` ;�•s Y= r. ,� :®3 •�'®t,� ,s 'r N .x is a I I.\I =` a■ . i rni Y "' J 5u/ J'+ Y 1 My. , - .. I 1 1 'x= al Ire,�: .. 11 .. i I �. r d� _J rtei4" Vii, re' - Ynf / $_ om r ! .I® ?kir., ;'!-- i �G m }; •. 0011NEI ° 1 1111■ingiil __ S ,1'_ ® 6 k\; :�■----_aun'i__ _`,:7 �> it ,� FTM;1VIS. �� x" a.1 . /�1 � . 1 gay x [ t ! 1plam aY.-- y' —�� nl��YM 1 n�YM S 5A Fjy MI,Y'`.�nR11n®gCA8:3TT0 My�L.s! a 1 ,42,:"''''''';'''; ✓xt :, '-'s P- f tl Err w�� ezastinniollsolfr ��\ J FA :97L��3 V�9 - - . = i aM w . Ni WA WM �� 1119- 11� MEW��irs1 A� :t,\ mm®� i s 1 ' ' a gpp i l�■l3 ®kl ityr �0■■ '1' TI'3 is ...,,a_ rokl ��hA+Ww air",,,t - a� f �� . Q pa,3kt9 ....m®lam its .. r.p w . , dlIIIM ��' . �w1Alp■A��■■■1.1 ' + , - 7. ' 'j �""+' i "^ , V" Fr w White YardlyboundaryAUGyJ■1e��1101mra�� s ' "ri.`r', G"c"�ati" fig. 4 AUD g. 2001 -■lni rnNip ��_� 4:g1:1't °, ',2 1 41yjy a s t t G d. BIXINDAflY REVIEW 80M� 0 � �r , I \59t ti; I Red Valley Fire 1.5 mile response are riS ;1441F,;::: kohM1 = ?Awn i; i ---- ■■�►�1•�■■l a J, Tom.„ . ? Black City Fire 1.5 mile response area VN ev.v C2c_. Cx-ci �,� o u EXHIBIT 3 k 00345 BAB ,)9a/ >it RECEIVED 5 n e6Pfx-A- AUG 6 2001 San-ciA ava, 0401,0-13-- BOUNDARY REV/SkiWARE: So ce api E 'O 5p0S-uc ZocL__ filg i;z4- °LW . a, ()UAL- 45C-c/J-e &Lett,. i/1 • atavnote pro 0100114,1AS -64 , A rta : b 'Lk? 8-71-1(1 ,,r44„eter #1 die, 2 ,_4 , 00346 e h y , , ,*tics , c o- t u, tiii � Ate ,,,P,p _ ,e eoli • 01444—j° S wri 99 ) -z-- 2A e .5-0 9 9 ? SLyZ. • EXHIBIT. 3a 00347 3R8 SSS-0 My name is Brian k Sayrs, 1011 N Malvern Circle Rd,Liberty Lake 99019. Greetings to you,board members,staff and Spokane Valley residents. I am here tonight to speak in favor of the exclusion of proposed modification areas 8 and 9,and how RECEIVED exclusion of these areas help the board pursue three objectives,namely: 1. Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities, AUG . B L 0 Q f 2. Creation and preservation of logical service areas,and 3. Encouragement of incorporation of cities in excess of ten thousand population. 80ljNU"J 'REVlE1Y OOAR;; In about 500 hours,the City of Liberty Lake will officially incorporate,due in no small part to this board's careful consideration of its state-mandated objectives. In particular,the City of Liberty Lake exists today in order to preserve Liberty Lake's natural community,and a recognition that any perceived deficiencies in that category would easily be corrected once incorporation occurred,through the community's now-famous "two-step process." The"Liberty Lake two-step," as it came to be known,envisioned a process by which areas within the Liberty Lake community,but outside the original Liberty Lake incorporation area,would be permitted annexation opportunities once the incorporation process was complete. As a member of Liberty Lake 2000,the Liberty Lake Incorporation Transition Team,and the Liberty Lake City Council,I have been a proponent of the"Liberty Lake two-step" since its conception. The inclusion of areas 8 and 9 within the proposed City of Spokane Valley would interfere with Liberty Lake's"two-step process." The Liberty Lake Transition Team Growth Management Committee,charged with the task of developing the procedure by which the two-step plan be implemented,included part of area 8 and all of area 9 within the city's urban growth area in their recommended comprehensive plan. The proposed urban growth boundary for the City of Liberty Lake extends one half mile from our current boundary in order to complete the inclusion of the property of a local landowner,who intends to create a housing development called"River Crossing." This landowner is currently facing the prospect of building a single neighborhood in three separate jurisdictions—The City of Liberty Lake,the City of Spokane Valley, and the County of Spokane,frustrating the preservation of natural neighborhoods objective. Once built,and with three local jurisdictions,the residents of this development will not know from whom they receive services, reminding us of the purpose of the logical service areas objective. Once modification areas 8 and 9 are excluded from the proposal,this property owner will regain the ability to ask for annexation and reintegration of this area into the Liberty Lake community. Significantly,the developer will have the opportunity to perform his work in a single jurisdiction, with a single set of building standards,with a single set of planning officials,with a single set of community values. The developer has confirmed that a request for annexation to the City of Liberty Lake is waiting on official incorporation. Exclusion of areas 8 and 9 from the current proposal is also required for the request to be considered valid by state law. In conclusion,I do want to mention that it appeared that there were questions on this board as to whether the City of Liberty Lake should have been allowed to incorporate because of concerns that our population was too small,and that integral portions of our community were not included. Exclusion of areas 8 and 9 from the current proposal will allow us to pursue our"two-step process," reintegration of essential areas of our community,and will ensure that our population will more easily reach the 10,000-population plateau that we promised to you last year. I thank you all for your time and patience,and for your kind consideration on excluding modification areas 8 and 9 from the current proposal. ✓'; ,, d K N dti 47,,,,,„„,,,,,„,„:„S $'4 u gym`. �M--- — � — �e moi•.— 41, 1111.1.111111.11 is r„eCitee ' a ,„.„,,,.,, ... _, 43. t„,0,..„0....,,,,, lic-c-a-:-1 Modifications Areas r s xh d a 'F TS. *MSS }' iv,,,,, •�.6 ■' 11111 io yardliey .. r ,r ain 1 fat �i.I 2. Allcott mi ' f ? bfeko QI y'1. • AYVI® -_ e 1. ..-- 4 n, 014 I _ rill.,, ilinme ,,Is sr,-, _ q/ Morningside x'11 n�1{1 p ®@ 40 �ahh r— „;, ,,,. �u teas„i �?�'' / 0 1V11®LL llll null sll WI V+ PUD 'fill ' ® \ ( :. \ s ® Greenacres 9 s,�.t igi� •-_,r,;(-i::',;-2,4.,r ri F 8. `1Dll �1.�1.11ll6LL�1.�t1+s 1 � ®ttt) 10 X14®� p1 f t r >, x9. West of Liberty Lake ,- X011 ,, ,•��'b. @1 ®° �� Orchards ® ° . p is ®ma4 ... ®� ®p @ a i m a w �n.�@ It.'®114- Naill J a I r 1 «� �j�yyppy9 �� all Nit»��®IIIIeue� - . ■ 111,••.1.■• ■� s .-, 1y �.§ F' { �IIl1 '��11118pe mop®®V pi ' i--s. j4 no It `$ 1 ►� + Ilia”tilillI Ilillarae�01113 i ,iz 5 ' t i �'i 1 R 11� �� I /1} ,�y: a.. oi1 ® B y { , ,�1\ ®� �S1-,,, ..i ® moi® ._: --ern, Ile+aw •i -11- .��-i ® 01121., ��44� IF i‘* \ 11. i . l•Ja ® nit®�� tt� v i i=i ��@E� . � ® ®� ® r;B�91 , WO I)J!3 Q®ri�_':= e� 4 II re:ulln EB®mil vagisoitilryjour ®,m11j1o® it11111 �� k1111111@i1:2434311631wilaInc" rml1 11 ,1 ®aI PI 1111 ® - ,®®®®�c split-ii skit • I. - ' ®® i I - _ . , ..,„. ct., 11-- Li , _ 1/4 1.111116 ink. g. r, —. UU349 Gayle Puu Carroll 11823 East 38th Avenue Spokane,WA 99206 EXHIBIT 33 (509)927-0263 BBBS-1I • FAX TRANSMITTAL • To: Susan Winchell Fax: 477-7655 • From: GAYLE PUU CARROLL rCErq FD . ti�fii t`_:l Date: August 8, 2001 AUG 2601 Pages BOUNDARY liview (w/cover): 9 • Regarding: Spokane Valley Incorporation Meeting Please include the attached eight pages of my testimony before the Spokane County Commissioners in your Valley incorporation record. Please do not include approximately 640 acres south of 40th Ave between SR 27 and Pines/Madison Roads in the proposed Valley City boundaries. Urban density in this area requires a minor arterial, from SR 27 all the way through to Dishman-Mica Road at 40"' Ave., as per the existing Arterial Road Plan for Spokane County. By reference, all attachments to my testimony submitted to Spokane County on May 2, 2001 and all records pertaining to transportation connection and circulation in ZE-5-99, University High School rezone are incorporated by reference. Vg,-/c1( . If there are any problems with this transmission, please call Michele Bowman at(509)928-2345. CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE:The information contained in this facsimile message is privileged and confidential. It is intended only for the use of the recipient named above(or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient). If you have received this communication in error, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. We will promptly reimburse you for the telephone and postage expense. You may telephone collect if you desire. Thank you. 00350 Gayle Puu Carroll 11823E 38th Ave. Spokane,WA 99206 WRITTEN COMMENT (WITH ATTACHMENTS) AND TESITIMONY BEFORE SPOKANE COUNTY BOARD OF COUTY COMMISSIONERS MAY 2, 2001 My name is Gayle Puu Carroll. I live at 11823 E 38r"Ave. in Midilome Subdivision.. I am here today to ask you to keep the Urban Growth Area (UGA) line at 40th Ave between SR 27 and Pines Road in Spokane Valley. The Planning Commission's Recommended Comprehensive Plan includes approximately 640 acres south of 40th Ave. in the UGA.' The Planning Commission, however, did not ask for formal analysis of environmental impacts due to intensified land use in the 640 acres, especially impacts on the already deficient transportation system of the area. Consequently, the Planning Commission did not analyze arterial roads needed to serve the expanded UGA, and it ignored the need for properly connected and located urban minor arterials in the recommended arterial road plan and Capital Facilities Plan. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires more analysis than this boundary line adjustment has received, and such analysis is necessary before the comprehensive plan is adopted. The transportation system in our area is destined to fail under the Recommended Comprehensive Plan ' Spokane County Division of Planning recommended against the inclusion of the 640 acres in the UGA. See note from Tim Lawhead in the written comments, and deliberation tapes for March 8, 2001 session. 1 0 ,, 3:; 1 because this analysis has not been done. Sound GMA planning requires thorough consideration of these issues. The Planning Commission's indifference to formal analysis concerns Midilome residents, the taxpayers who will suffer impact if you do not take us seriously. I ask that you not underestimate our neighborhood's resolve. We are committed to issues of neighborhood traffic safety and have a track record to prove it. We have placed politics aside tonight and stand on the merits of our issues. As you are aware, Spokane County has historically recognized the need for minor arterial connection at 40th Ave. in the Midilome area. In 1977, as a condition of approval, the developer set aside the 40thAve. right-of-way (between Pines and Bowdish Roads) in the preliminary plat of Midilome Subdivision. Eleven years later, in 1988, the developer amended the preliminary plat to eliminate the 40th Ave. arterial because lots on arterials were hard to sell. As Mr. Tomlinson recently explained, Midilome Inc. "approached the county engineer with an alternate plan for an internal arterial through Midilome so that 40th Avenue was no longer necessary". Unfortunately, Spokane County violated its Arterial Road Plan when it agreed to this changed condition, and it arbitrarily burdened streets never intended to serve minor arterial function. In 1992, the developer applied for, and later received, approval to build a gated, golf course community in the southeast corner of Midilome Subdivision —The Greens. By separating The Greens from the rest of Midilome, the County changed internal road patterns and again shifted traffic to these "alternate, internal arterial routes". This exacerbated the problem created by the 1988 violation of the Arterial Road Plan. What happened may be "history", but that does not make it acceptable_ 2 00352 As an unsuspecting homebuyer who now lives on one of these so-called °alternative, internal arterial routes", I am here to tell you that I feel the impact of these decisions daily. I, along with many neighbors, have communicated my feelings about this impact in more than one forum over the past two years. I ask that you consider the documentation included in my written comments. I submit written comments to supplement my oral testimony with exhibits- You need to read these documents to see the connection between my neighborhood's concerns and the expansion of the UGA in an area where arterials are missing. There is a connection. Ironically, it is the consequence of a°missing connection"-40th Ave—the segment of the minor arterial eliminated by administrative fiat. Unless and until Spokane County formally analyzes traffic issues due to an expanded UGA, then correctly locates, and timely constructs, arterials necessary to service it, Midilome residents are at risk. Without arterials, all traffic south of Midilome Subdivision, including 40th Ave traffic, can and will seek connection through our neighborhood. As the area develops, and the existing roads become more crowded, the risk of cut-through traffic in Midilome will increase. This means that the"internal arterial routes"created by bad, possibly illegal, land use decisions will bear even greater impact. You, our elected officials, have a duty to prevent this from happening. Simply stated, Midilome residents do not, and will not, accept minor arterial function on our neighborhood streets. Furthermore, we demand serious, formal and complete study of the transportation system in the area before adoption of the Recommended Comprehensive Plan and supporting arterial road plan. The Capital Facilities Plan and the County's Six-Year Plan (for construction of arterials) must be 3 • '► 353 amended to include necessary infrastructure to serve the expanded UGA. Alternatively, do not include the 640 acres in the UGA. Spokane County does not need the land quantity to meet projected growth under GMA. Leave it out. However, if you decide to keep it in the UGA, make your decision well studied and well reasoned after formal analysis of all the alternatives, including feasibility, impacts and cost of each. I also ask that you consider the following before deciding the future of our neighborhood through the adoption of this comprehensive plan: 1. There is a functional need for an urban minor arterial to serve the 640 acres. The arterial connection must be complete from SR 27 to Dishman Mica Road to provide this function. 2. Historically, the correct location for this minor arterial connection is at 40th Avenue. In 2001, the question of where to build this minor arterial is "touchy" at best. Some of our neighbors now live in or near the 40th Ave. right-of-way. Despite the controversial nature of this question, when Spokane County Planning Commission members decided to leave 40th Ave. off the recommended arterial road plan, they justified their acts, in part, by pointing their finger at us: we failed to ask for 40"'Avenue. Allegedly, this failure on our part constituted a lack of necessary public participation under GMA and precluded further analysis of the issue raised by the County Engineer. I quote from the record of their March 8, 2001 deliberation session: The GMA requires public participation for major changes to these kinds of plans. We have not had this public participation in the proposal to move any kind of arterial between SR 27 and Dishman Mica Road...We have not had the public participation that I believe the GMA requires for this kind of a change...Leave everything as it is...Let the engineers department do engineering things and get together with the public and figure out how to get from SR 27 to Dishman Mica Road. 4 00354 This Planning Commissioner misspoke. The GMA public participation process encourages an exchange of information during the planning process. Midilome residents raised legitimate concern about the transportation system, past, present and future, before the Planning Commission. We visited an open house, testified at a public hearing and submitted written comments. The Planning Commission ignored us. It remains the County's duty, however, to complete an environmental review before adoption of the plan, to mitigate impacts and to provide proper infrastructure concurrently with intensified land use. Do not blame the public for the Planning Commission's failures. Excuses of this nature are sophomoric and inappropriate. How could Spokane County expect one neighbor to advocate a solution_40th Ave.--that is both offensive and painful to another neighbor, as a condition precedent to proper environmental review? That is Spokane County's job once the public raises the issue. Moreover, why should citizens be left to their own devises to locate a road after the horse has been let out of the proverbial barn? This is not proper SEPA or GMA procedure, just unfair and absurd procedure that shifts the County's duty to its taxpayers. On this note, planner, John Peterson, highlighted multiple deficiencies in the planning process. In the following recommendation to the Planning Commission on September 14, 2000, he said: 40th Ave. was not shown on the Draft Plan 2000....lt wasn't analyzed....ln the future, let the neighborhood come back to the County and tell us the need for it. It was never shown to begin with. It's not included in the environmental analysis....lt wasn't analyzed under SEPA. Our recommendation, to conclude, is to leave the map as is. Let those folks come back as a neighborhood group to the County and let's go through a study. Mr. Peterson correctly identified Spokane County's lack of analysis of the transportation impacts as problematic under SEPA and GMA. However, leaving these 5 00355 issues for neighborhood groups to raise in the future is ridiculous. I know. My neighborhood presented the County with a traffic safety plan on April 28, 2000. One year later, it has not been properly addressed. This is true despite the fact that the neighborhood developed its plan through public meetings, with professional support and County participation, to implement a hard-won rezone condition in ZE-5-99. We wait, but we will not believe that a future request for an arterial, without formal process or defined procedure, is a reasonable or responsible suggestion. The time, place and process is here and now. Our twenty-year blueprint for future growth in Spokane County must resolve this issue through effective planning, and control its implementation through the arterial road plan. 3. The Planning Commission decided to include the 640 acres in the UGA in December 1999 after Bernard Dairies, and/or entities connected to his interest in developing part of the 640 acres, agreed to extend a sewer line to this area. Despite the fact that 640 acres was a sizable addition to the UGA, the Planning Commission did not formally analyze environmental issues such as storm-water runoff due to intense urbanization, or any other environmental issue, including transportation. In their deliberations, they ignored the substance or existence of oral testimony and written comment raising objections to the expanded UGA. County Engineering did not fair well either when they recognized transportation impact in September 2000.2 4. Spokane County's Division of Planning Director advocated the adoption of the recommended plan AS IS at the March 8, 2001 Planning Commission deliberation session. lie said that"concurrency" meant: (1) that the County Engineers had to develop the proposed arterial road plan simultaneously with the comprehensive plan 6 00356 text; and (2) that the County Engineers violated basis principles of long-range planning by not recommending changes to the arterial road plan "well in advance" of the Planning Commission's final deliberations. He cast his explanation and recommendation in language of the GMA with the apparent intent to legalize" issues and move the agenda.3 Unfortunately for Spokane County, SEPA and GMA require more. Concurrency requirements of GMA are important. The infrastructure needed to serve the expanded UGA must be provided concurrently with intensified land use. On March 8, 2001, County Engineering explained that they first realized the extent of the expanded UGA in the 40th Ave. area in September 2000. They followed up with the October 5, 2000 letter recommending 40"'Avenue. This is when SEPA and GMA issues ripened as to need for urban minor arterial connection at 40"'Avenue. The Planning Commission's objection to County Engineering's timeliness does not excuse its failure to have it properly analyzed once brought to light. The Planning Commission incorrectly dismissed the County Engineer's October 5, 2000 letter a late submission° They did not address the issues raised by the County Engineer's October 5, 2000 letter until final deliberations on March 8, 2001. On March 8, 2001, the Planning Commission killed both the messenger and his message. Based on information from our traffic consultant, who we asked to review the traffic model that the County Engineering used, Spokane County must continue its study and prepare a formal analysis of 40'" Ave., or any other alternative to it. Spokane 2 See deliberation record for September 7,2000 through October 12, 2000 and March 8, 2001. 3 Mr. M. Needham, March 8,2001 deliberations:The Division of Engineering has had a longtime produce this arterial and to do it concurrently with the land use plan that has been occurring in Public Works Department for a long time. They did not do that. The whole point of long range planning is that these major arterials and these major land use oe staff presentation... ae long onrange,well in advance, not ad hoc,not by(my apologies to you, Steve)by last 7 0035 ; County has only just begun. Feasibility, impact, cost and other relevant criteria need formal analysis before the comprehensive plan is adopted. The public should have notice and reasonable opportunity to review this analysis with their own experts. Please do not ignore or minimize our concerns. We are stakeholders in this. Your decision will effect quality of life and property values in our neighborhood. It is as important to us as it is to our neighbors in The Greens. Now, more in the nature of housekeeping: Please incorporate by this reference the following records into the record for the adoption of the comprehensive plan. These records pertain to Midilome residents' individual or collective work product, or that of their consultants, and any request or other information relating to neighborhood concern about traffic impact in: (a.) the University High School rezone files, ZE-5-99; (b.) the proposed Pine Rock Ridge Subdivision file, P-1867-99, for parcel number 45345.9117; (c.) Painted Hills Golf Course Par 3 addition files: (d) Open record request on Spokane County records that have not been delivered or provided for review, or partially delivered or provided for review, including but not limited to information about the location of the IUGA line and the FUGA line at 40th Ave. and 40th Ave. in the existing and proposed Arterial Road Plan; and, (d.) Growth Management Steering Committee record. Commissioner Harris' role as a member of the Hearing Examiners Committee that approved The Greens project in 1992-3 may create a conflict of interest for future decisions dealing with 40th Avenue, minor arterial connection in the Midilome area and/or traffic impact to Midilome streets. We ask Commissioner Hams to take appropriate action now that we have raised this conflict of interest question. Thank you. 4 See Tim Lawhead's letter to Gayle Puu Carroll dated April 25, 2001. 8 TOTAL P.09 EXHIBIT 34 0 0 3 5 8 MR. & MRS. JAMES W. GANTT BRB E. 20202 NORA AVENUE GREENACRES, WA. 99016 - - 8/10/01 Washington State Boundary Review Board 1026 W. Broadway Ave. Spokane, Wa. , 99260 Gentlemen: Due to illness, we have been unable to attend the last 2 meetings held regarding the proposed new city in the valley. We want to be on record of favoring the city and have from the start. Also we want to be sure we stay •included in the boundaries as proposed in the legend sent us by card and also shown in the Spokesman-Review. We are inside the East Border, within the block bordered by Henry Rd. and 2 blocks North of Mission Avenue at 20202 E. Nora Avenue. We ,,have not seen the Spokane Valley Inc. Study, but plan and hope to attend your next meeting, August 27. SincerelyAte James W. & Mildred Gantt 20202 E. Nora Ave. Greenacres, Wa. , 99016 RECEIVED AUG 1 3 2001 BOUNDARYR"EVFEWBOARD 00359 EXHIBIT Nut Factory . 1RB ss p 4 . roasters and processors of tm the finest nuts and snack foods cst. 1952 PO Box 815 `{ 19425 E Broadway Ave Greenacres, Ws 99016 RECEIVED Boundary Review Board AUG 1 !{ 2401 1026 W Broadway Avenue, 2nd Floor BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD •Spokane, WA 99201 Ref: The Nut Factory property; 19425 E Broadway August 12, 2001 • Dear Board Members; I own property occupied by The Nut Factory which is on the west edge of Hodges and fronting on south side of Interstate 90. We are located east of Barker Road. This property and all adjacent properties are zoned B-1 and/or 1-2 and arc commercial. We more closely associate with Liberty Lake and are adjacent to their western boundary. In the drawing for the new Spokane Valley city, we are just inside the eastern boundary as they have drawn it. I know the Board is considering removal of perimeter properties. We formally are asking for our property in particular and those other properties adjacent to us that are west of Hodges Road and east of Barker Road to be removed from the boundaries of the new Spokane Valley city.. We are almost adjacent to the new city of Liberty Lake. We consider ourselves part of the community in the Eastern Spokane County. We have no association with the business community at Sullivan Road or farther west. Also, we have covenants with Spokane County related to sewer,roads,and zoning. While our contracts are binding with Spokane County,a new form of government can always change by ordinance what they will and will not allow. Since a business relies on the permanency of government covenants to make future plans,we would prefer to remain in Spokane County until such time as Liberty Lake expands to our property or else remain in Spokane County. Respectfully, Gene Cohen, president website domaine: thenutfaetory.com (509)926-6666 phone nuts@thenutfactory.cxlm (509)926-3300 fax • Td Wd£V:10 1002 £i •593 002E 926 60S I : 'ON Xtid .A801£HJ ifJ EH' : kUdd Ru 14 01 09: 17a Administrator 50.9-75S-0713 00360 10/9/8 dpd-IgJa3pnevssn•sm-poaoma)I'to /ivaJ/:�iiltl 23903 East Mission PO Box 370 -Liberty Lake. "" 509.755.6705 City of Liberty Lake- Fax.755.6713 - - Memorandum EXHIBIT 3(c) , : BoundaryReviewBoard 'RB 555-0 To5 Front Steve Peterson,Mayor Date: August 13,2001 Re: Areas 8 and 9 proposed for hxorporation Members of the Boundary Review Board,I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed incorporation effort and spc ifically on the areas of Greenacres and West of Liberty Lake or better known as areas 8 and 9. As you know.the City of Liberty Lake is rapidly approaching our official date of incorporation. We are working diligently to have the necessary measures in place to insure a smooth transition as we become the newest city in the stare- Immediately following incorporation,one of our highest priorities will be to address planning and land use issues concerning the city. The areas stated above are west and northwest of the city boundaries and if approved as proposed will actually connect our city with the proposed City of Spokane Valley. Because there has been no opportunity to fully address the issues associated with this contiguous relationship,we would request areas 8 and 9 be excluded from the proposal. This will allow the city a chance work through our planning process and review how the formation of a city to the west will affect our community in the future. If you have any questions,pleace call. CC.LeninGrit6n,City Administrator Dung Smith.Nanning and Cammwnity Development Director RECEIVED AUG,' 1 4 2001 BOUNO4RYREVIEW BOARD • I3o I gad v v vv a EXHIBIT 37 3RB S a I SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 9 3801 East Farwell Road Mead, Washington 99021-9605 RECEIVED James W.Graue RECEI Y ED Assistant Fire Chief 509/466-4602 x 902 AUG 1 4 2001 Fax: 509/466-4698 BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD jgraue@scfd9.org August 13,2001 Washington State Boundary Review Board for Spokane County 1026 West Broadway Avenue Spokane, Washington 99260-0040 Re: Proposed Incorporation of the City of Spokane Valley Dear Board Members: The commissioners and senior staff of Spokane County Fire Protection District 9 have been following the subject proposal with great interest. As you are now taking information and comments on the proposal, it is appropriate that we now place our yiews in the record for your consideration. Spokane County Fire District 9 By way of information, Spokane County Fire District 9 provides fire, rescue, emergency medical and life safety services to an area of 122 square miles situated immediately north of the City of Spokane and the Spokane Valley. We operate from eight fire stations with a staff of 43 career firefighters, administration and support staff, augmented by 95 volunteer firefighters. The expense plan for this year is $5.6 million. The area of Spokane County Fire District 9 directly adjacent to the proposed city is clearly shown on Map 11 of the Spokane Valley Incorporation Study(July 2001)you have. Proposed Boundary When the proponents of Spokane Valley incorporation were developing their proposal, we cooperated with the other effected fire districts (Spokane County Fire Districts 1 and 8) in assuring that the critical interests of all the fire districts were considered. As a result of that cooperative effort, the proposed incorporation boundary was established excluding any areas of Fire Districts 8 and 9. This simplified the proposal and eliminated concerns with the adverse impacts on those fire districts, thereby averting opposition and/or the need for mitigation measures. Alternatives: Modified Boundaries—Northwood One of the sections of your Spokane Valley Incorporation Study addresses "Modified Boundaries" (page 64), and alternative 11 is the addition to the incorporation area of Northwood (see also Map 15). Northwood is a logical, and important, area of Fire District 9. Recognizing the essential importance of that developing area, Fire District 9 built and staffed a new fire station on Bigelow Gulch Road in 1990,thereby providing it with an enhanced service level. 00362 We wish to make the following points for your consideration in reviewing the Northwood alternative: • Fire Services: Access and Response Time Fire services to Northwood by Fire District 9 are provided from a career-staffed station located at Bigelow Gulch Road and Jensen Road, % mile north of the area (only one mile from the"core"of Northwood). The development of Northwood was decisive in locating,building and staffing this fire station. Emergency response time to the area is two to four minutes. Closest Fire District I station is on Trent Avenue, ' mile west of Argonne Road, and south of Millwood and the railroad tracks in Millwood. Emergency response time to the area is six to eight minutes(assuming no train in Millwood). Emergency Response Time to Northwood Fire District 9 2—4 minutes Excellent Fire District I 6—8+minutes Marginal— Unacceptable Fire services to Northwood would be very adversely effected by its inclusion in the Spokane Valley incorporation. Critical response times would be much longer, and there is significant risk of service interruption by train traffic. • Revenue Your report shows Northwood with an assessed value of$136.4 million. This translates to 7.5% of the assessed value of Fire District 9, amounting to $413.3 thousand in Fire District 9 revenue in 2001. The loss of the Northwood revenue and service base may force a downgrade of the fire station servicing that area, e.g.,curtailed staffing. • Adverse Impact on Ability to Provide Services Fire District 9 could not lose its Northwood revenue without adversely effecting the type, level and quality of services it provides. This detrimental impact would effect the entire eastern area of the district, and particularly the Upriver Drive area southeast of Northwood. The focus of the proposal is Spokane Valley, but in studying its effects it is important to give equal consideration to the impacts on the surrounding areas, and not, just see the incorporation area in isolation. The inclusion of Northwood in the incorporation would seriously and detrimentally impact critical fire and life safety services to the surrounding "remainder"areas of Fire District 9. We believe that this should and must be a major consideration in your review of modified boundary alternatives. • Inclusion of Northwood in the Incorporation Area We believe that a case can be made for both the inclusion and the exclusion of Northwood in the incorporated area of Spokane Valley. More importantly, however, there are serious direct and indirect adverse effects of the "inclusion case" that merit specific consideration and the development of fair and equitable mitigation measures. Inclusion of Northwood at the inception of incorporation provides little opportunity for such considerations and no real means of adequately and fairly addressing them. Simply stated, we believe it is premature to place Northwood in the incorporated area. If the incorporation is approved and the city formed, a later annexation of Northwood with appropriate consideration of the impacts and the formulation of equitable mitigation measure could be proposed. 00363 In view of the considerations we have set forth above, we respectfully request that Northwood not be added to the proposed Spokane Valley incorporation area. We wish to take this opportunity to commend you for the extent and depth of your study and consideration of the subject proposal. It is unquestionably the best look that this proposal has been given of the several times that it has been advanced. Thank you for your attention and favorable consideration. Sincerely, i is es W. Gr. . - 00364 EXHIBIT 3 RECEIVED RRg SS o I August 11, 2001 AUG 1 4 2001 BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD Boundary Review Board 1026 West Broadway Spokane, WA 99201 Reference: Proposed incorporation, Spokane Valley. It appears that the boundary currently set for incorporation is largely governed by the various fire districts. In most cases,that makes good sense except for the Ponderosa area which is situated in an area served by two fire districts, 1 and 8. The subject has been addressed at previous incorporation attempts regarding the separation of neighborhoods. I am still strongly against that proposal, and it appears that the situation will continue after looking at the proposed boundaries. We reside in an area where we can both see and hear the response vehicles from District 8 which is located on 44th Ave and Bates. We understand that the only egress for the station is North on Sands to Dishman-Mica, however, in many cases, the equipment continues North on Bowdish to respond to alarms, perhaps as a backup to District 1. Now if District 8 can do that, I would suppose they can also give adequate coverage to the entire Ponderosa district. Given the added revenue if the area S®ulh.✓o r, of 44th Ave, it could be likely that additional employees and equipment could be funded to support the additonal area. I recommend that entire Ponderosa neighborhood be excluded from proposed the proposed incorporation boundaries and that Fire Districts I and 8 redraw their district coverage areas. Sincerely EDWIN R DAHL 11302 E. 42nd Court Spokane, WA 99206 00365 Basinger, Michael From: Supern1987@aol.com cent: Tuesday,August 14, 2001 2:04 PM r Boundary Review Board =XHIBIT 39 subject: Annexation of Yardley 3R6 - -LL111J It will not be in the best interest of all of those living in Fire District #1 (Spokane Valley). The City of Spokane has been less than above board about the Yardley Industrial Area. Several years ago, the then City Planner at a public meeting of the Spokane County Commissioners, upon been told that Spokane had designated five areas that they would work towards annexation by Spokane, said , "if I had known that that matter would become public, I would have marked it confidential" Spokane has been in a hurry up situation the last few years to get the remainder of the Yardley sewered and watered. Spokane has provided no other service and did that to improve its'chances of annexating.They have provided no schools, library, no fire protection, no roads and to the best of my knowledge Spokane still doesn't serve all the water to the area. The Yardley has produced more than $140,000,000 in property taxes and many thousands of dollars in sales tax, a year. It seems that further expansion of the retail sector will occur between Park Road and Havana.All this tax money and property that is still vacant are the only things Spokane is after.They aren't doing a benevolent thing by taking"the burden" off of the hands of the Valley, should the Valley become incorporated. Vernon M. Slichter E 10913- 19th Spokane, WA 99206 ReCe/Vert AUG 1 =XHIBIT /4° Page 00366 3RB 5 5&r 1 Dobbins, Danette From: Jim Twelves [lowrider12@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Wednesday,August 15,2001 1:25 AM To: brb@spokanecounty.org Subject: Boundary If I am understanding the context of this site, it is regarding the boundary for the proposed incorporation of the Spokane Valley of. A city unto itself and separate from the city of Spokane. Is that correct?As a longtime "valley resident" I am opposed to and feel threaten of the city of Spokane attempting to annex the valley. I am a resident of Otis Orchards and purposely moved from the city to avoid its'form of politics and government. I would support valley incorporation if it meant forming a new city and a government representing the people and not special interest. Why hasn't Otis Orchards been included in the proposed boundary. If we are not included, it would seem that we are left open to future annexation by the city of Spokane.Your comments would be appreciated. Jim Twelves N 6111 Mitchell Dr. Otis Orchards, WA. RECEIVED AUG 1 5 2001 BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD 08/15/2001 00367 o r ,p,• 7 SPOKANE VALLEY FIRE DEPARTMENT f f-DP Spokane County Fire District 1 9 Y �eZ - 10319 EAST SPRAGUE AVE. • SPOKANE,WA 99206-3676 • (509)928-1700 • FAX(509)892.4125 EXHIBIT 4 / To: The Spokane County Boundary Review Board BRB X55 d' From:' Mark Grover, Fire Chief RECEIVED Subject: The City of Spokane Valley Boundaries AUG 2 4 2001 Date: August 23, 2001 BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD Dear Board Members, Assistant Chief Larry Rider made a presentation before you during your hearing of August 8, 2001, At that time we presented you with a letter, some background information and aymap relating to fire and EMS service by Valley Fire and Spokane Fire, to the Yardley and Alcott areas. Since the hearing as you are well aware, the Board of County Commissioners has been conducting hearings on the City of Spokane's Comprehensive Plan and proposed UGAs. It is my understanding that the Board of County Commissioners intends to rule on the city's plan on September 4th. The decision by the board on whether to include Yardley and Alcott in the city's UGAs of course impacts whether these areas could or should be included within the boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley. In this letter I have included comments that we made in writing to the County Commissioner concerning Mr.John Mercer's presentation before them on August 15th regarding Spokane's proposed UGAs: Also included is our response of August 20, 2001 to the city's Comprehensive Plan and specifically the Capital Facilities and Utilities Plan detailing a response to their,ability and plans to provide emergency services to the Yardley and Alcott areas. I have included a copy of the Interlocal Agreement between Valley Fire and the City of Spokane along with a copy of the Capital Facilities and Utilities portion of the city's' Comprehensive Plan. Letter to the Spokane County Board of Commissioners —August 15; 2001 This letter is in response to and in opposition to the City of Spokane's proposed UGAs and the presentation that was delivered before you on August 14th by Mr. John Mercer. This opposition is directed to the plan in general and to the Yardley and Alcott UGAs in particular. There are several key points that I would like to address dealing with the proposed UGAs affect to our department and it's ability to deliver emergency services. 1 00368 1. The Fire and Emergency Medical Protection Service Area Inter-local Agreement. As the commissioners are well aware several of the county fire districts, including Valley Fire entered into an agreement with the City of Spokane in 1998, concerning a method to mitigate the affect of annexation of areas adjacent to the City of Spokane. Immediately prior to the commissioners meeting of the 14th, Mr. Mercer appeared somewhat surprised to see us at the hearing. He asked us if we needed a copy of the agreement that we had signed. His conversation and presentation left us with the feeling that his perception of our agreement was akin to a sewer waiver and that we had given up any right to oppose the City's proposed UGAs. This couldn't be further from the case. Our agreements only set forth a mechanism to address negotiating the impacts of any annexations that may occur and of themselves do not resolve any impact issues. Mr. Mercer made this same assertion before the BRB hearing regarding the boundaries on the proposed city of Spokane Valley. 2. The proven ability to provide adequate service. Commissioner McCaslin's comment in response to Mr. Mercer's presentation, I believe says it all. "How does the City plan to provide service to these proposed UGAs when you can't even take care of your own streets?' Fire, EMS, prevention/investigation and rescue services are currently provided to the Yardley and Alcott proposed UGAs by Valley Fire. When Assistant Chief Larry Rider made his presentation to you he also handed out a map that shows the location of both Spokane and Valley fire stations that are in the vicinity of those areas. The 1' mile diamonds that are around each of those stations equate to an approximate 5- minute response time. Valley Fire has provided service to these areas from our existing stations since 1960. What is apparent from the map is that the City can not serve these areas without constructing and staffing new facilities. We contend that it is not economically feasible for them to do so. 3. The potential fragmentation and disruption of existing protection plans. Our map shows that from the age of our stations, a plan was in place to provide emergency services to all our citizens for over 40 years. The disruption of the existing service boundaries would negatively impact our department and its citizens. This impact is both from the response times to emergencies as well as economical. Should Yardley and Alcott be annexed to Spokane, one of our fire stations would be a few hundred yards from the City boundary. We wouldn't be able to move this station because we would still have a corridor to the south of Sprague that would remain within our department's boundaries. This would not be good planning. Fire Commissioner Sharon Colby correctly stated that difference between a successful and unsuccessful outcome to an emergency is often determined by the response time of emergency vehicles. Disrupting the existing boundaries without an established plan to address fire station locations is in our opinion, not prudent. 2 00369 • 4. Financial Impact Not nearly as important as the ability to provide an acceptable level of service but still of great concern is the financial impact to our citizens. The citizens of the Spokane Valley have supported and contributed tax money to their fire department for over 60 years. The department has been fiscally prudent by paying for equipment, stations and other improvements with available financial resources and enjoys no long-term indebtedness. This is not the case within the City of Spokane. We believe that it would be unfair for our citizens who have paid up-front for their fire and EMS protection to find themselves obligated to bond indebtedness that they had no say in. A further negative financial impact would occur to the remaining citizens of the Valley Fire Department should the proposed UGAs be accepted in that we would still have to staff our existing stations with a reduction in the department's taxable valuation of approximately $139,000,000. In closing, our department would ask the commissioners to look closely at the promises and assertions made by the City of Spokane in their proposal to reserve these areas adjacent to their boundaries for their future growth at the expense of the remaining citizens in the county. I believe we would all agree that in order to have a healthy county overall, we must have a healthy City of Spokane. The problem as I see it, is the current health of the city is largely a result of their own past decisions. It would be unfair to the citizens of the county to sacrifice their safety and financial well being in order to bail out the city. Sincerely, Mark Grover • Letter to the Spokane County Board of Commissioners —August 20, 2001 On Thursday August 16, 2001, the Spokane Valley Fire Department addressed a letter to the Spokane County Commissioners in response to Mr. John Mercer's presentation of August 15th. This letter is a response to the City of Spokane's Capital Facilities and Utilities portion of their Comprehensive Plan and will address fire, EMS and rescue services to the Yardley and Alcott areas. . In this response, I would like to reference key items in the plan and respond directly to them. The sections that are preceded with a diamond shaped asterisk are quotations taken from the plan. 3 00370 6.1 Introduction (page 5) • The plan states, "Capital facilities and utilities provide services that are essential to a community and its ability to grow in the future. The essential services provided by capital facilities and utilities are crucial to the health, safety, and welfare of community residents. Water, heat, and light are among the necessities of life; today, people also depend on other service such as communications and police and fire protection. Both current and future residents should be assured that service capacity is adequate to meet demand. In this regard, it is particularly important to ensure that efforts to provide for future growth do no degrade or diminish service to existing users. Even more fundamentally, to location of capital facilities and utilities (where service is available) should be in sync with community plans to support and foster development where it is desired." • While Valley Fire isin complete agreement with,the above statement we feel that the City's plan as presented does exactly the opposite of what the excerpted statement from above says. "Both current and future residents should be assured that service capacity is adequate to meet demand. In this regard, it is particularly important to ensure that efforts to provide for future growth do no degrade or diminish service to existing users." The city's plan does not address emergency medical services (EMS) and automobile disentanglement/rescue in the introduction and does later almost as an afterthought. These are the services that Valley Fire provides for its citizens on over 80% of our emergency responses. 6.2 Countywide Planning Policies (page 8) • "The Countywide Planning Policies (CWPPs) adopted by the Spokane Board of County Commissioners require the capital facilities and utilities chapter to address the siting of public capital facilities, joint city and county planning within urban growth areas, and the promotion of contiguous and orderly development and provision of urban service to such development (RCW 36.70A.210(3)). This plan does not address the siting of new facilities to provide service to the Yardley and Alcott areas. Instead the plan is directed toward new development and does not take into account existing development. 6.3 Vision and Values (page 9) Values The things that are important to Spokane's future include: • Developing police and fire services that accompany growth. 4 • 00371 Even though this value is listed first, it would appear that the status quo is considered good enough as there is no concrete plan for the development of fire or EMS services to enhance what services the city currently provides on its east border should Yardley and Alcott be annexed to the city. I will elaborate on this concept further in this letter. 6.4 Goals and Policies (page 10) CFU 1 — In the chart presented on this page the goals stated for EMS are: • 6 minute 30 seconds/ 80 percent of the time for Basic Life Support (BLS). Valley Fires' goal is 5 minutes/ 80 percent of the time for BLS. • 8 minutes/80 percent of the time for Advanced Life Support (ALS) Valley Fires' goal is the same for ALS In the chart presented on this page the goals stated for Fire are: • 7 minutes! 80percent of the time for the first engine on scene. Valley Fires' goal is 5 minutes/ 80 percent of the time. • 8 minutes! 80 percent of the time for the first ladder on scene. Valley Fire has not established a goal for first ladder on scene. Even though these are considered by the city to be long-term goals, Valley Fires' goals are "today" and we feel that we can provide service to the Yardley and Alcott areas that meet these goals. In our view the city, on the other hand couldn't without constructing new facilities that aren't in the plan. CFU 2 Concurrency (page 12) • Goal: Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development are adequate to serve the development and available when the service demands of development occur without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards. Valley Fire contends that the city's current plan would indeed decrease current service levels below the standard that our citizens enjoy today. 5 . 00372 CFU 3 Coordination (page 15) CFU 3.1 Special Purpose Districts • "Discussion: Interlocal agreements between jurisdictions and special purpose districts relating to the provision of urban governmental services and public . facilities shall address fiscal impacts, revenue sharing, use of existing facilities, and the level of service standards." Valley Fire entered into an interlocal agreement (copy included) with the city in 1998 that established a moratorium on annexation of areas within Valley Fires boundaries by the city for five years. This agreement also established a framework for resolving service issues but didn't address fiscal impacts, revenue sharing, use of existing facilities or the level of service standards. It is our contention that these issues would have to be addressed prior to the establishment of Yardley and Alcott as Spokane's' UGAs for there to be any resemblance of coordination and concurrency_.__ CFU 4 Service Provision (page 17) • Goal: Provide public services in a manner that facilitates efficient delivery of services and meets current and future demand. In their plan the city makes the statement in numerous places that service delivery is predicated on the population and growth that occurs within a given area. The Yardley area is quite unique because there is a very small residential population that resides there. What is not reflected in the city plan is the large number of our citizens that work, shop, are entertained and travel in and through this area. Basing service strictly on the numbers that reside in the area short- changes the rest of our citizens. The interstate fair in of itself will have well over 200,000 people attend over a 10-day period. Valley Fire recognizes this transient population and in the year 2000 responded to in excess of 500 emergency incidents just within the Yardley area. This number doesn't reflect the numerous calls for medical service that our standby crews responded to at the fair. CFU 5 Environmental Concerns CFU 5.8 Fire Protection (page 19) • . Regulate development in a manner that is conducive to adequate fire protection. The focus of this section as well as the majority of the plan is on growth and development. There appears to be little consideration given to the uniqueness of Yardley in that the majority of the land within this area is already developed and focusing service delivery based on growth and development doesn't work in this situation. 6 00373 CFU 6.6 Fire and Emergency Medical Services (pages 23-25) In this section the assumption again is that increases in calls will occur with population growth. On page 24 under Future Demand is the following statement. • The City of Spokane Fire Department estimates a 3 percent increase in calls per year between 2001 and the end of 2020. If the city annexes Yardley there would be an immediate increase in responses in excess of the 3% for that one area alone based on the 500+ responses Valley Fire had there in the year 2000. On page 25 under Fire Protection Services there is a statement that the city currently has a Class 3 rating by the Washington Survey and Rating Bureau. What isn't stated is that the city was just re-rated and went down from a Class 2, to a Class 3. There are a number of reasons why a fire departments rating would drop, but it isn't because their ability to serve their citizens had improved. On page 27 under level of service is the following statement. • Fire stations are located to provide services to areas of the city that have higher population densities. Again, the Yardley area does not have a high residential population density. It often does have a high transient population density. In addition, this being a business, entertainment and industrial area there are many businesses that have large buildings, hazardous materials, and other unique situations that justifies having a fire station in the area. That is the reason that Valley Fire has two stations that have served this area from less than 1% miles away since 1960. These are some of the items that the Washington Survey and Rating Bureau looks at when a fire department is rated. Need for Capital Facility Improvements (page28) ♦ Over the next six years, in order to maintain the proposed levels of service while accommodating new growth, additional equipment, personnel, and facilities will be needed. In broad terms, a new fire station is justified with a population increase of approximately 7,000 to 10,000 and/or 200 calls for service per year. As previously stated Yardley alone had over 500 calls for fire and EMS provided by Valley Fire in 2000. In this section there is no mention of a new fire station to provide service to Yardley or Alcott within six years. In possible new stations in the seven to twenty-year range is the following statement. 7 00374 • If annexation occurs in the eastern portion of the growth area, service delivery might be achieved by the possible relocation of city Stations 8 and 14 in concert with the relocation of existing fire stations from Fire District#1 (now serving the area). In my view this statement doesn't address the immediate need that would exist if the city were to annex the Yardley and Alcott areas and quite frankly doesn't look like much of a plan. • In summation I believe that the Capital Facilities and Utilities Plan presented by the city is directed toward population growth and development and does not address particularly the Yardley area and its unique needs. The plan has no provision to provide needed service to the Yardley and Alcott areas from anywhere but existing city facilities until at least seven to twenty years away and then the only indication is that there would need to be a possible relocation of some existing stations.__._ It is Valley Fire's contention that we have served the Yardley and Alcott areas well for the past 60 years. It would be a disservice to our citizens to expect that they should receive a decreased level of emergency services in order to provide a "cash-cow" for the city. Sincerely, Mark Grover • 8 i-I (e S k vcs/ r ` rte 3` Ceufroet t ci FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL PROTECTION SERVICE AREA AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into Spokane Valley Fire Department, a municipal corporation referred to as 'District",.. and the City of Spokane, a municipal corporation, referred to as "City". This Agreement is entered into by the City and the District under the authority of RCW 52.12.031, in conformity with chapter 39.34 RCW, the Interlocal Cooperation Act and in compliance with chapter 36.115 RCW, the Service Agreement Act and filed with the Spokane County Board of Commissioners pursuant to RCW 36.115.040(3). The District and the City currently maintain and operate their own fire departments to provide fire protection, fire-suppression and emergency medical services in their respective-jurisdictions. — The County has adopted interim urban growth areas, designated as Joint Planning Areas (JPA), that encompass portions of the District, its service area and financial base. The City may eventually attempt to annex areas within the JPA. The District has the ability to continue to provide fire protection, fire suppression and emergency medical services in the JPA currently located within its boundaries. To carry out the purposes of this Agreement and in consideration of the benefits to be received by the parties,it is agreed as follows: 1. Term. This Agreement shall be effective on execution and shall remain in effect until terminated by agreement of the parties. 2. City Annexations. The City agrees that it shall not annex areas located within the District for a period of five years from January 1, 1999. The City shall provide two years advance written notification to the District in the event it shall determine to annex an area of the District. 3. Annexation Agreement. In the event the City provides notice of its intent to annex an area of the District, as provided in paragraph 2, the District and the City shall enter into good faith negotiations to mitigate the adverse impacts on the District that will be caused by the annexation. Adverse impacts include, but are not limited to, the reduction of the District's tax basis, the reduction in staffing and future employment of District personnel and the impact on the ability of the District to continue to serve the area remaining in the District. In the event the City and the District are unable to reach a mutually acceptable agreement, the dispute shall be resolved under the provisions of paragraph 11. 4. Joint Planning. The parties agree that they shall consult each other in respect to the selection of the location for station facilities that will serve the JPA located in the District, the design and construction of station facilities and the selection SE1IC8/24/98SpokaneR9/98 - 1 - 00376 and purchase of equipment to be used to serve the JPA. Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph, the parties recognize that the final decision to acquire land , facilities and equipment shall be made by the acquiring party. 5. Operational Planning. The parties agree to complete joint operational plans for services to the JPA covering mutual responses, training and the possibility of joint station use. 6. Liability. Each party shall, at all times, be solely responsible for the acts or the failure to act of its personnel that occur or arise in any way out of the performance of this Agreement by its personnel only and to save and hold the other party and its personnel and officials harmless from all costs, expenses, losses anddamages, including cost of defense, incurred as a result of any acts or omissions of the party's personnel relating. to the performance of this Agreement. 7. Notices. All notices, requests, demands and other communications required by this Agreement shall be in writing and, except as expressly provided elsewhere in this Agreement, shall be deemed to have been given at the time of delivery if personally delivered, at the time of transmittal if transmitted by facsimile transmission or at the time of mailing if mailed by first class, postage pre-paid and addressed to the party at its address as stated in this Agreement or at such address as either party may designate at any time in writing. 8. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement or its application is held invalid, the remainder of the Agreement or the application of the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected. 9. Modification. This Agreement represents the entire Agreement between the parties. No change, termination or attempted waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be binding on the parties unless executed in.writing by authorized representatives of the parties. The Agreement shall not be modified, supplemented or otherwise affected by the course of dealing between the parties. 10. Benefits. This Agreement is entered into for the benefit of the parties to this Agreement only and shall confer no benefits, direct or implied, on anythird persons. - 11. Dispute Resolution. Any controversy which shall arise between the City and the District regarding the rights, duties or liabilities under this agreement of either party shall be submitted to non binding arbitration.. The arbitration shall be before one disinterested arbitrator agreed upon by the parities. The arbitrator shall render an opinion in accordance with the laws of the state of Washington as applied to the facts found by the arbitrator or arbitrators. In the event the parties areunable to agree on the selection of the arbitrator or in the event the _ opinion of the arbitrator is not acceptable to either of the parties, the matter shall be submitted to the Spokane County Superior Court for final decision. The SE1XS/24/98spokaneR9/98 2 00377 . parties agree that the decision of the Superior Court shall be final and not subject to appeal. 12. Attorney Fees. In the event of arbitration or litigation concerning the terms of or performance under this agreement, each party shall be responsible for its cost and expenses including one half of the cost of the.arbitration. Dated: /8- 2 2"---9 S2 Dated: "2/24 SPOKANE VALLEY FIRE DEPARTMENT CITY OF SPOKANE %4 . an Co. . sioner Ar City Manager ft .si7LI/ . Attest /Inert fI ' - / Commissioner City Clerk j I . 4Y4, Approved as to form: Commissioner Assistant City Attorney Commissioner Commissio r Attest District Secr sa1103n4i9sspokar,eP9I9S 3 City Manager Pete Fortin - 6045 Submitting Department Contact Person Phone Ext. CONSENT A EGISL1TIVE SESSION COUNCIL PRICRITT 0 Contract Resolution camwnications /1f>� 9l387_�!� 0 Report Emergency Ordinance Cultural Diversity & Racial Equity Clerk's Files: S e.55 Final Reading Ordinance Economicwth nagele:RECE IVE # First Reading Ordinance Growth Management lFl`'}}LL.�.tjVV'" Special Consideration Infrastructure- Cross Reference: Hearing Neighborhoods afe Serviclice Delivery OCT 15 1SSSNG/CSD/LID: 4 NEIGHBORHOOD/CCdiMI55i0N/LOPNAITTEE NOTIFIED ST SUBMITTING VnnCLERK'S OFFICE . Area Manager: SPOKAA - Action Taken: - AGENDA WORDING: Fire and Emergency Medical Protection Service Area Agreement with the Spokane Valley Fire Department. BACKGROUND (Attach separate sheet if necessary): Pursuant to provisions of the Growth Management Act, the Service Agreement Act andthe interlocal agreement between the City and.Spokane County for Joint Planning Areas (JPA), the City is to enter into service agreements with_affected_special purpose districts._ The City and Spokane Valley Fire Department have negotiated the attached agreement which states: 1. The City agrees not to annex areas located within the District for a period of five years beginning January 1, 1999. 2. The City will give two years' notice in the event it determines to annex areas within the District. 3. In the event of annexation, the City and the District shall negotiate to mitigate the adverse impacts on the District. 4. The City and the District agree to consult each other for purposes of joint planning of location selection, design and construction of station facilities that will serve the JPA and operational planning of services to the JPA covering mutual responses,training and possible joint station use. RECOMMENDATION: Approve. # FISCAL IMPACT: Expenditure-$ N/A Budget Account � Revenue -$ N/A LIST ATTACHMENTS AS FOLLOWS: • On file for Review in Office of City Clerk: Include in Packets: • • SIGNATURES OF SUBMITTING OFFICERS (sian legibly): . Division Director - Fi?M .f e / • . Department / • egal • DISTRIBUTION AFTER COUNCIL ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION: ' City Manager - Pete Fortin APPROVED BY • Department - Bobby SPOKANE CITY COUNCIL: City Attorney - Michael Piccolo � �� _ A ` f it) CITY CLERK/ 1 _ . 00379 CHAPTER CONTENTS 6.1 INTRODUCTION 5 6.2 GMA GOAL AND REQUIREMENTS AND COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES 7 6.3 VISION AND VALUES 9 6.4 GOALS AND POLICIES • 10 CFU 1 ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 10 CFU 1.1 Level of Service CFU 1.2 Operational Efficiency CFU 1.3 Maintenance CFU 1.4 Use of Existing Structures • - CFU 1.5 Utility Construction Standards,____.._.,-_____ CFU 1.6 Regulation Changes CFU 1.7 Management Plans CFU 1.8 Funding CFU 1.9 Intangible Costs and Benefits CFU 2 CONCURRENCY 12 CFU 2.1 Available Public Facilities CFU 2.2 Concurrency Management System CFU 2.3 Phasing of Services CFU 2.4 Impact Fees CFU 2.5 Exemptions from Impact Fees CFU 2.6 Funding Shortfalls CFU 2.7 Utility Permits CFU 3 COORDINATION 15 CFU 3.1 Special Purpose Districts CFU 3.2 Utility Installations CFU 3.3 Utilities Coordination CFU 3.4 Natural and Man-Made Disasters CFU 3.5 Uniformity of Standards CFU 3.6 Limitation of Services Outside Urban Growth Area CFU 4 SERVICE PROVISION - 17 CFU 4.1 Compact Development CFU 4.2 Access to Utility Easements CFU 4.3 Underground Utilities CFU 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS 18 CFU 5.1 On-Site Wastewater Disposal CFU 5.2 Water Conservation CFU 5.3 Stormwater CFU 5.4 Ground Water CFU 5.5 Waste Reduction and Recycling CFU 5.6 Power-Frequency Magnetic Fields • - CFU 5.7 Telecommunication Structures CFU 5.8 Fire Protection Comprehensive Plan/EIS 3 00380 CFU 6 MULTIPLE OBJECTIVES 19 CFU 6.1 Community Revitalization CFU 6.2 Economic Development CFU 6.3 Joint Use of Public Sites 6.5 Capital Facilities Program (CFP) 21 6.6 Fire and Emergency Medical Services • 23 6.7 Law Enforcement 31 6.8 Libraries 34 6.9 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Facilities 36 6.10 Sanitary Sewer 40 . 6.11 Schools 44 -6;12-Solid Waste ... .- _.. 50 6.13 Water 54 6.14 Private Utilities 58 6.15 Maps 61 CFU I Fire Districts CFU 2 Police Patrol Areas CFU 3 COPS Shops CFU 4 Library Sites and Service Areas CFU 5 Parks CFU 6 Sewer Service Areas CFU 7 Wastewater and Stormwater Facilities CFU 8 Elementary School Boundaries CFU 9 Middle School Boundaries CFU 10 High School Boundaries CFU 11 School Districts and Facilities CFU 12 Water Service Areas CFU 13 Water Facilities and Pressure Zones CFU 14 Private Utilities 4 . . Capital Facilities and Utilities • 00381 • 6.1 INTRODUCTION • Capital facilities and utilities provide services that are essential to a community and its ability to grow in the future. Capital facilities consist of facilities owned by public entities, such as water and sewer systems and fire and police stations. Utilities consist of electrical lines, telecommunication lines, and gas lines. The purpose of this chapter is to guide how these crucial services coordinate with and support the future growth and development of Spokane. • Background and Key Issues The essential services provided by capital facilities and utilities are crucial to the health,safety,and welfare of community residents. Water, heat, and light are among the necessities of life;today,people also depend on other services such as communications and police and fire protection. Both current and • future residents should be assured that service capacity is adequate to meet demand. In this regard,it is particularly important to ensure that efforts to provide for future growth do not degrade or diminish ---services to existing-users.- Even more fundamentally,the location of capital facilities and utilities (where service is available)should be in sync with community plans to support and foster development where it is desired. In an age of scarce fiscal and environmental resources, it is important that capital facilities and utilities be provided efficiently. Efficiencies can be gained through greater coordination between service providers and A x ° 4 jurisdictions, more predictable and s orderly patterns of development,ands ' by using capital facilities and services a to serve multiple purposes. Careful i= n planning of capital facilities and utilities • is needed to achieve such efficiencies The importance of planning for capital facilities and utilities is also reflected by the fact that the GMA provides a great deal of direction for their planning, more so than most other plan elements. For example,one GMA goal encourages growth to take place in urban areas where public facilities and services can be provided efficiently. Another GMA goal includes the need to consider the capacities of public facilities and services when planning for economic development. Yet a third GMA goal requires that the public facilities and services necessary to support development be provided concurrent with development. Known as"concurrency,"this is one of the most important principles and requirements of the GMA. (Further detail on the GMA goals and specific requirements for capital facilities and utilities are found in section 6.2). While the planning of capital facilities and utilities is important,it is also extremely challenging. The GMA requirements for capital facilities and utilities are both specific and complex,particularly given the capital facilities and utilities service environment. For example, not all capital facilities and utilities are owned and operated by the City of Spokane. Some are owned and operated by private companies,while others,such as schools,are owned and operated by different public entities,such as school districts. Furthermore, the geographical boundaries of service providers rarely correspond to the city's borders, which change continually through annexation. Comprehensive Plan/EIS 5 • 00382 ..?6,si.,:sew awes Overview frosn "f'•k< .NMI The GMA requires that comprehensive plans include elements for tatetto..taccapital facilities and utilities. For the City of Spokane's x'uu comprehensive plan,they have been combined into one element. ::r This chapter addresses the City of Spokane's planning for capital nn z facilities and utilities and consists of: r.Lm a ' Capital Facilities Goals and Policies Plan is a long-range kakappolicy plan containing the city's main guidelines for capital >Ya � Iaa. Improvements. II contains broad goals and specific policies and . -- levels of service for the provision of adequate public facilities and services to support the current and future population and employment growth within the city's urban growth area. The plan provides policy a' m guidance for the Capital Facilities Program(CFP). We Capital Facilities Program(CFP)establishes the city's long- - a; - * � wq�e� range work program for capital facilities,carnes out the intents and telta a ' , r; policies of the comprehensive plan, and gives further direction to implement the plan. It specifically identifies public facilities that will be required in the next six years. It contains an inventory of existing and proposed capital facilities,establishes level of service (LOS) standards,identifies long-range facility service capacities and projected deficiencies, and outlines the actions necessary to meet such deficiencies. The program also provides the GMA-required six-year financing plan. This financing plan ensures that needed capital facilities will be financed and that the growth envisioned in the comprehensive plan can really happen. The available capacity of public facilities will affect the type, amount,and rate of growth. The CFP also contains twenty-year capital facility needs, projected improvements, and estimated expenditures required to adequately serve population and job growth while maintaining desired LOS standards. Operational and maintenance costs are not included in the CFP. The goals and policies for parks and recreational facilities are contained in Chapter 13, Parks, Recreation, and Open Spaces, although the six-year plan for parks is located in the Capital Facilities Program of this chapter,Section 6.9. Furthermore,planning related to streets is contained in Chapter 5,Transportation. 6 Capital Facilities and Utilities • • 00383 • • 6.2 GMA GOAL AND REQUIREMENTS • AND COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES GMA Capital Facilities and Utilities Planning Goals (RCW 36.70A.020) The Washington State Growth Management Act(GMA)includes 13 goals that are intended to guide the content of comprehensive plans and development regulations. Following are the GMA goals that relate to capital facilities and utilities: • Urban growth. "Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner." • Economic development. "Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with the adopted comprehensive plans, ... and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth,all within the capacities of the state's natural resources,public • services,and public facilities." ♦ Public facilities and services. "Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards." GMA Requirements for Capital Facilities and Utilities Planning (RCW 36.70A.070) Capital facilities and utilities are two of the required elements of a comprehensive plan under the GMA. They are both combined into one chapter in this comprehensive plan. Capital facilities elements must include at least the following(RCW 36.70A.070(3)): • An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities. • A forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities. • The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities. • At least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes. • A requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element,capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent. The utilities element must describe the general location,proposed location,and capacity of all existing and proposed utilities, including,but not limited to,electrical lines, telecommunication lines, and natural gas lines(RCW 36.70A.070(4)). Local criteria for siting utilities should address locations and densities of projected growth and land use,public service obligations,optimal siting for effective service, and design considerations(WAC 365-195-320,2,0. The Washington Administrative Code further outlines recommendations for meeting requirements relative to capital facilities(WAC 365-195-315)and utilities (WAC 365-195-320). Checks and Balances This capital facilities and utilities element should function as a check on the practicality of achieving other elements of the plan. For example,in order to prevent new development's service demands from lowering the community's existing level of service, concurrency requirements demand that adequate public facilities be available when the service demands of development occur. Taken in conjunction with the transportation and land use goals and policies, the following goals and policies related to capital facilities and utilities complete the framework for implementation of the GMA requirements for concurrency,consistency,and conformity. Comprehensive Plan/EIS • 7 00384 Countywide Planning Policies The Countywide Planning Policies (CWPPs)adopted by the Spokane Board of County Commissioners require the capital facilities and utilities chapter to address the siting of public capital facilities,joint city and county planning within urban growth areas, and the promotion of contiguous and orderly development and provision of urban services to such development(RCW 36.70A.210(3)). The following list notes aspects of particular countywide planning policies whose directives are addressed in this chapter: CWPP 1.11 Demonstrate the ability to provide necessary domestic water,sanitary sewer, and transportation improvements concurrent with development,and consider long-term service and maintenance requirements when making future land use decisions. CWPP 1.12 Hold new developments responsible for infrastructure improvements attributable to those developments. CWPP 3.1 Establish levels of service that will promote efficiency in the use of land and provision •of the following urban governmental services and public facilities: • • Fire Protection • Public Water • Police Protection • Solid Waste Dis•osal and Re cline • Parks and Recreation • Transmutation • Libraries • Schools • Public Sewer CWPP 3.3 Avoid obstructions to utility corridors that would constrain sustainable growth beyond the 20-year planning horizon. CWPP 3.7 Include policies that address adequate fire protection. CWPP 3.10 Enter into interlocal agreements with special purpose districts within the UGA to address the provision of urban governmental services and public facilities. CWPP 3.16 Encourage providers of urban governmental services and public facilities to participate in mixed-use,multipurpose facilities within Urban Growth Areas(UGAs)as a cost-effective alternative to single-use buildings. CWPP 3.19 Review environmental and health issues regarding regional utility corridors. CWPP 3.20 Identify intermediate growth areas(in six and ten-year increments)within the Urban Growth Area(UGA)or establish policies that direct growth consistent with land use and capital facility plans in order to plan for growth within UGAs in a manner that uses land efficiently,adds certainty to capital facilities planning, and allows timely and coordinated extension of urban governmental services,public facilities,and utilities for new development. CWPP 6.2 Locate essential public facilities based on siting and service delivery criteria, regardless of UGA boundaries,according to a siting process established by the Steering Committee. CWPP 6.5 Identify essential public facilities of local significance,and assign public funding priorities for these facilities to better recognize the significance of each facility's service(s)and its relationship to the local area's growth and development. CWPP 8.4 Develop plans for the extension of infrastructure to meet the demands of economic growth. CWPP 9.2 Identify capital resources that will be available to accommodate anticipated additional development within the UGA. CWPP 9.5 Apply a formula to the use of impact fees which is consistent with other jurisdictions in Spokane County. 8 Capital Facilities and Utilities • 00385 • 6.3 VISION AND VALUES Spokane Horizons volunteers identified important themes in relation to Spokane's current and future growth. A series of visions and values was crafted for each element of the Comprehensive Plan that describes specific performance objectives. From the Visions and Values document,adopted in 1996 by the City Council,the Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies were generated. Capital facilities and utilities are services and facilities that support the physical development and growth of the city. Vision "Public facilities and utilities will be provided concurrently with a growing population to meet the safety,utility, transportation, educational, and cultural needs of residents." Values The things that are important to Spokane's future include: • Developing police and fire services that accompany growth. • Ensuring good parks,schools, libraries, and streets in the neighborhoods. • Continuing to provide facilities for cultural and entertainment opportunities. • Providing services and facilities as growth occurs. • Maintaining quality education and avoiding overcrowding in the schools." • • • • Comprehensive Plan/EIS 9 6.4 GOALS AND POLICIES Goals and policies provide specificity for planning and decision-making. Overall,they indicate desired directions, accomplishments, or aims in relation to the growth and development of Spokane. V CFU 1 ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES Goal: Provide and maintain adequate public facilities and utility services and reliable funding in order to protect investment in existing facilities and ensure appropriate levels of service. Policies CFU 1.1 Level of Service • Adopt written level of service standards for each type ofpublic facility or utility service, and provide capital improvements to achieve and maintain such standards for existing and future -development- Discussion: Urban governmental services and public facilities for which level of service standards should be in place include fire,police,parks and recreation, libraries,public wastewater,public water,solid waste disposal and recycling,transportation,and schools. (CWPP 3.1). The level of service shall be defined as the optimum level of service desired from a service provider,which may differ from the current level of service. CFU 1, CAPITAL FACILITY LEVEL OF.SERVICE STANDARDS LONGTERM , Emergency Medical Services 6 minutes 30 seconds/80 percent of the time for Basic Life Support(BLS) 8 minutes/80 percent of the time for Advanced Life Support(ALS) Fire 7 minutes/80 percent of the time for the first engine on scene 8 minutes/80 percent of the time for the first ladder on scene Law Enforcement 1.3 officers per 1000 residents Libraries 3.25 books per person Neighborhood - 1.17 acres per 1000 persons Parks Community- 1.49 acres per 1000 persons Major- 2.59 acres per 1000 persons Recycling 4.33 collections per household per month Schools Elementary- 1 teacher per 26 students Middle and High- 1 teacher per 30 students Solid Waste 4.33 collections per household per month 10 year design storm frequency for public right of way Stormwater* Prevent flooding of property during a 25-year 24-hour storm event Prevent damage to buildings for a 100-year storm event Wastewater 100 gallons per capita per day Water Minimum water pressure of 45 pounds per square inch The city is In the process of developing a Stormwater Management Plan. A final Stormwater Management LOS will be established once the city adopts the Stormwater Management Plan. CFU 1.2 Operational Efficiency Require the development of capital improvement projects that either improve the city's operational efficiency or reduce costs by increasing the capacity, use, and/or life expectancy of existing facilities. • 10 Capital Facilities and Utilities 00387 Discussion:The concept of increased use infers a more intense development pattern,not the physical extension of services to more consumers. The idea is to utilize the capacity of existing utilities to the fullest extent possible,in strategic coordination with and support of land use objectives. CFU 1.3 Maintenance Require the maintenance, rehabilitation, and renovation of existing capital facilities. CFU 1.4 Use of Existing Structures Require the use and adaptive reuse of existing buildings before new community facilities are constructed. Discussion: It is good stewardship of public resources to utilize what exists before consuming land and expending funds to build new facilities. New uses should be consistent with neighborhood criteria established through a stakeholder involvement process. _.._CFU:1.5__Utility_Construction_Standards_—_._.___ Ensure that construction standards for public and.private utilities are adequate to withstand the anticipated frequency and severity of natural and man-made hazards. Discussion: Service interruptions can be both inconvenient and expensive for users. Clients expect any breaks in service to be as brief as possible. However, efforts to guard against such inevitabilities should be tempered so they do not unnecessarily increase user rates. CFU 1.6 Regulation Changes Evaluate continually the impact of new state or federal regulations on the capacity of existing and planned facilities to meet the needs offuture growth and make adjustments as needed in the way services are provided. CFU 1.7 Management Plans Establish and maintain management plans and systems for capital facilities,storm drainage, and other city services whose level of service standards could be affected by future growth and development. Discussion: Examples of useful management plans include,but are not limited to,the following: Wastewater Facility Plan Combined Sewer Overflow Reduction Plan Spokane Area Wellhead Protection Program Coordinated Water System Plan,Water Quality Management Plan Stormwater Management Plan Drainage Design and Erosion Control Manual,Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, and such other plans as relate to fire and police protection and emergency services. CFU 1.8 Funding Identify and pursue all practical and equitable ways to fund the capital improvement projects necessary to serve existing and future development. Discussion: It is necessary to leverage and supplement city funds to the fullest extent possible in order to maximize limited city resources. In addition to the grants and loans available to cities, certain other funding mechanisms are available locally. If impact fees are used, formulas must be consistent with other jurisdictions in Spokane County(CWPP 9.5). In addition,all efforts should be made to legalize Tax Increment Financing(TIF),which represents another very important tool for financing infrastructure and focusing those improvements in targeted areas of the inner city that are most in need of revitalization. Comprehensive Plan/EIS 11 O0388 • • CFU 1.9 Intangible Costs and Benefits Include intangible costs and benefits in any cost/benefit analysis when considering the development and life span of proposed capital facilities. Discussion: Consistency and conformity between plans and budgets are important aspects of the GMA. However, siting decisions should be based on more than the standard fiscal analysis. In order to evaluate fully the impacts and consequences,these decisions should also be informed by considerations such as the preservation of neighborhood character and environmental quality. ❑ CFU 2 CONCURRENCY • Goal: Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development are adequate to serve the development and available when the service demands of development occur withoutdecreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards. • Policies._. • CFU 2.1 Available Public Facilities Consider that the requirement for concurrent availability of public facilities and utility services is met when adequate services and facilities are in existence at the time the development is ready for occupancy and use, in the case of water, wastewater and solid waste, and at least a financial commitment is in place at the time of development approval to provide all other public services within six years. Tur,ine 6enarae r Discussion: Public facilities are those public lands, improvements, and equipment7.171111Hrlt =_tales Thcrtnat necessary to provide public services ander�,� o,;ief allow for the delivery of services. Theysack❑ 5�ibber include,but are not limited to,streets,roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting ` F'b"''Filter/ gM• V I nagh.use systems,traffic signals,domestic water "(+zA L I .systems,storm and sanitary sewer systems, d a�>.�y1 solid waste disposal and recycling, fire and Puea Gc ua nah police facilities,parks and recreational Fz Harr - "eGa no 9� gcc✓Ge facilities,schopls and libraries. isustration of a waste-to-energy tact It must be shown that adequate facilities and services are available before new development can be approved. While occupancy and use imply an immediate need for water,wastewater and solid waste services, other public services may make more sense to provide as the demand arises. For example, a certain threshold of critical mass is often needed before construction of a new fire station,school,library,or park is justified. If these facilities and services do not currently exist, commitments for services may be made either from the public or the private sector. Public commitments are documented through the Capital Facilities Program and the relevant Six-Year Capital Improvement Plans. If there is no public commitment to provide needed resources,the development could still pro • - ceed if the developer assumes responsibility for provision of all needed facilities and services, either through actual provision of the facility or service,or appropriate financial assurances that facilities and services will be provided in a timely manner. In this case, the City of Spokane may enter into an agreement with the developer for repayment through latecomer fees,special con- • ' nection fees,or other payments earmarked for or pro-ratable to the particular system improvement. • • 12 Capital Facilities and Utilities • • 00389 CFU 2.2 Concurrency Management System • Maintain a concurrency management system for all capital facilities. Discussion:A concurrency management system is defined as an adopted procedure or method designed to ensure that adequate public facilities and services needed to support development and protect the environment are available when the service demands of development occur. The following facilities must meet adopted level of service standards and be consistent with the concurrency management system: fire protection,police protection,parks and recreation, libraries,public wastewater(sewer and stormwater),public water,solid waste disposal and recycling,transportation, and schools. The procedure for concurrency management includes annual evaluation of service levels and land use trends in order to anticipate demand for service and determine needed improvements. Findings from this review will then be addressed in the Six-Year Capital Improvement Plans, Annual Capital Budget, and all associated capital facilities documents to ensure that financial planning remains sufficiently ahead of the present for concurrency to be evaluated. • The City of Spokane must either ensure that adequate facilities are available to support development or else prohibit development approval when such development would cause service levels to decline below standards currently established in the Capital Facilities Program. In the event that reduced funding threatens to halt development, it is much more appropriate to scale back land use objectives than to merely reduce level of service standards as a way of allowing development to continue. This approach is necessary in order to perpetuate a high quality of life. All adjustments to land use objectives and service level standards will fall within the public review process for annual amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and Capital Facilities Program. CFU 2.3 Phasing of Services • Develop and implement a phasing schedule for the provision of services within the Urban Growth Area that is reflected in six-year capital improvement plans and strategically coordinates planned service levels with anticipated land use and development trends. Discussion: This schedule should set guidelines for prioritizing the provision of service. Exceptions to this will only be granted to address public health concerns. It can be more cost-effective and less disruptive to provide service capacity in excess of current • service demands if it extends the useful life of the facility in terms of accommodating future growth. Therefore, this program should also require that transmission, distribution,and storage • facilities in newly developing areas be sized to serve future growth as well as immediate needs. For example,water and sewer main sizes and storage reservoirs should be designed to meet both current and anticipated future fire flow and domestic supply needs. Insofar as this process anticipates demand from future 0 development,it should also describe and implement •. -' 8 mechanisms to ensure an equitable allocation of the costs • ,, U incurred. Fees and billing mechanisms should be in place,. • such as latecomer fees and special connection fees to cover costs of oversized mains or related facilities,and hook-up fees so new users share in the cost of system-wide facilities. • 1 However, costs associated with project-specific improve- ments(such as pump stations for low lying property) should be paid for by those who benefit from the improvement. Comprehensive Plan/EIS 13 • 01390 Facility phasing serves to integrate the concurrency requirements of the GMA with the environ- mental assessment requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA). This,in turn, • provides a high level of predictability for both developers and the community regarding what type of development is permitted and what infrastructure is provided to support that development. CFU 2.4 Impact Fees • Include impact fees as one possible mechanism to fund capital improvements,so new growth and development activity that has an impact upon public facilities pays a proportionate share of the cost of the relevant facilities. Discussion:Approval of the GMA included new statutes (RCW 82.02.050-.090)authorizing impact fees in counties or cities planning under the GMA. These sections authorized local jurisdictions to impose impact fees on development activity as part of the financing for public facility system improvements in order to ensure that adequate facilities are available to serve • . new growth and development. The purpose is also to ensure fair share:those who benefit should • pay, and those who pay should benefit. In particular, residents who live where services are adequate should not have to bear the-costs-ofneargrowth-at-the outsideedges-of the city where adequate services are not yet available. The City of Spokane may charge impact fees relative to both new public facilities that are necessitated by new development and previously constructed system improvements that serve the new growth and development activity. The proportionate share of public facility system improvement costs is calculated based on the extent to which the improvement is reasonably related to or reasonably benefits the hew development. Financing for system improvements to serve new development must provide for a balance between impact fees and other sources of public funds and cannot rely solely on impact fees. In no case may the impact fee charged exceed the proportionate share of the costs of system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development. Impact fees may be collected and spent only for the public facilities that are addressed in the capital facilities program. These facilities must be system improvements designed to provide service to the community at large, as opposed to project improvements that provide service only for a particular development project. According to RCW 82.02.090(7),public facilities for which impact fees can be applied are as follows: (a)public streets and roads, (b)publicly owned parks, open space,and recreation facilities,(c) school facilities,and(d) fire protection facilities. Impact fees shall be expended or encumbered for a permissible use within six years of receipt, unless the governing body of the city identifies in written findings that an extraordinary and compelling reason exists for fees to be held longer than six years. A person required to pay an impact fee for system improvements shall not be required to pay a SEPA mitigation fee(pursuant to RCW 43.21C.060) for those same system improvements. CFU 2.5 Exemptions from Impact Fees Exempt development activities with broad public purposes from growth-related impact fees. Discussion:Development activities with broad public purposes may include low-income housing,special needs housing, transit, and childcare facilities. Exemptions are contingent on the • impact fees for such development activity being paid from public funds other than impact fee accounts. (RCW 82.02.060,2). CFU 2.6 Funding Shortfalls • Reassess the land use element whenever probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs in order to ensure that development patterns and level of service standards remain consistent with financing capabilities related to capital facilities plans. 14 Capital Facilities-and Utilities Discussion:The GMA requires consistency and conformity between plans and budgets so that development does not occur before there are adequate services to support it. In this regard,the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element should be coordinated and consistent: • In the event that reduced funding threatens to halt development, it is much more appropriate to scale back land use objectives than to reduce level of service standards as a way of allowing i development to continue. This approach is necessary in order to perpetuate a high quality of life. All adjustments to land use objectives and service level standards will fall within the public review process for annual amendment of the comprehensive plan and Capital Facilities Program. CFU 2.7 Utility Permits Endeavor to consider utility permits simultaneously with the proposals requesting service and, when possible, approve utility permits when the project to be served is approved. Discussion:It is important to process permits and approvals for utility facilities in a fair and timely manner in order to foster predictability and help ensure reliable pnJale utility service. __ Approval of new private utility facilities should require that their design is compatible with the surrounding land uses,natural environment and future service area. ❑ CFU 3 COORDINATION Goal: Promote contiguous,orderly development and provision of urban services through the regional coordination of land use and public services related to capital facilities and utilities. Policies CFU 3.1 Special Purpose Districts Enter into agreements with special purpose districts within the City of Spokane's Urban Growth Area (UGA) to address the provision of urban governmental services and public facilities. Discussion: Interlocal agreements between jurisdictions and special purpose districts relating to the provision of urban governmental services and public facilities shall address fiscal impacts, revenue sharing,use of existing facilities,and level of service standards. CFU 3.2 Utility Installations ,iFacilitate coordination of public and private utility trenching activities by giving \ interested utilities timely and effective notification of road projects that would `� afford them an opportunity for utility installation and maintenance. jr Discussion:The goal of such coordination should be to reduce the disruption R. of public streets and the negative economic and visual impacts incurred when developing utilities. To further this effort, the City of Spokane should encourage joint use of transportation rights of-way and utility corridors where possible. In addition,utility service providers should receive copies of all six-year street - programs on an annual basis. CFU 3.3 Utilities Coordination • Work with adjacent planning jurisdictions and private utility providers to develop a process that ensures consistency between each jurisdiction's utilities element and regional utility plans, as well as coordinated and timely siting of regional and countywide utility facilities. Discussion: Local criteria for siting utilities should address locations and densities of projected growth and land use,public service obligations,optimal siting for effective service,and design Comprehensive Plan/EIS _ - 15 • 00392 • considerations(WAC 365-195-320,2,f). Both public and private utility providers should coordinate with land use planning so that future development does not obstruct utility corridors (CWPP 3.3 and CWPP 3.11: Regional Utility Corridor Plan). Land use plans should also take into consideration any possible environmental or health issues associated with regional utility corridors • (CWPP 3.19). CFU 3.4 Natural and Man-Made Disasters Participate in a coordinated regional plan for the provision of public services in the event of natural or man-made disasters. CFU 3.5 Uniformity of Standards Apply the City of Spokane's engineering, land use and related level of service standards through-out the City of Spokane's designated Urban Growth Area (UGA), regardless of governing jurisdiction. • Discussion: Regardless of which jurisdiction administers development in the unincorporated portions of the City of Spokane's UGA,it is imperative that engineering standards,land use . —patterns and development densities correspond to city standards so-that.services may be-provided---------- by the city in an efficient and cost effective manner once those lands are annexed by the city. CFU 3.6 Limitation of Services Outside Urban Growth Area Limit the provision of water and sewer service by the City of Spokane outside the City of Spokane's Urban Growth Area (UGA) to areas where limited exceptions apply. Discussion: It is only appropriate for the City of Spokane to extend or expand urban governmental services outside of the City of Spokane's UGA in those limited circumstances shown to be necessary to protect basic public health and safety and the environment and when such services are financially supportable at rural densities and do not permit urban development. (RCW 36.70A.110,4). All requests received by the City of Spokane for water or sewer service connections to property outside the City of Spokane's UGA will be approved only if the connection is to existing infrastructure with surplus capacity,and one or both of the following conditions for exception exists: 1. Spokane Regional Health District has determined that an existing development poses an immediate threat to public health or safety. 2. A written commitment for service to a vested development was made by the City of Spokane prior to the adoption of the City of Spokane's Comprehensive Plan under RCW 36.70A. Implementation of this policy is based on the following assumptions: 1. Service connections allowed under this policy will only be to those mains that existed at the time of adoption of the City of Spokane's Comprehensive Plan. 2. Any mains that are subsequently extended outside the city's UGA for the overall operational benefit of the City of Spokane's utility system shall be for transmission purposes only,with no connections allowed within that portion of the city's utility service area that is outside the UGA. , 3. Unless conditions for an exception exist,where existing City of Spokane water and sewer mains lie outside the City of Spokane's UGA, the surplus capacity of those mains will remain untapped until such time as that land is included in the City of Spokane's UGA. 4. Unless it qualifies as an exception under this policy, all other expansion of water and sewer service is confined to the City of Spokane's UGA. • 5. The property owner will bear the full cost of the service connection if their property lies • outside of the City of Spokane's UGA. 6. Any property owner requesting city utilities will be required to annex or sign a binding agreement to annex when requested to do so by the city.(LU 9.3) 16 Capital Facilities and Utilities 00393 In addition,all exceptions shall be considered within the context of cumulative impacts on capacity and level of service obligations within the City of Spokane's UGA,according to the city's Capital Facilities Program, Six-Year Capital Improvement Plans and Concurrency Management System. The rural population allocation shall be accommodated without reliance on the extension of public services. • ❑ CFU 4 SERVICE PROVISION Goal: Provide public services in a manner that facilitates efficient and effective delivery of services and meets current and future demand. Policies • CFU 4.1 Compact Development Promote compact areas of concentrated development in _ designated centers to facilitate economical-and efficient- I— –. provision of utilities,public facilities, and services. •...• �--,-- Discussion: Infill and dense development should be a °+ - a, encouraged where excess capacity is available since compact 4;,_ '��l I Ct€�c � systems are generally less expensive to build and maintain. -- 1 1' IJ '!! • •I However,it may also be necessary to periodically include [[ I ° i t 6r upgrades in the Six-Year Capital Improvement Plans if Sly• sufficient capacity is not currently available to support intensification of development in target areas. CFU 4.2 Access to Utility Easements Require that subdivision and building regulations protect and preserve access to utility easements. Discussion: In order to facilitate timely repair and reduce the duration of power outages, it is important that access to electrical, cable,and telephone transmission facilities be available and unobstructed at all times. Satisfactory access can be provided either by placing pedestals along the street in the case of underground utilities or running lines along dedicated alleys. Utility easements in new developments should not be permitted along back lot lines without alley access. CFU 4.3 Underground Utilities Require utility lines to be installed underground unless it is not physically feasible. Discussion: Running utility lines underground is often a potentially effective approach to minimizing power outages that result from natural hazards. Underground utilities also it I improve the community's visual character by removings I II unsightly poles and lines. These potential benefits, t . therefore,should be weighed heavily against service c� ;_ - ` �¢* ' requirements and the cost of burying new electrical,cable, I a r � i and telephone lines underground. Wherever feasible,public and private utility providers should also be encouraged to convert existing overhead distribution lines to underground lines whenever major road construction projects afford such ; an opportunity. >__...._ t ,.` • Comprehensive Plan/EIS 17 • 00394 • • . ❑ CFU 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS Goal: Minimize impacts to the environment,public health,and safety through the timely and careful siting and use of capital facilities and utilities. Policies CFU 5.1 On-Site Wastewater Disposal Prohibit on-site septic wastewater disposal within the City of Spokane's Urban Growth Area. Discussion:Activities above the aquifer and in the aquifer recharge area must be regulated in order to protect the area's water supply. Potential pollution can be reduced by requiring new • development to be sewered. Existing on-site disposal should be eliminated and appropriate treatment of wastewater provided. All water and sewer facilities must be adequately maintained in order to provide required service levels and minimize impacts to public health and the environment. CFU 5.2 Water Conservation Encourage public and private efforts to conserve water. Discussion:Water conservation is an important way to protect the environment,reduce the demands placed on the sewer system, and retain sufficient water availability to support future growth and development. Conservation can be accomplished through a variety of approaches that include:conservation-oriented rate structures,plumbing codes that require low-water-use fixtures,systemic improvements that result in the reduction of unaccounted for or unmetered water losses,a community-wide conservation education program,or promotion of low-water-use landscaping and low-water-use irrigation systems for home and garden. CFU 5.3 Stormwater Implement a Stormwater Management Plan to reduce impacts from urban runoff. Discussion: The impacts of flooding and erosion can be reduced or eliminated by regulating the type,location,and design of development through thoughtful site plans and careful construction practices. Drainage plans should be designed to control and reduce the flow of stormwater,retain natural drainage functions and patterns,avoid habitat loss, and protect the quality of both surface water and ground water. In general, stormwater should be treated.and retained on-site in new developments. However,some compact development may necessitate off-site facilities,such as playgrounds, to handle stormwater storage,treatment and disposal. Disposal of stormwater to either sanitary or combined sewers is not allowed in new developments. In addition,the City of Spokane should work toward the reduction of existing combined sewer overflows wherever technically, economically, and environmentally appropriate. CFU 5.4 Ground Water Protect,preserve, and enhance ground water resources through proactive, aggressive measures. Discussion: Ground water can be protected through watershed and wellhead protection programs, as appropriate, and comprehensive monitoring,which is coordinated with other regional efforts. In addition,permit processes should be designed to avoid or mitigate land uses and activities that reduce ground water quality or increase the quantity of ground water above normal levels. Management and monitoring strategies should acknowledge the physical link between surface water and ground water and emphasize prevention and control of pollutants at the source. Sewer lines should be maintained or repaired to prevent leakage into ground water and surface waters,as well as to prevent excessive infiltration into the system. When necessary,the City of Spokane should consider buying land or development rights if there is property that must be kept undeveloped to protect a vulnerable ground or surface water resource. 18 Capital Facilities and Utilities 00.395 • CFU 5.5 Waste Reduction and Recycling Provide integrated, efficient, and economical solid waste management services in a manner that encourages and promotes waste reduction and recycling and minimizes environmental and public health impacts. Discussion: In addition to using recycled products itself,the City of Spokane should encourage residents and businesses to reduce waste and recycle through differential rates,educational and promotional 1/4'' t ;`'i I and other initiatives. Recycling should be recognized for ��_1r_i�, programs, Y r g its potential to provide employment opportunities and contribute to affordable housing through resource-efficient construction materials ��. � r.Yt..e 14 and the reuse of demolition debris. The city shall coordinate its efforts with regional planning for solid waste reduction and disposal. *VI CFU 5.6 Power—Frequency Magnetic Fields • Encourage electrical utilities to base their facility siting decisions on the most recent findings concerning-the health impacts of power-frequency magnetic fields. Discussion: Based on a periodic review of current research on power-frequency magnetic fields, the electrical utility should be encouraged to consider incorporating methods of reducing exposure to power-frequency magnetic fields into its utility system design, lines,and substations. CFU 5.7 Telecommunication Structures Use existing structures to support telecommunication facilities before new towers or stand-alone facilities are constructed. Discussion: Since urban land is at a premium, it should be consumed as efficiently and effectively as possible. For this reason, it is the policy of the City of Spokane to minimize the number of wireless communication support towers and to encourage the co-location of antenna arrays of more than one wireless communication service provider on a single support tower. In addition, existing structures such as buildings or water towers should be fully utilized as support sites for telecommunication facilities before new towers are built. To assist in the implementation of this policy,the city will pursue all reasonable strategies to promote co-location agreements between multiple wireless communication service providers. CFU 5.8 Fire Protection Regulate development in a manner that is conducive to adequate fire protection. Discussion: Growth shall be limited to areas served by a fire protection district,located within the corporate limits of a city providing its own fire department,or served pursuant to an interlocal cooperation agreement. Commercial and residential subdivisions and developments,residential planned unit developments, and manufactured home parks shall include the provision for road access adequate for residents, fire department,or district ingress/egress and water supply for fire protection. Development in forested areas must provide defensible space between structure and adjacent fuels and require that fire-rated roofing materials be used(CWPP 3.7). ❑ CFU 6 MULTIPLE OBJECTIVES Goal: Use capital facilities and utilities to support multiple interests and purposes. Policies • Comprehensive Plan/EIS • 19 • • 00396 • • CFU 6.1 Community Revitalization Provide capital facilities and utility services strategically in order to encourage and support the development of Centers and Corridors, especially in older parts of the city. Discussion: Public investment often needs to be the first step toward revitalization of a community. Once the public sector takes steps to rehabilitate and improve dilapidated and deteriorated areas of the city,this inspires the confidence that encourages private investment to follow. While Six-Year Capital Improvement Plans must cover maintenance and repair of-existing • facilities,projects that expand facilities and services must be done with land use objectives in mind in recognition of the key link between service levels and development. In the past, construction of capital infrastructure facilities(roads,sewers,water lines, and parks)at the edge of the city limits and beyond has facilitated sprawl and accommodated its impacts. This practice in turn drained away resources needed to meet the service requirements of the inner city neighborhoods. A good rule of thumb for the future is to spend a higher than proportionate share of all capital dollars in central city neighborhoods in order to bring infrastructure back into the older parts of the city where the need for revitalization is greatest:-In this way,the-economic viability and desirability of the city center can be restored,creating a cycle of enhancement that becomes sustainable. CFU 6.2 Economic Development Make capital improvements that stimulate employment opportunities,strengthen the city's tax base, and attract private investment to target areas. Discussion: Service provision can be used as an important economic development tool (CWPP 8.4). Availability of unique or high quality services can serve as an incentive that encourages redevelopment of areas not otherwise seen as desirable locations. This, in turn, increases the tax base for the entire city. CFU 6.3 Joint Use of Public Sites Encourage the acquisition of sites for public and quasi-public purposes that are of sufficient size to meet current and future needs and allow for joint use. Discussion: Location and design of community facilities should encourage maximum flexibility, utility,and multiple uses as a cost-effective alternative to single-use buildings and sites(CWPP 3.16). For example,many programs may share space in one building at different times of the day. Also,stormwater facilities could be integrated with recreation and open space areas. • • • • 20 • Capital Facilities and Utilities 00397 • 6.5 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM (CFP) An Inventory, Analysis, and Six-Year Financing Plan Introduction • The Capital Facilities Goals and Policies and this Capital Facilities Program(CFP)complement the Land Use Chapter to ensure that facilities are available and funded for the city's proposed land uses. This CFP specifically identifies public facilities that will be required in the next six years. It contains an inventory of existing and proposed capital facilities, establishes level of service(LOS)standards, identifies long-range facility service capacities and projected deficiencies,and outlines the actions necessary to meet such deficiencies. The program also provides the GMA-required six-year financing plan. The six-year financing plan portion of the CFP is a summary of the city service providers' six-year capital improvement programs(CIPS). The program is,therefore, a mechanism to coordinate the capital improvement needs of the city departments. 'CIPs and the CFP will be updated annually. The updates .will be completed prior to adoption of thecity budget inorder to incorporate into the budget.the.capital improvements from the updated CFP. Program Scope The Capital Facilities Program(CFP) addresses all areas within the incorporated city limits as well as the unincorporated areas within the city's proposed urban growth area. The scope of the City of Spokane's Capital Facilities Program is,in alphabetical order: •Fire and Emergency Medical Services • Sanitary Sewer/Stormwater • Law Enforcement • Schools •Libraries •Solid Waste •Parks, Recreation,and Open Space Facilities ♦Water **The Capital Facilities Program for Transportation is included in Chapter 5,Transportation. "Private Utilities are discussed in Section 6.14. Table CFU I lists types,descriptions, and providers of capital facilities specifically addressed by the CFP. TABLE CER TYPES AND PROVIDERS OF CAPITAL, FACTLITYE3 . , ^::.Facility TNRe Service Provider Descr ptroa Fire and City of Spokane Fire Provides facilities that support a full range of fire suppression Emergency Services Department and emergency medical services as well as prevention and educational activities. Law Enforcement City of Spokane Police Provides facilities that support the provision of law Department enforcement services. Libraries Spokane.Pubiic Libraries Provides libraries and meeting rooms for the community, resource materials, and educational activities. Parks, Recreation, City of Spokane Parks and Provides facilities for passive and active recreational activities. I and Open Space Recreation Department • Sanitary Sealer/ City of Spokane Sewer Provides facilities for the capture, transmission, and treatment �II Stonnwater Maintenance and Spokane of waterborne waste and stormwater run-off. Wastewater Management I Schools Spokane School District 81 Provides elementary and secondary educational facilities. Solid Waste City of Spokane Solid Waste Provides facilities for the collection, transport, and disposal of Management . solid waste. City of Spokane Water and Provides facilities and system for supply and delivery of Water Hydroelectric Services potable water from sole source aquifer. !, • • Comprehensive Plan/EIS • 21 00398 Explanation of Levels of Service (LOS) Standards Levels of service measure the amount of public facilities and services that are provided to the community, factors that significantly contribute to the community's quality of life. Service providers establish levels of service to identify future capacities of capital facilities,projected deficiencies,and the necessary improvements to serve new growth while still maintaining service levels that will meet the desires of the community,state standards,and federal requirements. Levels of service usually are quantifiable measures of the amount of public facilities and services that are provided to the community but also may measure the quality of a public facility. Typically, LOS is expressed as a ratio of facility or service capacity to unit(s)of demand. Examples of LOS measures include the number of police officers per 1,000 people,the number of park acres per 1,000 people,and the number of gallons of water used per day per customer. The City of Spokane service providers have determined that, in most cases,the current levels of service are adequate. Therefore,the proposed LOS standards established for the comprehensive plan to determine future capital facility capacities,needs, deficiencies,and projected improvementcosts are,___ with the exception of Fire and Emergency Services,based on current service levels. Table CFU 2,"Capital Facility Level of Service Standards,"lists proposed capital facility levels of service. TABU GFU 2 CApXTAI" pACIL2TK LEVELi31=SeItVXGE S7A1ttCaAR13S I 11 Emergency Medical Services 6 minutes 30 seconds/80 percent of the time for Basic Life Support 8 minutes/80 percent of the time for Advanced Life Support Fire 7 minutes/80 percent of the time for the first engine on scene 8 minutes/80 percent of the time for the first ladder on scene Law Enforcement 1.3 officers per 1000 residents Libraries 3.25 books per personI, Neighborhood- 1.17 acres per 1000 persons ', Parks, Recreation,and Open Space Community- 1.49 acres per 1000 persons Major- 2.59 acres per 1000 persons Schools Elementary- 1 teacher per 26 students Middle and High- 1 teacher per 30 students Solid Waste 4.33 collections per month per household Wastewater 100 gallons per day per capita Water Minimum water pressure of 45 pounds per square inch Note:The city is In the process of developing a Stormwater Management Plan. A Stormwater Management LOS will be established after the city adopts the Stormwater Management Plan. 22 Capital Facilities and Utilities 00399 6.6 FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES The City of Spokane Fire Department serves the City of Spokane with a full range of fire suppression and Emergency Medical Services(EMS),as well as prevention and educational activities. Map CFU 1,"Fire . Districts,"shows the location and service areas of the fire stations staffed and maintained by the City Spokane Fire Department. Also shown are fire stations outside the•city limits that are maintained by other fire agencies. All of these agencies have mutual aid agreements to assist each other in major emergencies. Additional information on EMS and fire services is available in the City of Spokane Planning Services Department. • Emergency Medical Services (EMS) • The fire department provides Emergency Medical Services (EMS)throughout the city for Basic Life Support(BUS) and Advanced Life Support(ALS). All firefighters in the city's 14 fire stations are Emergency Medical Technicians(EMTs)trained to provide a BLS function. EMTs can perform CPR in • -------- ------ order to help a patient breathe. When someone calls 911 for medical help,the closest fire unit to their area - or neighborhood is dispatched to start basic life support treatment. Those fire personnel normally respond on a fire truck because they have multiple responsibilities-fire,rescue, and EMS,and might be called to another type of emergency at a moment's notice. If a patient needs advanced treatment, fire department paramedics who perform ALS, including administering IVs and medication,are dispatched to the scene. Paramedics respond on"medic unit"trucks or pumpers. Due to the amount of training and expense necessary to train a person to the paramedic level,the fire department has only six paramedic companies located in 5 of the 14 fire stations. Approximately 40 percent of all EMS calls require a second response by a fire department paramedic unit. A private ambulance company under contract to the City of Spokane currently provides transportation of patients to medical facilities. Inventory of Existing Facilities and Apparatus The City of Spokane Fire Department uses its fire-fighting equipment for dual purposes: to respond to fire emergencies and to all EMS calls. Table CFU 3 lists the"medic"vehicles that are typically funded through the voted EMS Levy. The city has three"medic"units and two reserve units for back-up purposes. .ititeit tat3 EXISTING APPARATUS EMS'PARAMEDIC VEHICLES (ALS ONLY) , Number of Units Medic Units- Re•lacement for Units 1 13 or 15 I Total Units Forecast of Future Needs - EMS Existing Demand Approximately 78.7 percent of the city's total calls for EMS and fire services in 1999 were for EMS purposes,totaling 16,530. This percentage has been steadily rising since the mid-80s,when 67 percent of the Fire Department's total calls were for EMS purposes. The level of calls for service received from a specific area can be influenced by several factors: population density-the demand for service increases with population;age of the population-the elderly generally generate more calls for service;income- lower poverty levels typically result in the financial inability of residents to afford insurance coverage for medical necessities,resulting in an increase in calls for EMS service. • Comprehensive Plan/EIS 23 '00400 • Level of Service (LOS) •• The level of service for EMS is a function of response time and call volumes. These,in turn, are dependent •on the number and location of fire stations, the number of units,and the number of firefighters available. In 1996,the Growth Management Steering Committee for Spokane County adopted the following regional minimum levels of service for emergency medical services: 1. Urban areas shall be served by a state certified Basic Life Support(BLS)agency. 2. Urban areas should be served by: A. An operating Basic Life Support(BLS)unit within 2.5 miles. B. An operating Advanced Life Support(ALS)unit within 6 miles or 10 minutes response time for those jurisdictions with urban areas in excess of 5,000 population. • C. BLS and ALS transport service. Within the City of Spokane,the Fire Department's levels of service for EMS are as follows: •.. LOS Goals • 6:30 minutes—80 percent of the time for BLS 8:00 minutes—80 percent of the time for ALS ♦ Current LOS by Average Response Time • First unit BLS=Average 5:40 min(76 percent of goal) First unit ALS=Average 6:25 min(81 percent of goal) • As a reference for the impact of time on the outcome of medical emergencies,the American Heart Association recommends a four-minute EMS response time for Basic Life Support(BLS)and an eight- minute response time for Advanced Life Support(ALS) for cardiac arrest patients. When EMS treatment intervention occurs past these times,a cardiac arrest patient's chance of survival decreases significantly. Future Demand The projected population increase within the urban growth area is approximately 16,350 new people by the end of 2006,and an additional 52,395 new people from 2007 through 2020, for a total of 68,745 new people. The City of Spokane Fire Department estimates a 3 percent increase in calls per year between 2001 and the end of 2020. • • Need for Capital Facility Improvements .Table CFU 4 lists the ALS units required for the next twenty years. The anticipated total need through the year 2020 is nine paramedic vehicles. TABLE CFU 4...TWENTY YEAR NEER ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT UNITS , P' ` AES tFgtts Regaired at EOS iponse touts Time Perwd Remand(Popylatioa) •o{S min:ISO perceniOttbe tnne ;i: .. .. . , Sbt-Year Need; ... 2001 (present count) 220,471 5* 2001 - 2006 (increase) -16,350 1 Total through 2006 - 236,821 6 2007- 2020 (increase) 52,395 3 Total through 2020 289,216 9 Total 2001 - 2020 (increase) 68,745 4 '2001 population numbers Include the city's urban growth area,currently being served by other fire districts. However,the need for MS units for the year 2001 is based on the area currently being served by the City of Spokane Fire Department. The six-year and twenty-year needs are based on the assumption that the entire urban growth area will be annexed and served by the City of Spokane. However the timin• of annexations is difficult to .redact. Assum•tions are that annexations will occur over a twent - ear •-hod. 24 Capital Facilities and Utilities Proposed Facilities — EMS The location of the four additional paramedic vehicles required within the next twenty years will depend on the location of additional population and demand for service. New units will be housed in either existing stations or in new stations,depending on demographics. It is anticipated that at least one of these new ALS units will be achieved by adding one(1) additional"medic"unit,while the other three may be achieved by staffing an existing BLS unit with additional personnel trained as paramedics. The cost necessary to add an additional"medic"unit staffed with 2 personnel per shift(2 x 4 shifts=8) would be as follows: $80,000 per year for a paramedic officer x 4(one per shift) +$65,000 per year for a paramedic firefighter x 4(one per shift)=$580,000 for personnel cost and$100,000 for the cost of the vehicle. Six-Year Financing Plan - EMS Six-Year Need - • The six-year need for ALS units through the year 2006 is six units. To achieve an additional ALSunit,the fire department would redesignate a current pumper(BLS unit)as an ALS unit by placing paramedics on the unit. This would require four(4)additional personnel,one per shift as well as having eight personnel train to become paramedics(allowing a staffing of two paramedics per shift). Costs would be $65,000 per paramedic fire fighter x 4(one per shift)= $260,000 per year, plus the cost of certifying an existing fire fighter as a paramedic is$6,000 x 4 fire fighters(one per shift) =$24,000. Six-Year Funding and Projects Table CFU 5 lists six-year funding sources and projects for ALS vehicles. Existing"medic"vehicles are on a five-year replacement schedule,with funds dedicated for 2001, 2002,and 2006 through EMS Levy funding. TABLE CFU S SIX YEAR FUNDING AND PROJECTS. ALS VEHICLES Funding Sources 2001 2002 . 2003, 2004 2005 2008 Total, EMS Levy (1998) X X ----$200,000 EMS Levy (2004) ----$100,000 L Replacement of Current Units $100,000 $100,000 --- $100,000 $300,000 Fire Protection Services The Washington Survey and Rating Bureau establishes a class of fire protection for an area,which is the basis for the insurance ratings charged by the insurance industry. The city currently has a Class 3 rating (on a scale of 1 to 10,with 1 being the best,thus lowest, insurance rates). Inventory of Existing Facilities and Apparatus — Fire Protection The fire department utilizes fourteen fire stations, all staffed on a full-time basis. Equipment includes fourteen pumpers, four ladders,one boat,one rescue unit,one hazardous materials unit,seven brush units, and one bus. Table CFU 6,"Existing facilities and Apparatus—Fire Protection,"lists locations and square footage for each station. Comprehensive Plan/EIS 25 • • 00402 • • .TABLE CAt 6 EXISTING FACILITIES ANO APPARATUS— FIRE:PROTECTION ,' o °Ftra;'^93 Buildin•s Station 1 44 West Riverside Avenue 31 284 Station 2 1001 East North Foothills Drive 8 110 Station 3 1713 West Indiana Avenue 8 110 Station 4 8 South Adams Street 6 651 Station 7 1901 East First Avenue 6 544 Station 8 1608 North Rebecca Street 8 110 Station 9 • 1722 South Bernard Street 8 110 Station 11 3214 South Pe Street 8 110 Station 13 1118 West Wellesle Avenue 8 110 Station 14 1807 South Ra Street 8 110 Station 15 2120 East Wellesle 6 724 ', Station 16 5225 North Assembl 8 110 Station 17 5121 West Lowell Road 8 110 Station 18 37 East Cozza Drive 3 740 Dis•atch 508 N Wall - 1708 Trainin. 3808 E Nora 3 930 Sho• 3808E Nora 9 436 Burn Buildin• 3808 E. Nora 3 215 Total - 18 Buildin•s 143 222 ocatian Number of units Pum•ers Front Line Pum•er Station 1 1 Front Line Pum•er Station 2 1 Front Line Pum•er Station 3 1 Front Line Pum•er Station 4 1 Front Line Pum•er Station 7 1 Front Line Pum•er Station 8 1 Front Line Pum•-r Station 9 1 Front Line Pum•-r Station 11 1 Front Line Pum•-r Station 16 1 Front Line Pum•er Station 17 1 Front Line Pum•er Station 18 1 Pum•er Ladder Station 13 1 Pum•er Ladder Station 14 1 Pum•er/Ladder Station 15 1 Reserve Pum•er Sho• 4 Total Pum•ers 18 Ladders Front Line Ladder Station 1 1 Front Line Ladder Station 2 1 Front Line Ladder Station 4 1 Pum•er Ladder 'Stations 13 14 15. Listed in •um•er ladder invento above. Reserve Aerial Ladder Sho• 1 4 S• - is Boat Station 2 1 Rescue Station 1 1 Hazardous Materials Unit Station 1 1 Brush Units 7 Bus Sho• 1 Total S. - ial Vehicles 11 Total Fire A. •aratus • 33 *The fire department has five"medic'vehicles,listed separately In Table CFI)3,Existing Apparatus- EMS Paramedic Vehicles (ALS only). - • 26 Capital Facilities and Utilities • 00403 • Forecast of Future Needs — Fire Protection Existing Demand The fire department received 4,673 fire calls in 1999,or 21.3 percent of total emergency service calls received. The level of calls for service received from a specific area can be influenced by several factors: population density—the demand for service increases with population; age of construction of the area— aging structures that have not had ongoing maintenance are prone to a greater potential of various fire causes; income—lower poverty levels restrict the ability to provide maintenance or make repairs to structures. Level of Service (LOS) • The level of service for fire protection is a function of response time and call volumes. These, in turn,are dependent on the number and location of fire stations,the number of fire apparatus units, number of • firefighters,traffic patterns and vehicle or pedestrian congestion,and type of structure. Fire stations are located to provide services to areas of the city that have higher population densities. The abiliiy for the fire department to better serve the community was greatly improved in 1989 when the public approved a bond issue that allowed fire stations to be relocated and built to accommodate multiple emergency units. The station design allowed the department to place various types of resources in fire stations based on analysis of prior calls for service. Current station locations allow the fire department,under normal circumstances,to provide an initial response time of five to six minutes to most areas of the city. In 1996, the Growth Management Steering Committee for Spokane County adopted the following regional minimum levels of service for fire protection and fire code enforcement: 1. Urban areas, for those jurisdictions in excess of 5,000 population shall be served by a fire department/fire district with a(Washington Survey and Rating Bureau or Insurance Services Office) Fire Class rate of 6 or better. 2. All jurisdictions, regardless of size,shall ensure that urban areas have adequate fire flow and hydrant distribution in accordance with the edition of the Uniform Fire Code adopted by the jurisdiction. • 3. Urban areas, for those jurisdictions in excess of 5,000 population, shall be within 2.5 road miles from an operating fire station that provides service with a"Class A"pumper. • Structures constructed in a platted area may be within five (5)road miles from the fire station if equipped with a fire sprinkler system that is rated in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code edition adopted by the jurisdiction at the time the building permit is issued. Jurisdictions with urban areas shall, at a minimum,provide for the enforcement of the Uniform Fire Code and conduct inspections. Within the City of Spokane, the Fire Department's levels of service are as follows: • LOS Goals for Structure Fires First Engine to Structure Fires=7:00 minutes(80 percent of the time) First Ladder to Structure Fires=8:00 minutes(80 percent of the time) • Current LOS for Structure Fires by Average Response Time First Engine to Structure fires=5:56 min(81 percent of goal) • First Ladder to Structure fires=7:01 min(75 percent of goal) Future Demand Population within the city's urban growth area is projected to increase by 16,350 by the end of year 2006, and by an additional 52,395 between the years 2007—2020, for a total increase of 68,745. The City of Spokane Fire Department estimates a 3 percent increase per year in calls between 2001 and 2020. • 'Comprehensive Plan/EIS - • 27 • 0n404 • Need for Capital Facility Improvements • Over the next six years,in order to maintain the proposed levels of service while accommodating new growth,additional equipment,personnel,and facilities will be needed. In broad terms,a new fire station is justified with a population increase of approximately 7,000 to 10,000 and/or 200 calls for service per year..The relocation of one fire station will be required to allow better use of departmental equipment and increase response capability. In addition,relocation and/or improvements to the existing maintenance and communications facilities will be required, along with a new training fieldhouse,a new shared City/County Communications and Dispatch Facility, and a new Combined Training and Readiness Center, which will be shared by the Fire Department, Law Enforcement(City Police and County Sheriffs Departments),the County Department of Emergency Management,and the Army National Guard. A new fire station will be needed in one of four areas: Qualchan,West Plains,Moran, or Glenrose. The location of the new fire station will be determined based on maintaining levels of service for population demand and the timing of annexations in the West Plains, Moran,or Glenrose areas. • Twenty-year needs include two new fire stations in two of four areas: Qualchan, West Plains,Moran or Glenrose. The location of the two new fire stations will be determined based on maintaining levels of service for population demand and the timing of annexations in the West Plains,Moran,or Glenrose areas. If annexation occurs in the eastern portion of the growth area,service delivery might be achieved by the possible relocation of city Stations 8 and 14 in concert with the relocation of existing fire stations from Fire District#1 (now serving the area). Stations 4 and 7 are targeted for replacement within the next twenty years. Because of increased population density within the existing city limits, two additional pumpers and one additional ladder will also be added and would be housed in existing fire stations. Apparatus and equipment may be redistributed based on where the specific increased concentrations of the population occur. Proposed Facilities Buildings and Apparatus Within Six Years: a. New Fire Station and Pumper in one of four areas: Qualchan, West Plains, Moran, or Glenrose b. Combined Training and Readiness Center c. Expansion of Maintenance Facility d. Relocate Combined Communications Center • e. Relocate Fire Station 18 f. Shared City/County Communications and Dispatch Facility • g. New Fieldhouse for Training • Seven to Twenty Years a. Two new Fire Stations and two new Pumpers in two of four areas: Qualchan, West Plains, Moran or Glenrose. b. If annexations occur,possible relocation of Stations 8 and 14 to the east. c. Replacement of Stations 4 and 7. . d. Two additional pumpers and one additional ladder. Table CFU 7,"Twenty-Year Need—fire Stations and Apparatus,"lists the total number of fire stations and apparatus needed for the next twenty years. 28 Capital Facilities and Utilities 00405 TABLE CFU 7 TWENTY-YEAR!NEED FIRE STATIONS AND APPARATUS Time Period - Demand ::::::::E:E::Kr.g*'fre.#i0n5ri Req.uircct,atigWmpprgigAnngs ginignIettiliittattaIgRaeg.. of>7:00:mip..:f80,percentatthetms�< ... 2001 (present count) 220,471 14 2001 - 2006 (increase) 16,350 1 Total through 2006 _ 236,821 15 2007- 2020 (increase) 52,395 2 Total 2001 - 2020 289,216 17 Total through 2020(increase) 68,745 3 1 Time period � Demand(Population) J_ New Apparatus Units Required -. 2001-(present count) 220,471 33** .2001 -2006 (increase)-- -- - - --- . -- 16,350 . 1 pumper Total through 2006 236,821 34 1 Twenty! Year Need 1 2007 -2020 (increase) - 52,395 4 pumpers 1 ladder Total 2001 - 2020 289,216 39 Total through 2020(increase) 68,745 6 *2001 population numbers include the city's urban growth area,currently being served by other fire districts. However,the need for fire facilities for the year 2001 is based on the present service area of the City of Spokane Fire Department. The six-year and twenty-year needs are based on the assumption that the entire urban growth area will be annexed and served by the City of Spokane Fire Department. However,the timing of annexations is difficult to predict. Assumptions are that annexations will occur over a twenty- year period. **Additional paramedic vehicles required for the twenty-year period are listed in Table CFU 4,'Twenty-Year Need- Life Support Units.' Table CFU 8 shows the estimated cost for additional fire stations and apparatus. In addition to the stations and apparatus listed below,personnel costs average$920,000 per year(salary and benefits) for a three-person company and$ 1.2 million per year(salary and benefits)for a four-person company. TATE LE CRJ 8 TWENTY.YEAR COST RE $TALION@ ANtI APPARATUS ., T'nne Period _ Description Fire Stations. 2001 2002 - 2006 New Station (**) $1.8 M Relocate Station 18 $1.8 M • Total through 2006 - $3.6 M Twehty-YearNeed ... 2007- 2020 2 New Stations @$1.8 M(**) $3.6 M Eastern Area Station $1.8 M Replace Station 4 $1.8 M Replace Station 7 $1.8 M Total 2007-2020 $9.0 M Total through 2020 (increase) $12.6 M Comprehensive Plan/EIS 29 • 00406 • • TABLE CFU;.& TWENTY YEAR COST FIRE STATIONS AND APPARATUS cont page 2 IMMENTiin�;Period Descri ion .. New rates units - ... .six Tesr Need • 2001 2002- 2006 New Pumper(**) $.3 M • Total through 2006 - $.3 M -Then Year Neer} , 2007- 2020 2 New Pumpers @$.3 M(**) $.6 M 2 additional pumpers at$.3 M $.6 M i • 1 additional ladder $.7 M Total 2007- 2020 $1.9 M Total 2001-2020 (increase) $2.2 M Total stations and apparatus $14.8 M through 2020 (increase) ____ **.New fire station will.be built in one of four locations based on maintaining levels of service for population demand. Six-Year Financing Plan - Fire Protection Six-Year Need See the sections entitled, "Need for Capital Facility Improvements"and "Proposed Facilities." Six-Year Funding and Projects Table CFU 9,"Six-Year Funding and Projects—Fire Protection,"lists six-year projects for fire protection. TABLE CFU 9.,SIX YEAR FIRE FUNDING ANP_PRO]ECTS ,,FIRE PROTECTION Funding Sources 2001 2002 '! 2003*g- 0-0002005 oasw a!;t4i-;;,.iome General Fund ------- Bond Issue 1999 (see details below) $6.705 M $8.201 M 2.115M --- $17.021 M Bond Issue new ---_--- Other • --- Maintenance Facilit Ex.ansion .550 M .200 M ---_ .750 M Communications Center -..400 M .1.100 M --- • 1.500 M New Fire Station * .1.800 M ---- -.1.800 M New Equipment $2.455 M $ .550 M --_- $3.005 M Combined Readiness Center Fieldhouse - $1.2 M $.800 M $2.000 M Main Building $1.200 M $.800 M $2.000 M E.O.C. .400 M -.100 M .500 M ' Relocate Fire Station 18 .675 M DEMI--- 1.890 M Apparatus $1.350 M ---_- $1.350 M Repairs to Existing Stations $.740 M $1.476 M --_- $2.226 M Surplus or Deficit 0 0 0--See Table CFU 5,"Six-Year Funding and Project-ALS Vehicles"for six-year projects for Advanced Life Support vehicles. *New fire station will be built In one of four locations based on malntainim levels of service for...ulation demand. • 30 - Capital Facilities and Utilities EXHIBITI1 BAB .C.55-6 I 2605 South Adams Road Veradale, WA. 99037 Washington State Boundary Review Board RECEIVED for Spokane County 1026 West Broadway Avenue AUG 2 ] 2001 Spokane, Washington 99260 BOUNCARYREVIEW BOARD Re: Proposed City of Spokane County Dear Board Members : We are writing regarding the proposed Valley City boundary as applicable to the area in which we live . As you will note from our address , we live outside the Urban Growth Area but within the boundary of the proposed city . At the August 8 , 2001 meeting, I believe I heard that ours is one of the questionable areas for inclusion . We very definitely wish to be included within the proposed city area . It appears very logical and sensible to retain South 32nd Avenue as a straight line from Sullivan Road to Evergreen Road . Please include our area within the proposed city . Thank you for your consideration . Sincerely yours, �� Bernard 4'fVernier , _,c-r_w--"-lam Mafalda Levernier 00408 EXHIBIT U 3 BAB 5S-S--0• WNLAND EMPIRE PAPER COMPANY . PHONE 509/92¢7911 FAX 509/9278461 3320 N.ARGONNE SPOKANE,WASHINGTON 99212-2099 • August 27, 2001 RECEIVED ED AUG 2 `7 2001 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER AUG 2 7 2001 Susan Winchell, Director BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD Boundary Review Board 1026 W. Broadway Spokane, WA 99260-0040 RE: Proposed Incorporation— City of Spokane Valley Dear Ms. Winchell: The purpose of this letter is to comment on the proposed boundary of the possible new city. While neutral on the subject of incorporation, we do have some specific requests concerning the proposed eastern boundary. Inland Empire Paper Company owns approximately 1050 acres that, as proposed, would lie • within the new city. Our ownership, together with the proposed incorporation boundary, is shown on the enclosed map. We are currently master planning approximately 900 acres, 290 of which lie within the proposed incorporation boundary. The master planning areas are also shown on the enclosed map. We have identified several criteria that suggest the land being master planned should eventually be a part of the new City of Liberty Lake. This criteria includes, but is not limited to, traffic patterns, infrastructure availability and population growth trends. We also feel it is appropriate to allow for a buffer between the new cities to accommodate future growth. We therefore respectfully request that the incorporation boundary exclude our ownership shown on the attached map as Master Plan Areas #1 and #2. We also request that serious consideration be given to allow additional buffer areas between the proposed City of Spokane Valley and that of the City of Liberty Lake. Sincerely, Wayne A. Frost Urban Lands Manager PAPER MAKERS SINCE 1911 00409 Wincheil, Susan From: Jodie E. Cripps [tjcripps@juno.comj nt: Saturday, May 05,2001 12:49 PM L� .v: Boundary Review Board EXHIBIT Subject: Out of Valley City BAB . scs-0 Dear Sirs, My husband and I live on eight acres of land on the south side of 8th Ave. between Barker and Henry Road in the Spokane valley. We plan to have horses soon on our land, and we bought our land to use as a country home for our children and grandchildren. Our friend now farms the land as his summer job from teaching at CV High School. We love the zoning that allows us to use our land for the purpose for which we bought it. For these reasons, WE DO NOT want to be included into the city limits of the new Valley city. Please count this E-Mail as two votes as my husband, Terry, and I are in complete agreement. If you cannot do this, please let me know and Terry will also send you an E-Mail. Thank you for the opportunity to send our comments to you. Jodie and Terry Cripps 19710 E. 8th Greenacres, WA 99016 (509) 927-4776 t Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT 0 0 410 8RB `-" Winchell, Susan From: James Fehlig [wings34@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday,August 27, 2001 1:49 PM To: Boundary Review Board Subject: Questions????? --- James Fehlig RECEIVED - wings34@earthlink.net - EarthLink: It's your Internet. AUG 2 7 2001 BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD Dear Sirs, As neighborhood representatives, several of us worked intensely with the planning commission for more than three years to develop a workable comprehensive Pasadena Park Neighborhood Plan. Some issues were clear and agreeable, others involved difficult compromises along the "being a good neighbor" lines. Zoning issues and other topics were carefully considered and developed. As a basic land use plan, our plan is very important to our neighborhood's way of life. Alsonote that there are no commercial developments within the neighborhood, on Upriver Dr, or north of the river on Argonne, and we want to keep it that way. Will the new Valley City honor our Pasadena Park Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and keep it valid in total for more than 30 years? If not,we wish to remain with the county and not be part of the new Valley City. Over a long period, what will happen to other neighborhood agreements in place? Another concern, if the city of Spokane gets Yardley, what effect (percentage wise)will this have on the proposed income to the new Valley City? Without Yardley, how would the new city compensate? Sincerely, Kirsten & Jim Fehlig 8/27/01 , EXHIBITI11 , . • , . .. ce2: H /Ai' S ar•. 4 _ tetTge:dec:entareL .BRB SSZSCIL _ - 1 iyaaocfl / 1-.e Air , %-c. • --V . a . . • Ar_, /ir ' ------- / i 1 ti : a AIP 44 did 1 4 4 a 4 -e" - . .. ;_________________________ _i for ; ,. ----______—_____—________--: _ -__,:, , , , - ica2z-2 .1_ 1• ----L-.---____ ilt:CEIVED ----- --_H—____-___-_— _ .., . _ _—__________ REve_-_-_______ ---lbailG172:0,0807RD • 1__-______,_—____—____________________ _---------- - — _____—_—________ - --- - - __. • • .. ' _ . . - . _„. vr8'th t,,C00412 :M / , I.,-_ % - J l - E - -- et- 84.--,,, A VaV2,/ ‘c_'ert_s__ iltirc,_________Sitie1_2_,a 5) _______ r6. p ,' -.., . /„. 7., ,,, e i4 te_. _s_ic--2-0/4:40_7_0_7_ oc • - 72/=o- 7 5 1 tL L2o.,2 _/ Yom!- c24,_7_ '_!_ l -�s (g1 S. ,(-y 922- • • -5;4z- /-4_ S< v � 1 0 P41 70 /„„-:-kv,-- • - vie ✓ti/ / 140ire-PA 56ao'f, oio� RAJ E 6p.�1,,A� �r�°-^csin 5s ao l 0X08 '� ';� cres 55ao� otos aooa 4-kir, � , 2490 ( 0 0 d&w, • 4 ,1 „ 0 /l2, 2_ 5, /IPn)/ Rot . CreeteCe hc$, a ree n Q c (CS ColtiJ�y iv', � fit( .a,✓ 1126 , /6 `f C J2 / G// , 1 j � .• :� Jo/ba ire Alai e9 e� braC� GU� egory, s � / (y✓ PCH S fly ��fybrou/c �� • • n ln /� off` g-s" gv, 00414 gy 0.4 0- 20I1s i- gruAA co (�� 99016 r' oY S yrs /y7osC o y /�A s c �� > / 16�s �ssr 82. 6/'cr. .yr r U/a F0E."‘" l ' e ry'-' AGENDA SHEET FOR COUNCII "MEETING OF: October 26, 1998 0 0 4 Ty! I SPOKANE City Manager - Pete cortin 6045 (],7 4, Submitting Department Contact Person Phone Ext. EXHIBIT BRB 5550 ;,;,, CONSENT AGENDA EGISLATIVE SESSION OUNCIL PRIORITY 'l , )I)1 0 Contract Resolution Communications /ln Report Emergency Ordinance Cultural Diversity & Racial Equity Clerk's Files: B1)02 7()B984/5 Final Reading Ordinance Economic Develon:RECEI ,� First Reading Ordinance Growth Management K VA Special Consideration Infrastructure . , Hearing Neighborhoods Cross Reference: 0 Serviclice Delivery afety OCT 15 .1998NG/GSD/LID: H NEIGHBORHOOD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE NOTIFIED BY S BMITTING DEPARTMENJIITV CLERKS /�rAIIt it Area Manager: tJ�� f SPOKANE m C Action Taken: '�+�+�• AGENDA WORDING: Fire and Emergency Medical Protection Service Area Agreement with the Spokane. Valley Fire Department. BACKGROUND(Attach separate sheet if necessarv): Pursuant to provisions of the Growth Management Act, the Service Agreement Act and the interlocal agreement between the City and Spokane County for Joint Planning Areas (JPA), the City is to enter into service agreements with affected special purpose districts. The City and Spokane Valley Fire Department have negotiated the attached agreement which states: 1. The City agrees not to annex areas located within the District for a period of five years beginning January 1, 1999. 2. The City will give two years' notice in the event it determines to annex areas within the District. 3. In the event of annexation, the City and the District shall negotiate to mitigate the adverse impacts on the District. 4. The City and the District agree to consult each other for purposes of joint planning of location selection, design and construction of station facilities that will serve the JPA and operational planning of services to the JPA covering mutual responses,training and possible joint station use. RECOMMENDATION: Approve. FISCAL IMPACT: Expenditure -$ N/A Budget Account: # Revenue -$ N/A # LIST ATTACHMENTS AS FOLLOWS: On file for Review in Office of City Clerk: Include in Packets: SIGNATURES OF SUBMITTING OFFICERS (sign legibly): Department Head Division Director Fina ,( 411, Legal �jyp-ty Nana DISTRIBUTION AFTER COUNCIL ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION: City Manager - Pete Fortin APPROVED BY Fire Department - Bobby Williams City Attomey -Michael Piccolo SPQKANE CITY COUNCIL: RECEIVED D / /f %9 An 2 7 2001 CITY CLERK/ Bouriut,n, .;L ._ :; -- 0041b d 95- FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL PROTECTION SERVICE AREA AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into Spokane Valley Fire Department, a municipal corporation referred to as "District", and the City of Spokane, a municipal corporation, referred to as "City". This Agreement is entered into by the City and the District under the authority of RCW 52.12.031, in conformity with chapter 39.34 RCW, the Interlocal Cooperation Act and in compliance with chapter 36.115 RCW, the Service Agreement Act and filed with the Spokane County Board of Commissioners pursuant to RCW 36.115.040(3). The District and the City currently maintain and operate their own fire departments to provide fire protection, fire suppression and emergency medical services in their respective jurisdictions. The County has adopted interim urban growth areas, designated as Joint Planning Areas (JPA), that encompass portions of the District, its service area and financial base. The City may eventually attempt to annex areas within the JPA. The District has the ability to continue to provide fire protection, fire suppression and emergency medical services in the JPA currently located within its boundaries. To carry out the purposes of this Agreement and in consideration of the benefits to be received by the parties, it is agreed as follows: 1. Term. This Agreement shall be effective on execution and shall remain in effect until terminated by agreement of the parties. 2. City Annexations. The City agrees that it shall not annex areas located within the District for a period of five years from January 1, 1999. The City shall provide two years advance written notification to the District in the event it shall determine to annex an area of the District. 3. Annexation Agreement. In the event the City provides notice of its intent to annex an area of the District, as provided in paragraph 2, the District and the City shall enter into good faith negotiations to mitigate the adverse impacts on the District that will be caused by the annexation. Adverse impacts include, but are not limited to, the reduction of the District's tax basis, the reduction in staffing and future employment of District personnel and the impact on the ability of the District to continue to serve the area remaining in the District. In the event the City and the District are unable to reach a mutually acceptable agreement, the dispute shall be resolved under the provisions of paragraph 11. 4. Joint Planning. The parties agree that they shall consult each other in respect to the selection of the location for station facilities that will serve the JPA located in the District, the design and construction of station facilities and the selection SE1K8/24/98SpokaneR9/98 1 00417 and purchase of equipment to be used to serve the JPA. Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph, the parties recognize that the final decision to acquire land , facilities and equipment shall be made by the acquiring party. 5. Operational Planning. The parties agree to complete joint operational plans for services to the JPA covering mutual responses, training and the possibility of joint station use. 6. Liability. Each party shall, at all times, be solely responsible for the acts or the failure to act of its personnel that occur or arise in any way out of the performance of this Agreement by its personnel only and to save and hold the other party and its personnel and officials harmless from all costs, expenses, losses and damages, including cost of defense, incurred as a result of any acts or omissions of the party's personnel relating to the performance of this Agreement.. 7. Notices. All notices, requests, demands and other communications required by this Agreement shall be in writing and, except as expressly provided elsewhere in this Agreement, shall be deemed to have been given at the time of delivery if personally delivered, at the time of transmittal if transmitted by facsimile transmission or at the time of mailing if mailed by first class, postage pre-paid and addressed to the party at its address as stated in this Agreement or at such address as either party may designate at any time in writing. 8. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement or its application is held invalid, the remainder of the Agreement or the application of the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected. 9. Modification. This Agreement represents the entire Agreement between the parties. No change, termination or attempted waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be binding on the parties unless executed in writing by authorized representatives of the parties. The Agreement shall not be modified, supplemented or otherwise affected by the course of dealing between the parties. 10. Benefits. This Agreement is entered into for the benefit of the parties. to this Agreement only and shall confer no benefits, direct or implied, on any third persons. 11. Dispute Resolution. Any controversy which shall arise between the City and the District regarding the rights, duties or liabilities under this agreement of either party shall be submitted to non binding arbitration. The arbitration shall be before one disinterested arbitrator agreed upon by the parities. The arbitrator shall render an opinion in accordance with the laws of the state of Washington as applied to the facts found by the arbitrator or arbitrators. In the event the parties are unable to agree on the selection of the arbitrator or in the event the opinion of the arbitrator is not acceptable to either of the parties, the matter shall be submitted to the Spokane County Superior Court for final decision. The SE1K8/29/98SpokaneR9/98- 2 00418 parties agree that the decision of the Superior Court shall be final and not subject to appeal. 12. Attorney Fees. In the event of arbitration or litigation concerning the terms of or performance under this agreement, each party shall be responsible for its cost and expenses including one half of the cost of the arbitration. Dated: /D -- OS— a Dated: //2r9ir SPOKANE VALLEY FIRE DEPARTMENT CITY OF SPOKANE -c.a.,. 4' <. f," By: 4 ' Alit AC i` s art it issioner F'ty Manager Attest: %/tf4j 19) Commissioner City Clerk 4 'L Approved as to form: , fie Commissioner .2 /voyA _o_if Assistant City Attorney Commissioner Yi r:14/4 Commissioner , Pa eArLS Attest: District Se etary • SEIK8/24/985pokaneR9/98 3 OG4i9 (,7��1,fes OFFICE OF THE MAYOR I I �/ S OIKAINF 808 W.SPOKANE FALLS BLVD. EXHIBIT 4 O SPOKANE,WASHINGTON 99201-3335 ��' (509)-625-6250 BRB SSc� JOHN T.POWERS,JR. \ . MAYOR } I 1 ) 1 RANDY WITHROW CHIEF OF STAFF August 27, 2001 RECEIVED Mr. Rob Nebergall, Chairman AUG7 Washington State Boundary Review Board for Spokane County 7 2001 Public Works Building BOUNDARYREVIEEYc�q{� 1026 W. Broadway Ave. Spokane, WA. 99201 Re: Additional Comments on Boundary for the Proposed City of Spokane Valley Dear Mr. Nebergall and Board Members: Following your hearing of August 8, 2001 on your consideration of the boundaries of the proposed City of the Spokane Valley, and having subsequently reviewed written testimony submitted, the City of Spokane would like to provide additional clarifying information. First and foremost, the issue before the Boundary Review Board is the boundary for the proposed new City of Spokane Valley. Assistant Chief Larry Rider of Fire District#1 has provided the Boundary Review Board with both oral and written testimony that would lead one to believe that the proposal before you is the annexation of the Yardley and Alcott areas to the City of Spokane. Annexation of these areas by the City of Spokane has not been proposed and is not the issue before the Board. Regardless of the decision by the Boundary Review Board on the proposed boundaries, Fire District#1 will continue to serve and collect revenue from these areas for the foreseeable future. Nothing in the proposal currently before the Boundary Review Board will change the service area or boundaries of Fire District#1 nor will it impact Fire District#1's ability to provide service to its customers. When and if annexation were to be proposed, that issue would then legitimately be before the Boundary Review Board. The cost to the City of Spokane of providing these services would be a factor considered by the City Council before initiating any annexation procedures and would be a topic of discussion before the Boundary Review Board at that time. Assistant Chief Rider's assertions regarding the City of Spokane Fire Department's lack of ability to provide adequate fire protection and EMS to these areas are both premature and misleading at best. City of Spokane Fire Chief Bobby Williams will address these issues separately. The City of Spokane has requested that the Yardley and Alcott areas be excluded from the boundaries of the proposed new City of Spokane Valley. To reiterate our previous comments, the exclusion of these areas from the proposed boundaries would be 1 00420 consistent with the factors to be considered under RCW 36.93.170. Both areas are adjacent the corporate boundaries of the City of Spokane and are addressed in our newly adopted Comprehensive Plan consistent with the Growth Management Act. In addition, the City of Spokane provides both water and sewer service to these areas and has done so for many years. Portions of the Yardley area have been served by the City of Spokane in excess of 30 years. In fact, Yardley Water District No. 3, now owned by the City of Spokane, was granted a franchise for construction by the County Commissioners in November 1945. The Boundary Review Board approved the current water and sewer service boundaries for the Yardley Area in 1990. Exclusion of these areas would achieve the preservation of logical service areas that are already in place pursuant to the objectives found in RCW 36.93.180. The cost of purchasing the City of Spokane's water and sewer infrastructure by the new City of Spokane Valley should also be a consideration should these areas not be excluded. Should the voters approve a new City of Spokane Valley, that new municipality would be required to comply with the Growth Management Act by preparing and adopting it's own Comprehensive Plan and proposing it's own Urban Growth Area. The Yardley and Alcott areas were designated as Urban Growth Areas and Joint Planning Areas by action of the Board of County Commissioners in 1997. The oral decision of the County Commissioners on Friday, August 24, 2001, reaffirmed those designations. If the new City so chooses, it could propose these areas be a part of their Urban Growth Area. The areas could serve as a buffer between the two municipal jurisdictions where joint planning between Spokane County, the City of Spokane, a new City of Spokane Valley and special purpose districts regarding land uses and services would be appropriate. Eventually, these areas could be annexed into one or the other of these municipalities. In closing we again ask that you consider all of the efforts involved in complying with the Growth Management Act as well as the substantial investment by the City of Spokane in infrastructure to serve these areas. Please exclude the Yardley and Alcott areas from the boundaries of the proposed City of Spokane Valley. Respectfully, .i .4 lin T. Powers,Jr. UU Mayor, City of Spokane C: John Mercer Bobby Williams 2 00421 EXHIBIT LJq SPOKANE BRB Rig FIREDEPARTMENT ROBERT S.wILLIAMS FIRE CHIEF August 27, 2001 RECEIVED To: The Spokane County Boundary Review Board Front Bobby Williams, Fire Chief AUG 2 `( 2091 Subject: The City of Spokane Valley Boundaries BOUND hii,,,. .;fy80ARr Dear Board Members: This information is provided for your consideration in determining if the Yardley and Alcott areas should be included in the proposed City of Spokane Valley. The City of Spokane has requested that the boundaries for the proposed City of Spokane Valley be modified to exclude both the Yardley and Alcott areas. As I understand the process, your evaluation is to make a determination if that request will be approved or denied. Based on the testimony that I have reviewed regarding this matter, there appears to be innuendo that your decision will result in automatic annexation of the Yardley and Alcott areas into the City of Spokane. Procedurally, all parties know that this is not the case. Fire District 1 has provided emergency response to the Yardley and Alcott areas for a number of years. Whether you approve or deny the request made by the City, Fire District 1 will continue to provide service to these areas. If the City of Spokane, at some future date, proposes annexation, there will be a separate evaluation regarding the feasibility of that annexation. The deliberations of the Boundary Review Board at that time should consider the changes that would result in service delivery to the areas proposed for annexation. Evaluating what the changes in service delivery might be, before such a proposed annexation occurs is not prudent. There are just too many variables that would have to be addressed. As has been stated by Mr. Mercer and Fire District 1,there is an agreement between the City and Fire District that addresses the principle components regarding possible annexations of this area by the City. If and when the City proposes to annex these areas, the provisions of that agreement would have to be met. I would suspect (and expect nothing less from Fire District 1) that the provision regarding negotiating the "....adverse impacts on the District..." would include the issues of response times/distances to the area of proposed annexation. At that point in time,the City would have to identify how it would deal with providing the services the Fire Department delivers. There could be several options: • Contract with Fire District 1 for service to the area(for short term or over the long term). • Provide service from current City facilities. • Provide new City facilities. • Provide services from a City/District facility. • Agreements with each other about serving areas that are difficult to access. 44 W.Riverside •Spokane,WA 99201-0189 • (509)625-7000 • FAX(509)625-7039 00422 Boundary Review Board August 27, 2001 Page 2 It is not known which of these options, or others, might become a reality because at this point it is pure speculation. Just like Fire District 1, the City of Spokane Fire Department would evaluate the conditions of the area to which service has to be provided and would make a recommendation on providing the best service possible based on those conditions. Knowing the professional personnel involved with making those service delivery recommendations, all available information would be taken into consideration, not just population. Alternatives would be evaluated that could allow both jurisdictions the ability and flexibility to improve service delivery in their own areas. There would not be a disruption in emergency service response during this discussion and deliberation. In closing, it is requested that the Board address the issue of if the Yardley and Alcott areas remain in the boundaries of the proposed City of Spokane Valley, based on the merits of existing laws and regulations, not upon speculation of what a future annexation might bring. Respectfully submitted, Ak2e./...„ obby illiams Fire Chief EXHIBIT S° 00423 avy, 2l d© o l BRB SSS-o -ro - y io Kem.t.” 642.e.„.t a Rami, - , Id) A AeldtP50,�a uJv zit Jan Lim /t MV>th 79�` a, ;- ye.4) _7-{-„,_fg,,,e. „,„ 36)6 s . dam, . , 9 90) a 4 RECEIVED AUG 2 7 2001 BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD This mail in poll was received by 230 registered voters in tne .Yardley ana Al Cott areas. We received a return of 53 polls. Out of 53 returned, 42 indicated they would like tRR ,p a part of the New City of Spokane Valley, while ii indicated they want to remain a pa r4 2 4 of the unincorporated County, while 6 of the 11 stated if they had to choose, they would choose to be in the New City of Spokane Valley. No poll indicated a preference to be a part of the City of Spokane. The average poll return is 5%, this poll return was 20%. T' 'e returned showed in favor of the New City of Spokane Valley at .85%. - PAugust 2001 EXHIBIT 5I RRB CSS-n1 To All Yardley and Alcott Residents and Business Owners, In the Boundary Review Board hearing Wednesday night at Neville Auditorium,Spokane Mayor John Powers submitted a letter to the Board. This letter requests that the entire Yardley and Alcott areas be annexed by the City of Spokane instead of being a part of the New City of Spokane Valley. Powers' reasoning is that since the City of Spokane Water and Sewer systems service the area,they should be annexed to Spokane. The area will continue to be serviced with water and sewer as they are by the City of Spokane regardless of jurisdictional changes. Fire District#1 of the Spokane Valley Fire Department services the Yardley and Alcott area. Fire Station# 6 is strategically located to serve these areas with 59 years of planning involved. The City of Spokane has no Fire Station that can accommodate the area adequately and in a timely manner. When people's lives are at stake, seconds count,let alone adding minutes to a response to an emergency. The City of Spokane is lusting after the sales tax revenues of the Yardley area to the detriment of the citizens. The Citizens of Spokane Valley value human lives over revenue from sales. We pledge to serve the citizens in a manner that will continue services in a like manner or better at a 'pwer cost. We are dedicated to all of the Citizens of Spokane Valley. The Citizens ARE Spokane Valley. We look beyond revenue and we ask you to consider your life and how you want to be served in the future. The continuation of the Boundary Review Board's hearing will be,August 27th,2001 at 7PM at the Neville Auditorium 1445 N. Argonne Rd., in the Miracles Bookstore in the Safeway complex. This is the last chance you will have to testify or write a letter in regard to which City you would like to be a part of and what services you choose. . We would like to take a poll on how the people of Yardley and Alcott feel about being annexed to the City of Spokane. O Yes! I want to be annexed by the City of Spokane. 4,2Yes! I want to be included in with the New City of Spokane Valley. 111 want to stay, as we are, a part of the unincorporated county. 23 Yes! I feel the New City of Spokane Valley will enhance the services to the area. Yes! I feel my safety and life are the important factor in this decision. 4,2 Yes! I would like more information by mail. Thank You for responding to our poll. YOU CAN DETERMINE YOUR FUTURE, STAND UP AND BE COUNTED!!! Please return your survey to CITIZENS FOR LOWER TAXES, 15102 E. Indiana Ave., Spokane,WA 99216-1814. . 0 (' 425 EXHIBIT Sa talRRB 5Ss-6 HANSON HANSON INDUSTRIES, INC. (5009)468-7182 SO F 509)46 992°754U SA RECEWED AUG 2 7 2001 BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD 27 August 2001 Board Members and Citizens, I am Raymond Hanson, President of Hanson Industries, Developer of the property around the Valley Mall. I am a proponent of the Valley Becoming a City. I have studied this in considerable depth. I believe the new city will be able to lower taxes and provide better services as a government entity than the County. I am a substantial taxpayer, and I do believe that bybecoming a City, controlling our destiny, lowering taxes for all citizens, negotiating for better services, developing a smaller, more responsive government that is answerable to the citizens, wewill create efficiencies that a large government entity cannot do. WE CAN LOWER TAXES FOR ALL! Empower the citizens to control their government. , a A17/4/LUIt-/ Raymond A. Hanson, Hanson Industries 00426 EXHIBIT 53 BRB 555-O► August 27, 2001 To: Boundary Review Board RECEIVED From: Iris E. Kiger, 9618 E. Maringo Dr. , Spokane WA 99206-4453 AUG 2 7 2001 Re: Pasadena Park vs . Proposed New City BOUNDARY REVIEW BOAR Through Public Hearings, Pasadena Park property owners, taxpayers, residents and other members of interest were advised that the Pasadena Park Neighborhood/Community Plan would be implemented with official controls by Order of the Board of County Commissioners on May 10, 1994 . Pasadena Park is a unique area with TWO significant south boundaries--the natural Spokane River and the established north boundary of the City of Millwood--separating it from the rest of the Spokane Valley. In light of this geographical location and its prior recognition by Order of the Board in 1994 , it is, therefore, expedient that Pasadena Park be EXCLUDED from the boundaries of the proposed city. Respectfully submitted, 6ez.c)ii C°: Iris E. Kiger cc: File 00427 EXHIBIT S LI BRB - August 27, 2001 RECEIVED TO: AUG 2 7 2001 Boundary Review Board 1NDARYREVIEW OARD Gentleman: It has come to our attention that at the last Public Hearing held August 8, 2001 at the Nevelle Auditorium, That Mr. Lawrence Stone had mentioned that he was a land and Business owner in the Yardley area which has been included in the Proposed City of Spokane Valley. We have been advised that we should have registered a concern as to Mr. Stones being able to make a unbiased vote on the final decision by the board when the decision is made. We are hereby registering this concern, and want it placed in the record, However we remember Mr. Stone did state that he would not let this prevent him from making a proper and unbiased vote. We trust that this will be the case. Respectively Submitted: Edward J. Mertens, Chairman Community Action Committee Larry Rudy, Chairman Chamber Governance Committee Terry Lynch, Chairman. Spokane Valley Business Association. GP IW . . . . , . . . - - - - - .& Al D 1v L moo . RARR in lll�a►�„ B 000' E ■��= : c` a2r1ilL! ri 10700 H, ,.sty' PIIIIII�IIIIIS . . itniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill i r • ..i. 06ze / 2 11500 AV./ `' i 1 to4. ian t n�� ----.41• ; , t � • MIL gr° 511. ,.,. ,Thil le si lir • ra `' As - 2- " .., ma ir i -, i. t-, . ar r ,- 12300 . . . • . . . . . . . _ .c.__ �` .1..r: — a n _ +WA% Ii ].O3 r i ..1S3a3 310 . +a.il. i .. NoL` � '�' F. c.: d 13100 N�f 8 - � s-• ,�� _ • •• y...co. r . PS Wk. FA n % 5. 13900 �' • 1'r ..1._ • sr , E n • iir B _ .. ADAMS . .. c vi 1470U • - - 4 i;II � •a E. : y f £ ? "'-� _ r _ _ _ PROGRESS If al uT]a✓ . :• .UII WAN 'r. � I •. 1 T . 1Fif,llfl I C �Mf�. P flesulFoi PE-1693-92 PUDE+ -13-92 00429 - —,era—a . - .e as la to. ' 1 Ira' / J. i - L. Evarancriltri 1;1.11::' alerathJ i - % ++cc \ 1 Itl<r link � / � • 7n }IC7 r 11 _ -.. �at • • p • r : r, Duni . �"� � ° n /r ap •••• 0' i '. • • F yy I 4:4,4 VItW I T y..� ` RJ� .•.AiY � err m aw,va ..JO I aaP .-s,' ®•vt:;- -Y l • f as 33.33 -. , - <.,'� �_ T iiz • . P- tl 3 ,C4i • • •• • __:s- „xi a a,r - ziasige-inaat co, I.SS. • < I J< -, < r I (. . Chester. d ao a ( 1, t i I i 8 1 0 ' 11. 1 '• e . [ `d off>} 1. �." ` a\� rt 1 ,' I S -} `t < 1 r '..Svc .1 .L. `. 1 \ �r ' C t. < 'pf'! ( !1 yam! - } , , ` 7.�. �: l a�]Ci {� ;If ' 1. �� i R� ' / ' '• is, et Wei // IJ i t1 .4 _ _ • 11 �( , - G_ a.. ,\� Kai--I /"pil _et r J _ .7�i - I 11 - ra I �I `: ' 1 1. ,,_ �, ( 7j- 'Ving--„,,. s f., • • F �o ... t ,o ; , . . .( ' ( (`/�•-t��`' `1)k, 11? \ç h (` ; rte.\�„/ -l.' - O . % p ti\:�"'(1,c. l( V :1 _ I)I l^ _ - C .�,k'�'� ,f)-4 ` , " �.. j-,•iiii s• ,' ,;i i�� t ' : ‘ t _ I. �. . i. 1' . ., 0 r, ., I'. r 1 ." "si',.t�'r 1.x, '.,I ,'.I '�I I, I , e6V v' ' L! �ae6'TGb • 'I' •'I I �pJ I t . xF_•-_�_ - Lw J_J=J_^ite r r /'lI.'', n�._yi��L' .i__4�. ..Jl+�� .Lu _.,Se •.. •. _. 2, ' -_ _•, rjr ' fit'_. ®p� �j®� � ^ �• '• _ ^ •-(yam• '•.,.- _" s- Ylr� ' a .1.. I � Eft 1�®g, l'F�1• ®e �.1..".%.Y �.. 1 •�r 1 Sr _. ,rj �__.{ _• I r _'� ,. ..e - ,,. .,�� I. �tCo7�-J.rc.. .F-�Q�tTID • 2. miet • -7-4 Ilr___L__._I t_. __J—_.I I @ N. rt.. .,x::; 1.�.1 \"2 faL'n..-�U ^-Ir- f 7:).....t.r ' I I •II % 11 9 " n `t.':: `\ 1/4.ibmillinrillt EN,® -ter ♦ L J �,I L7 ( L \ re.l A" � •. _4_7...-s ) 1 ! `•� W�L� 4.�o. I r i� • ave �e5.e'P r'a , • qq�)!'''p� J I. •I /' r?• Y � � .C14`\�O\ . . \ n._ � •,' 1J6 /4 Secr's 26Lr 't a4 EWA. ' L 1 III J 1 • D Y' +1 4 - STo<L+-+G. Ca ZY Ws+ u..oti1 .'"-‘•4 ,. 7 I. x_ Magi If n. I I4t;1tt,tt1 L--�� T ' 4 iau_ I 1-" •_ _ •le [� #� , A 'e ' , r,?I , S . mint -- : � I d„ _' i t J ` ,, e( ��I f �no . ..,....,_„..• i.2yr..r..xe.t . I ' , •r ' . .71__•_. 2,. _I ",_ �� 1$41r � 1 ( e,ati, ,, . 41i rrru. ... ;nM r,s„r+ __ , �.�,A, r �, _ �I ...4 r. • e 7 1 nn. •ur . r .r r]4L.ay hit., +— -21.1. n L _ �� / I ' h• • - t E+ Li _� _'. ' 71.....LIM 4i� ®•n 1,1® _° �NEI f A I q7.1 I III__"✓ d 4.4„,..,•.„a�'+r ® _=—•."x^ _ ' --{;I I '. ' I 4 t r' ��• r• 'x (L �; (1'A°. ` 11 ; .A na......c +.... ''�, cm-- .w a.-e. - . .. . ..... -.r. . 'Iv::: .. • img ra-lir- •"-Ir.i M"..77.1, ... •-••''' .":•'.1r....-i'll.LA Is\ aitio• . .0 • iii c:e . ad 41.1rfatig „ilikvis �s x��Qe\�jlI L \ i.... �� 11��:�7 �'1!tl 1G a +A, + ..5 �, f r- r ihik ' aa11 i A c•Atit L . ..i' R • ,-,:y.--„,....sc., .s Y- `A�`� ' I y� LLa..Y YLK ,� •. . , J . r aw a 'SII � � E ®� ®��®�� t E g .i ®Ci��r :A:, d��{'�M®�® ��OGie'. ®®��®Y(.�® ®I r / ._.•.. Jn S.wD+T"C t�4p • .. S y Or:Aro�\ ioa.� ?o�-tkern - A vowed 1 77 ,.J C�.<cw,ce-' C.' �.,.n'xav G-.Ia'L+E6'Tn,?C L ` ue_ �� 1�� •N.9 e9 2Gauu.0 F o.A , K .9 6 -r3�:. :'t: 10/17/2000 16:20 5093247663 C:OUNTV Fl_ANN 1NU rralst UZ . 00431 I , { . S S F' Q IC A N E ? " ] l 1...: wS>': C O LI N ir Y DIVISION OP ENGINEERINC AND ROADS A DIVISION OP THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT William A-Johns,P.E.,County Engineer . October 5, 2000 $pQ '1t0 fb Spokane County Planning Commission K4�/F D do Tim Lawhead OCT COOArty 1026 W. Broadway Ave. Q 08 • Spokane, WA 99260 �S/pN00 Opp Re: Proposed Changes to the Revised Arterial Road Plan wk/i,G Dear Planning Commission Members, Spokane County Division of Engineering and Roads has been very pleased to participate in the development of a new Comprehensive Plan, which will guide Spokane County's development and growth for the next 20+ years. As you know, representatives of County Engineering last came before you on September 14, 2000 to discuss changes to the Arterial Road Plan that was presented at the public open house meetings. Since September 14th, we have continued to refine our judgments and — review of the arterial system, both current system and future needs. It is this review that has prompted the additions and changes to the Arterial Road Plan map that follow. First, 40'"Avenue should be added as an urban minor arterial from Dishman-Mica Rd. to SR27. County Engineering has reconsidered its original opinion of thisfuture arterial, expressed to you at the September 1491 meeting. Revised traffic models, taking into account the additional land areas being added to the UGA in this vicinity, indicate that 40th Ave. will 7 carry a substantial traffic load (10,000 vehicles/day) and therefore, should be planned for. �_ - Airport Drive, the route that connects the Spokane International Airport (SIA) to SR2, should also be represented on the arterial road plan. This road is owned and maintained by SIA and is listed on the National Highway System because of its relationship with the airport. As such. it should be shown on the Arterial Road Plan as an urban principal arterial. Lastly, several minor corrections are listed below. Most of these represent facilities that were shown as future arterials and are currently under construction, near completion and/or are constructed and open for public travel • Appleway Blvd., the southern, eastbound portion of the Valley Couplet, from the 1-90 Interchange to University Rd. is scheduled to open within the next week. It should be shown as a solid lined red representing an existing principal arterial- • Country Vista Dr. from Henry Rd. to Mission Ave. should be shown as a solid green line representing an urban minor arterial. • Evergreen Rd. from Mission Ave. to Indiana Ave. should be shown as a solid red line representing an urban principal arterial. 1026 W.Broadway Ave. • Spokane, WA 992604/170 • (509)477-MOO FAX:(509)477-7655(2nd Floor)477-7473(3rd Floor) • TDD: (509)477-7133 a7 ) 110/1 !/ZUUU 1b:Yl7 Jtl`_ISZ4/bbJ Wun1r rL.Anvinu r.,va o0 00432 Aero Rd. from the 1-90 Interchange to a point just east of the curve shown on the map should be a solid red line representing an urban principal arterial. • Mirabeau Pkwy. from SR27 to Indiana Ave. should be shown as a solid green line representing an urban minor arterial. An additional note, Euclid Ave- has a name change and is now also Mirabeau Pkwy. • Mansfield Ave. from Montgomery Ave. to Mirabeau Pkwy should be shown as a dashed green line representing an urban minor arterial. A portion of this future arterial is shown, however, the remaining portion should be added. • Mission Ave. from a point just west of the curve shown on the map to Harvard Rd. should be shown as a solid green line representing an existing urban minor arterial. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to work with you in the Growth Management process. • We respectfully request that the changes listed above be made to the Arterial Road Plan map. If you have questions concerning any of the items listed above, please don't hesitate to bring them to my attention. Yours truly, • William A. Johns, P.E. County Engineer -{.we. Sic- s .. Steve Stairs, E.I.T. Transportation Engineer Cc_ Bill Johns Ross Kelley • • r � 0 433 SATURDAY,APRIL ia,EDOT v • A'TWICE-WEEKLY t00K-AT COM MUNITV NEWS' TME SPDKgESMAN aEVIEW # % aL: ice( (il s . w t m `#`”'vr , fi it } 9 1 r • � �T ��: it �" I` _ii ---.e—r--.-17-17. i 1 -t i'71 7 44 It' i / c r r 1 f t � I � - -f 1y T 4 . - 1 {f''I''''1' s '` hi MeV"'ot cane County decides to make 40th Rvenue an ---.;aderlaf it could run between Painted Hills Golf Course aodfhe houses that overlook the course. 6.,;,,-. 9U . t 4 ss t INSIDE '. n .. te "2- es<wa i`i .s , i E coli found > >..i.-;;.,- cvr �s „�� a � er = t mobile-home k . . is c q f , ,, s, watersupplY r .. �. �. xs � P � qq r s �3 X4.. 4�`«s 3><'� f roes Y f Buslnessmel 3x a s> }Fxr 'is_,...,' ':• c .Y ''"` seeI. II .mIU ey op Proposedland-weplancottldaffect & ;- � for:v II values and debe'kpment optums farp- , n ,a .- facilities R arry Story(ry Ill C Hut ors�P A O i'-a' i ro P 00434z;t v � E'er P'` sf te7 ` „ t. ;;:-.141,,-44"...14i' 4;.�� ,,,} l : sMernampsoM�a Spaiesnur . 1 172i T Vsk i xMa._ Xe - ._J_ By Ltn*Huan,✓$taffwdter i .,jr_..J�s 91 -1 "'it"i -� Key to (t nit; he late afternoon springisun g 7"is t"lg� $.. ,4 .areas over-40th T t , t 1 � . , .ax ©LOwdem ■ warms the back deck at" �' nt+ r HalEtal I'i'+ s, ,residential .Katbleen arta De. b tmaq S .`sr - «�.� jos d.. . F]medium AveC. nue - , ? r- a0th Ave p��yd �� "house . °t r,tri m n 5[` a i�� ttit . ` �' it,dens a -• - .3' "" ,. • Below their fee[,the lawn r ) L x i�iat "ic) . n3"1 F t ®'yigh density i.pnfurls into a-rolling ezpause ofd ,� �,;,�l � residmaal Shows fa ways and greens on the ° y commercial ssl , .. r Painted Hills Goff Course � , v y, -Q.hl.ct.`"" -.� Iwo �'s>w2. � :,,�Y ru ®�Cnnunumry whatS at t � r .- 1 . commercial Forested ridges mark the skgbne RS t i i . 4 a ,c k �'?SP'l rSi © urban reserve s The picture is framed m theta . :A ,r ,d44� F ,_ ` i ll: p purai i StakeIn Iitwgroomwindow '- ,yy4�, mapr.ms 1`1 '- a , v t r i�*,� �..miuwration COZGnty$ +h;s arAar. y, { ' a� � i36 0 RUral t A narrow-cart path is the only i tf c* 'tza it s thing that separates the Whitman u. 3 - ' s 1� propose .and 91°1111°41 her neighbors to the Greens aP r '� ' " f shn mu Mid dome from the golfcourse7'hey t' „ ' yidDough[the luxuryhomesforthe p�(nf9�86 .r comfy wJl Lavembwldanewroute '""' use kr. chtthei and omesfor,thc Findmgsom netcOjameforthe lo9791.sthroughthearea _ But that could change - r m',cc—War/out' ---c-ngpl " 'th" e ee quandary that onW highlights `, fJThn Spokane Cowry engineers are pantfingets anyrraryiAlmostll,' �,z. the eed.--thgthe new plan rd:foguide t :.looking for a place to build a new ' every'one saysbad p 4 vs e"r., td the cowry ac ording to arterial to correct Bowdish Road culprit. i +rt �A,4'4 offjSials.On Wednesday,county with Highway 27 Cutting between .No onershapPyaiNlddo-We:4..a* o :verswill hold their first We houses that Lne the north end of neighborsw il�d4j theli:w an , ).1, ) hea�ng on the comprehensive. ,the golf course is the best route,they intimate�q, .� q,e use plan,the 20-year blueprint .say,to handle growing tragic In this Housep Rg f pointy deveiopmenh 'part of the Spokane Valley would suffer bong .� 4:-:!""t.:±4.'cif isone of the illustrations that . : But over the years,developers nortliern`half of heIrhddc n t to.showwby we need a were allowed to put houses and yards sub _rs'onwor,skpial ets. ortbel f comp eheoswe plan that is more . where engineers planned to extend; atttugthrougblJi}yii7s'tree)sto the '.+ them-tpgmeralguide.It won't' 40th Avenue.No one was required m ,schook d wunty en eers admi[ $y° r preymt allpf these load of decisions set aside space for the road,even misiiken were inAdeby err #.4, r'u i : �* , iq .,,though it first,appeared pn county prgdecegpts� ntuaTkelhetl s> ,. -')Y Continued PlanIP>ige 5 a • • sabnday 40. sow.,-Paats: 0 0 4 3 5 r yi x agreed.The 40th Avenueconnection Fx� ./ez-�� 'Ki t� :yv,,y ggtl .°' '.; g was not included in the artenalroad-- ,e ) • "-4r-t,_J ill r~ t:c w s or s *i "s A . plan in the commas recommendation' . ' to• ^•t e V 7- i �t*,.. '� . _* � county commissioners. - _. ,{. 4 _ ,.�..•r�4._'p�4. ' i t. "®-.. �k ,.... ?--- ; a". - Now,Whitman,Blegen and t h e i r s, t ,. l ;+ r ~ . it C � ss" ),~..4.r . neighbors will hav to persude u + . _: �7' 7s. r^ . d2k. cicel " commissioners col,kee'pd thaid5 til r -c"`- .y � t , .� ,� whenthryfinalizethe epmprehensi v e , i w r fl. 7r_!'7.3e -w; ,,v �i;Ted". . 771plan. r tt.e, ` c yv7 - « `' �� • :Risen theymake theucase t :. r5"t-- ,Cdice; 4 y �.,.... a couprywmmissionerson `l-rr 0 F s7771:30: Wednesday,Midiome neighbors "-- :Ya - --y� 3T— said theyhopethe planningtC L— t °'rt o- X -a%^^ g -. commission decision will weigh . , t tl ,ca-4 �1 .,. heavily Their . Y twe -- 'i. ,a � .,- - � " ,,..f:;?-7.7..L- feel goodabouthowTeyhave used• 'too �+ k t - t 4SY:: lyi f the publieProcestoshowtheir yc y , t ,X� 3- a .r .s .,c. concerns L i' R }1::::•k;.1:3',.:1k? rASTL + ussaidcuuntyengmyeers ,.4('''s Vti: �i { ,wigtoil Ccommisslonerstheysbuld- - .#€t':`"1,c, r i :a me hing tndlan dd'-: do so L form ,.. :os : k, : .•., , i - �deyelopmentz naffrcin t >t s.rti .iyAS. a fila rky ti itt s'rrelbmw“irvule swtema.aen neighborhood tecountyIstalkfnpabo glitanp40thAvenuethrohbetweenthesehouseflna edoofcourse, _ ,r {,He said he will present•the board._ s i f T, +� s .,9 x ,t she. ' ii l ji itiWa list ofOptions thatiihcfudes. .,:.... tads of plans to build as on bf 4f TraffiOttig feet l etet at tonnectionsoutl of 3114 to i building 40th Avenue improbmg ; Ith Avenue: t hisaepdhmentb t lrandfethbbxba traffic study i i 32ndAvenue,extending,44thAveuue We discoveredfthai U AIpenod pp reooinitend di 1f,• n'sb�,•e siestimatedthehew deve'opmnents t Over the hill to Highway 275orreehng about13 ars,eoun . ial iers i urban I r., op"tbd� Eouldaddu fd 0000 ye typ'� a i p � trips*day in the growdtboundane3so more�:: rd engineers had systematically t coniIfisst6he b•• folattnlyf lothe roads.He wfbfez letterl6 the Houses ares t built in thearea Iminateda secngd of4OtbAvenhe "E`itigltfa•'Yttjw4OT i e'2lfowddr?:^t i planrun�commissiod rem'mmendmg The lasto non is sureto been.... T derelopersto drealeariihin i smairyneghb ifIse*- thdt 40th Avenue be put back into the moreo osluon.. ddske a - ',skunk hounin hark'. intitman` ,'sow` i v pat"l �stAsi artenal food len •' 4 - 9 i,4 a �, P V P g e :..Dames said theywenls strongly id. ,. , ,, of ht on ecompreFt >` �- When Whitman and Blegen4ound� Daines,said tlieywill"strongty:.. The result was the Greens at plan;lando4vneiipei`suadedthet ."-out,they organized a presentation to. oppose"any attempts to move that : idilome. "'- t plalinin boa' ostr"etehthett M, the planning commission to show •area back out of the urban growth: Edgar Bueschke whodeveloped ' boundanestomd'tidealhosta ''what they uncovered.They spent ' boundaries. ` e gated cornmunity,said hewas , square0oflandiouth0f44t1i about an hourand75 minutes •DairiesWasone of a number of rprised to hear the county was 4*-0z Avenue -4: ' m t.:w ,.presenting their case to the board. developer's Who sued thecounty .nsidering a road there. Millionaiiehigh:techentrepreneur '-,: Among other things,Blegen,an.. commissioners over the interim -•'"` "T lould not haveallowed us BemardDainesbwns"about80acres- ' engineerfor the state Department of • urban growth boundaries,saying they d iatwas part of their plan theiewhich hervantstodevetopinto Transportation,questioned the were too tight. . - - :saw,. rt was all done in fulviesv' a tiiiswess parkora,' inixoflldmes-t i-estimates used for increased traffic in County commissioners are idwith the cooperation andari_dliusmesses.Hefiipromrsed WM. The area.The additional trips would expected to adopt the final proval of the county." pay',thecd fo?tRendmgsewer tobe much lower,he said,because the . comprehensive plan this summer.:.; Engineers dropped 40th Avenue the area. e't H - ?topography and existing plats would - • .�_ fthe arterial road outline theygave Staifssaid Once Oil landwas make it impossible for the intense planning commissioners in 1997 added tothebtbangrowth tk, l, .:- development the county engineers . - - len mirk startedon the new,'i bouiidanesenGyuleeri reed - usedin theirestimate. --:. ■lode Hutson can be reachedat92721&5 pmprehensiveplan theyaouldnee nom2 tlieTh flwest Theplanningcommissioners or bye-mall attoneh@spokesmancom;. Si ct4 • 11,4 ARE YOUR IV. w�el�, I � r ) �%f�� fin* . .p 29 IT I`J' y ro �l ' KIDS.DRIVING ',V., �rt . :. tl�' YOU CRAZYr t� - - r. I e r ? It's Ume to.try .0, I ° i rt i tors "Lovaand logic.— . 14-,";-....._,#,'...,.-.,-g. r „_ � Attend the : - ,........................y . SHURGARD� �E,,,ER _, Love and Logic. Parent • $ T O' R A G1,271-: �� Seminar lsw"- .. a, tel: - - • For parents of kids of all ages... . ,.1 Ma i 8 tiisi t it",•�i " r zi Five Tuesdays in May, F 1 r� f i 7% It 4711: - May 1 to-May 29 • "'�' " Y `t, ') +s3 . -630to:8:00PM . I It iii IL1 ,141.5 as % , .'- • t,„ti. �1 . Teaching Children Responsibility ., s 4 Boxes• id Say hese'` lab e "3* • Learn strategies for teaching children to make wise xti '' •?`v' "i' ' •'k ° >gill- 1 choices,and thus prepare them for success In the f j er I a •I Ila I +s x*a real world. Rediscover the joy of being a parent. x6 MorfBg�r ¢O$3l hleti� a1k,q f .. ... U. ` l.'$: fit•f' ..�c' @ .\ )aIle To register a,.. n4� eix- ii �obi �/ y call: • •tin, .p , = - `j�' � �,Nc ,t I {; �ssemb"I� 924-0466 :< • - Childcare and 4f2420tERlrldfan4:oNLYaYi4ChelEtJti. S 1 ••v. We +ie""+'^"� .c}' Across from Toys A y , Childcare andel C011 3" fOd�21ya5 370 OL „r2: ` " 15678 East Broadway _ In nominal fee' 00436 To: Growth Management Steering Committee of Elected Officials From: Gayle Puu Carroll Date: April 11, 2001 Re: Spokane County Planning Commission's recommendation for an IUGA line change in Spokane Valley to expand the urban growth area and incorporate approximately 640 acres, situated south of 40th Ave. between SR 27 and Pines/Madison Roads in the FUGA. I respectfully ask the members of the Growth Management Steering Committee to exclude the above-described acreage from your recommendation for Spokane County's final urban growth area (FUGA). The Spokane County Planning Commission did not comply with the requirements of the Growth Management Act in its planning, analysis and provision for transportation in this area of the Valley, as needed to support intensified urban land use for the 640 acres in question. The Recommended Plan does not address proper arterial connection from SR 27 to Dishman-Mica.Road in the vicinity of 40th Ave., or any alternative location providing similar urban minor arterial function, to move east-west traffic safely and efficiently around established neighborhoods. Please supplement my oral testimony at today's public hearing with the attached documentation and comment: 1. Copy of Spokane County's official road map for the area of Spokane Valley in the vicinity of the recommended IUGA line change. This map was projected (or intended to be projected) at the public hearing. 2. Public comment from Gayle Puu Carroll and other residents of Midilome Subdivision asking the Spokane County Planning Commission to exclude the above-described acreage from the urban growth area because of missing minor arterial streets, and related transportation problems, in this area of the Valley. 3. Spokane County Engineers letter dated October 6, 2000 recommending the addition of an urban minor arterial at 40th Ave. to the proposed arterial road plan if the above-described acreage is added to the urban growth area. (40th Ave. is a proposed minor arterial on the 1986 Arterial Road Plan that is the County's official control for planning and placement of arterial roads until Spokane County's adoption of a new comprehensive plan/maps.) 0 ; 43 7 Steve Stairs told the Planning Commission at its March 8, 2001 deliberation session that County Engineers considered 40th Ave. to be "the best approach" if the IUGA line changed to incorporate the 640 acres in question. Alternatively, assuming traffic could be effectively routed to 32nd Ave., that road would require expansion (a five-lane facility was - mentioned) if the County did not build 40m Ave. to accommodate "substantial traffic" from an expanded urban growth area. Nonetheless, the Planning Commission ignored County Engineering and failed to plan, analyze and provide, in policy, map or Capital Facilities Plan, for any urban arterial to serve the expanded urban growth area. 4. Note from a Spokane County Long-Range Planning Division staff member stating the Long-Range Planning Division's recommendation for exclusion of the above-described acreage from the urban growth area. The Planning Commission confirmed this statement at its March 8, 2001 deliberation session when public comment from Midilome Subdivision residents (included in the record as Exhibit#75) was discussed. The Planning Commission recommended expanding the urban growth area to include the 640 acres in question despite staff recommendation to the contrary. 5. Copies of letters from Midilome Inc., and others, who participated in the land use process that eliminated the 40th Ave. right of way between Pines and Bowdish Roads in 1988 and 1992-3; and, copies of documents (or relevant parts) from subdivision files for Midilome Subdivision and The Greens that reference 40th Ave. and/or arterial streets in this area of the Valley. When the plan for a minor arterial at 40`h Ave. changed by land use decision in 1988 and 1992-3, the developer and the County looked to internal residential streets of Midilome Subdivision to accommodate traffic. In 2001, the Planning Commission cannot be permitted to use this paradigm. Traffic generated by intensified land use in this already impacted area of the Valley must be correctly routed to roads built to function as urban minor arterials: 2 B\,..AKE . i r. //moi zz = ID r .�.... C@NK4 v% �' ' ......„ ...i r ti •.�• OQ. ... /.. fl• „II , I* .__„___ . . --• ••• �� lit...-. c • it „ i .•6:, • 44 .. •a • ' ' • •• SatOCA13 k iv . . N. ..... voite.:.. is , . . . : 4 : . . a C . • . •• •i. a.►:. I �Q.,, Q • . _ . , E- N le elba” r:O l', 'I t lir*. .e r ' 111110 p0 • . ' v• ... o WINAllig GI R, s tillitilati , :� r ; ! " ' !11P111111 $11 NVn 00439 Gayle Puu Carroll 11823 E. 38th Ave. OMNN`f^d AO NOISIAIO Spokane, WA 99206 MAR - ? 2001 March 7, 2001 LO!'NY I "? T.cjuilirry HAND DELIVERED t.'? 'cat RECEIVED Mr. Tim Lawhead L` VISION o'- PLANN3NG MAR 0 7 2001 Long Range Planning Division • COUNTY ENGINEER 1026 W. Broadway Spokane, WA 99206-0263 RE: Urban Growth Area Line Adjustment To Add Approximately 640 Acres Situated Between Pines/Madison Rd. And SR 27, South Of 40th Ave. in Spokane Valley Dear Tim: As discussed in our telephone conversation yesterday, it is important for the Spokane County Planning Commissioners to have copies of Midilome residents' comments (public record in Draft Plan 2000 hearing process) in their hands when they deliberate on March 8, 2001. My concern is based on your feeling that the 640 acres south of 40th would be added to the UGA and 40th Avenue, as proposed by the engineer and presently on the Arterial Road Plan, would be eliminated. I have attached copies from my records to give to the Planning Commissioners. I make this request for these reasons: 1. Until Spokane County adopts its revised comprehensive plan, as required by the Growth Management Act, 40th Ave. has been, and remains, a proposed minor arterial connection on the Arterial Road Plan for our area of the Valley. This fact makes some neighbors uncomfortable, but the truth remains that 40th Ave. is part of Spokane County's existing comprehensive plan and that 40th Ave. is missing. As to Draft Plan 2000, the issue of 40th Ave.'s fate is whether to delete it from the ARP. To phrase the issue in any other way is misleading because it is the above-described 640 acres that is the "addition" to the IUGA, and a minor urban arterial is needed to support urban densities for this addition. Plainly speaking, you can't have one without the other. The public record for Draft Plan 2000 is replete with documents that demonstrate why the 40th Ave. arterial disappeared from the our neighborhood plan, contrary to the original preliminary plat for Midilome Subdivision and the official controls adopted by Spokane County. Some of this information is included in the attached letters, and the rest is part of the presentation delivered by property owners adjoining the 40th Ave. right of way at the March 5, 2001 public hearing. 00440 Mr. Tim Lawhead March 7, 2001 Page 2 2. Spokane County Engineers, by letter dated October 5, 2000, informed the Planning Commissioners that 40th Ave. needed to remain on the Arterial Road Plan because of the additional land areas (above-described 640 acres) being added to the UGA. "It is only a letter", but it is a very significant one for the Planning Commission's determination of what will be added to the IUGA and/or how the infrastructure will be improved to accommodate planned growth at urban densities. In his letter, Mr. Steve Stairs, E.I.T., Spokane County's Transportation Engineer, speaks to the issue of traffic impact due to intensive urban land use for the 640 acres in question, and he recommends an urban minor arterial at 40th Ave. to carry an estimated 10,000 cars. If the Planning Commission decides to remove 40th Ave. from the.Arterial Road Plan, it cannot add the 640 acres to the UGA. The reason is obvious. If an urban minor arterial is not planned and built, the 10,000 cars that would use it daily will seek minor arterial connection via Midilome Subdivision residential streets. This scenario is not acceptable to Midilome residents for the very same reasons stated by property owners adjacent to the original 40th Ave. right of way at the March 5, 2001 public hearing. Their arguments for "stopping 40th Ave." apply to "stopping minor arterial function on Midilome residential streets". We all need protection from the same minor urban arterial traffic. Furthermore, there is significantly greater risk to public safety when arterial traffic is allowed to cut through a residential area on streets never intended for this purpose. This issue must be dealt with properly as intended by the Growth Management Act. Please provide the Planning Commissioners with the entire record as it relates to the minor urban arterial at 40th Ave. and the inclusion of the 640 acres in the UGA, so that this issue is given the serious consideration it deserves. Sincerely, Gayle Puu Carroll GPC:mrb Enclosures cc: Spokane County Planning Commission (w/encl.) Spokane County Board of Commissioners (w/encl.) Mr. Steve Stairs (w/encl.) Mrs. Kathleen Whitman (via fax) 00441 SP1 March 5, 2001 Spokane County Planning Commission WV:" do Tim Lawhead Long Range Planning Division 1026 W. Broadway Spokane, WA 99206-0263 RE: URBAN GROWTH AREA LINE ADJUSTMENT TO INCLUDE APPROXIMATELY 640 ACRES SITUATED BETWEEN PINES/MADISON RD. AND SR 27, SOUTH OF 40TH AVE. IN SPOKANE VALLEY Dear Spokane County Planning Commissioners: The undersigned property owners in Midilome Subdivision who live on 38th Ave., or lots adjoining 38th Ave., ask you not to include the above-described land in the Urban Growth Area (UGA). As you have been informed by written comment and testimony, Spokane County did not conform to its comprehensive plan in 1988 and 1992-3 when it eliminated 40th Ave. as a minor arterial connection between Pines and Bowdish Road. Property owners in Midilome live with the traffic impact of these decisions daily. If you include the 640 acres in question in the UGA, you will exacerbate the problem and overburden our residential streets. It is very easy for Spokane County to blindside citizens and inflict injury through the land use process. Our neighborhood is the perfect example of this. Spokane County cannot extol quality of life in this community and, at the same time, sacrifice neighborhood integrity at the expense of growth. The transportation system in this area of the Valley cannot handle urban densities for the 640 acres. Public safety is at risk when road connectivity is ignored. If past bad decisions tie the hands of development interest in this area, so be it. • Sincerely, • Name: 7 Address: Ria / �- di + it _ v NOiSlAIO (See additional signatures on attached sheets.) : 00442 Page 2 of 4 RE: MARCH 5, 2001 LETTER—UGA LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR 640 ACRES SOUTH OF 40TH AVE, SPOKANE VALLEY Name: ! S 61Z L Comments: Address: k2-2 11 112 4-tn Name: RAJ;; / t i /I P; E ' r' P AM PA Address: ( 2 1 p 's E 5 3~- A v Fr- Name: Name: (Q0-v-.-c- A"--c-".44 Address: II i 1 C f, • i g F� . Name: Address: /MOS- r ?Ph 4 Ave Name try Address: 1` D 1 tZ t1 — OpJti n Name: r , _ Address: / • Name: Address: 3735 ' ,I4/3i :i Name: ' ; ;( 1 �` y n `- Address: \ 5 - 0\f ,-) Y 00443 Page 3 of 4 RE: MARCH 5, 2001 LETTER—UGA LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR 640 ACRES SOUTH OF 40TH A E.,SSPO E VALLEY Name: pct Com). ,�r/� ---- Comments: Address: 3701 _. . (Arlo; , Name: 4,t+ %Y X1.1 Vi-141/oAo/I Address: 330 2 S; 7,4//DA) Name: iii Addresscriagy: 119 I Ar, 8i" IIVL - il Name: ; Yjr L '�Ns X Y ;� U1 Address: ) I q xo F 3c6" Name:TAW n TscrbkYY s /M l cw4Tante/ Address: 31-13(o(-,- Q-0.04 l' Name: r• r,�.I.� -: ;:11: Address: /27/fL fr 25, Ac-' Name: ),itill `y' 1 it• 'J l(1 Sl vL Address: / IA/ 1 L -57. 3 Name: P(Y'ly n" 077t/44%ttt/ Address: /2 )JO 3 5 00444 Page 4 of 4 RE: MARCH 5, 2001 LETTER—UGA LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR 640 ACRES SOUTH OF 40TH AVE., SPOKANE VALLEY Name: i•,roil,- $OTU1-li'h15 Comments: Address: � / 11q13 � E VS A\( Name: Va,c a cni-1 41/7 C..cl&-/ Address: lig.;_ , e 3 C( UPi Name: ea_ L ` — f Address: / 4,2 (., E 3 / Name: Addree - 5 304- 6:16" Name: &11:01tAd4 --'- Address: / 1 Si I Name: 4a ��ccci �.��.44.-r �`� Address: it /% s.-7,g 3 US _/ Name: '31 )@ Alei Address: 'Q C. O ' Name: . Address: 6, 00445 March 5, 2001 ' ^ , . Spokane County Planning Commission do Tim Lawhead DiWISION f, F P,.ANN!NG Long Range Planning Division 1026 W. Broadway Spokane, WA 99206-0263 RE: URBAN GROWTH AREA LINE ADJUSTMENT TO INCLUDE APPROXIMATELY 640 ACRES SITUATED BETWEEN PINES/MADISON RD. AND SR 27, SOUTH OF 40TH AVE. IN SPOKANE VALLEY Dear Spokane County Planning Commissioners: The undersigned property owners in Midilome Subdivision who live on Loretta Dr. and 37th Ave., or lots adjoining Loretta Dr. and 37th Ave., ask you not to include the above- described land in the Urban Growth Area (UGA). As you have been informed by written comment and testimony, Spokane County did not conform to its comprehensive plan in 1988 and 1992-3 when it eliminated 40th Ave. as a minor arterial connection between Pines and Bowdish Road. Property owners in Midilome live with the traffic impact of these decisions daily. If you include the 640 acres in question in the UGA, you will exacerbate the problem and overburden our residential streets. It is very easy for Spokane County to blindside citizens and inflict injury through the land use process. Our neighborhood is the perfect example of this. Spokane County cannot extol quality of life in this community and, at the same time, sacrifice neighborhood integrity at the expense of growth. The transportation system in this area of the Valley cannot handle urban densities for the 640 acres. Public safety is at risk when road connectivity is ignored. If past bad decisions tie the hands of development interest in this area, so be it. Sincerely, Name: Address: 3Bi 7 S. L0�6TTA _-)ig• (See additional signatures on attached sheets.) • 00446 Page 2 of 8 . RE: MARCH 5, 2001 LETTER—UGA LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR 640 ACRES SOUTH OF 40TH AVE., SPOKANE VALLEY Name: �j ,)� F i I Y1 a,f./ A > Comments: Address: „}y,2 5 U. to 4fio th2, Di Name: Gab o,J P Socc Nofib tee Address: S . 3832. L0.0-etrf} Name: _-e41 I J 0-'JNA-3 Address: 3D' 3 3 d . Ace- 117: I- Name: (71/ecCct, l (J(J± Address: 38rI 1 S . etttsfit, Name:.9#� /��21;.,I Address: `3.41/ S o t•-e-// ✓/� NanciP(A Address: 3 cr-6 ? S - 4 o n. 4 / A • Name: • c - 2 Address: 37 /S S L. 0rQ-� Name: / /i/ ��-i - 7-74Addres: (/r/3 7.-C- 3 00447 Page 3 of 8 RE: MARCH 5, 2001 LETTER—UGA LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR 640 ACRES SOUTH OF 40TH AVE., SPOKANE VALLEY Name: Sk I (keel 17 9reL Address: 3W7 Name: mule*, F u I leir okealerti_gttize-A-2 Address: 331 Me I iSSC&_ • Name: A - afrutocata-a/ Address: 35I S. htiotat Name: ''Kca•p Q Ay, Address: a so ck Name: u3 [ Address: 72 ( 6 . Lio Name: Address: GP!'3 Name: no riivE;()X Address: Name: / C - Address: 00448 Page 4 of 8 RE: MARCH 5, 2001 LETTER—UGA LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR 640 ACRES SOUTH OF 40TH AVE., SPOKANE VALLEY Name: Citi!'? /2,L L Comments: Address: 3.3 17 -S , U/�� ; -e o e Name: 3kc 1\ l c t S Ir- c ZO.:A .3C) Address: 3*U\ 5. I--1,4-`Ti4 tti • Sc-)OU -)cc. 17�O tp jL� Name: 0.,K, �� h. \ Address: 1 l e`(1 5 6 3 LI (I , Name: Ay , 7 Address: /461-7— -? Name: /.}l�l /A/(6---.5 Address: Fla- 5' ae eaC �� o/(i),4i C= 6t) - 97,366 Name: . i i ' J " AFJ / Address: Sr 3 /�)Z. 7,72S Name: a /1 J-.. �.e----6-d Address: -S- V0,24' f7%70,-,c.4,:rL- Name: 7)/7 �.,-- Address: J `Oct f ilc= n IU 00449 Page 5 of 8 RE: MARCH 5, 2001 LETTER—UGA LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR 640 ACRES SOUTH OF 40TH AVE., SPOKANE VALLEY Namejin61/a (�l� � h Comments: Address: s1/a7 ;S, //S✓<Ci Name: ce I/1.' /S Address:MI I 5, &tics /e.2r Name: 1i12.>v Address: 7/62/ Name: `i%"`/��^ 7V-- Address: /76;/ 3 /.a Name: , .,„ Address: 3 S ( S., Lo r't Name: A 4 © rn�i'7YM YUMNaAddress: 75-7:1 [Or CUM-- Name: me: / Address: 55/ 7 S. 6. (d- ?O Name: Address: Ii 00450 Page 6 of 8 RE: MARCH 5, 2001 LETTER—UGA LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR 640 ACRES SOUTH OF 40TH AVE., SPOKANE VALLEY Name: An AUL (/ Comments: Address: ) f 7)-7 Cc, Name: V1h„ a �F �a ✓�. Address: \ KC=i . Name: ( 70:40 Address: //8/0 f 3 711- Name: 17t Address: 117/7 E . 3 7 714..e, Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: lk Page of $ 00451 RE: MARCH 5, 2001 LETTER—UGA LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR 640 ACRES SOUTH OF 40TH AVE., SPOKANE VALLEY ,f Name: \otett G ,h {a Comments: 4 0 — Address: 3,ro � ' . Lo re ( . h . Name: Ion; k Ger“.) ael-j4 j� M Address: 3610 So L0 itet DR . Name: i u t n (`I c--IC Address: 3 60 -z S Lor e.,41-A. . r W Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: 00452 Page 8 of 8 RE: MARCH 5, 2001 LETTER—UGA LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR 640 ACRES SOUTH OF 40TH AVE., SPOKANE VALLEY Name: C64. 1 fr.. Comments: Address: 117(z E 17 i' t1ve_ Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: - Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: • Icc .eoreffaiocr00453 o o � Gayle Puu Carroll 11823 E 38th Ave. Spokane, WA 99206 • (509) 927-0263 Spokane County Planning Commission do Tim Lawhead Long Range Planning Division 1026 West Broadway Spokane, WA 99206-0263 October 5, 2000 Re: Approximately 640 acres situated between Pines/Madison Rd. and SR 27, south of 40th Ave. in Spokane Valley (Urban Growth Area line adjustment). Dear Spokane County Planning Commissioners: Once again, I ask you not to include the above-described land in the Urban Growth Area, and I incorporate by reference the reasons stated in my previous oral and written testimony. The problem is lack of arterial road connection at 40th Ave. between Pines/Madison Rd. and Bowdish Rd.. Without a properly located and connected arterial system, Midilome Subdivision will be severely impacted by your proposed land use change. Spokane County must address this impact and accept responsibility for the transportation problem in our area of the Valley. Spokane County created this problem when it relinquished 40th Ave as a minor arterial south of Midilome Subdivision. Let me explain with pictures as well as words: 1. Spokane County's existing Arterial Road Plan (adopted in 1986 as part of the .comprehensive plan) includes minor arterial connection at 40th Ave. in the Valley. (Exhibit 1). The proposed map changes for Draft Plan 2000, and revisions thereof, delete 40th Ave. even though it has been recognized historically as the proper location for such minor arterial. This location is approximately three-fourth mile south of 32nd Ave., much like 24th Ave. to the north, and connects Dishman-Mica Rd. to Sullivan Rd. 2. Even though Midilome Subdivision was approved in the late 1970s with a minor arterial at its south boundary (40th Ave.), the County gave up this minor arterial in 1988, and further modified road patterns in 1993 to allow view lots contiguous with Painted Hills Golf Course (Exhibits 2, 3 and 4). These modifications were inconsistent with the Arterial Road Plan and diverted minor arterial traffic to interior streets in Midilome that are not intended for this function. i5 00454 Unfortunately, when Spokane County failed to conform road patterns to the ARP, its own best long-term plan, it eliminated arterial connectivity necessary to support urban land use for the 640 acres in question. Spokane County has already compromised public safety in our neighborhood, and it must now carefully scrutinize future land use in this area for additional traffic impact. To do otherwise would inflict further injury on Midilome residents. Let us not pretend that Spokane County can eliminate 40th Ave. from the Draft Plan 2000 arterial road maps, adjust the IUGA to include these 640 acres and still have public interest at heart. Nothing has changed as to the need for, or location of, a minor arterial at 40th Ave. between Pines/Madison Rd. and Bowdish Rd.; intensifying land use without this minor arterial is recklessness. Spokane County must say "no" to influential property owners who want UGA designation for these 640 acres, even if difficult or embarrassing, unless it is willing to build the necessary road in accordance with Spokane County's Arterial Road Plan. The integrity of existing neighborhoods must be recognized, prioritized and protected as our community develops under growth management urban densities. The time to start is now. Sincerely, air.7 Gayle Puu Carroll - 1� 7 . _ i. MI LWALI)c - 7--, nivrt I .ur-Efen-s .• r.— ,. ' g i 4 5:M•17•115A0 i . -1 (-I . f —1.01". t • 14.4 ' C ,I:5:C: • .SCh • 4.61.<-I .re E _ 4 I . 1 n.rn 5 ___ ..ku rr _,... .LI 11.. - .-- i: ...,-1 \ ..- ,,,,,,i:. ritirs.‘ Wille_ p c-P,,,...,...-6.-`4,1,(--• .- - ..._..- . . it; ...7.tre.___• ._.....lvq., , .90B.qa,4-0,.6...::. ...- .pc .. , Sch /On '-ink:nook/son Ants 7: • Ad.11'. • ' Z°2° • IintrnCevt•;k?..) a<kir ' i I I 72 i i . .-Poos4V•tmcs.• ...... k,Liu:,stnioitc• ,• ..--.• a . .----.,..— _ .: ton _, ,... ;.-i- --. , ft\ i1 !.- i i. • • - i - ai I ri E . , .* • I;. % ti ' % ,,,...........:=-... . " F . I . ... S I- I' 4 • ci' 1 ---.,I c.:_. _ ..zt,west i —________ • . • 1 .-- - ,-•-14 - ..r....77; : :i• ;-_,.„.:it.. .i ._::. C .,....) e• u,2°" -M t non.la j i-cir-.- - 16thic- ' ' ..:Tg ....,/ .‘ . -.----1,,s.....1- .. --:• •••7t:.• con 1 • i,.. -•:..: retN.,1 • E,A H _I- '!LEST i ‘•1 ' •• • .---r-: --- "-t- a.•:::--.„ N. - --,,,,• 11 . r , si ,133-.. ..;--_ -•-/,.......L...--- i - ". •fl.,,,,j V •- (--- -So i ,--' -. ._ . o • II n f---,---- -...: ri_-_------'3s. ‘'e- - • . . _. •• . • . . . . . , . . . • • - - ---w---1::: -,—,--po -, ,- ----4-• 7 k ' 2 4 t h t . .St.alma f' ---• ... ...Ss. %;..t ... '04 '1 E•Pr-- .• - ..- Lo k --f-7-. ' l• ___„, - , S. • - vve"!:26-.- - •-• os...4.- • ' • , • -ict -- z :._ / • :- . - r I/ ' ::::,(94%!:,,,I,-:k : !°111. ellit __,- -•- . . • ' - o . . . - - . ... —a-- • . - 5275 t . ‘ "s°`-., • --Jet , 1,_ -- -- .., .,.. • • -BM-. ' . • • --- ., . . _ -- .4 -. - - 0 .C.:- .-...: ,‘_V._--- -- c 35-, :::•;.-'sr. .. 7 I, i r1"---,-/-N_ z.' -;:...m . 47'32130" . 1‘184 2'30ff •Ier'-‘, ,ft I rs2_ 21392006 FEET MEEMAL‘1„444 ... -111 1St ADOPTED: 'SEPT. 301986 C' tVitEeFts4'1810 .. 7.”---:?- - :IA ,.4C: maPAM•EM5ter.fiitieteerrigtV'tku-V6--89 - _ .- • ontrxIpli\lplatiiicel05040 _ _ . --,— — — •:?:-.4'- 4- , a 1990 CPA-6 8 - 910 D .•4 TopoMFby piKeIblitimreetri merle strove aerial. GM i I-•--- ;F:lk.. •••5 . •••••ca; e-• ' k•;;P.• I ) ,•••- t• • .. .2 .? 1•^ " ' o'ein , -;;,c.,.: zz ._-- — , , A' — "s" - lc.-'- -. ..); ,.;, it- •----.-- -, hs.'; v.....: •i MY% 2/ic c ".01....,•• ''....".7 '•4• •1. • i;e4-;.% •‘:'; . • • •ts . •••• ....-4.,...k•-..--nr---arcin 1:,,14•Z_if W.,:r_.:', '__!"' ,;.;;' ...;.....:z i.l.i.Jr. ,-,:::. :.' .ft-. • _ '; '• " . - -.' 73`"t`ns " - - •\ ."""7—cs:-----1• • .. ••••••:•szl • • - , 1 (4r I 34 . \ ..00..1.-N ' K--N1/4,, 2. - 3,35,,.,- •-NA . _ • i.floq ELLE ...c y , 1 OD se-.1 D•to0s..1 : '• - Iced• I • ' I -.. Vt. -,-. .. _. :4. . ;(ft Or t. - - 16' • . ifie .-•.„,?.7. ei - •z3, .;„ '''''' _ 4.,.1,ty vi-Evi 1.. . , tss o • i - -_- i : .:: \ cdt - , • 1 ._ „......v.: feVll.ioiv•tossT i v 73 I1 eit". ,•'7 a• , ; ‘t•i : ; " A C i t ".- . • t24N •k . , . j \ .k ,•c-,__. .. z - ) . ' I ' l:.".: r I g.,._l ° ;k' •• ;• t• I. • I 1 -,..4: ; •al,j • - :. : I. . • , i k 1. I - • 0 1 1 \' 1.% • • e 4 Zi • :f• . . • , / \ • ' — : 1 -41 \.‘"( - i 3 I- re- ' \• An :‘,-: \- I e. . , t N ; I 4 I .1 : ; . \ ..1-- ' 1. f/lA) t • . • " '- 'HA L''‘''''',....i.•,. . 1 . I. • ... : I ; I • 3t.LivI dr....4.j_2,_..:_,-;t-tt.2,. ._ _..,_•• • ' -..„'___‘2....s.24..c.::_,..,c,•__.., 41_,4_1•... ' t••;........L. •-• •••:" -,•1 tt..• • .: .37 ...i.....^.' -n.rffit-7.4-17'7. -•"H.-. . "47;t14,- --- i . . ---• : ' ' 1— — - ... .. .. . ... .. . . . , . .., . . , •p..".`.1J% I ' 4 .. • ,_ _2___ J . „:" .. -Natt“C-0 i•-kC.-. \ --- ./.--N--ct:tbACC-1/4-.)•).• -‘1.1." „. ; „ .1 . ;' i "•glat cr. . . kj ..,:re_.( •I , , I 1 ' I ' . I j , . I • I r, -. l., i II , 1,L-..i-:.j_—,:1 ii z.,x it ierri,H..; . , ,41.114rN 111 1)1011 Na marl%is.. nisi't:1 :1.C"133ntinscwi, II . . • I 1 .. t 1 si 7,1 ,.. \ • - - 4491 I M , e ''' V...5.°L.. . . • .I'• I . .. . . .. .. • C.oce.A.., ..-"C:..o.... SGet Fir.ICII•••1:' . . ' 1:5 7/Thi I • I - .1o.-) ET-1; . 4 rift-; 0\ •' \ • .NJ€.. YA.- I • 51,-.../......_ Cia•-•.4,1 .I.:(b..1.0.......40,21....1 I. I . I,_ .._ 11_- $ I., . ..-I' 1 e i v• S5S I'. .1 . AMIE 1 . .. 4....,..,-,. 4.A.\.•-•:10.1..k. 4.s..../-0./...).; . • t i , 6 I $4 $ 16 • I 1 J 'Pt 4 • 4.#6.4S4/0 . 01,t sic r..• ./ s 4 I . . I's ',$* .; • , : 1 • e.,.... c....r...'r "2/... CIN *It..2. II.V... i.‘1..•a ft...ea'or a Au 7•.”- -?,,,,•.% Z....I., IS.f.•1.) • I • 1 , 14.„ 11 , . 4...C.NT Mit,. V.... -43/.............A ..../".. ' • , 1, ' 1 • J -- --'--- -I 1- - - -1136#710 ( 4Frah.#41‘,'::,,,:. -1-'1 4 I i 'I \ .4.44 I I S cf.% ING, ..'•,,..::: =Ell.1 ‘‘‘-rt.l''' • .4., . i 1 Va..24ra j•7„....w4.1441.-?...4.0 nit 6.441,4 4.4•4444 1•44.•a••• . ,...•.A, , , ,, .. i ._ .._.::-- ‘ A, N74040 ....., ..wigg • z .• ,I t _ ., . .,..t..„:„.., : .., .... .. ..:. i iii , -ger / LUEUFIC I . - • i i • ... ,_,__.--4--""4 . 1.‘RI..-A,k.a.G.'s I •• 1 J‘t . . i ' ' _I ' I " " II. - - -- -1 1 .. • 4.....-, lb I Zs: i 1 . li 1 4 • ...iilil .. .. ;(... itlir I..* i I . 6...•.- .... sytt: 4; ,i NI ......tn-,-- 66 I .4...ye ,.. ,- t •'" $ •• $I's ---- -1-1. - ' . 3 0 - e .por 4, IN l --I "• A is .- ••• -v .„0... i 4 ,. 0. '• 1 ,1 ' -„, " %sun It i I-—- ---1:LIC .1. ee'CallSt. Alt:llama 1.... ......41t; ..t- , 0 ,„__,.. ..--_,..1_,-.-,-----• - -' " .., , . , , .. 1 , .4.--.:.•,-- ..„,..,..<4 _... .: ..) • .........5.,-f.;:••: , . . , . , ... .. ..._ ...,...7. 7;7,,,,:.,,.........,.w....t.....tr,r4t.-'-'-‘-- iA V> . \t.N. . Null !.. *I, , ... .. . • . is `. a & • . ,. 1.!.:.:totzSaigrai 7,, ,a121-. .. . (, ...\---;• a•• .. . . T. . ....- , . [1:1107, 1.1:: PI.: .f. .... 4 .• :':LI : .' .... ViCENS.Aome4.,. A . .• . •.. 0"::.:. kit:;•ilc:::11% ,.,‘... ,. ,.... , • % i. • 1 hill, . . , • b; 'tit.. II.'-: •441..; 'tick. '...' e'41/4::.. .' ' 410i•:"I.: I tt"si 6 4.111. •`.'MEILThleil • ).. • • ai. afttei.t..‘ 6 S'.4' . „,,,, t. gpirmrtgagar.mlon -:: .. • ', %... .-tt-ii7-------4PmdsNiffmil.7:. , • r.;:•-=;.:=1_,z7.:---;f74.....-- . ••.:77:-j.'.:::::::2;H:::.:• :',..:::4s,...•••44,..,'...4- .7 •'• '2 . A CP$ 17.--7-.-P-- . . , il-f-st , ;I, ,, ,. , '.. ' n'••••••• • . • e.,• •-.4,—,—,-4-,..------.-:\Ats.....: • iii) i•fei v I "Irr44 -4111-54141141-4*•,,, -a :•. : • .1' N.._Staisli* Lill4*1%%1;'410110111,Xt • :;•1 il iiiiimfiNfanfiliN ... • t 6 . . . , , . . . . •. i .- • • ." . . . ,...: .. 4 • / ...• .. . letilliptliatili ..1,?......,0---( 1•4‘.4..3- . . • . . • • .. • ....... ........— • t .. .-. , .. •....• ..-.....•••• •.4+-14.;p.7....-1-:•,. .........4..;•ity,::::,,,,.: ..t>...::...:.:-.44,1,,..,..e.:441.../•,,,,......::.0... v...). .. .. -/ivy . .,,- ' .... ....c-,...14-. :.c.77.; ..y,••:i.•:..,,:I \I. . . . - .••• . • co ::: . .::••• - • *.* • • ..sz, ;:•••-i . 1 • • 0. ._-..., C)ite; 1\13.•\ PC)O• r?C "\- C esrli‘ .1?tanNtvev (sued Lt71 Lic.,-:-.c,,,,,,.,,:;„,;,,,,. • • -.: . •g....ra a.............s.4 ...2 ime....... ........ ................... Ct.:At...a,C.C.-...C.:'ea: loi.;.F.S.3.41,-.E-Jar II..?Efiy-7-ii* 441%. • • ,W 15 es•Z .kcr C.A L. .JC.. tc-io••.1, ": 'le.'i : S1',:tit.P....A. W t;".147 II i giinTS;;;)•:1 ,---' :?.?;(0 -11‘474,-.: :;..../.;. .•:::c:...• '.. •-. ...etc, • CP-- 40 tsys ts Cx i•rk• tor avit-e-v la\ ......----____ .. . i.,,,a i.. • z. .?..). ..,..,.,;....,.,..,.. , .. ` t _ _ Tt �R �voved - �SW Hk U a• a4e$ Ai*" oc3tc� 4 er O►s \ \ar a�/ \ �v gal r ` p _ a \S - (c4°'V %cp) ; R.t s , -t p i ir `, m c.... ' ,,''n ty4":0 ' es•N • .. v, V\AYA.or 0.1./-Let" ta.... , R.4.,* . `- --1-- - .... ... .\`• r\. ., •• '44 - 'l� ' A, :C.3 C:0.�wo1�' 15 . I c.a\: :. ::c /p. K n.> ?1 - ie. .'" ✓'- • u /�- ' .y` -- `°S ^� /./ -IvIan ar C -... 2 ... 4., .. .r .fo •• „. I w/ / .k Iii j%/' 1 / \ V C'AITY P/614P/614_ y1 I - 1 t , _' 1 '.., r�� /V� - \' I ° tet\ alI � I • r ter ..t L , : 1 1, ✓ °�\ r ' 'y 1 r, t, ,l 0r , '. :2 n t 51 ti's, , 1 h, r,�1” n VOOI II' '' ' !� .n rO pt t , 1 � r1; C 1/1 J .1 n " 1 J Y-. l :" -' Whitt/KWf C on+a I QC 4414644. V t 14.6V; '1%!1+>l '.OT'FILE 5541451 -1 I 1:466/4OT1:466/4or¢.6 I &OAC.I —. -PFL:LIMINARY PLAT CIT ' ��V�IVIJI �� ..t—r-- ypo V0..1,maaT 0" I NV �'\\\ � (;/�). ` O VT\ \♦i :/do°I CoMatc (3µ11161¢T In//1614 1v j L'. .'Ll •`V•1�4` �1 c..,.=- . ..--,�f�' : '.+, .... V .�\ n4 y-• 0/ !rF 914.t29n,'0 Pt Fv/M las -:.' a "'� -.cRE.fC3 S.SIMPSON ENGINEERS,!NC.;CJ[ I S�t��-�:,r�,r c t r` .9C� :'.^CC:.F. ROAD PH:92.5-1C4- '.� SPOY.'.::3, '.':1ASHINCTON 99212 ^;rl u:.IVY By: PUI.L rb I .J•b 65 I q°Rit J.I 463n,M.: "' I Oi,Z .!f6[0l.: , - I 11340• I I V r...: 00458 11 ► , °yea C.)(eS`t a MS road o►-k\e-va �' �a—� Ng �{v.-._ - AJ Cs?;\\ ?0 r-e&wt; v avVar 0•-k OVA A,le„��1 t2�1 - T Po - ®®®" n (�� " 32 NO AVE. �Oz'!el . a,.� C .O t©.{ "��e0 RlI``L z 10\�.� Mjr) (Jv�: �'r� Q.n .o• O' .� 4 c..,. std Ave .',in• t®®®♦1®mss' 1 . orlit �o ��,�, of ® • co, - o• .. - ; �.- ..• ts , ' Ot rot.I M 10404` /*3159 ', miles pima 14ztjai,--..-. --- • N ei ' •eier_tiiv®. witait.Mb' St ; • =o: v®' t © _ 1!l �g�,. � ,,mil •G.p�i . o �� DP °^ m` 4 :03 h p ` 1O.O .w 44. amu raiite Ob t�7� 1� ©.i 204 • u®, 61 0 t • ,�••fes tr. P 0S%• "14 • i .Ce ' .% 1l, ; .O �z.u go- s .'llrV� IN © { '.) O : "i SDs � ® 4 � 104 zi© Oa O �! , t,z - r ' - ":4::" Q" i, d ° O..uss, x. I 0`kti i 0, r s.®, _sr.. . @ A• i ryy 4, ..s.:-(1- - _ � .�1' i4��:_ Q °nle ° i O. • las) %I) I op oi um ©. 5,0 .n.s� s..Tr `..0 04 0 7 0 r � • y y�+Ow .. _.30° © t0' 'u .Q-,,,w• A -0,,, m�Y " "'p� a ?� 7 OArrRO• yob'` A��. _l6ses 3� rtl-c " `; '� , T. .� `° b .1)ISIStil o r1 _ o ` • +Tines Y toina sk. Cootkac ni ►�7)piyel? ,t) o o ' ; tgEl ®. . t. Tp ,0. In• 4J • n a r "moi Q • i t• O + tgia^,tet 0_72., 0,,,, , : ,,.. • - 20. .. ...„,,, . ,-„:„.. r .. .. 9 !1`! O o 0 0 ^ 0 �'�i.�3 �,O c. t •O. O • ��'i ,r s •y G Q y O O O O iiili •3„: r ' O \- Q`. .' a ❑ � 1!'f 6 utlir ii. ©O ffirli i\�J4"t a 111®,o r �5o O'O 1.3.:‘: i. f�, i 0 o a o 0 0 it�4 x 0 M1 0 0 ' 0 0_,,.p . �� ` >,`0 ® .o ° j'1 p •o q, Greevl a .� ij� ,'' ©�c.:.571.1• Ce r-j. �p 1 � : k: : -fir ® 44- O�•t�on� .. :, r © ®. ' 0 • 20 p e_p ,_O dine- --- — 00459 Gayle Puu Carroll • 11823 East 38th Ave Spokane, Washington 99206 May 31, 2000 VIA FACSIMILE (509) 477-7663 AND REGULAR MAIL Spokane County Planning Commission 1026 West Broadway Ave Spokane, WA 99260 Re: Spokane County Comprehensive Plan DRAFT 2000/Public Comment Dear Planning Commission Members: You have given countless hours of your time developing a draft comprehensive plan that will shape Spokane County, the community we share, over the next twenty years. You have earned my respect because of your dedication and commitment. I only ask that you carefully consider public comment and use it to "fine tune" your effort because each citizen has a unique perspective worthy of your attention. I hope that you remember my concern about quality of life in Spokane's neighborhoods, with my neighborhood in the Valley, Midilome Subdivision, being a good example of how irresponsible planning decisions in the past affect our future. Our subarea lacks proper connection of arterial streets south of 32"d Ave., between Pines Rd. and Bowdish Rd., because Spokane County gave up its arterial right-of-way in 1988 and 1992. Residents in this part of the Valley are concerned about the past elimination of this road and the effect it has, and will have, on residential streets. Drivers seeking this connection cut-through Midilome, placing our children at risk. The existing schools and new University High School (at 32nd Ave and Pines Rd.) are major traffic generators, drawing traffic through the neighborhood heading east; Chester business community and downtown access via Dishman-Mica Rd. draws traffic through the neighborhood heading west. New development at urban densities in our area, if not adequately provided proper transportation circulation, will exacerbate this problem and unfairly burden Midilome residents. Please remember that arterial connection at 40th Ave. has been part of the Spokane County transportation plan for a long time. 40th Ave. is designated as a minor arterial on the Spokane County Arterial Road Plan (adopted in 1986). (It was also Midilome's south boundary on the subdivision's preliminary plat approved in 1977.) a\ 00460 With this information in mind: • Exclude from the UGA that section of land southeast of Midilome between S.R. 27 and Madison Rd. (approximately 640 acres presently outside the IUGA) unless Spokane County builds properly connected arterials. Otherwise, move the UGA line north to 32"d Ave. to minimize the amount of traffic that would access Pines Rd. from the 4016 Ave area where the arterial connection is missing. Additionally, revisit the urban land use chapter to: • Mandate government and neighborhood partnership for traffic calming in residential areas. County policy must be clear and citizens must be assured that staff will assist, not undermine, citizen effort to maintain safe residential streets. • Provide a process for successful implementation of traffic calming as needed to maintain the intended functional use of a road. • Reconsider the effect of home occupations, including home-based childcare, and their impact on neighborhoods. If, as a matter of policy, home and business environments will blend in the future, that policy must do more than recognize or pay lip service to the potential incompatibility of these uses. Higher impact business should be limited to the perimeter of neighborhoods (e.g. if the business generates more than the average trips per day per unit for residential areas). Traffic generation into the heart of residential areas needs to be reasonably controlled because folks with a destination and time constraint use streets differently than folks who live on them. UL.7.7 policy uses overbroad language such as "exceeds road design" because roads usually are designed and built to carry more traffic than people should be expected to live with. • Again, if we, as a matter of policy, want to "encourage businesses to provide opportunities for employees to work at home" (UL.7.9), the plan must adequately address traffic calming to preserve and protect the residential nature of neighborhood streets. I have witnessed UPS and other regular business delivery to home offices in our neighborhood that is too fast for neighborhood streets, not to mention frequent and noisy. Safety of the children who live in these neighborhoods must come first and, if businesses are going to penetrate neighborhoods, we must balance everyone's interest appropriately. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Gayle Puu Carroll 0- 10/17/2000 16:20 5093247663 COUNTY PLANNDNG y3 SPOK A N E ;' • ,�., C 0 T.J. N 'r Y DMStON OP ENGINEERING AND ROADS A DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORX5 DEPARTMENT William A.Johns,P.E.,County Engineer October 5, 2000 8109 eee cQ Spokane County Planning Commission &1 NFL; Go Tim Lawhead OCr OV/yn, 1026 W. Broadway Ave. 447 0 20p Spokane, WA 99260 StONO�p g Re: Proposed Changes to the Revised Arterial Road Plan . Dear Planning Commission Members, Spokane County Division of Engineering and Roads has been very pleased to participate in the development of a new Comprehensive Plan, which will guide Spokane County's development and growth for the next 20+ years. • As you know, representatives of County Engineering last came before you on September 14, 2000 to discuss changes to the Arterial Road Plan that was presented at the public open house meetings. Since September 14th, we have continued to refine our judgments and review of the arterial system, both current system and future needs. It is this review that has prompted the additions and changes to the Arterial Road Plan map that follow. • First, 40V1 Avenue should be added as an urban minor arterial from Dishman-Mica Rd. to SR27. County Engineering has reconsidered its original opinion of this future arterial, expressed to you at the September 1491 meeting. Revised traffic models, taking into account the additional land areas being added to the UGA in this vicinity, indicate that 40" Ave. will carry a substantial traffic load (10,000 vehicles/day) and therefore, should be planned for. • Airport Drive, the route that connects the Spokane International Airport (SIA) to SR2, should also be represented on the arterial road plan. This road is owned and maintained by SIA and is listed on the National Highway System because of its relationship with the airport. As such. it should be shown on the Arterial Road Plan as an urban principal arterial. Lastly, several minor corrections are listed below. Most of these represent facilities that were shown as future arterials and are currently under construction, near completion and/or are constructed and open for public travel. • Appleway Blvd., the southern, eastbound portion of the Valley Couplet, from the 1-9Q Interchange to University Rd. is scheduled to open within the next week. It should be shown as a solid lined red representing an existing principal arterial. • Country Vista Dr. from Henry Rd. to Mission Ave. should be shown as a solid green line representing an urban minor arterial. • Evergreen Rd. from Mission Ave. to Indiana Ave. should be shown as a solid red line representing an urban principal arterial. 1026 W.Broadway Ave. • Spokane,WA 99260-0170 • (509)477-3600 FAX:(509)477-7655(2nd Floor)477-7478(3rd Floor) • TOD:(509)477-7133• 9` ,159/1 VZUUtl Ib:Zb 710y6Z4Ibbi UJUv14 r�wwvinv - "'' a. 00462 Aero Rd. from the 1-90 Interchange to a point just east of the curve shown on the map should be a solid red line representing an urban principal arterial. • Mirabeau Pkwy. from SR27 to Indiana Ave. should be shown as a solid green line representing an urban minor arterial. An additional note, Euclid Ave. has a name change and is now also Mirabeau Pkwy- • Mansfield Ave. from Montgomery Ave. to Mirabeau Pkwy should be shown as a dashed green line representing an urban minor arterial. A portion of this future arterial is shown, however, the remaining portion should be added- • Mission Ave. from a point just west of the curve shown on the map to Harvard Rd. should be shown as a solid green line representing an existing urban minor arterial. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to work with you in the Growth Management process. We respectfully request that the changes listed above be made to the Arterial Road Plan map. If you have questions concerning any of the items listed above, please don't hesitate to bring them to my attention. Yours truly, William A. Johns, P.E. County Engineer 5-1LA,C s Steve Stairs, E.I.T. Transportation Engineer Cc: Bill Johns Ross Kelley • • • 6/1 00463 j Upriver Joint Planning Area Next to the Limited Development Area discussed above, this area is the area of greatest concern to the Planning Commission. This joint planning area is designated medium and low density residential on the recommended land use plan. This area is within the City of Spokane sewer and water service area. However, no sewer is available and there is no definite time frame for extension of sewer service. A number of residences are served by private wells. In addition, tt5 many of the roads in this area are unpaved. The aquifer in this area is quite shallow. Both Spo. existing and planned multiple and single-family development served by on-site sewage disposal systems raises concerns regarding public health. • Traffic Concerns in Midilome Neighborhood D" The Planning Commission heard considerable testimony opposing the inclusion of 40th Avenue between Dishman-Mica and SR-27. County Engineering had recommended that 40th be designated as a minor arterial but the Planning Commission recommends that 40th not be included due to impacts to existing development. The Arterial Road Plan in this area may need to be revised to provide for traffic from proposed urban development south of 40th Avenue and west of SR-27. Evergreen Road between Sprague and I-90 Due to the construction of the Evergreen interchange, Evergreen Road has been widened to 5 lanes. The impact of the road widening on the residential properties along this road has been considerable. Further study of this area is warranted to mitigate impacts. • Green Bluff • Issues with the seasonal harvest festival temporary use permits have not been resolved. Residents have requested that the Green Bluff area receive a high priority for sub-area planning. Down Zoning The Planning Commission has tried to maintain comparable land use designation consistent with existing zoning where possible. In fact, many more properties inside the urban growth area will be up zoned than down zoned if the recommended plan is adopted. Most reductions in allowable uses and densities are outside the urban growth area and are necessary to prohibit urban development that cannot be served with urban services. There are over 3,000 vacant preliminary and final platted lots outside the proposed urban area, which tends to minimize the effect of down zoning in the rural area. Economic Development in the Rural Area In future updates to the Comprehensive Plan, a variety of innovative land use plans should be considered such as more options for clustered housing, master planned resorts and fully contained residential communities. Implementation Issues The recommended plan contains general policies that allow for youth camps and other forms of outdoor recreation. However, existing regulations do not specifically allow youth camps in any zone. New development regulations should address this issue. It should be noted that youth camps do exist in Spokane County which are currently non-conforming uses- viA— Rac‘e 0-c 21.5-/ leg et-- 4 ninn toe Covvw�issto 4-5 Spc\tate 30C—C a5 00464 i ----, . I 1 vv\ c-, __L— AL J- /(,,2 co, c(0 (., a n-e -> 1 2 • IT c.152- k, \ bk. ekt.A....,_..., U Co-l\c I • J--- Q \.0\i-ev c ; \ • a_ war 4d / i4.k.0e- 74-7/J-- oyf- • er „> .Th AC. P Con...„.,r, i op, deciZzi liii. 7420v-e_ i.;I- Ze-n, .1 611(C1Z-Lrit 71:aKer_ 7# ---/- A-, '141/ . 7 r2 t far ` ..)(5\e••• \c, k ka L,,,,,,;V_Qc._k c_k. --N cts 1 0 I Zo\ \)5?vc•A 0 v•.._.. O\ack(v•--z- CO,„, CO iinvtAk.C5 (10 • , . io 00465 At the September 14, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting, Senior Planner John Pederson states: "40th Avenue was not shown on the Draft Plan 2000. We had a session with an engineering contingent yesterday not to amend the map. It wasn't shown. It wasn't analyzed. Leave it out. Therefore no change to the Arterial Road Plan Map. In the future, let the neighborhood come back to the County and tell us the need for it. It was never shown to begin with. It's not included in the environmental analysis. It's not part of the public review. It's causing us some problematic issues. It wasn't part of the plan It wasn't analyzed under SEPA. Our recommendation, to conclude, is to leave the map as is. Let those folks come back as a neighborhood group to the County and let's go through a study." At the Final Public Hearing held on October 5, 2000 as part of an overview of the revised map, John Pederson stated: 40th Aven�ue in the Midilome area was decided to not be illustrated as an arterial." —TAPED cf_i4- 00 i0 - 5- 00 cov� 3; c of Yt.k\444 c .Reav'5 3 a9 0 " 46.6 To Members of the Planning Commission From Myrl Watkins (Property Owner) Date: February 22, 2001 RE: Opposition to 40th Avenue Years ago I went with Mr. Tomlinson and Mr. Bueschke to the County Courthouse to have 40th Avenue removed. This was at the time when Midilome Inc. was platting land for what was then Midilome 5th Addition. As a result of that meeting we were told 40th Avenue would never be built. I am upset that you are threatening this Arterial at my doorstep. I have lived here for 37 years and have no intention of selling or leaving. Please explain your position. !!! J2/oO5 rl Watkins { d-u'" 4-C tom- \av Ak ti "C-oNAI VI/ S Rocov ` 3/ 5/6l J �' ic ea��v� 1 00467 7g MIDILOME INC. 3124 S.Regal Spokane,WA 99223SPOKANE ED 509-535-7400 wry MAR 01 2001 min —sioN OF Pt.ANNINC, Spokane County Planning Commission RE: Spokane County Draft Plan 2000 Dear Commissioners: I recently met with several people who live in and around Midilome,a subdivision that Louise Gustin,Edgar Bueschke and I have developed over the last 20 years. The reason for the meeting was the concern of the people near the south boundary of Midilome who were informed that 40th Avenue between Bowdish and Pines/MacDonald is being considered by you to be included in the County's future road plan It was suggested by some that one or more County officials had indicated such a plan was known to us and should have been disclosed. If such a statement was made,my partners and I are very unhappy that someone at the county insinuated that we knew material facts and did not pass them onto the buyers. Let me give you some history for consideration. In 1987 or 1988 the owners of Mldilome were approached by Mike Senske(owner of Painted Fills Golf Course)to inquire if we were interested in purchasing excess property adjacent to us,from him. We informed him we were interested only if there was a way to deal with the proposed 40th Street extension between Bowdish and Pines/MacDonald in such a manner that it would no longer be necessary or part of the county road plan. If you look at the original map you see that we would not have golf course frontage if 40th Street went through. We approached the county engineer with an alternate plan for an internal arterial through Midilorne so that 40th Avenue was no longer necessary and the County's plans would be modified accordingly. The County accepted the alternative and we purchased the CO>vA 3/ s/6 ( ' \\e„v t�� 00468 property from Senske and proceeded to develop a project tailed The Greens at tvidilome a PUD with golf course frontage. The County did not require the right-of-way and we ended up with houses essentially where 406 Avenue would have been extended. We dealt with the issue regarding the extension of 40th 13 years ago,and as recently as 1997, the Opportunity Cemetery people were told that there were no plans io extend 40th and they were relieved of any requirement to provide right-of-way. To our knowledge,this has been the consistent position of the County for the last 13 years. Now,there are houses all along the southern boundary of the Mrdilome development that could back up to 401hif it is reestablished and extended. The concerns Of the affected homeowners are obvious,an arterial next to their property would have a negative effect on property values. As a realtor for over 30 years,I can assure you that any extension of 40th would have an adverse effect on those values. It seems to me that the County should stick with its initial decision and find other alternatives less imposing on the property owners. I respectfully request that you strongly consider once and for all eliminating the i . f-. : i . the residents have in respect to this matter. ,ptttn' Robert H.Tomlinson 3° gh146 CLARENCE E.SIMPSON �CC�� Vimpson Engineers,Inc. 1901-1987 L SIMPSON IL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS CHARLES E.SIMPSON FOUNDED 1946 Licenced in Washington and Idaho N.909 Argonne Road Spokane,WA 99212 (509)926-1322 Fax:926-1323 March 5,2001 • Spokane County Planning Commission 1016 West Broadway Avenue Spokane,WA.99260 Re: 40th Avenue in the Midilome Addition Area Dear Sir. Simpson Engineers,Inc.has been involved in the Midilome development since 1976. The original preliminary plat for the 160 acre parcel showed 40th Avenue along the south boundary line. As the platting progressed from the north(32nd Avenue)and west(Bowdish Road) toward the east(Pines Road),the developer decided to have a community which had all internal acrecc,so 40th Avenue was eliminated as an arterial within the Midilome area (with Spokane County Public Works'blessing). In 1992 Midilome 7th Addition was recorded,and at that time 40th Avenue was moved north,away from the south boundary,to be just a residential street within the plat. In 1994 the tenth phase,called The Greens at Midilome,was recorded. The developer bought about 125 feet of property between the Midilome development and the Painted Hills Golf Course from Mike Senske. This phase was developed as a gated PUD with a circular private roadway accessed off Pines Road. The southerly portion of the PUD was designed for golf cart access and featured an unobstructed view of Painted Hills Golf Course. The layout of The Greens at Midilome would not have been designed as it exists today if we'd had any reason to think 40th Avenue would ever become an arterial. Sincerely, C—e Charles Simpson,P.E.&P.L.S. • • 00AA1vCr'> nnA^ \S5 6IA --, J31 I , 00470 The original design of Midilome was to have the project"bounded on all four sides by either existing or proposed arterials" (September 8, 1978 -Draft EIS Review, Planning and Traffic Division). As the Midilome development came to its final phases,changes were requested regarding the southern boundry it,the proposed 40th Avenue arterial. NOTE: The Arterial Road Plan had been approved and adopted in 1986. The following County documents demonstrate clearly the agreement made between the developers,Midilome,Inc, and the various County Departments and official bodies regarding 40th Avenue: "The main reason for this change is to avoid facing lots on arterial streets(Pines and 40th). We find that such lots are very difficult to sell." Edgar Bueschke, Midilome Inc. Letter to Douglas Adams, Spokane County Subdivision Administrator RE:Preliminary plat approval of design modifications Letter dated 3-16-88 Proposed change of conditions of original approval: "A redesign of 40th Ave.and lots affected by that change." Robert Thomlinson,Midilome Inc. Document: APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF CONDITIONS FOR AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION(PE-1168) 8-22-88 Description of Proposal: "To redesign 40th Avenue and the lots affected by that change to avoid double frontage lots and establish a more marketable development, consisitent with existing phases of that development which have already been platted." Midilome Inc. Document: Spokane Environmental Ordinanace Determination of Nonsignificance(DNS) 9-2-88 "This project(PE-1168-78) was originally approved in 1978. Since that time five plats have been filed consistent with the original approval. The lots which currently abut Pines and the proposed 40th Avenue are not as attractive for single family residential use because of potential for high traffic adjacent to these lots." . Item III, History/Analysis Page 27,Planning Report • a v�t'l h�I 9 88 CotM �1Ssi °w ewd �I11 y 5/6( \Alam'-- �C VIKq 2 hi.. /117^0'See attaehme«fs 4 o _ '-'c0.' * CSL ✓A U"� - 1 l'•2 �e-,ea oNA Musk �-eS c cct1ou 1 c�¢ok- ;es9�CO r o�1 % t'kavt. PF.-1693-92 PUDE',-13-92 00471 1.7 l _. 33 1" .. it;,i41,JDtd OonAd '• •. fi" T'•'; ' .l«. -- • :: a e \‘510/111L � 5d. � � �• ~ S .i� I. • Tank TE 11 ' — . ._ 28 _ � 1oir �° 1 ,ftir t_ f r IS , ' i � -: c .Aad .N -. Wet ' MI 0 a_ 'r. .. rota.0 0 'AS -LA : - . hay • ,y ' ` 1JIII4t1YL.! _)]P 1, . r . a_ : " 821 y 34 i L` "_� `• e s_ vs. iSt¢fa'$e ` � it ' a ar 'BB[q�r 34 3 y' .. 4.0r,4neo t -i• 3 s k- t .. Ih' 3;31.1,eO tie ' ♦V 1 :. - ££sttc llif -�. , .>1i ) / • ♦" i ce -f - 4. `^`1b ,1 3 :1 1, . %-: .:.-'t •- 'a) . : ,....,/ ,-. :-.7-1\s 1 j Nik - --- o' I " fir • • J , ��. a ( C t) 19 /04 . b ; � . 1t._11 �. 7k�' / ip 1 _�J _4i (1'.• —\(` '` 1..: ill/ ( ( // _,\_:/ __..i.- , ' iii'U.' (1.17%;••-; -.,./::::1::::likiwi:::. , : v \ bil , i --) r . , Pr . - 4 Ii ... 4 t-4 an, Vs- .a. 00472 MIDILOME SUBDIVISION TRAFFIC CALMING REPORT AND PLAN APRIL 28, 2000 SUBMITTED BY MIDILOME PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT UNIVERSITY HIGH SCHOOL REZONE HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION #1 ZE-5-99 BACKGROUND On October 15, 1999, Spokane County Hearing Examiner Pro Tem, Mr. Greg Smith, conditionally approved Central Valley School District's (CVSD's) request for a zone reclassification of approximately 80 acres from UR-3.5 to UR-22. This property, located at 32nd Ave and Pines Rd., included the site for a new University High School and land that is currently occupied by Chester Elementary School and Horizon Junior High School. Mr. Smith's first HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION directed CVSD, Spokane County and Midilome residents to work together, in good faith, to develop solutions to traffic impact in Midilome, specifically, cut-through traffic.' HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION #1 reads: 1. The applicant, Central Valley School District, shall initiate and use its best efforts to assist the Midilome Subdivision Neighborhood Association in working with Spokane County to minimize the amount of traffic which cuts through that neighborhood. This includes exploration of additional stop signs, speed bumps, and other traffic calming devices. The purpose of this condition is to require the District, the County, and the Neighborhood to use all reasonable efforts and resources to reach a solution which can be endorsed by all parties. See Mr.Bemstein's letters dated September 17, 1999 and September 30, 1999 that MPOA submitted to the Hearing Examiner regarding traffic impact in Midilome Subdivision at Appendix D and E. 1 0 ^ 473 If no solution can be agreed to and the parties desire to have the Hearing Examiner attempt to help mediate towards a solution, the such a request for mediation, agreed to by all parties, can be submitted in writing. In December 1999, Midilome Property Owners Association (MPOA), with consent of Spokane County and CVSD, assumed responsibility for the initial planning of neighborhood specific traffic calming solutions for Midilome Subdivision. NEIGHBORHOOD INVOLVEMENT In September 1998, approximately one week before the University High School bond passed, a group of Midilome residents began meeting with school officials and representatives from various Spokane County departments to address traffic impact in Midilome subdivision. In May 1999, after a succession of unproductive meetings, Midilome residents formed Midilome Property Owners Association and hired Mr. Robert Bernstein, P.E. to assist the neighborhood with its traffic issues? (Neighbors were particularly interested in traffic calming solutions, including closure of Midilome streets at Pines Rd 3) Mr. Bernstein has flown to Spokane to: site visit, testify at the rezone hearing, attend joint meetings on January 28, 2000 and February 28, 2000 and conduct MPOA's Public Meetings on January 18, 2000 and February 28, 2000.4 MPOA used written notice, telephone calls and signs to notify all residents in Midilome Subdivision of the dates and times of the public meetings.5 These neighborhood public meetings were designed to maximize dialogue between the neighborhood-at-large, Spokane County and CVSD with implementation of Hearing Examiners Condition #1 in mind. Both meetings were well attended and neighbors actively participated in free exchange of ideas and opinion.6 2 See partial resume for Mr. Robert Bernstein, P.E.at Appendix F. t In March 1999,Spokane County suggested closure of Loretta Dr.and 38ih Ave.at Pines Rd. as possible mitigation for University High•School traffic impacts. ' Mr. Bernstein did not attend the December 16, 1999 joint meeting that was held to schedule future meeting dates. 5 MPOA gave written notice to residents of all Midilome Subdivision lots and followed up with telephone reminder calls before each meeting. See Appendix G. 6 Attendance sheets for both public meetings and joint meetings are incorporated at the front of the Public Comment section of this Report. 2 •00474 1. January 18, 2000. Neighbors assembled at Horizon Junior High to identify needs and concerns for Mr. Bernstein before he prepared traffic calming options. Mr. Bernstein used this information to develop the traffic calming options that he attached to his letter dated January 21, 2000. See Appendix A. These options replaced his earlier work prepared for MPOA before the Hearing Examiner's Decision was rendered. See letter dated June 8, 1999 at Appendix B. 2. January 28, 2000. On January 27, 2000, MPOA provided CVSD and Spokane County with copies of the January 21, 2000 letter (and attachments) for review before the January 28, 2000 joint meeting. Mr. Bernstein and MPOA representatives attended this session with the County and CVSD at the Public Works Building, Spokane County. Mr. Bernstein answered questions, recommended resources and shared photographs of installations in other communities, all in preparation for MPOA's next public meeting. (MPOA wanted all options explained and reviewed before • presenting them to Midilome residents at the February meeting.) After this meeting, Mr. Bernstein modified and resubmitted his recommendations as per his letter dated February 2, 2000. See Appendix C. MPOA delivered this letter (with attachments) to CVSD and Spokane County for review on February 24, 2000.7 - • • 3. February 28, 2000. Mr. Bernstein and MPOA representatives attended a joint meeting at the Public Works Building, Spokane County before the evening public meeting. CVSD and representatives from Spokane County were present at the joint meeting, and two representatives from Spokane County attended the public meeting. At the public meeting (conducted as a lengthy "open house" at Horizon Junior High to maximize opportunity for neighbors to attend), Mr. Bernstein explained the options he prepared. He was able to speak to neighbors as a large group and he handled individual and small group discussions centered around large subdivision maps mounted on the wall. All the options were reproduced and handed out to neighbors to encourage informal discussion among neighbors in attendance and later at home with neighbors who did not attend.$ Everyone 7 On February 24,2000(after regular business hours),a representative from Spokane County notified MPOA that the letter promised the first week in February was forthcoming. If mailed,this letter would have notified MPOA that Spokane County would not allow traffic calming on Loretta Dr.but it would start declassification of 376 Ave in preparation for the neighborhood's preferred option to be installed on 37th Ave. MPOA asked the County to withhold such a letter until it had an opportunity to witness participation at the February 28,2000 public meeting and to listen to the concerns of residents expressed at that forum. 8 See copy of handout at Appendix H. 3 00475 was encouraged to address options for their own residential street and the subdivision as a whole. Photographs of installations in other neighborhoods were available for everyone to see. All written comments MPOA received on options presented at the February 28, 2000 meeting have been made part of this Report as a separate subsection. PUBLIC INPUT Many neighbors submitted written comment. As can be expected, people tended to limit their comments to needs within their immediate area to the exclusion of everything else. As a whole, however, the comments are thoughtful and witness to the neighborhoods desire to control both speed and volume of traffic. The level of participation at the public meeting also speaks to the neighborhood's need for immediate relief and control of future penetration from traffic seeking east-west access. The majority opinion expressed in the comments, reduced to its essence, is as follows: • Neighbors prefer restrictive options (Option 1 and 3) for 37`x' Ave. and (Option B) on Loretta Dr. • They want calming devises installed at busy intersections, especially on Loretta Dr. and 38th Ave., and favor more calming than shown on the options rather than less. • They want better pedestrian crossings at Pines Rd. • They support an even-handed approach to calming solutions, i.e., solutions should be addressed for all affected streets, and solution for one street should not reroute or increase traffic on another. The comments otherwise speak for themselves and deserve to be read individually. CONCLUSION Midilome Property Owners Association submits this Report as its Final Plan for traffic calming in Midilome subdivision. All elements of this Plan are explained in greater detail in both text and drawing in Mr. Bernstein's letter to MPOA dated April 21, 2000. This letter, attached and incorporated by reference, represents the preferred neighborhood solution for implementation of Hearing Examiner Condition #1. 4 00476 ROBERT BERNSTEIN, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer/Planner April 21, 2000 To: Gayle Carroll, Midilome Property Owners Assn Subject: Midilome Traffic Management/Calming Recommendations The recommended Midilome traffic management/calming plan was developed by the Midilome Property Owners Association (MPOA) after extensive consultation with the community and with Spokane County Public Works staff. Formal community input was received at two well-attended public meetings organized and sponsored by the MPOA (January 18 and February 28, 2000, at Horizon JHS). County Public Works input was received via numerous conversations with individual County staff, as well as from a January 28, 2000, meeting of MPOA leadership and County Public Works and Traffic Engineering staff, at which plan options were discussed. Community inputs on problems, concerns, and solutions are summarized below. COMMUNITY INPUT: PROBLEMS, CONCERNS A number of traffic-related problems and concerns were expressed at the public meeting; these are summarized below: • •• Existing through traffic flows between Bowdish and Pines (both directions) on 37th and 38th, on 37th and Loretta, and to a lesser extent, on the section of Loretta between Bowdish and 37th. • Localized short-cutting: between Bowdish and 37th via 38th and Bates; from Pines to Loretta via 34th and Whipple; from Pines to 32nd via 34th and Robie • Pedestrian safety on school walk routes (especially Loretta and 38th); pedestrian safety at school crosswalks on Pines • Increasing SW—NE and SW—SE through traffic flows generated by new high school and stadium, by South Bowdish and Ponderosa growth, and by commercial growth on 32nd and SR-27 • Increasing volumes and speeds on Pines generated by growth to the south • Reckless and inconsiderate driving on through routes (e.g., high speeds on Loretta and 37th, ignoring of 37th/Loretta stop signs); intersection conflicts • Localized speeding (e.g.; on Reeves-40th—Robie and Union) 507 - 18th Avenue East (206) 325-4320 Seattle, Washington 98112 fax (206) 325-4318 00477 • Midilome Property Owners Assn April 21,2000 Page 2 • COMMUNITY INPUT: SOLUTIONS At the public meeting, the Midilome community also provided some clear direction for the development of solutions to the identified problems: • The traffic management/calming plan should be restrictive enough to prevent through traffic from using Midilome streets for short-cut routes to/from the new high school, the new stadium, and the growing 32nd Ave/SR-27 commercial area. Traffic calming alone will not be adequate. • The traffic management/calming plan should maintain neighborhood access to/from the elementary and junior high schools. • The traffic management/calming plan should address internal speeding and pedestrian safety problems • The traffic management/calming plan should not simply move a problem from one Midilome street to another • The traffic management/calming plan should be implemented immediately — certainly before the new high school opens — in order to prevent new through traffic patterns/flows from becoming established in Midilome. (The most effective solution for through traffic problems is prevention; once established, through traffic patterns are exceedingly difficult to dislodge.) • Pedestrian safety improvements are needed at the school crossings on Pines Rd. RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT/CALMING PLAN Based on community input received at the January 18 public meeting, several traffic management/calming concepts were developed. These concepts were presented and discussed at the February 28 public meeting, and based on the feedback and comments — written and oral — received at the meeting, the following recommendations were developed. The recommended Midilome Traffic Management/Calming Plan has four elements: 1) SW—NE/SE Through Movement (37th Ave) Restrictions, 2) Loretta Dr Restrictions/Calming, 3) Pines Rd School/Pedestrian Crossings, and 4) Localized Calming Element 1. SW—NE/SE Through Movement Restrictions Restrict through movement between Bowdish Rd south of Midilome and Pines Rd by cutting off through movement in both directions on 37th Ave between Bates St and Reeves Rd; • close 37th with emergency-vehicle-only access midway between Bates and Reeves • install traffic circles at 38th/Union and 38th/Robie Robert Bernstein, P.E. • Consulting Transportation Engineer/Planner 00478 Midilome Property Owners Assn April 21,2000 Page 3 • Element I Option: Cut eastbound through movement on 37th Ave east of Bates St, and cut westbound-to-southbound movement at Bowdish Rd: channelize 37th/Bates and 37th/Bowdish intersections: • 37th WB only at Bates (i.e., no entry to EB 37th on the east side of Bates); • no left turn from WB 37th onto SB Bates (i.e., WB 37th traffic approaching Bates can only continue WB on 37th); and • WB 37th right turn only at Bowdish Element 2. Loretta Dr Restrictions/Calming Restrict through movement between Bowdish Rd and Pines Rd by cutting off through movement in both directions on Loretta Dr between Bates St and Diana Dr: channelize Loretta/Bates, Loretta/37th and Loretta/Diana intersections. Install calming measures Diana to Pines. • Loretta WB only at Bates (i.e., no entry to EB Loretta on the east side of Bates); • Loretta EB only at 35th(i.e., no entry to WB Loretta on the west side of 35th); • Loretta WB only at Diana(i.e., no entry to EB Loretta on the east side of Diana); • Traffic circles at 37th, Union, and Whipple; • Curb extensions at Pines (to reduce pedestrian crossing distance and reduce turn radius and turn speed for turns from Pines onto WB Loretta; coordinate with Element 3., Pines Rd School/Pedestrian Crossings) Element 2 Option: Install traffic calming devices along the entire length of Loretta Dr. • Stripe outside lane edge (and bike lane if possible); • Traffic circles at Bates and Whipple; • Curb extensions at Wilbur, 35th, Diana, 37th, and Union; • Chokers between Union and Whipple and between Wilbur and 35th • Curb extensions at Pines (to reduce pedestrian crossing distance and reduce turn radius and turn speed for turns from Pines onto WB Loretta; coordinate with Element 3., Pines Rd School/ Pedestrian Crossings) Element 3. Pines Rd School/Pedestrian Crossings Improve pedestrian safety/convenience for crossing Pines Rd by installing pedestrian refuge islands and marked crossings at or near Loretta and 38th. (The refuges improve pedestrian safety/convenience by reducing pedestrian crossing distance and allowing pedestrians to cross one direction of traffic at a time, and the refuges calm Pines Rd traffic flow by narrowing the travel lanes.) • Pedestrian refuge islands and marked crossings at or near Loretta and 38th • Curb extensions at 34th, Loretta, and 38th (to reduce pedestrian crossing distance and reduce turn radius and turn speed for turns from Pines) Robert Bernstein, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer/Planner Midilome Property Owners Assn • O O 4 7 9 April 2I,2000 Page 4 Element 4. Localized Calming 34th Ave—Whipple St shortcut • • Traffic circles at Whipple/34th and Whipple/Melissa • Curb extensions at 34th/Pines (to reduce pedestrian crossing distance and reduce turn radius and turn speed for turns from Pines onto WB 34th; coordinate with Element 3., Pines Rd • School/ Pedestrian Crossings) 38th Ave speed control • Traffic circles at 38th/Union and 38th/Robie • Curb extensions at Pines (to reduce pedestrian crossing distance and reduce turn radius and turn speed for turns from Pines onto WB 38th; coordinate with Element 3., Pines Rd School/ Pedestrian Crossings) Reeves Rd-40th Ave speed control • Speed humps, chicanes,traffic circles, chokers (specific locations to be determined later) • Robert Bernstein, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer/Planner Apr-21 -00 511 : 18A P -02 0 ;; 480 TE '< EE c-- RECoMMENDeD__PL4-W -�1 - TI7TF, C1__[L-1 Lj__IZ_CI�_c _ r i----�� ---- IT 5-- c J1_ l t----- _i- , _ — ( \< >`\/ \-------- ---� `=---� 1111 . — 1111-- v / < > f - --c-1 - --- 11111- 11411.I`� y/TON/ K �.�, y<� �_ -- i I y/ 0 1./\ ›, , _____ i __--- --4J—-- J/ < t).4(<< 73.N/ f\-,- 1----J-7:--- i 111 ---{-\,\K\>,,,/c \//<M11/4-4 - - ---- EMV oNt._Y ; . .\ /, , > . > /—,7 -7-1-.--r-71-7? _ D2vwy I+CcESS . - '\ ,/X ,<r4YEGtrtc. pep xiNG LOCATIONS _ _ I c�ta-i 'Yetity / N< l-ro ,se peiegmr teD ----- 1-- 11 " eh \� .<›N icr):1, nsi 14*/ I] 1 rN _L - \'-.5)/ A-..c__Li'- �� Epa�-1�I__ _LI_ r� LZ_ � \ x ) \ - -A.- - - - 1-G jJc ' \A �< 1 [_L_ _I_LZ ClJ4�-�-,} r - )7,7 i , \ t.. , I� ff-\-ZZ�I�S> II *— IAIUILOIIE TRAFFIC CALMING _A, 1-r A 9 c D I (� (11 ..il k i . " _ D ! I I j ; — I - I -- I n = I�-- Or WV pit P IIP.- III 1S 't1 I Apr-21 -00 11 : 18A P .03 /}�� ( / /� �+''�-�/�y� t r 00481 - rO( / I oI 7V � ✓vR I (1 • Al D _7;__„_1.1 - _ ---�-�i -- Q-CII-[J_-I _c_Il_CJ _ _ 1 .- 71‹ > < < X“ >. :::: -till ri- I- -N_EI 11 11t14- 117: :I A IITT t2N/ K ) •NNO XK 5:'-- _ --I , _._ ---: __T \-> .< › N/)<,<P>,;c< =r - -- -- : —Int> \ N ) \.' / %>< -< 7 / r ___ . 11-1- cC >(N//'< N7/C J f: Al --- - -- I I ` \) - - L -- lip ( ��\\ r- i:/ /J-11-17 -11-P1 • i W7 A - \\ ' �q - [1-LIil1 ,- - �- - - 4-rut >- -- EEiE4gE \Y-\%,��- �C� ___ �(c"\>,4ITIi . v- ___ T N -'>_.c( rrifl-frr - -i /1,-..] -0 J tIAIUILOFIE TRAFFIC;CALMING Il_ II = 1 ( ...:ll : .:: .-_ f 00482 Winchell, Susan From: The Rev. Dr. Jacqueline S. Dickson [jackie@mail.cet.com] ent: Thursday,April 12, 2001 10:12 AM I o: Boundary Review Board =XHIBff 56> Subject: Valley Annexation ;RB 555-6 I What is it about "NO!" that those who want to incorporate the Valley don't understand? I am tired of their attempts to wear us down and to force us into complying with their desire to incorporate. The issue has gone to the polls repeatedly and the voters have said, "No." What else can we do to defeat this issue? We live just West of Sullivan and South of 8th Avenue. What are our chances of opting out of the proposed incorporation? 1 Aug-29-01 12: 38P 509 928 0904 P.01 (1 '1483 EXHIBIT 57 BRB ssi-L.o.l. August 29,2001 With the uncertainty of the establishment and finalization of the Urban Growth Area, the Coalition of proponents of the Incorporation of the Spokane Valley request The BRB to use the appropriate jurisdictional boundary from which to choose the boundaries for the proposed city of Spokane Valley. We further request that the decision be made in as timely a manner as is prudent to tallow a vote at the earliest possible date. We would like to know with certainty the exact boundaries. Once the boundaries are specified a target date for the election can be established. We fed decision of incorporation is a local issue, as opposed to a state or national issue. We thank you for the work you have done and hook forward to your decision. Sincere! ) art C • Pluul Rudy, Spokesperson for the Coalition. C.AC, SVRA,Governance Committee Cuff, Valley Vision PAC RECEIVED D AU6 2 8 2001 BOUNDARY CCAR. RECEIVED EXHIBIT SeY 00484 SEP 0 6 2001 3RB SS3-01 6 September 2001 BOUNOARYR£VIEWBOVO TO: Susan Winchell and the Boundary Review Board Members: This letter to confirm our letter of 28, August 2001 regarding our desire to move ahead for a November Election date for THE INCORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY. Since time is of the essence we must move immediately with any and all action to proceed properly. Since I am the signed proponent of the Petition to incorporate filed August 2000, I wish you to proceed. Sc rely o Lard J. M tens Chairman, C MMUNITY ACTION COMMITTEE RECEIVED 00485 SEP O S 2001 28 August 2001 BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD To Susan Winchell and the Boundary Review Board Members, We the following members of the coalition working for the Incorporation of the Spokane Valley go on record this day to refute the statement in the Spokesman review written by Lori Hutson, staff writer. We quote the statement made by Dr. Philip Rudy; "We don't want to pressure or rush things beyond what is reasonable" Said Philip Rudy; spokesman for groups backing the New City. "I think it would confuse things too much." We have been in contact with County Commissioner Phil Harris and he indicated that with the meeting of the County Commissioners on 24 August 2001 the permanent boundaries of the GMA were put into place and that we had a green light to move forward to Incorporate. He said, "Now go Incorporate." We have been in contact with Susan Winchell who has stated that the Boundary review board staff had come to the meeting on Monday, the 27th August 2001 with an approval in mind. When Philip Rudy stated in this meeting that we would go with the permanent boundaries, which would delay the final decision of the BRB and move us into a February election. Susan Winchell will poll the board now that we have decided to go with the interim boundaries and expedite the movement for a November 6`h election. We the undersigned conclude this is the direction we must follow. At the noon meeting held 27 August 2001 at Perkins, it was voted unanimously that we wanted to proceed as expeditiously as possible with the interim boundaries. We ask that the BRB will reopen the hearing for Spokane Valley Incorporation relating to the meeting of Perkins on 276 of August 2001. Signed and sealed this day, 28 August 2001, _ n , , ea•u.�� hu . 4�,k_w J1_„�r to is Si 1� Le / _Ms.Laletta P.Sartain9 EXHIBIT -59 00486 3F� e � 5' 2ov/ ,--' -u edClix V2' 2 „ . _ _ _. � - _ - - 0048:7 __. . e Ste2 e22_, 77.4-1 - - � � - - _- �� _ nej .C; i Ms.Lala P.SartainØJY- // i ; . E5303tdo Ave- Spokane;WA 99212-0929 EXHIBIT 60 00488 BRB_daszaI KAISER ALUM/ V NORTHWEST REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS September 21, 2001 RECEIVED Susan Winchell Spokane County SEP 2 5 2001 Boundary Review Board BOUNDARY R iEwsoARC 1026 W. Broadway Spokane, WA 99260 Dear Ms. Winchell: On behalf of Kaiser Aluminum, I wanted to clarify for you Kaiser's position on its properties at Mead and Trentwood with respect to inclusion in Spokane County's Urban Growth Areas. In letters dated May 31, 2000, and October 5, 2000, Kaiser Aluminum requested from the Spokane County Planning Department that the County include all Kaiser Mead and Trentwood properties be included in the Final Urban Growth Area (FUGA). In the latter letter Kaiser noted, for the record,that "it was important that Spokane County understand that inclusion of Kaiser Aluminum properties into the FUGA does not signify their agreement for future annexation to the City of Spokane or incorporated municipality." To clarify, Kaiser has requested that its properties be included in the Final Urban Growth Area. This request should not be interpeted as a company position relative to any annexation or incorporation proposals. Sincerely, cc244.-- Susan A. Ashe NW Public Affairs Manager 534 EAST TRENT.SUITE 300,SPOKANE,WA 99202(509)242-1050 00489 • January 24, 2000 mor- - (J" - / ta Memo to: Wayne Hale John Walker 1 From: Susan Ashe fillarmirt,' tfrotot Re: Spokane County Growth Management Act Final NGAs Copies: Jim Chapman Tom Duff SteveAnderson Kathryn Kathryn Genteman Al Galioto Dan Rinkenberger Carl Foltz Dave Utley Pete Forsyth Stu Deysenroth, Adams & Clark Stan Schultz, Witherspoon, Kelley et al In March Spokane County will announce the Final Urban Growth Areas (FUGAs) for Spokane County as part of the state-mandated Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements. In 1996 our position was to be excluded from Urban Growth Areas (UGAs). Three-plus years later, we propose that our position change and that our properties be included in the UGAs in order to protect our right to develop (or have others develop) our own property in the future. We anticipate that one or both of Kaiser's properties (Mead, Trentwood) may be included in the proposed FUGA that will publish in March. This is due, in part, to the state Dept. of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED), the department that promulgates the regulations by which cities and counties comply with GMA, as well as provides technical expertise, questioning the exclusion of Kaiser's properties from the draft UGAs given the location of our properties (near Draft UGAs or surrounded by UGAs). As you may know, there are only two possible designations: urban or rural. Future development for the next 20 years may occur only within designated UGAs (urban), although there will be annual reviews and a comprehensive review every five years which may allow some modification. Over the last three years, as the local planning process has evolved, along with everyone's knowledge and understanding about the GMA, it has become more clear than it was in 1996 that should our properties continue to be excluded from UGAs, then the development of our property (by ourselves or others) could become problematic in the • future. At a minimum, an extensive public site development process would be required if we are outside the UGAs, and certain conditions could be placed on us. n • • 0" 90 ^00590 It is important for us to know what our foreseeable goals for our property might be, but based on what we do know, it would seem reasonable for us to reconsider our original position to be excluded from the Urban Growth Area. In 1996, Kaiser requested that its properties be excluded from draft UGAs as a"placeholder" position for the company until more was known about the GMA, a vague law that confused local and state planners relative to its applicability in Spokane County and elsewhere. In 1997 the County complied with Kaiser's request in its draft Comprehensive Plan, which is now being finalized. At the time, we believed that inclusion in UGAs might invite further development encroachment around our industrial properties. Since then, we have participated through our consultant, Stu Deysenroth of Adams & Clark, in scores of GMA planning meetings and engaged in an ongoing process to educate city and county planners and elected officials about the value of industrial lands for economic development. We needed to clarify for them that their estimates of available developable industrial were unrealistic, and we wanted to educate them on the economic significance of basic industry and its value to the area's economy (therefore it's important to protect from inappropriate border development/encroachment). We believe we've had • some significant success in this area. Should Kaiser conclude, based on our plans for our property in the future, that it wishes to be included in the Final UGAs, we would request that the County (the final decision maker), include the following policies for.the County to adopt with respect to our industrial properties in order to better protect Kaiser: • Both Kaiser Aluminum plants (Mead and Trentwood) shall be designated as a significant economic-based business critical to Spokane County, and therefore deserving of special attention in all future private and governmental actions in the vicinity of both plants so that Kaiser's short and long-term viability in the global aluminum industry is not threatened. • Kaiser Aluminum shall retain its right to expand both its industrial facilities as necessary and in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. • Kaiser Aluminum shall receive adequate prior notification of all future proposed and final actions to the Comprehensive Plan map, text and rezones, and any other related types of actions to all properties within one-half mile of its outer ownership boundaries. • Any future changes in land use within one-half mile of Kaiser Aluminum's outer ownership boundaries for Mead and Trentwood shall conform to appropriate and compatible land use transition from Kaiser Aluminum's heavy industrial use into the surrounding neighborhood. In general, residential and similar uses are not compatible with heavy industrial and should not be allowed within adjacent ownerships directly or across bordering streets or rights-of-ways/easements to Kaiser Aluminum facility properties. 0 0 49 1 • All developments and land use actions within one-half mile of the outer boundaries of Kaiser Aluminum's properties shall demonstrate adequate buffering techniques, both for the proposed projects' impacts outward toward Kaiser, as well as existing impacts • from Kaiser on the proposal. Said buffering techniques shall be demonstrated to the County and Kaiser Aluminum during the land use action permit review processes. • Kaiser Aluminum shall be allowed to use and expand its existing and future on-site, privately-owned utility, circulation, and service systems as necessary to maintain and provide minimum services to their current and potentially expanded facilities. Kaiser shall not be required to utilize and/or pay for public utility, circulation, or other service systems unless needed for their facilities. Therefore, we are recommending that Kaiser seek inclusion in the Final UGAs on the condition Spokane County adopts the above policies. We will assume you support our recommendation unless we hear otherwise from you. If you wish to discuss this recommendation further with us or with our land use consultant Stu Deysenroth or our land use attorney Stan Schultz, please let me know and we'll arrange a meeting or conference call. Thank you for your attention to this matter. • J April 25, 2001 Mr. Phil Harris, Chairman Board of County Commissioners 1116 W. Broadway Spokane, WA 99260 RE: Kaiser Aluminum Land Parcel, Proposed Land Use Classification Parcel No. 36095.9020, East of Highway 2 and North of Farwell Road, approximately 2.01 Acres in Size A&C Project No. 96-271 Dear Commissioner Harris: I am writing this request on behalf of Kaiser Aluminum's Mead Works with regard to changing the proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use classification for one of Kaiser's land parcels of approximately 2.01 acres in size. Although this land parcel is not as large an area as several of the other substantial Kaiser parcels, it is nevertheless very important to Kaiser Aluminum because it is strategically located. It lies at the north perimeter of the Kaiser land ownership and northwest of the major intersection of Highway 2 and Farwell Road, immediately southwest of the new North Freeway alignment. This parcel has been under Kaiser Aluminum ownership for some time. It has an existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use classification of Urban. Its existing zoning classification is 1-3. However, this parcel is currently shown on the County's Recommended Comprehensive Plan, dated October, 2000, as adjacent to and outside of the Draft UGA Boundary, as well as under the Urban Reserve Land Use classification. This is not acceptable for the Kaiser's Mead Works land ownership, operations plan, and future expansion potential due to its separation from their other parcels which are inside the Draft UGA and available for development in the future. Therefore, I request that this parcel be included within the Final UGA Boundary. I also recommend that you designate this land within the Light Industrial Land Use classification if it is final approved to allow Community and Neighborhood Commercial uses. If not, then I request the parcel be classified as Community Commercial classification. Because it is at the perimeter of the Kaiser ownership and to expect some degree of land use transition is reasonable, our land use team feels that the Light Industrial classification, which allows Commercial uses, would be Mr. Phil Harris (J 0 4 u 3 April 25, 2001 Page 2 • an appropriate category to transition the Heavy Industrial land uses from the south to the other Urban and Residential uses to the north and west. I thank you for your consideration. A legal description and vicinity map are enclosed for your review. We would be happy to provide further information upon your request. Feel free to contact either myself or Stuart Deysenroth, Adams & Clark, Inc., our land use and planning consultant. SinnceerrJ(�ee , Susan A. Ashe Northwest Public Affairs Manager Enclosures cc: Kate McCaslin, County Commissioner John Roskelley, County Commissioner Tim Lawhead, Senior Planner C L - M'l a, G Cwt•++-GC-!t_Y"`- O O �J 4 4 it `� li � /� - S P O - IC A INT E r3T�;cif it at Igif C O U N 'T Y DIVISION OF PLANNING PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MICHAEL V.NEEDHAM, DIRECTOR GARY OBERG, DIRECTOR n, March 15, 2001 V// Ms. Susan Ashe Kaiser Aluminum 534 E Trent, Suite 300 Spokane, WA 99202 Regarding: The Spokane County Comprehensive Plan Update Dear Ms. Ashe, Thank you for your letter regarding the Comprehensive Plan for Spokane County, specifically mentioning: Request to change Mineral Resource Lands to Heavy Industrial designation On March 5, 2001, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to take testimony on the Comprehensive Plan, the Capital Facilities Plan and the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. On March 8, 2001, the Planning Commission deliberated on the testimony from the public hearing and all the comment letters received, 151 items were considered. The process resulted in a number of changes to the recommended Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission took the following action on your request: Plan addresses concerns. i« aer->- ,frc/i,741 .J Coe The Board of County Commissioners will consider the Planning Commission recommendation and hold additional public hearings to be announced. If you have any questions, call me at 477-7214. Sincerely, Tim Lawhead AICP Senior Planner 1026 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE • SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260-0240 (509) 477-2294 • FAX: (509) 477-7663 • TDD: (509) 477-7133 • E-MAIL: www.spokanecounty.org/Irp 01, 4J.5 • • October 5, 2000 Mr. Tim Lawhead Senior Planner Spokane County Planning Dept. 1026 W. Broadway Spokane, WA 99260 RE: Input to Spokane County Draft Plan 2000, September, 2000 Dear Mr. Lawhead: On behalf of Kaiser Aluminum, Mead Works and Trentwood Works, I would like to provide the following comments and recommendations for the Spokane County Planning Commission's consideration in the Comprehensive Plan Update Hearing this Thursday, October 5, 2000, prior to their forwarding it to the Board of County Commissioners. As you are aware, Kaiser submitted a similar letter dated May 31, 2000, to you regarding input to the County Comprehensive Plan Update. We included nine specific recommendations for the Planning Commission to consider. Briefly they centered around several specific summarized topics, including: • Recognize the Industrial Land Study prepared by the Joint Technical Committee. • Recognize designated Industrial Lands from the Industrial Land Study within the Comprehensive Plan Map. • Recognize both KaiserAluminum plants as significant to the area economic base. • Retain rights for Kaiser Aluminum to expand its facilities in the future as necessary. • Receive prior notification of future proposed land-use actions. • • Designate a one-half mile notification boundary around Kaiser Aluminum's properties for said notification. Tim Lawhead October 6, 2000 Page2 00496 • County will require adequate buffering techniques for future properties to be • developed around the Kaiser ownership. • • County will not require Kaiser Aluminum to use and/or pay for public utilities and facilities, which it will not be utilizing. • Recognize that Kaiser Aluminum does not agree to future annexation to the City or any other incorporated jurisdiction just because their properties may be included within the final Urban Growth Area boundary. After review with you and others involved in the Comprehensive Plan Update, it our belief that our requests have been met, at least in part. Specifically, it is our understanding that: • The Industrial Land Study was made a part of the Draft Comprehensive Plan analysis and alternatives, which influenced the final Preferred Comprehensive Plan Map and the industrial lands, as illustrated on the map. • Although the Planning Commission did not choose to call out with special preference specific significant economic-based businesses deserving of unique attention in the future by the County, it is our understanding that we will receive future notification as required by current law and that the County will make an effort to include Kaiser Aluminum in all future planning efforts involving properties around our ownership. • It is our understanding that Kaiser Aluminum will have the right to expand its industrial facilities as necessary in accordance with the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance if Kaiser's properties are included in the FUGA. • Although the County Planning Commission did not feel they could apply a one-half mile transition boundary around Kaiser Aluminum's ownership for future appropriate land-use transition, we request that the County include Kaiser Aluminum in future detailed neighborhood planning processes, i.e., Specific Plans, etc., as related to the Comprehensive Plan detailing and any future proposed developments within this area. • It is our understanding that Kaiser Aluminum shall not be taxed or required to join in any Lip. or like funding processes for future water systems, sewer systems, drainage systems, etc. that we do not use due to the utilization of our own private systems. • And finally, for the record, it is important that Spokane County understand that • inclusion of Kaiser Aluminum properties into the FUGA does not signify their agreement for future annexation to the City of Spokane or incorporated municipality. The existing Industrial Zoning shall be retained for all Kaiser parcels in order to accommodate future expansion and to continue operation of both facilities. Tim Lawhead October 6, 2000 Page3 00497 • There was too little time for a more complete review of the Comprehensive Plan revisions, however, we appreciate your coordination with us in these matters throughout the Comprehensive Plan process. Please feel free to contact me or Stuart Deysenroth, our Land Use Planner, if you have any questions regarding this letter. We intend to remain involved throughout the remainder of the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan Update and reserve the right to make future comments and input through the public hearing process or as other issues arise. Sincerely, Ii P - Susan • . Ashe NW Public Affairs Manager • Copies: Steve Anderson, Kaiser Mead Bill Fautch/Gary Micheau, Kaiser Trentwood Carl Foltz, Kaiser Mead Dave Utley, Kaiser Trentwood Mike Sawatzky, Kaiser Mead Stuart Deysenroth, Adams & Clark • Pete Forstyh, Kaiser NWEA Stan Schultz, Witherspoon, Kelley et al 00498 • • October 5, 2000 Mr. Tim Lawhead Senior Planner Spokane County Planning Dept. 1026 W. Broadway Spokane, WA 99260 RE: Input to Spokane County Draft Plan 2000, September, 2000 Dear Mr. Lawhead: On behalf of Kaiser Aluminum, Mead Works and Trentwood Works, I would like to provide the following comments and recommendations for the Spokane County Planning Commission's consideration in the Comprehensive Plan Update Hearing this Thursday, October 5, 2000, prior to their forwarding it to the Board of County Commissioners. As you are aware, Kaiser submitted a similar letter dated May 31, 2000, to you regarding input to the County Comprehensive Plan Update. We included nine specific recommendations for the Planning Commission to consider. Briefly they centered around several specific summarized topics, including: • Recognize the Industrial Land Study prepared by the Joint Technical Committee. • Recognize designated Industrial Lands from the Industrial Land Study within the Comprehensive Plan Map. • Recognize both Kaiser Aluminum plants as significant to the area economic base. • Retain rights for Kaiser Aluminum to expand its facilities in the future as necessary. • Receive prior notification of future proposed land-use actions. • Designate a one-half mile notification boundary around Kaiser Aluminum's properties for said notification. Tim Lawhead • October 6, 2000 0 0 4 9 9 Page 2 • • County will require adequate buffering techniques for future properties to be developed around the Kaiser ownership. • County will not require Kaiser Aluminum to use and/or pay for public utilities and • facilities, which it will not be utilizing. • Recognize that Kaiser Aluminum does not agree to future annexation to the City or any other incorporated jurisdiction just because their properties may be included within the final Urban Growth Area boundary. • After review with you and others involved in the Comprehensive Plan Update, it our belief that our requests have been met, at least in part. Specifically, it is our understanding that: • The Industrial Land Study was made a part of the Draft Comprehensive Plan analysis and alternatives, which influenced the final Preferred Comprehensive Plan Map and the industrial lands, as illustrated on the map. • Although the Planning Commission did not choose to call out with special preference specific significant economic-based businesses deserving of unique attention in the future by the County, it is our understanding that we will receive future notification as required by current law and that the County will make an effort to include Kaiser Aluminum in all future planning efforts involving properties around our ownership. • It is our understanding that Kaiser Aluminum will have the right to expand its industrial facilities as necessary in accordance with the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance if Kaiser's properties are included in the FUGA. • Although the County Planning Commission did not feel they could apply a one-half mile transition boundary around Kaiser Aluminum's ownership for future appropriate land-use transition, we request that the County include Kaiser Aluminum in future detailed neighborhood planning processes, i.e., Specific Plans, etc., as related to the Comprehensive Plan detailing and any future proposed developments within this area. • It is our understanding that Kaiser Aluminum shall not be taxed or required to join in any L.I.D. or like funding processes for future water systems, sewer systems, drainage systems, etc. that we do not use due to the utilization of our own private systems. • And finally, for the record, it is important that Spokane County understand that inclusion of Kaiser Aluminum properties into the FUGA does not signify their agreement for future annexation to the City of Spokane or incorporated municipality. We appreciate your coordination with us in these matters throughout the Comprehensive Plan process. Please feel free to contact me or Stuart Deyenroth, our Land-Use Planner, if you have any questions regarding this letter. We intend to remain involved throughout the Tim Lawhead October 6, 2000 Page3 - 00500 remainder of the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan Update and reserve the right to make future comments and input through the public hearing process or as other issues arise. Sincerely, Susan A. Ashe NW Public Affairs Manager Copies: Steve Anderson, Kaiser Mead Bill Fautch/Gary Micheau, Kaiser Trentwood Carl Foltz, Kaiser Mead Dave Utley, Kaiser Trentwood Mike Sawatzky, Kaiser Mead Stuart Deysenroth, Adams & Clark Pete Forstyh, Kaiser NWEA Stan Schultz, Witherspoon, Kelley et al • 00501 • May 31, 2000 Tim Lawhead. Senior Planner Spokane County Planning Dept. 1026 W.Broadway Spokane, WA 99260 • RE: Input to Spokane County Comprehensive Plan Update Dear Mr. Lawhead: On behalf of Kaiser Aluminum, Mead Works and Trentwood Works, I would like to provide the following comments and recommendations for the Spokane County Planning Commission's consideration and inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan update as it will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. After much consideration, Kaiser Aluminum is willing to support the concept of inclusion to the Final Urban Growth Area (FUGA). We recognize both Kaiser Aluminum plants have been included within the revised IUGA and are counting on the distinct advantages of this inclusion as stated by the County Planning staff and Planning Commission. Kaiser Aluminum is willing to support inclusion with the understanding that Spokane County, in turn, includes specific policies to the Comprehensive Plan which support the day-to-day and long-term protection and viability of both Kaiser Aluminum plants. In fact, the reasons provided to us by the Planning Department and • Planning Commission are supportive of the below requested policies. A thorough reading of the Spokane County Draft Plan 2000 includes numerous policies which, to some degree, support several of the policies desired by Kaiser Aluminum. We believe that specific and detailed policies should be adopted, not only for Kaiser Aluminum, but also other industrial businesses and new development within the County. The policies which we propose are as follows: 1. Adopt the Industrial Lands Study prepared by the Joint Technical Committee and members of the private business sector. It is referenced in the Industrial Lands section of the Draft 2000 Plan (ED-11 to ED - 19). 2. Recognize that designated industrial lands within the Comprehensive Plan map and referred to as "Tier 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5," in the Industrial Lands Study and Map (ED -11 through EE - 19) 00502 shall be preserved for future industrial-type development. Industrial land development does not include any type of residential or other similar types of land use. It may include certain types of compatible commercial businesses, which can be properly buffered with transition zoning and/or PUD overlay design development standards. Said review will include review by existing industrial land use interests in the immediate area of one-half mile around the proposal, i.e., Kaiser Aluminum. 3. Both Kaiser Aluminum plants, Mead and Trentwood, shall be designated as a"significant economic base business" critical to Spokane County, deserving of special attention in all future private and governmental actions in the vicinity of both plants to support the short and long-term viability of the aluminum industry. 4. Kaiser Aluminum shall retain its right to expand its industrial facilities, as necessary, and in accordance with the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance. 5. Kaiser Aluminum shall receive complete and detailed prior notification of all future proposed and final actions to the Comprehensive Plan map, text, and rezones and any related types of land use actions, to all properties within one-half mile of its outer ownership boundaries. 6. Any proposed future changes in land use within one-half mile of Kaiser Aluminum's outer ownership boundaries for either plant shall conform to appropriate and compatible land use transition from Kaiser Aluminum's heavy industrial use into the surrounding neighborhood. Residential and related uses are not compatible with heavy industry and shall not be allowed within adjacent ownerships directly or across bordering streets or rights-of-way/easements to either Kaiser Aluminum facility properties. 7. All proposed development and land use actions within one-half mile of the outer boundaries of Kaiser Aluminum's properties shall demonstrate adequate buffering techniques, both for the proposed'project's impacts toward Kaiser, as well as existing impacts from Kaiser on the proposal. Said buffering techniques shall be demonstrated to the County and Kaiser Aluminum during the land use action permit review processes. 8. Kaiser Aluminum shall be allowed to use and expand its existing and future on-site privately- owned utility, circulation, and service systems as necessary to maintain and provide minimum services to their current and potentially expanded facilities. Kaiser shall not be required to utilize, and/or pay for public utility, circulation, or other service systems unless needed for their facilities. 9. Inclusion'in the FUGA of one or both the Kaiser Aluminum plants does not indicate either the support of, or agreement to, future annexation to the City of Spokane, any other incorporated jurisdiction, any type of special assessment district, tax, or government action. In conclusion, Kaiser Aluminum will support inclusion of both the Mead and Trentwood plants within the FUGA providing the above policies, at a minimum, are included within the revised Draft and Final adopted Spokane County Comprehensive Plan map and text. We have attached a separate list of comments regarding specific sections and/or policies within the Draft 2000 Plan for your review and use in providing for our recommended policies. We appreciate the 00503 opportunity to provide this input to you, and please do not hesitate to contact me with your questions or for further dialogue. Sincerely, Susan Ashe NW Public Affairs Manager Copies: Steve Anderson, Kaiser Mead Tom Duff, Kaiser Trentwood Carl Foltz, Kaiser Mead Dave Utley, Kaiser Trentwood Mike Sawatzky, Kaiser Mead Stuart Deysenroth, Adams & Clark Pete Forsyth, Kaiser NW External Relations Stan Schultz, Witherspoon, Kelley et al 00504 • May 31, 2000 Tim Lawhead Senior Planner Spokane County Planning Dept. 1026 W. Broadway Spokane, WA 99260 RE: Input to Spokane County Comprehensive Plan Update Dear Mr. Lawhead: On behalf of Kaiser Aluminum, Mead Works and Trentwood Works, I would like to provide the following comments and recommendations for the Spokane County Planning Commission's consideration and inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan update as it will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. After much consideration, Kaiser Aluminum is willing to support the concept of inclusion to the Final Urban Growth Area (FUGA). We recognize both Kaiser Aluminum plants have been included within the revised IUGA and are counting on the distinct advantages of this inclusion as stated by the County Planning staff and Planning Commission. Kaiser Aluminum is willing to support inclusion with the understanding that Spokane County, in turn, includes specific policies to the Comprehensive Plan which support the day-to-day and long-term protection and viability of both Kaiser Aluminum plants. In fact, the reasons provided to us by the Planning Department and Planning Commission are supportive of the below requested policies. A thorough reading of the Spokane County Draft Plan 2000 includes numerous policies which, to some degree, support several of the policies desired by Kaiser Aluminum. We believe that specific and detailed policies should be adopted, not only for Kaiser Aluminum, but also other industrial businesses and new development within the County. The policies which we propose are as follows: 1. Adopt the Industrial Lands Study prepared by the Joint Technical Committee and members of the private business sector. It is referenced in the Industrial Lands section of the Draft 2000 Plan (ED-11 to ED - 19). 2. Recognize that designated industrial lands within the Comprehensive Plan map and referred to as "Tier°I, 2, 3, 4, or 5," in the Industrial Lands Study and Map (ED -11 through EE - 19) 00505 • shall be preserved for future industrial-type development. Industrial land development does not include any type of residential or other similar types of land use. It may include certain types of compatible commercial businesses, which can be properly buffered with transition zoning and/or PUD overlay design development standards. Said review will include review by existing industrial land use interests in the immediate area of one-half mile around the proposal, i.e., Kaiser Aluminum. 3. Both Kaiser Aluminum plants, Mead and Trentwood, shall be designated as a "significant economic base business" critical to Spokane County, deserving of special attention in all • future private and governmental actions in the vicinity of both plants to support the short and long-term viability of the aluminum industry. 4. Kaiser Aluminum shall retain its right to expand its industrial facilities, as necessary, and in accordance with the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance. 5. Kaiser Aluminum shall receive complete and detailed prior notification of all future proposed and final actions to the Comprehensive Plan map, text, and rezones and any related types of land use actions, to all properties within one-half mile of its outer ownership boundaries. 6. Any proposed future changes in land use within one-half mile of Kaiser Aluminum's outer ownership boundaries for either plant shall conform to appropriate and compatible land use transition from Kaiser Aluminum's heavy industrial use into the surrounding neighborhood. Residential and related uses are not compatible with heavy industry and shall not be allowed within adjacent ownerships directly or across bordering streets or rights-of-way/easements to either Kaiser Aluminum facility properties. 7. All proposed development and land use actions within one-half mile of the outer boundaries of Kaiser Aluminum's properties shall demonstrate adequate buffering techniques, both for the proposed project's impacts toward Kaiser, as well as existing impacts from Kaiser on the proposal. Said buffering techniques shall be demonstrated to the County and Kaiser Aluminum during the land use action permit review processes. 8. Kaiser.Aluminum shall be allowed to-use and expand its existing and future on-site privately- owned utility, circulation, and service systems'as necessary to maintain and provide minimum services to their current and potentially expanded facilities. Kaiser shall not be required to utilize, and/or pay for public utility, circulation, or other service systems unless needed for their facilities. 9. Inclusion in the FUGA of one or both the Kaiser Aluminum plants does not indicate either the support of, or agreement to, future annexation to the City of Spokane, any other incorporated jurisdiction, any type of special assessment district, tax, or government action. In conclusion, Kaiser Aluminum will support inclusion of both the Mead and Trentwood plants within the FUGA providing the above policies, at a minimum, are included within the revised Draft and Final adopted Spokane County Comprehensive Plan map and text. We have • attached a separate list of comments regarding specific sections and/or policies within the Draft 2000 Plan for your review and use in providing for our recommended policies. We appreciate the • 00506 opportunity to provide this input to you, and please do not hesitate to contact me with your questions or for further dialogue. Sincerely, CC4: • 6;) Susan Ashe NW Public Affairs Manager Copies: Steve Anderson, Kaiser Mead Tom Duff, Kaiser Trentwood Carl Foltz, Kaiser Mead Dave Utley, Kaiser Trentwood Mike Sawatzky, Kaiser Mead Stuart Deysenroth, Adams & Clark Pete Forsyth, Kaiser NW External Relations Stan Schultz, Witherspoon, Kelley et al • 00507 REVIEW COMMENTS OF SPOKANE COUNTY DRAFT PLAN 2000 Several relevant sections of the Spokane County Draft Plan 2000, which relate to Heavy Industrial, are commented on below in the following manner. The section name, page • number, and language of interest are identified first, our comments and proposed Comprehensive Plan text modifications, as related to Kaiser Aluminum and/or significant industrial development in general, are stated underneath each section in italic print. 1. Industrial Use Comments made under this section on pages UL-8 and 9 specify that heavy industries need a location that is isolated from residential and commercial uses so that their long-term • existence is not threatened by conflicts with neighboring land uses. Comment: • This language is good in part. It addresses location and land use conflict protection for new industrial businesses. However, it should be expanded to include the need for land use protection of both existing and future industrial uses. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Language: It is recognized that both existing and future industrial businesses form a significant portion of the County's economic base. Therefore, they need to retain their facility expansion rights. Also, any proposed land use changes of a noncompatible nature, i.e., residential, within one-half mile of significant industrial facilities, such as Kaiser Aluminum's Mead and Trentwood facilities, shall require appropriate land use, design, and buffering transition between existing and proposed uses. 1 00508 2. Viewscapes Goal UL.5 on Page UL-28 proposes designating aesthetic corridors alongmajor transportation routes. Two of these aesthetic corridors are US-2 and US-395. Highway US-2 forms a portion of the western boundary of the Kaiser Aluminum-Mead facility. They both form the north-south major transportation routes in the north County suburban area. Comment: • The designation of new aesthetic corridors and regulations will endanger the operation and viability of existing industrial businesses. This needs to be recognized and protection provided for in said regulations. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Language: Any designation of aesthetic corridors with specific regulations needs to recognize existing industrial uses as they currently operate and not over-regulate them or future industrial uses, which would endanger their long-term operation and economic viability. 3. Industrial Land Use-Heavy Industry The Industrial Land Use-Heavy Industry goal UL.15 on page UL-45 is good as far as it goes in that it identifies and recognizes the need for designating strategically located heavy industrial areas for protection from conflicting land uses. Comment: This goal and its policies should be expanded to include recognition of existing industrial uses, require the same, if not more, protection from conflicting residential and other nonindustrial land uses, which has been occurring over recent years, i.e., both Kaiser-Mead and Kaiser-Trentwood facilities. 2 00509 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Language: Existing industrial users, i.e., Kaiser Aluminum's Mead and Trentwood facilities, -shall be protected from noncompatible proposed development, i.e., residential and • certain types of institutional, educational, recreational, and business uses. 4. Standards and Regulations for all Industrial Areas-Goal UL.17 Goal UL.17 on page UL-46 and its policies state the need to establish and maintain land use regulations for industrial areas that protect their use into the future and prevent land use conflicts. Comment: This goal and its policies should be expanded to include the requirement for necessary notification beyond the normal County notification for property owners outside the proposed action when a land use change is being requested. As stated before, we are suggesting a half-mile notification for both Kaiser Aluminum facilities should land use changes be proposed outside its boundaries. One-half mile is a reasonable distance since it is the radius of a traditional neighborhood. Because of its strength of economic base to the County, each Kaiser facility should be considered as the center of its neighborhood. • Proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Language: Kaiser Aluminum and other significant industrial businesses shall be notified of any proposed development within one-half mile of its outer property limits. 5. Industrial/Commercial Limited Rural Development Areas Page R-35 identifies existing industrial and commercial developments in rural areas built prior to the development of and/or adoption to the Comprehensive Plan may be considered 3 • 00510 as limited areas of more intense development if they are designated and mapped within the Limited Rural Development category. Comment: Should either or both of the Kaiser plants remain in the Rural Land Use category, the same protective policies addressed in our attached letter should be kept in mind in further strengthening this policy, i.e., letting only those newly proposed land uses around existing industrial facilities that are compatible industrial users. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Language: Only compatible new industrial uses shall be allowed adjacent to or near existing industrial businesses. 6. Planning Commission Preferred Scenario This scenario on Page R-44 states that the Planning Commission's recommendation is similar to the Focused Rural Scenario and essentially expands the UGA to include the existing Kaiser industrial area. It goes on to state that, "This would recognize this area's existing character and can provide better land use control." Comment: Better land use control for whom? This discussion of the Planning Commission Preferred Scenario should recognize the need to provide better land use control and more detail for protecting and ensuring long-term viability with respect to land use regulations for both Kaiser facilities, as well as other existing industrial users in the County. • 4 00511 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Language: New land use regulations shall recognize existing industrial uses, i.e., both Kaiser ,4luminunt facilities, and the need to protect and ensure their long-term viability. • 7. Major Issues— Land Use in Natural Resource Areas • This paragraph on Page NR-5 states, "To protect natural resource lands, it is important to foster the development of land uses that support and complement resource activities, agriculture, forestry, and mining, do not conflict with one another." Comment: It is important to recognize that existing industrial users, i.e., Kaiser Aluminum, shall not have its future expansion rights encumbered due to the fact that some of their property is identified as Mineral Resource Lands, i.e., sand and gravel, which they have never counted on as being an integral part of their operation. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Language: Existing industrial businesses shall not be impeded with respect to their operation and full use of their land if any part of their land is identified as Mineral Resource Lands. S. Conservation and Protection of Natural Resource Lands A statement on Page NR-G presents an interesting paragraph regarding recognition of a variety of techniques being available to conserve and protect the long-term viability of • natural resource lands. It also states that, "When appropriate, notification shall be placed on land titles so that potential buyers are alerted to the existence of natural resource activities nearby." 5 • • 00512 • Comment: This same type of"notice"and "protection"technique should be utilized for newly developing properties surrounding existing major industrial facilities, i.e., Kaiser Aluminum. This would provide the necessary notification to new property owners • that an industrial facility exists in the area. It would aid the existing industrial business'long-term viability is not endangered by future noncompatible development within their area of land use sensitivity. This would not only protect Kaiser Aluminum and other industrial businesses, but would also protect the users of future new development that a potential noncompatible existing industrial user, i.e., Kaiser Aluminum, exists in the area which may impact their property. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Language: Require notice of existing potential noncompatible uses be placed in the Land Title documents of newly developed properties. 9. Adequate Infrastructure and Land Supply This section, on Page ED-29, identifies, "the need to provide site availability in a range of sizes and locations with appropriate zoning and compatible surrounding land uses." It also identifies the need for necessary infrastructure availability as a critical factor to encourage economic development. Policy ED-.11.2 states, "Maintain an inventory of usable industrial and commercial land." Comment: This section and policy statement should include additional language regarding the significant need to protect existing industrial users from inappropriate land use incursion and government regulations, as well as the need to not change the Industrial Land Use category of any land parcel without a complete reanalysis and 6 00513 Board of County Commissioners'approval of the Industrial Land Supply Study, Findings and related Goals & Policies included in the Draft 2000 Plan. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Language: • Existing industrial businesses shall not be intruded upon by noncompatible new development or excessive governmental regulation. No change of the Industrial Land Use category shall be made without a complete reanalysis and approval by the Board of County Commissioners of the Industrial Land Supply Study, Findings, and related Goals & Policies included in the Draft 2000. 10. Focused Scenarios and Planning Commission Recommendation The bottom paragraph on Page ED-34 identifies the need for Spokane County to ensure that an adequate supply of serviced industrial land is available for development. It also states that the timing of providing services to industrial lands, as well as the overall amount of vacant serviced industrial land within the UGA, should be carefully monitored so that the potential for job creation is not constrained. Continent: This language should be further strengthened in this section to acknowledge this need. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Language: Retain an adequate land supply of parcels which are serviced, have a high potential for industrial services and characteristics, and shall not be encroached upon by those proposing a change in Comprehensive Plan land use designation other than "Industrial"without a complete and comprehensive reanalysis and approval by the Board of County Commissioners of the industrial land supply adequacy of the Comprehensive Plan. 7 0 .,5 : 4 Winchell, Susan r-om: Oos, Robin [a015006@allstate.com] nt: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 10:54 AM i o: Boundary Review Board Subject: Spokane Valley Incorporation )IRB—SyLl RECEIVED Re: the public hearing OCT 0 12001 We are opposed to having the Ponderosa Area included in this Valley city. BCOMaWyREV1EWBOARD The plan does not call for the entire Ponderosa area to be included and it would be a mistake to split this neighborhood. The Ponderosa neighborhood in inclusive in the fact that the access points are limited. To split this area makes no sense. There may soon come a time when this area needs to address additional access roads into the area and we feel this would be best handled by the county. Thank you Robin and Robert Oos 4130 S Conifer Crt. Spokane Wa 99206 509)926-3733 The Company reserves the right to review all e-mail. Your sending of e-mail is your consent for the Company to review the content of your e-mail. Communicating via e-mail does not constitute an offer of coverage. Eligibility requirements and coverages can vary by state. Allstate coverages are subject to the policy terms, conditions, and exclusions detailed in the insurance contract issued at purchase. Quotations on insurance are provided as estimates and are not an insurance contract. t Sent By: Stadium Sports; 509 533 0397; Sep-28-01 6:35AU; Page 112 00515 ...n starts with r youth EXHIBIT (oa • BRB S55-01 September 28,2001 Ms. Susan Winchell, RECEIVED Executive Director Spokane County Review Board OC101 2A81 Spokane,WA 8011N1?ARY REVIEW BOARD Dear Ms. Winchell, As I discussed on the phone with you 1 am purchasing a 36.5 acre parcel of land in the liberty Lake area with an option on an additional 21 acre parcel that is proposed to be in the new City of the Spokane Valley. My concerns are having two parcels of land under • two different City jurisdictions,which will cause me future problems with this land. I am asking from a proposed landowners perspective that this 21-acre parcel be taken out from the Spokane Valley Incorporation and allow the City of Liberty Lake to annex the land.This will give our group the opportunity to finalize our land purchase agreement and proceed with the plans for our youth sports complex. Time is of essence in this consideration as we are making an offer on the land the week of October iTM.2001 and this is a contingence in our negotiations. Sincerely, Kerr Carlson Sports USA 7706 E Woodvicw Dr. Spokane, WA 99212 509-533-0366 Phone 509-533-0367 Fax cc Inland Paper Company City of Liberty Lake Clark E.Hager(Spokane Valley Business Assn, Spokane County Commissioners Spokane Valley Chamber Frank Tombari • Eric Sawyer 7 7 0 0 I . W • • ! • 1 • • ON . • r ' ohm . WA f f 1••t Sent By: Stadium Sports; 509 533 Sep-28-01-- -- - -- M' Page00516 w,"ww7. 0051 '7 _ nn��r� COMMISSIONERS Flee SPOKANE COUNTY 7 ^� DISTRICT 3RB W� D ' CM Ke s p •- Fire Protection District 8 � � Kre90renneth eKessler- - 12100 EAST PALOUSE HIGHWAY Ralph E';Schaeter POST OFFICE BOX 345 SPCOKANE VALLEYFORD WASHINGTON,99036'' CHIEF (509) 926-6699 • FAX 924-6356 Daniel L Stout September 28, 2001' Spokane.County Boundary Review Board RECEIVED 1026 W: Broadway , Public Works Building, 2nd Floor • OCT pa 1001 Spokane, WA 99260 BW HDAgYREV1EWBpgpp Dear Board Members. Re: The City of Spokane Valley Boundaries; BRB 555-1,. I would like totake this opportunity to briefly commentin regards to the decision you are considering concerning the boundaries of the proposed City of Spokane Valley. • The proponents of the new City of Spokane Valley, Fire District 1, Fire District 9 and • Fire District 8 have at time or another addressed the issue of the boundaries of the newly proposed City of Spokane Valley and has come to the same conclusion.. That conclusion is to utilize the current Fire District 1 boundary as the new City of Spokane Valley boundary. 1 would like to encourage the Boundary Review Board members to use the recommended Fire District 1 boundary as the boundary for the new city thus preventing the problem of the new city dealing with more than one Fire District to provide services: We are also obviously concerned with the potentialof eventual loss of revenue to Fire District 8,which would affect out citizens throughout the District. : Once again, yourselection of the recommended Fire District 1 boundary will prevent the complexities of having to deal with.Fire District issues at this time thus simplifying the incorporation effort. Thank you for your consideration and if you have any. questions, please feel free to; • ., :. espectfully submitted, Daniel L_: Stoub Fire Chief 0051 EXHIBIT BRB 55501 9510 E. Holman Rd Spokane ,Wa 99206 September 29,2001 Boundary Review Board RECEIVED 1026 West Boardway Ave OCT 0 1 2001 Spokane, Wa 99206 BOUNDARY REVIEW 2001BOARD Dear Board Members: I live on Holman Road which I am pleased is outside the proposed city of Spokane Valley. However, the proposed boundary at 44th splits the Ponderosa and other neighborhoods. I urge the Board to move back the southern boundary from 44th to at least as far north as 32nd. As a further note, an additional city in thevalley has no more merit now than in the past and would result in additional costs, increased complexity in regional planning and duplication of government and services. A much better alternative would be consolidation of Spokane City and County which would result in increased economic and political strength for the whole area. Sincerely, W reeC Maurice "Mac" McGrath ff MRY 'FamesdaN Ocftobey, 2 1 1.!' mat cA PUBLIC HEARNME 9101 ad 7-.100 PWI Neville pr;,V4 con-nev og Misdon and Argonne; t Spokarme Va H * Ong vomrrtg 1,14-4 1 6%-milfh A; Aar ha -calgh Mai"rade Gook StGrQ 00521 Winchell, Susan m: Mike Luzzo [michael@ieway.comj cent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 10:27 AM EXHIBIT To: Boundary Review Board Subject: Spokane Valley Incorporation 8RB 5S,S'Qj Planning Review Committee, • I haven't been able to make one of your meetings, or access your .pft file RECEIVED of your website, but here is my two cents worth of comments. One, I say yes to annexing Yardley industrial area...provided there are no OCT 0 1 2001 hidden legal issues involved. i.e.. The city of Spokane has possible BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD environmental compliance issues for the old mine site at 5th and Frea. Be careful about being overeager to annex a site, that has hidden legal issues involved. Two. Iron out the building requirements off of the Spokane River. The American Clean Rivers Act and the Washington State Supreme Court have had some say on this. If nothing else, land developers in Snoqualmie Falls couldn't build right above the Falls. This action was noted in January of 2001 through the State EPA website, and the District Courts System. I would say that building cant be granted within 250 feet of the river, period. Irregardless of what Mr. Higgins said that the City of Spokane wouldn't do Blow Peaceful Valley ("because we have always protected environmental incerns") his words not mine, in the City Council Meetings and irregardless of what some developer wants to do across from the Valley Mall, Federal Statutes are fairly clear on this: Three. It makes no sense not allow cell phone towers to be built on hilltops above the valley. Provided of course that adequate safety measures are taken. These include warning signs, a chain link fence and good engineering studies that would provide conclusive information on hazard safety distances. If one is to do this with a Radio frequency Meter such as NARDA makes and standard far field calculations (research Frankenhoffer and Fresnel Calculations, if your not clear on this), such a tower can be built. Four. Allow multiple stories to be built not to exceed 2-4 stories on medium/small business concerns. Why? If a medium/small businessperson already owns a business, and can justify it, instead of building out from property and strapping him/her financially, let the businessperson build up. We already have multiple story buildings in the valley and 4 stories wont change our skylight that much. Do this or in my opinion, business expansion wont be properly encouraged in the valley. Thank you for your time, Mike Luzzo 12422 E. Mansfield Apt 85 Spokane (Valley?) 99216 926-8732 michael@ieway.com 1 00522 Winchell, Susan om: N3685L@aol.com .nt: Sunday, September 30, 2001 10:11 PM . EXHIBIT To: Boundary Review Board BRB yC Subject: Valley incorporation Gentlemen of the Boundary Review Board, I had the opportunity to speak at the Aug. 8, 2001 hearing in the RECEIVED Neville Auditorium in favor of excluding the Pasadena Park community from the proposed boundaries for the city of Spokane Valley. I did not submit written OCT 0 i 1001 testimony to the board at that time, however. At the meeting, I spoke briefly about the Neighborhood Plandeveloped by citizens of Pasadena Park BOUNDARY REVIEWBOARD and the geographic isolation the area would have with the rest of the city of Spokane Valley, producing an abnormally irregular boundary, with the town of Millwood being surrounded by the new city. What I didn't elaborate on was the preservation of our unique natural neighborhood. Admittedly, Pasadena Park has changed and grown since I first moved here with my family from Spokane as a seventh grader in 1960. But recent walks around the community confirm that the rural charm that attracted my family, and kept me here all these years, is still intact. I know that the county has included the community in the urban development area, but the word "urban"just doesn't fit the neighborhood. Many homes, including mine, still sit on an acre of land. Others are built on large lots. Yards extend out to tree lined streets with no sidewalks and few curbs. Some families still keep large animals to the delight of most of their neighbors. There ill exists a closeness between neighbors that seems to be missing from a iot of other communities. Crime rates are very low. All in all, it's just a nice place to live. Some of us are afraid that if we get swallowed up by a large city, such as the proposed city of Spokane Valley, we will actually lose some local control. I can envision, for example, that with a few quick strokes of a city official's pen (after the proper steps are taken, of course), zone changes could be made for property along Argonne Rd., and possibly even Upriver Drive, opening the roads to commercial development. Heaven knows we need more fast food restaurants, convenience stores, grocery stores, and gas stations along Argonne! That would be the death of our unique neighborhood as we know it. I believe the time may have come for valley incorporation, but please be careful in determining what areas need to be included. The idea to keep Fire District#1 intact may not be the most important consideration after all. Respectfully submitted, Tom Herrmann 8703 E. Maringo Dr. Spokane WA 99212 i 0p523 EXHIBIT BRB421-T1 11- b -d S P O K A N E O U N T Y DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND ROADS A DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT RECEIVED October 2,2001 OCT 0 2 2001 Susan M. Winchell, Director BOUNDARYREVIEW BOARD Boundary Review Board 1026 W. Broadway Spokane, WA 99260-0040 Re: Comments from the County Engineer on BRB 555-01, the proposed incorporation of the City of Spokane Valley Dear Board Members: I have received a copy of the boundary of the proposed incorporation of the City of Spokane Valley from Boundary Review Board staff and in my capacity of County Engineer of Spokane County would like to forward my comments. My review of the proposed boundaries is based upon Transportation Service Delivery considerations that relate to RCW 36.93.180 and specifically: • A better use of physical boundaries including highways and roads [RCW 36.93.180 (2)] • Creation and preservation of logical service areas [RCW 36.93.180 (3)] • Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries [RCW 36.93.180 (4)] • Adjustment of impractical boundaries [RCW 36.93.180 (7)] The following requested changes are submitted for your consideration in light of the aforementioned statutory considerations and for ease of service in providing maintenance of roads and transportation systems. SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO PROPOSED CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY BOUNDARIES 10/2001 1. Sections 11 & 12,Township 25 North,Range 43 East,W.M. Fancher Road The City of Spokane boundary and proposed City of Spokane Valley are not congruent. Suggest adjusting proposed City of Spokane Valley boundary: 2. Sections 4 and 5,Township 25 North, Range 44 East,W.M. Wellesley Avenue, Farr Road and Upriver Drive For road maintenance purposes, the aforementioned roads should not be included in proposed City of Spokane Valley boundary. 1026 W. Broadway Ave. • Spokane,WA 99260-0170 • (509)477-3600 FAX: (509)477-7655(2nd Floor)477-7478(3rd Floor) • TDD: (509)477-7133 00524 October 2,2001 Susan Winchell Page 2 3. Section 35,Township 26 North,Range 44 East,W.M. Forker Road and Progress Road Adjust boundary to reflect U.G.A. boundary. 4. Section 36,Township 26 North,Range 44 East,W.M. Wellesley Avenue and Flora Road Move boundary to North line of Wellesley Avenue and East line of Flora Road 5. Section 20,Township 25 North, Range 45 East, W.M. Henry Road South of Sprague Avenue Adjust boundary to West line of Henry Road. 6. Section 30,Township 25 North, Range 45 East,W.M. Preliminary Plat and P.U.D. of Morningside Should include preliminary plat as to reflect U.G.A. boundary. 7: Section 25,Township 25 North, Range 44 East,W.M. 4t"Avenue and State Route 27 Suggest leaving 40th Avenue and area South of 40th Avenue and East of SR 27 in County for road maintenance purposes. 8. Sections 32,33 and 34, Township 25 North,Range 44 East,W.M. and Sections,3,4 and 5,Township 24 North,Range 44 East,W.M. Madison Road, Thorpe Road, Dishman-Mica Road and 4e Avenue Adjust boundary for road maintenance purposes. 9. Section 32,Township 25 North,Range 44 East,W.M. Short Plat 945-94 Adjust boundary to follow Short Plat boundary and U.G.A. boundary. 10. Sections 25 and 26,Township 25 North,Range 43 East, W.M. Adjust boundary for road maintenance purposes and to reflect U.G.A. boundary. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Any questions that may arise from these comments can be answered by myself or my staff, working in conjunction with the Boundary Review Board staff. Since - y, '-4 Ross E. Kelley,P.E. Spokane County Engineer Lfc? x�7 t 1 a+ ..tiA�t t{na {"+..!�:p I ,� 71I;:,r�i ty}yh�c�"'rv.�( ' '1' e F 3?'. 'Y<t t �,.r�..>i''n h*' x k ^'J -e 'F?e Px Ilk .'r4 " '�' - tt ri,.: •f r e.t; o ,nf.,.:•;,:;'' x 4 'kxtiee: w'rY%nJ:"L ':crr SFT''1h f i? '• ..1 a ez }',ra�.k e)?4 s a'.`, s ." Y ron,,,a��x rw. rM _J' i• aS ` r` - f `lA J i 'x- Fra,C..,.r 4}^ . d °..`r"h,k•Yaf ur47. ttrAtkiktp x `i'F }.,1 a': shote"«sr,er sa�aa a3rettS2,4 r'u,3sa1 sS ""i 1 x t ,, { k, ,1- n t, >� �., v+.++nr+,i 4v � �i � � k .. x r -' ,a, a r u, , w'a,3nyr j -ro 'x , ., �.x.ts A ti ♦� 'aA",, ` ,rv. 1 `a'fr ,� T,, r_' SA w r '� ..r . I4 'Le e rs. ,jeli altig'rl alai 3a53 ,,L1 ..r ...lil a...: I � 2d . _. Iia rr`x, e t x 9.1"1" 1"."7 I111FRaNl bV:001■ tla�rrir ,r, e ,Y- ;I cL a a " inimn t(,. 'b fa'r� y . ,ri'.p tt At[tlt,il116,�•.�"----t.' ..,r 011 lj. �� ."-- aastrm _7•• •l t 'is svP r'il c t. o + ^e f k 1419..t-g�dr arming wm 1 4 It I{Ial J----:� a 111-1-@i, 3..x .,-, .- 't� 'I , ` ,,fix ,. ` .' '": ? '^f �^ .r ' , Fm H .Y' ivt11l11 141 a,... 1 1a191r70 il�lr� Iltt ll�J,`x _.E r5k'a�'.x'Lv �'�`' •l[i s .r 5� , a va %,w 4 t ,fir r w+�aY„�, p9C^l�-. 1p,�p{pxrpp,,��xppprrrlmY .p-�-• l " t 1� Asa ,.,.�-_I l,1.11 .!j t- 4 R. ` c w 01.", � tli9Yi l��CLS9nY fir. Hf3'11lIfI111111 is liii;L1136i.,_T•„ - 1-1114■ !11• , }r o c >`' tl }y pg1' m5 �q{l} �. C84aet8 e1a111i/a IE9 iter . e' 'F5 v"' `i. - * If z fi ' L C. �,ixsti��9 6��® 1gp !A{l{'SBtl�e@I"+t�'.J,lraill�G�fn[�c17 ,n,„„,.,.,,„,,,,iLli rIli � c ru 1 ifiY v"�M-ds w:e. 4. r""" ...t.•,"..S';-. [ {A ; w m p� ii tY N ¢s&o+ 1nrr.raamt a1�AIf811 jaxFB I°a, n 110 lirlI�11111111 s -,x t' I , t -amu s* , ° '4--e` 'est y a� , t©um �+ a"x 13t4adll/al111 t �`� cam" P ISH}} rsrn ¢_ jL jrypj,'xyp$yx' pye p6{•][L�2�{ {jer,{1{�L ^qr�.1 ,�' G..- ,1� -Ihu > Yt'.t• L .9,YIaLYQ® iC9 ®MiUY1I�_9Cl_707ai . .. ' 4+1C CAllve[lIB{lrtl1. +f' ,s,.,sr; '� 4tky� � `3 ...r,..� --} �r, vs— ,"r117111t1d91_ elftl. � `� �P' � �s `f�d'F�6� 1�r�y r ""•m L� �f.¢r` � !@pl�s��,w {j . �rlmitu 1i et111t9t +g sz p vx �6mte�a lig ft- 14'li `wITRI al9lev)VinaIIl' t„ ,; s .-,-, fix,.. -gelM 11 1ewst+1 ' a ,gyp ®Om Ritz-wan temp 9 wmvglP= +• 'a 1{111110iililgAl ILltl111t` D ,s'cAw' � ',, s „Arc ."':,".-i pu ".'""".'• � c£�"e*8'Ml' 'gt+. ,t 3 L S,.1.g'minis m1 I1�llprllata9191'11 911 milli4 '' „.:7,. ./44,,,,,,,,,,...,,,4,: r x' �pt eV'Mt.L:.11 ll"-4 —9.•1t3S99 i I :Ir. .11i21,,/, 9ffi=lrar,c .,. '• itlIF4SI69'IRAIreC9 IlteellMf r.,,, �' _ 6v val,014!'I1BIt1 1. num ix -:lean x®� 444, r31 11.i e * +FillInritl!littla !fMet i� a 1,•-L O .i:a••s�np}ioa,,+_«•.�,•T^'.,; x aro mean rat, p [ 6 P�. s x_ _ x^f" $ �" � yi'ilte:Ixumr�r.epymF 1Q yp�11" to•• s ;; i 1n maw tom {iw" .7 �. ^--:.�....a. S 41 s1Y�Ai r lcil� t:1.3 4,4..a mt A Q914¢901?�1:'� x , I- °I+ :`� m� so a r` � '-^ f� PCY"fDat��.T�.Y"4tt�L yx.Rt a 5c"� a e I OP ris t»?r, It. s c -am 7 ., rW..-=---. -^ �. f r ,L A'1 .t s \� m- Elt?I$PEl C�} g # r 1r x � `, !,:_.`k,Edl"1 G:$Ilg� .�1� ... �,'�,,t..... r ip+� asl�d . if_S�15M1653_ @At21 �..+ aA wr Iia i. 1zC sr C 5�1� +m. t .4. 1 e Y,( ,.tt.,X !, ,,,,, " •i' r :! x ax:4 .."‘,0.* 0a4\\a:g,.itt, .4 �1� tom'_ _. ',Vag 4ram.y `{`11 .��Q: t.l �h�i. 1., ;,;t,`'e' poir.:1-,: « -s . S i�l�t1 ....,� a � xt Hal , &1t{7 ,� P1 S qtr r.i Mme® a.[ [:ir 1'n `,.a'Y`c j ,�L.� �4•L1„,,i� a.tt� N r ,,.. i* , f;�{pf �Q _ ;y,� } 5r4 ',�� 11th F.•sP2*111111ro:1. �� .�- tr9,.. pLL pu 11 '..6 , . 6�7� ,7,4:V' - t. c•ice+' - .$0‘''Ifd� FH I '.#" p� in rat�'ta Fes, 17 i ,l vJ`�t�`�eyyno ,•u _( ;lls.Pl_swamp -Es "'.14' - .:".r. r� •,: 2� 5 �IS@� w°: �71 M i Iles lc, }. ��oW�'O".�✓ Y ®=� 00�,y, I ¢�1 (r c • t`..ff{�`�fJl�"�.'I}�SIt°` �fk' V+yi. <yl�V 1 /"}�„ �tl{ s •67 �sr ty�`S� 1!ci� rI r a6_1�EN{a':•YdmLlnmp. 7q4 atN r :- / :,t” i •1 6.75)144"." ' yam{, 'Yr 4x`'SS I ..� y �t®Jt ��Qq a �'[12614-,Ta i 7 .!:.5 'b .v ` y :./ -. C ® 'iC A(:t '6'a �k:+J��,L1i .. ''�►,_ 1 ' } §ir7 . MA". -. iL'p�p�1L++mili ''A' -_ ....... �y . -- S ?-, : 4 : s714.144' n '' i ?:' e ` Wn 0,212, n97ar.gr,t, fr��aitl -•I �Y►��61W�91' . .�,' 'u.0 v� £. ll t" •�'uf , '�'y i€+s'. rS "'"? .In' i m4AaH��6,%be ,m .p.0 w ,111 PLell'C Mf G 1fY,e C �'4 di ' . '. a y.1 , ti l , `rni ra u i+tt x®oF2L�i+llIlt ,L 'IP 1 , .'I��4 J '.? s _''a47 ,4✓.°�". pls {der•, ... "`Apar SA Iw '!`��w.I adr ,4 1�1eRr ■ ` E ,, _ : . �a it tam N1t� 4r ,lam r a tt,...k 7r?wr f` I I s .—_.{% /4v red 'w, 1 "— icy., �a .n 'ny c,Fx s' 1.3Y lin ? itY. ` fit, a [ d .1t ti0 {wx yt �p �s^ �,.retl�8 � � d t 4 !+, �:•wt . .r 9 +tf ..- .*; Fro_ as 12t ®_ . ��u¢ �t am mw�elttlufa��Jl a $�j j °1 y " i t*�'�s�etlnlaPaea r _.. • ke. `_ F-- .1''gl� 6g ? I@��_� �l a tCuy 6rt�"� ^{.r 1Y +O�,de9fl94�7t� }r ,�, � ca+ �ex ,p•+� �t rryr g,� c r�11i1}iTl l{1WLLIl1! ,1,.. � --I � ntr , rt �v � � hr m�A9 m I . d , si j5,, ea ---,t,' i• .. frt : � I nriag'Rt'ltllklt1110ig1 t ra .r' ' snt { s ii.'.o c:1:41,...;44 5 tt6.ea w[,. a 51 � > "t:r` a niramiI@ 3i...J . ®Isla! frame e ,1.--ll � - I , t } : LI Jtic arms L{l'is=i )f r� mien ; .r''5 x til 4,7„ ism r' L.314;i't'T.fwn - / - @1111111EI lliMOI y m I1'' •xhr [1i1g8 1{ - vx . �' .A 11 f p swum V0 i° ro piv3 epnGyt,-�yL1 ycm1 aM�,i1C NH .c +7v. x - „,,,„,..2.01c,- ,.M ' .,>� r- ,�"'5� 4'i}: 4. rte. � � 'e�e�"sy��[�Htd TLY�{F�a �Z.,"�ix I¢� fir.. � I / d �' 1 {'. ' '� w xt4 salary !®�_ y ca. f sr”. 14' T' � I� a r+ + N e'i,� rr` ,s' f i `3".;' $t ..o c ‘,,4,./.,:,,z. Iln�fl6 mittC111®I it t�'�� c,./_E_ �ej�D ...... 's'»xt xyq*y "'r 61� �{9 -s r, a+�t. 0, 'F ( + .{ �3, m.n r.' y s: Skt�iilt i4la9:lltl0 £a 4' sc t�imprizigam(rrx tAm ere �,�}ar' va Sl pima us-,i l r:. i ,,,,,e41::,'fv ,. t3 t) i $ " CM"'ts 3 1 u• X11911``1!1{�wilt q1 {{ '1I.SI ,ic ii6a la 1°. Cs pr A a`y�y I :'„'4"b, f," , , 11� k 4.za;. 'taa, "'a'. ,rar'',x41 1 M1 t`. f$ 7,w„t Ittfi9N5lm - _lkf9lt ll �ms's >� III�G Lut®t,metro- ,xr „sir,"° 'J�, .. _ ._>I* iggi __ "'_ f u '[ .. ,a�.. y'„ ,..yw 5N '°,,,, ttr�P "! ,„ NNE.3M1„• '�""�ry(yt,5�..g.?_�11ii .' t,m vi ..,' ,,,t.,-,::.1..„ '§6 tfi?. .M."�"*d`. ,e �- 11� x 'yr y! ,...._ !t lt*V r7+ ;4`*'`s' i k�, t Fa+M�4e 'r�` ?� ii t„ f;i CY�01 £19i 161 ry ... ,_1' Itt��.1. °^ µ1 ,1; :. fs N :i# '✓ �h1¢/y, cr I l 4d 1 .il !�P.ml'iC> S �� iF, t,"tEt w 4: a : n'.� t ,, r:r +�.v y Y 59I .. ,j`.�,�`. «Pt+K y`p'n•1:.a°� { �"• ,{uy `l R+s... 3�"a.i.': .I 1 rP ''irS .I 'fir ,,i' * , ,.E;�-+'fa"')'k A 2'. •k-" + .; es..l�tr mtanri A :,,' " o- hJ. ' € •.� `S+ i''''1377,,a .�;',' ?4' k Vr j r aa' r.,..>F,?rt„s:{ Ip�FeS$t ,;.; w! j, r tis' , kMi „ , -tt. ? " ..:y' ��I ','�xr "^ �:�"ASI xr F i{y ,, rk�r� 7 k 1y " 44 'RII' @,!�"-1 eA>�`�'�i �' lj''N�{��,F� 7 ;<v��, � R ir..J £ o:. rr b 'l�gi 1 ,«'r a• < .} fyt1^ t h• t£r.<ta dvF"'+6, ''6Ttlr� ai . Sx i.,7i.. s . _ [ r"�u iy `+1 #X :4(xt prztai t,.. f 1 'r, ars '.i -a,t,,� I a'ay Jb' ` 'y"l:..t y'. st ti tt VMS:412, RI k?i " ., .�t� �' '" t �:1�'� � .p { t i 41 P''+ ;1[(:a ^M1' F v c t '..� :.ft 1 .�/�-rllrlg-�,w wvi :n R§4n .r k .Lv , V"t I '.-" {I4Poa-kir`. Wit^ i 13 *.1', P''..'S C'Crt r¢,,,* c'4Y2t x m61 diel'1 y•. ', l `I"'6•f y.. h. . e r + k! (��' , r, t :. h..; rR' �1iy*w.rc �a{. .,� ,• y ?,r L aIEN_I'1�'.. _ aFlynr,}•,u 1iis y'' 1++.. `¢,,+,` `r,tr . I -' .r i5z` ,,(f I s l.� .leg '' k'II _-2 ¢r rn (g � `x.R" w'� � .ry X 43-t1 ' sJ i .F 1 '= �-AE' f ,.• +7... +4fi6lA�III� x:` fr•` e` c---r- .t 7 0 _S, n.. s t r si( ;+{iw•P a1 w. o �, kt r :. a ,&Er'! . emir #141 :'n Gr wsg .r : • rm^r.a£6r ;t, - ` a , y '. z2cm"q '" Wilt r1� a.x ` L4 _gg rte_ FSS^• s. .�,'. ...r i r 31'....;., e 'K'�+r b,.ytJ ^�' -r, 9.Ac "7�,x .,a x'<;sr d :rt. r >1lk , �l, A 4,+ moi' ire's ":77-1 a. 0 t4�1. �� t.39''�x y.r rj^,T �.v' 'iist +ry f„'e .n.C`>g4u,-+�- 'P, r-- " �k� ,r ,,.. r: .._•., . . x. . a:,: jiJ ..r^ k,, �} Acrob¢t Read :''',"--44'‘44-2' LrC?i.y - � $.• ~+. 5 Y t' t`nt..j,;;, t ,rr„ i14.i't 1 »L Fr�.e„ .(.r. �r;k, `f� + Lt'"iFrti aie€wok' t y " rt�+ J, �x $� ,.*,r- ,s:x. , Eu^^ JRr..ii. .z, "wRc._-Y d`; is .sr` "rt`` f k �'�S G ; p t * v tV lw�: + r 3. xl 'f i� r,t` ,2stiatiiigmtntee a.. �' '�`IaP=^�S a . , r..?yd, ( ;Pa�� t .1f s "� �$ , � x - n p'�', r< S�'dsm4'r"L s'".a. a F et .. ri _ 5�a x+s4 lr+. iv,tfn'j#,a"if`u"f"yG� fi4P r 'v S°t* r ,. rrdg'"''$ , S€" ittraillailii ., `fir .1 111 � 5 a s a r - _ __Neepirwwwwiiithen .a 'F''.c'd ' -. A"I: '(dr I Ii a°� 1�,1�Yw�<<��itr .,I�� ' �,1 1st u., 'INC'.. .... y lala l�l I�I �3 f. � — "+•�7n w�r x � SOF re it � iir t _ rb.,...,_,,,,,,://.1.71, �'�� ill,. tSt � \1�1r�lt ri�r.ra15'!; �� d:-'1 ,..:r *..,!4 V- i.,. , ik a As" :fes Valp7va,+�' l.,Ile��ias ( k3 . ,... .•L�',�U� �I�r� ►� ✓sem „,m. / ' ! i2 : :4.,41,,4;44,,i,-.1: 11. yrii ts►�� '`t\' a I.)r.JC o-. �� Utsi' "-t�?.� ii r' u$re 07 4 �,N.,U " 11, ti 14i-1 LI it 2 Arli uln� tlaai -b ,�. Nil att �f11Rw IPA �If r"� IF3. �. -,..$:,..- SS-3^'aA1i 'Gt 't - �'�'c,� "„ , " h°4.�! �f� , t e y' d`0 1,411 'ra-smiler >£" ,�r -. °8¢n �j q cpt} r � ,.,. s s�,, �,y7[�4'QA „.144,10 . , /� r ,..,�� ,p E.x 1� ...x ..,-,;(4.52,:t. ... .fig t _.-c.”` , .,. f . at t h - Y 14. 'Y4 t.f. f, tract �s . � � fl e�� 4+ 1 ` '. 5 � ot� a; . ta'``x' ` +�'�� • �'�' °"" .�.(' titA '{ `Jl..b yari h .r . a 1- y�, C;',t i�x aS ,". is ft $ .aG So-•"6o- . },ate. n 5.m`1,, � ;la h [{�5 �[p{ yy;. a 1 11 Im7 x ,may�r nv`rm yr MW+I �d � �1� �� twi''�i.' -00:2 .,—......_. 'Ra: ��rsB.'^,','"w:). xy '' + .r .. �' Y �' s Y0.o- . . . ms's. Si;$�� '� P Qty �Qaa:�a® 1HeIrn: @ pp nam¢. '^11247- � - r.c rf z, .t',441N," , as "c„.;.1. r . : tA. ai "�^�-{'{,eaaaaa l �t , yIo�es: 11 1�'a t3 � 8 @CIa*-00:2 . 6t__ n'; �,. _ art `., .4t4 _ +�9 �1(ee gmtg— ' �,� -`^'1: '14,e,"rl , :`1 el '1 ti ` r� ''It'll' 1. �p _ tom �1 0 �. ; r 1: e �t$l36sBa. '9t'a .:6�«...._a arn.mfmltamn _ - fi�8' ' -, p� `7 ,,."'C 4'f : r aRsr��ll fr'� �.. � w".,".xa��.�1T%�sr��rr�'�"''". ""'j *'4,� � 1 q�""fin(��5� ffi'�-.'... .�e � r ,r' ,tip a ��( a � t,: `� Wiz. IA 1.10 1 x trt;o-Kr�a iRmm � + '� .1lf-`�a�2a.rit grzwitiis U A Fitt a-s t 'A6r $'tea .."1.1„.'",.4104194,”. v n cdai t o nz.a �� ._' ( '�T4'gtE -.r, v=zzivmsm,'&IS — ®fig p ° a fi aa+ l;l!®aFf� � tep °�'�I�*'A � r"" m....,�$4'l��li&W�MeIAa _ $�S��AI `3.J�.^'�' 1 'k. . .400,..t,,,,.„,,, , 1�{ V -ti LS'8 a i ��yy of5 glial Mik h ' as �' .M ,.. , pgq�,, ,» :+I s,'i.4 1.1'�' 'A, ,a a' 1 ): ,. ,. r� .._ ....�. ik 0.174:4x:f�gr�^�:1mw, ,osak� .��...".= {' 'ra +ti, , Y. (ti 'es19,71 N + t a ``$s6.,= 5r' �+k_ W t '. lila. D$@� aial 4 '..- Left iga'"Th,.. _ "=',..s rtf. .§i"i ',. ,. a� � t- aL_ ,t" 40,.4 .. �}p�fj a eV t waR�@ �IPmpmadr �.1.axw ¢r �$/( , -5 � 8 �p 4. r( .J t '2-r;40,411.1'7#4.4 � 3,.ar y. y . .may A ^'�l;� S }}��yy,, Rig --T It filo,- .'3G1 ..' ,Il irca .1 9r® a�17-6-r------: �' 5a(„lf'f ,+ &e '6"i. Coq{ 3 < .N^"}.'� A2➢ 4 ,.4 8 M [ '(� Y% t ry a GertY9i ��, e�� _ l fir* 1rq � +, '.� `"` '"_ ' ., as [„19-..=tr.ar�t Thin• 11� Y it Ii - - — crta� Jam' a0.c ro. h ,+ r l ".✓ �� .p� f � r i . wA, ittidi flF� rc13x4M{ n ➢ fl � ,a a 4Sa5'es 1 ..t p� �y Wax $Il y� yp {go`op®1111{ll!l9anoa fest=�-�;.��v��t �y{ p{ ��gy@� � 4� �� ', ar:<� �,`�� `�r:..�' � �:.. �',� q,a. .'"�"�-y.AV ��'4�-y Ek:S� .�+.��}p,w Iti*�'gi�.a ''�x'a' oni rit.EF Oa�OBrttdf ilo my®a '.� ghrawal �� 1t � W ittat :.-..y:4: :e:L 'M r f .' [t w. q am tiai8 .e:` r>. ;LI.' ;'Int aeibga ee•uesta� n ii ` JG u �... , . . .'d ' �11�r itni d•LL_ 4„ .wal feaesa ��_�,,r�ia�� , � < � � �;siR : 0 1,1��®�11_�seaq�llt1\l'�•� ,: 0.� imlvnneaolevavasn„ ..e■t®gmaa • ��'otataaouatenvl��S,m(=�®Bao' :aillTheTh,....4--7-gr. _• _ 4 g4 0,..;,,s‘ �...-"' �N ,w * IClweearaalovennYesm■eeJ1m�! @� �;: �_�-- s Y'/' � � � d' 9� 4�� ' ��aar�r� �� '�� a I' e�ata,. . .. - o, w1114 *. I r _ 1 �n�a 'fi L . is t • �� ' 'i "°'mmmb a ° e 1 N,� ,i '< an_ora 14 C6964N1k3 � �� yj{�r . :..0 �3 m� �. y ly� t om ref .-,^ l I+, a +aaa rtimva .4 ItI s pa.�attra l41111615iingt g tYsr f7 ,r _1Feo$'� rant+.+r a�� fit* t ��V i L 04: r a s. ,711!4 'tJ �.n1170 "a ma8,1128mu 1 E-P aEerr ,s t° ,§ „{pRtte!i s-alO A:► �4. 0' •*"� �'i1 ti W. imimmy ilaim��l9 tatial I Aldi II _aeaxug.._e% a6zi au.- _ >_ el�p� , &II ;3'1)4'104 �� 'r��.q�l��1a1 '# 0 �� -'.'�'a i ky a= mBCe �, SeeEA16e18e1e1lelk4tRN1ER1a &1il gth . aietaeaslivi l ! .a Y ',Al ^ r Il rr. rlit .+�1�. gg(�, \�°°,.',4 ""'t r ,�^{�,yf zetgPre6on9u ar n,RfAieR®619 nfilikRIE-�l�,�9e1p 4-.4,., n+ °Tall- m �. i b '� ,+'1�'�"04 Sig 61 f. r. q �uist suet u998�7 gmaatas;etaaa0-stami f®ag, amm�� ..'n a3:: i .mit'. ,u m.'s�a`u,� to '" ��` .wnedfl�e ® �N�8ia615Raa 'r' .,;�, 1®mi^ Icl-ve .. ®m{!o©(_ �m:�mt4nl 4;3 @ ,,., :5 s . __. aimaranae rna ,47.14 9eax ,nom. , 'ae� J ' • was.=4,2;4-1 na.nit Ad .4c�� .. _iza n w 7., .. •; - 9at tla<s9a91a1SIe3Yna3�S!♦a�ra�.1� @eafi'@t7L dash®aaa�@@a ttMfl B +rd?� e' gs,154( . !r' =It,.t l(a�ll6 lgo�� .lm 1��s��}� �� r n(: s: �11PSGS14'¢t8 �1�� 141fle®a1 4��m@paa0}0e9s8Renff AEnAeKeff� '"'t. iltt.-1......- ©a .1,.j........,-,past o,� 1�iw��m 1M 'VW T4'" s " e1lA Ydm@1tietnl6iC`d� _ d :. y I!@e�l ��= en r � v �.r^.�••m— �� •*k 1"fL mai � Baneene@ aaaeaaa BH a3e[lsan6allABleaE9Wa%� w° t I . z+ x � 441'n - 4.4 m1#aaao zw�-nr a;e f`14,44t14�wn�te4t ti, f 43 IC' L�tlala. ,. ieD-� t4.. ssr mi t- -.. ari— ^ , x� 4mit0 0 ,,p, .-, 0, -2,5"? ,.'+a*a .nefnw m :114 lima °9' �:�ir .. .a" ,` " A ®I Mid.m �fIES � m bl 1 � "Awls mo nfo w� �'' r Cr� �' I® . .11ar ' `r.u��@d--%ffi. � m""., �Jz p� o aaE1eR�al 1=.i� Cm_0mi,� �aJgraW i®fflaa, „r�W( � �.Pt I L '� $'"..&Sy mag r��® � �1 w�M 4t. ��o. L •, u tea'. i - ' " �a �' tv9 6 ' 9imil, e6'µ fii ffig r d ® '-� `_ ' 1 • 'jr"`i8',.lyr7,Y%!1'1� 12 n 7 •a , ".« :�, r � } - bn o e laaeoee �, r d / i 041, +.3r tj�"Yv IiVU' ,.../4„,,,,,.$4.' gip' ' ,.r�:_..,. ,. ..,....... �? -` '1':u � `�' ..rte§-:d`" th }►� v 1t x<"; "�+g .. ._ �. " a reU 1�Y1 • f „01s51 1 .'^a' v .; .a_tfA� .. . i % aRIC(r 1 �T�yd4�'+W,i b {` 1 0 4va' i w:il. ,i4 I f11- !.• ILitij .wa1J: a` 11. . X'`` C iVM % ry,>,,f k• :K14,%6 ✓�zepw.ik ?-:a k: , 'F . ' T1 ri:_'_,r F F l�Y E• Se4a' S1.2-",k MIVF. +Ar. 'r,y,.'r , tHrt � `� � aF „ . s� 't1.i;i�qj *d0 -, 4 ^ - l ax• t u! stir,4F 4 ^^a„„ f3d ufi.-1fyi^x�tmCr r `r �.`, i � ` a p .,• K x< ..•. /. 2,Or� Tafi2jry��I� rr � � f ' Y# M11 e.Y1% /�is:r 4,1 ° l a. ab it MEM. • 1 _ Miui ,: ott 04 el4. Fri.ctinvtati ... ,.\. it:4c._ ...,..„,„:„:,. ,,,/, PEI mp yr- sr ..m2@.16Sk1 (.��..: r a1'GrR ', Y :--:•;r .. . ";J xJT''s,n .")'NiR} ,i« . yro t�.,, iA ., `fyc I n r s„/�y 't5 ( r9.'l�. R'� n visa 6 "� , #"�# rhe' dt. "%” r/ ip t+'°+' '1 "7 ,St Y :q1 t I yi.0444,.;•: 44 • . } Ire' �l �I R6S"�I aF':a .}sPh ryn, '' 4, n4 'k IE"+” F' rc M �i ki k."N 4T J' {. i , p,�'t3 i a+w {:{ d�< a(r $C; w�,a < , r tc#ix' ' yl"i°t•{j{ _ u'i. 1 tYr9i1 tom. �i 11%, t p f. 4Y .4 uy( z s.2 ` "' , a 'iyr, ♦r3 i ' iA}y� li u h j},,,,,,,,N'{' (61 .- t��t ?RM rSR..a ��qq payy[(�� k 'A• x14 U ( ^�.*p'+Jil�J ry,� y "tv t -'fGJ� �`5n "2Nt. "I �. ? xr. '1y. �� C7 'I „r3 r y,, 1 ra @'''-'" L'tl l "'*:,+ .rxif� 6 fa 4' l"q `rt' . W,.nt, °F-SAI. - ,yr `,a ti' ; # F yr:,*.,e' cit' (r', pf ts"i rim -a .rte r. yP�.{ap,1t® a -+ ?4 + i ,F 3 S"i kW„° EF ��i s r ,g e. a ,rk , Ys F y-'4 t 'm. • im .enu�ffi��j .:E :M. %a'T'� bw3f3D >.� -f # . err,{{ s $, �` •A > S FtT Az.�4 1 'i .- -44 7 ^'' M+-;'C ,.',,ce'�* ,14 hk'" to .911.1 4 tN $ . pro,-_ .. a s I ,5 ! --SAF t o ,.w., o s#' z: ..�UKiir .i.. r �i^G I ®�t�FN + t 1 yta.1„ .M`�, c Fv, ) . J� N „„ .. -.rm , `an art.3t,:b�„,'a ery. Y Y, ,q �,. � x �,. .*. R9{{��'Ct C2� n 4' ty�.k rvd row a' r> t 9�iPb''!'+ #��1 .a.4.74-a0&,, -� $korl�`�'�'"3..-s ,.� �''M1 c 'r, rF.` -, ! .tr?•,q<x!2rF1U�ena atCaf{E�y3rlom!l19gt ,r•ei/a �r � "`e,Et..ra.t? Pi,A.r..�'}41 ydr ,4 ° ,y' .1E as ![4. � ' ..�. L {c�.YJU1fS:trx ,i krop 4*e:;.S La..- .1�"�Q`w^O tD TA":F Y: 1 Sy��ny "��'✓.1 'hlr' X Igo em��• • :. 111 itf{ " 'r�t�i e�)-fanBsimoR rtiih it3m as s� t o v y4 $,,+ .r(zZ tj � o y; �, ' z k d r IDitire tr�a ® ,- + , 74.4.,,,,,,„$,„,-,,,,..- 31 , .2 ax 'rr, .t Kt iL 1 ,t :..ai f Ism Dgam ,,e •3 `3r •,,,,,on.-2,012f�- ',4 p011042,itiefiri„ ty ; -,'„.,,a. ,' 5x , • y J 'Gamaceri atag jj 2 Was . R .a+ -A, °$1 oTha•tiati :, �L r� • '+#F+ ,„ \.a',{r Yiq.t,. i n' '�r,•, j � es:lammr� �,sS�am tacmra m nr cu rmr �,,,:' .. ma m :fp,: °' �f ' � Y a - � �`P'�`"�'p��l�W3;1®�E9,(y�"��i4d. •. '2W' 1 - ,. 0 rFuaL^g 51- �- 1ascag "rc3•m1 'a o t' t Wit„ em f343 rim 1 `A a t«„ "" a- r . ,, 1 1 ,S�r1 ��f'.Val; WI ,�rear. - ..» » t�7# �m� Gdmr IEI rm F,G r ��l�ra a»� am.+ P�p17rm>4�a' ®" r , + - �:}b'�° rJ'� ) 1 ,�,... '<•��1��81iRlr��s'S\�p,��i. i»i i� aaa em esSniijj r MI )@1 v ? f` 6400 g. cin t "s.' „f: � e I i , ..a!' r :er('� I , „ � t I Q amid � I VII I� n �"t-''"``u:.r•.nm ®Lpa.@a, 1• t ,i , & '3' `f Few,7,!,, •n 'kr r t$minnialbn `,�§an I ! '! .s_ \ 1 6� = �' giamam mud ma r t�7 '2+ ; ;?.c,�� p 4,41,317'4i A 74 ,4,4 r "#I �!'H'i F�acik� ua. c ff r 4t �� q 1{ .s. '.��.+-d, ))ff w. ltoto 0. qpj— 1 ay. ntailI'Aa a�pppp�y��•ty7�jj fi�".^t ... �F.'9 �� \1 � . l t��l ''�e I2 . fapffin1. [�� '11® ua mx m 19xx ie.p 9,. „,,,rt,rn�, i �'#�+tz ” t ,�'� �h H $t i iz. .=a�aK,'1fCa�'Jr 4 ; 4 V r3I -743 N$�i ___ tt + Ave N 5 nM+ �i ` a� � t3ta�� f�1�1�RA14p.-J_._�.�a �fm S9.! Jffis ® Lltat i car �R@Y q �+ �+ J':� &� V��1� <<. ¢rlig.; "�� !6 alga Csrvo-Manan.[' 1 � .;'a oll A i m®o aI gt� �l st g Fan .116AD-_— KM OSI MO E 9II�PP a ' "�a° lC i eh ®a. 3ta; REsaEms., R � tss mor own onp:n Sung, �.C� 6$ _�� ff,DE�I� I i��9&S �mac�, , �QAflbdra� t� w� as{aa�r cau�A a>s t'r I ": — - '.�rt�n'"� .o. i := c---s- 11411 •10= a� ® rn®11 M c`a'a•r. 444°'" _.,.M, rS ', ti‘ allna l�' r DES; ; E3_Ggf7ith 2B",44 VI k•YC� ®GS�tRT�Q 2 eases ..t „I-7.. f . ma, n„ ham,.. 0... a, a thetti® o �e�a r� a1� 0ipv©c9S�it €� oa0 ��m �to-��r \ � #�cP� G ��i �t��P� . ti r, s , . : �atnil8nt.t _isgguimu.,1064 nn1 a� t��lu-1102: 640 11 P1sema I t `� Fsc' c '+g �`Bratiilli�,ld aali � hir �,�a � g�.s f_ __ca , el.tvil 1.` ` : cs,S cr, . ter, In ot<608� zt. i4 d 8t m ffi� 5 liiilif41g( ,T� iVA,: 1a �iB�� i ,va `r ra >um�a �S` cag r I o-rwaas "`I�115 ^19199. m '- r i ftt;9iiiiitt s*" r. R 1 a 'aAx� ' cigarlot h? '41 �, 95"'� �� ,� c a. .aaFa s" �1 ,,`1t' y1 .+ to 1i._..F i+= "",o� _laet1S19Ai m �ltlaiae�- ri� ��,�.an`�i`_ririii�ii-.� ;��+`� �ro ' r ` ; �a� �rari�a,^g � � . ,a ,, y �r �S , 3�0 old �@, }9t ntrz 5 g aa+ t= ffi�. �- iA£ t-p�e isON Si t i ' fir' u- . .Ta u toa F ,1p `' MEW=ga a l Mir l i-r.*, . . y�.. b wG; ' i ( ri,w_,.m 8:1s n H�! �g w. w,W"�^" t c , $ i AAES� 4j�dFpy("�7"IN �.}� a- {{{ } ion Y - Fnw# Na an a�,.,s Y3H > r '�'rr r +,�4 t#. rM_1a �11�'i+"`P�mdr61A{�� 4 y� r1ryr� pf,� Cfl 1SktlN4 �11 ��lfu}R.r$ d ijEy .Jr W>X• A �tr` 'S8 .ir_ .', q , 4Y iii & i : ` T1 `� , o gC]'q r, o i SF., 3 c�,''^ ,`f,•" a sst Ic,(!- o,1 r uc. - xie • ''' •; h fi 1 '•Kr a M1:, }j �tr" WI a r 2' r F r '$,_ ,1 r gz4 Ca i�r.l ll a . , ya ,,, i--4,6.4:: y2{ sk ,s 2l`ti.}'i P•a o °- ''' n �'F. a°kp r {.+ �® a• #y. $ r e �'�.• ,04-#1'i;c�fvw aL+ y, "'k^"#firt^ Q7(� � i �'` q 'x6 a .z '.Aim); y Y. w1r3Q(1 o - _\M ± %teen 7 xi q '.'� j. :' •{, i '� err1� {8.{Y rstylis . j, ;v1;314,411 a31;r4 3 �. '^ s;#!i eC' 6', t'� 4 G s s .r1 - V ,� .. .-1,. a pY."'7''7 .f s hy.. ii {3F`13' ..4 v‘g '.'ev'k .t r� ii aig aid h1 Ix a : a Yw r c .. xFry a ,� 'ii 4.944444 '}i'".ii k amu.+: xn! � � ^ ��'u `ta' r`� . ,"a z '--44A1 �� .y ,r, r {n+. ..Y. '7--� a �� 4 ��` .>~ �^_�. • ��,,xtyy'' JY93 p� �+� .Ztil � , �t'I-,J z mr' {j �L� IYI f,„Iry� o ..kti1 W.W.I, q `— si'...� ,vacs' _d."' ":'111713t-e4" ',eV' FW:..'' se , .,, Tea s 1" } .._. j - .eW i t' ?'; -�Grra..Vs .. 4:.:a [9�ZE.an'°rfyr�T�'b 2) ...«.'+uk' •�' r�, , S �;Acr �Reaaer=�[1t!>Fr'" �x r , • .- '• - •S`,1Tht ir.,,,,pon,,t,,,:-.4';;;:. '.1",..1'' •1 ',,,,,,.•'el.4:-,1).1,1;,..! , r , ,,. ,..,7.,,,, % (nry 7,7,17'21.,W711rr c*,;; A '--c ..-• MI T Q, C.,r'1. <', •r 17,:14.VIN41/4:4“ Vil": 4, -.7„„ac.H-cnrafr.,,,11.,ron-Ft,„ i iti RI 7 711,R1141041.ttl;tt ''3-''' • 'w',.4y,tea'''t,„Orithr .rrb) 1‘,../PMehlitentatifflAkatk", Age IL.' .'1,`Jor-;9 fileaDfm..4F4 rt tfailif:Patilkf$,--.. ' ,- i.',:: ,44:4A ..., wraWinewleur4ftzter,s- .,‘, ;::.- istafriia id +- 6'. '4,.4---,4 arqn-iintrirrtsv ',/4, '4,%49 ,wenfolFt;t .ti • 11.'ttlatOritWk. tag t '- "- a , 3."44V 4.. 1' '71 . "7: Atli y -iv 1,44 , 1-„f, • ,, %Alt • •o• •r, Lig 'Zir-1-77:74W-ri;”evarditieWZ4 cp,,k,d"ti- a, ,-.1,2 ',z,,, —• ..,e4,‘ ,,,, . . „ '4 It!45' , c.2 ppan,„t"*„•4,1 :NI 1 1' :44'Mitcrinr?p144.Sactik '11,* tiArt,6eidaracivt&g--?4 Its c Illi Ulla ,i1,4"" 1,41 111111111) miriaru:_i I ,ir 1 rict,t4,,,,,a I 1 ? p . . 447411 libt 17: 4b4174-r„ lia,1, :. ;s o • tt ___. 111 13 et;ri3 70, i ;,%Jo • is, .. ,,,,,.. vette,filr,..”0,7-; '72•31•-•?41112 i-n 14 P.1411(M- I I 41, -v. IA" i‘,.i/WitstfilhVANII i'M 01;tr'44.1'iti 1,444,4,4'a i:Ski NIA:, sq4.44 , ,,,•,-, tt-127: ,.-4t,t,'",.• ;,.kin 40,:7A4r4,4-4 ovAt ,ct , -: if w ( 14, Mcs,),,i,t,f311.t3s-..7 ‘-)1:t-i'artilie' IsatAitz",44t . 1; %,,,.:441'tili.41.;.* *4 Mg ''': ' ; .1 I ..E _,..a. ,A. , • _., -..-, - c--- .,.. I-) , , t.P1 • wAh ifa,:•• ,e ..., f„.:`,40 ;r1,..4:- c"(It, , .,,,,,,e ,e2g , ,..„.v.„, ki , t-ki .-1;1_, , . i) . t„. _,0„.1.i , •-t, tt0 I witvg) , t -:.„, ......7„,,iY60-1:t,t7;Til,-itti%,,-1:,-ct . t.,--../ 1 +.1seti-a 4 4.2 se, 1,,4 tic.".0.? in..., Ir r 0 no 5 kik POi,1/41/4%ht......4,4z,, fe,'21 r 0-11-:t '37 ,ei. , ' , 0 1/4.„1/4,..... i nes f 4-1\e- t/I—FT:4, If '404vAtagrAhr orriars t, ,,,,..,.. If% lizz, itsti, cons, t,EIF ong 0,-,r•- •5•Aii---t• 4,-•-•!: -4" '' 1' ' . 4 n 4--. b all .,cie.s.,7, ,pi.., i itonommtp ,,4i.. ks:,:„ 54ir 12?,. i ir,Eret' e';':',, %I)** 1.; '''. iftlge-VILFANOLC!SargrefilatiZ MI ':;; 11111 eras ritAat,StAgfirinal-eratirntsailitslizagp,.. 4, r cf:.k 4 i tt i44, 41 '„*„.nrres;IMvrAirigriftligilwg Crtaniv;tariz .„ , 4 , -Td.-,•ca-i;31" letki--,,,,e 1 A - t liT 1 - lii * kilSrPoS4.75flaitailwairt8-7-11'Sti 'LI'— —i.yam nano moll ,E11,, •,' ... ,•17 eil 4.<-40 1 414t . ,f,Hiliikr}11-,1:-••••••- arattlikOP In'rantimarp Main 1 linaffl la "itte,w :1/4.,'t'f' . I 71 IN rlor a't1'.44.41Sat Its,:z.4....-...--: ---‘4„--i,Thrgri Oa Etitg2 straw ng n...., tz.va na ;"-c- „..... it...,.„.-- ..-.....--otAr-----w an rp.t..2a.t, ::I-- %/1&i.ERbi MCP•Mi al.lis "qv_ im. :•.rif ,,.,i, I, ,- -:-- - usranio ;,,, .,„. .dotioncongi 4:m t 'MOO i 2-, .,..,,,,-, ,-,-„7,., Itc:,ijr•l'''' .4-nki: c 'ikt*is,'' billt-krrisz=82ssrivo., epailinismult,LiggisiotiwinfathatiffijatitatotcliFoopmanatocit.ta. I, roiriwisi _. i owl, . ,,s,_______ s wr, _trviiri. fj,cfmk",:mrxri! WVIVittrigRalEt@Inlau-i.niii*arlikiriiir'av in:04,1 t-14‘ ‘,9,0 - _..---.7.4---, „....,• -,i4. IV,: .43e44;R•tv;,. *-- t' P't ,Il • 4 it. 4,,,4 roman-- tb, , sfY-,t,,,,‘ ,..i 1 - • -NM - :]f,>titv, ;•,-,,,,,o,..:1,-- =menu '''d fo;, 6' '..EOM ' ,r.r. ''''''""Cri% A 2.743,V 11.' '.• ' ,....-ct sh-- -,• ,'ter.4,44 r..4. ,,„ „,„ .. ./ ,,-.. .104.,„,, _ ,,,,,,,. , ,41/4, ,• .. 4.+1/4. %Mail 128:035 rt.' '454,,,,,34;,; -. `1,22 --4---„,itagmignma Eir....•04,1 4 ,/_„? „,„,„.:***0117„k ,,,, ,„.. - ?";,„,..,,Thai lg., , („44,,qf,„ jav J..* , -...6„, 4 tki tr,t, :',:,..s }rigittrol t., tt..,W r7r47 rAtrfifitatit&EiTilgintir „„.„,,,meam, ,,,r, 0,0.21.go. ,,„ 41\irea0;75walii,. ic.,,:iit Iffkld rlf;'•., i ..:,.P '(Ot.'. 1 rai..AH ' 4 ketWiti, '''i vir : 1 4.8511s,:. .q.41 Pon MeAlifS.,1,014*zi". Lueh17-57-ai.#71^0-,Inglititriatat"5.5 as 4 ''')L-d't T4tritip4 \';1; ',,,,t: foagl.. 1 :f44-s 1 stai ,,,iiiii irtgLica ..-' j, -,taritilifixtie:'.101f-„„ . ,;coliii,:i i,ta„.eisii, I .1pr ilfrifrk'",,; :44; t., , tt404.0,t ta 4.11,rtippfactotti.-.----- -*v.,r,,, -..)11;r: , ,,,,s1/44,atf: - 'Isms rpato:+j,,,,w,,*% .„,..ht.c... # „, ,,,te,i`,',,r, , ,' • ' _rt.s, tit f.:?, .p... .4•4A TrivAritt----n ''' 40,-gowei Noft_. ..4--Tior..., :!wt:44•=4), .-4,9i1n, mew.„,i, .:6„551,7 's. ..(,, ttlikl;e4 , , i- - --, ari.• - - ttgri t is va.,vt.rt .4- ,.4,1",c ri'Vitottita4 If freatic-0641f4t OF1ffle -11cipatia44 . ' • ' - , . v, 1 itwateab - -.0"." -,,r. .,,,a14,• •,.., 't - • i i - 4 It‘,111' 14 1;1 ' I Tin,?,,Y1414,,r,thi I. . f.t.ti%:1.1 Am Fara 4, *.. -1 ' ' 1,4%-,i,'*-• 's 'y. - 4nt '' ''' --... ,‘.0".. ," ''',..: kit.'$'' -..?, . '' ''''' - . • ..i. - Itt 10.°411 . t‘ti, 4 it:trijiiiiSit4:4141,*:tr• '\w"t°40` ' --'--a.-- 0-tr.:gel-V.i3",?',a'A•41-,•-14, , it, a, AI, .... 0-, ::,'%k-t ' ' a% -3- '' 0*".1.tel altar,t3, - ...-v.cy. liff 41-'414 rct :-,: A ,Itatzff,-- s- • , ,„,..ny.„.,, - , ft:„in4t-t,i-FAV A,-1,-IV,`,,V11Sit,...I:4th't itt4•_‘. ':1•,spr' m r7 ..„..; :;,.t•-tz - -- ^4tittl":4;, Sintw:01,4' , .;., '''''‘: , ?414,(11 44-(%;*T.''.. Icli '‘ 4-'-Cl." e".Cra*-41" -.S'''.----- -,,„:.,..,.;,?,ricz•er...,,11,,,. -cfri"../_trt°%',.%14: '45,4 E...Rtra,WW1 IlL 1..t..i-,-, mr,„.4,4...: Ai!.„ 0, ge42:1 It:' T. ' . .- -_-_-1:11:-• ' 7- ,---- •t-ti, 443, .- 14, ' '464 0 larearreaGeZrAWr-Arrris---- ''' -"-la'. tt-,i ra'A --4intriI'enst/t44-- — ,, , .. ....,-, ,3 -• tar tt;et '7-,!.--a,-, 41'... ,r-kti?_.m.0-1,1,!3/4 '41,9;• •- ' i c. ••*... ,- ' -; ' ,4„,,,, agaz,-119..h , - -- !so 4 't'i-ai �Fl cai lr`6vz11.1 f t .-; j1 y^ . �I,ti4=j°' a, !t r itr am ..1,9;v1:`,..±: i. ad +Cf-i A: F n t a n r3. ,4� x t I��i k.y Y' R•'• t4 h 4 . .y b ht l..i ' S Y 1[C z -',E."-f' f :5 .� c { -4..t.Zrt i e -watt`7 i'F1. -m.,.' A ..`'. x 4.1,-4W147,- `v':4,:04ur a S Y• `� 1�. .•r:+` ht 46 --v 'f�`SpBY`� .4v1 s'a' ir'.f ' Y-i p ° r..' x. .1 n•• x ' .�.VSr rr. ..t .t _ k a•Matra 6`"�..-',i? 44t ;,,+,: �y • J t.., SIP,' r . -<.,a 4 _,.,'' li'J l',. 'taZ-'• " SIP, x. r hi. ,�, 1 #' a . _ � . ai• ` ,: rso`?t..�' ..°a�4 a as ` `� Mu91s� a 11' '4t 4 � ' :e -x•ti�; S`4L fti,...7a, 11�1 /-''' \ At ,,./*`a iegt -•,•.'11,44 il &+44 a 4111 '!i f 1 i4a a4."d }� ��s ; s• • 1:-:•‘a. ` i .6-11 r:»5,,intilkypr „' TG3 ?..a.i ..�fp. .Y�t''"b Y w0,'*A, { lift &.. r r a, s^.�Y>♦�,a 9r ,5,,,'v+.. r FKa`ek, y>w A 4.4-'44„ , elb. :iv i t t�'t p� ro , k-- .., 147-(44 k # r# '�X X. ., 3 iogh=��: "3 2z.,, . g\^ I t A temtd'll v �i 5 C ISZV1A 8 1Fvfr'tr. m '.Sw'"sk#'"' r ' i7�s ' a v / Yom. '".y t t .. F � pt�f� ��`d MOS.. W%s 4ti.� �r . ,�: 1 � 4PA4fi yr# ,�.YR �I<n �., c 1 �'F ///,'*'; y:^INdt, A" FJ nr� i.6l�Uek�a a�y 3" .,� '(�y�,",�II UrItluk9 i�ltTai}t>@IMS �[t�i(S( )o,ci iii.,--u' t- ,---.. rr«.+'``m. , i 1 �4' T.Y� ' .q°p{ 4.. ,1 ',0 xx gr i Rv fw�vV,,�' Ih '" "' -;,"4'k �r A,.- i {� .1HO . PARTIE-4 eRNt v�'�11,S vgM7: `- 4. 4 P' N� d Yt i "� #W':f,`,,- t x t x"K`IS5 It ' '"lora .i.irri7 , s let,' ¢ , e x „fey v $'�„',. „,, a� 1 pp��99��psqq ...!Y .y,'rF `°h'R% $"6kF�E10A76 is ,q• ':n x ' .�:t?I Y•' „ ".":>11,'.f"-x� rl � z & r:.lo734'ia"r. Asep m` ZS. 'C.' Y✓1' �J'a' R 5• A X „,,2 t r` , :i .. tgbt� " '� n� .r?,AnaC+. `a� �f. � }r „,,,,Vii ':: t..� ivp !t!'fl+M " ,,StsM.0.0.�'�>},�sk.�49��g$1!5[6k9 GlLIIp� w a � �y ,- yyt'�y3 F � atop o-1 i \ "�'r � �°?s��i • r " -,,i''," ',- �V^ +t '. if' d" Taha •iS" o+1rtt:TR#PJ'� sr' G..L�tttlig n Im ,' ..,M. °a R4*.s, t db *wir f v' 1 sr{'y `` ta"' ' ,,k 'vx.w .y$� „vrbi Ym •I-L'';;'r } T{p 7'¢.fU pg6 n w..G....-+6 448 to s in. � r ��'h` 3; > >c•' :.,- +'b�A t +.�+ i'i��,� x i'i` • < •-•Z t nx+`, ry k `t ice b 1ST'' etann lits 1.,011.„,tt P pontat,� �. 5 :.'e`e 4'.52537; R` " 4r"' c;." -1- a, �? 3.'. -4-;7,444 f° k a a�t- i Fd.':S. ti '.x'.G,ux a;' 1]�4.rn�C} V + It bt ,4 Itit a: '7 y < Y�'"�, _k�k� 'rk ; €'1: ':''X.J.rin'd �., ;11 Li �� p 17��9l4hr'��m ^ �» _.•,„ / C `P x a iib+ ` pk�:l ti.�Kr t " .'<."..".". 1.•‘taL "P3t a ef f 3 t'`'3 n ppp, to to d - a54MQ@iintti iy apit v t' t �.c��. i,Y• rx:C ` `i i� t ia2� ... k FF: i inti P.t7YR .a{�'�p tpga+�'{�mgtgC0g4(fDtl@@t3Br t,, • pp inn 7p�pi _ f ;tcr r' a,. yq �J;@ 4 Pt y426NF��3{'E.S¢,il�-f i ® 'S 1441vY glum waw $ t. iu11a.!' Yt a� %t v: m0�' x; tx ,_'rte{;: I, 9 Y Pri 'awe 111,11111111 ' �tM:t [geirips MR 'n5 j>. k }i?a dw�� tk 2C. D•• •i6a 6°'�ryr��{ 7 T aat. � �g�tkry�kry"ri Ft�� Waist= is 4* ..."x, ini a2' ».XY . '.F t e { ,' VI t3 "' uys-ier G�ce k• gt0 a�:'a" ' 7g�tu'�� ,g it".'.G 4t N L: � ,,' `' x ',--,,2.1,:,,,k,,,,0,,,os,••,, ' • ', ' r ',"i kap mm I g �i �9•Earg i H ,. a 4"7' °Yt al ti e •g),.??„ 6 ' .+ i i / ii i'`4`�� 4t'rf ",' ' llr i f „ F=. tym r ;{a ( I =a. #6kN /r "f ��Irr I::: r:,.,'',7,"j ::: m moms? ainzim lit:^ k � +;,�� `i!+` q�{ �tY�� r,r•:jf-v`'!� gepq rut sr5r -1Ace ei W7. ...0., . ti `'" ,. i .t'�1Fli �� jR•'"' 7451 �_:h.. w'‘'' t. i,,--- s p , .3`&A:,t?'y`. y r^� ^99�it}9966"StLfY _ P _fr.ti MI "` aB�40d IIQOb� ®)fqua +� a t '•t..`� Fi' c $ g ....:7713121., p+ ia^>a(1'. roc, t �. Ott�.t t r..- b, .q ititlg[iIIR79 ittdm -1W-.4104c4,„ , �, Ln * ti,, A$tr #, -t9'4 C�"gtTri iro ry—r, I'4oP119Umanf oroar� 434i A .-:*.i`1. t 1,_ i >� "IxS.t a ':nl 1 r ' .'a'"t75 .,l i;-1/41.— '� (� ,-i yam. dladHt , ,. b .t�"� ,Ij y d ? .fit, r. ` . cr: 1.mama ,..) i 16 .f'"; i k. ;yy k i y q rte' it - 'i e i i aa'i ,£ 4 .,, r (: < x a tf at"�a i'dR:'� �. t *fi{, t„'• < -.34W flt', .y�2x1 tl �!fr .S: t 7 q, 1•I' @ 0 @14Qtl8RD61� v4 i a .alt"F r•• 1 -.': "1.", • I � �e 4t?:' ' { r�a, Mx 'i. ' / ivilia,4 :Sit J qt.. 1 t + a'" , at��--^-• lat..a17 SVC bpict ."i�,%..0 f9'.#, y.',t. To.' .• ,,os is.. ..'.^'�i�"_ ti 51; WI dkR'R�, fib# x • n.`"' 1 :7445/.1114 d 'W�i 'n# - ,,,, T,£1 w.. 'g`2i::•' ',4,5, s�- �r a`4wet,,, a -z.�ee.�cs ... Ii .tx iht ax rt-9 1}al' •.v` vi' p 1;C'wKu$k c� .'3' gff -��2 y ' -r.i.. `vS4P.Ra. x -sr—r:tr.,.- mu :::;,,,,A r Sty..: ' t^' , ' 3 ! 4. '4tk's /1,..4-, vrtIVC%-.' t4t 1. t OfiCI INIIOn ;�jA resat Re>e � '�i`", us' ti • t'j ' [T ^ Ii "- +� a� p .PSY .x4r., V?� 5 'yj' 1. t [ s is a .� : V✓ _ "� ,6Y�. d E a;! a r `' S' i �t„e`Y �'asi''.ax� a�N l+t,� X t °e V'i (rc "tee V X t p • 5 'A. w" .rs 1 F. V4 Ir a >: d�4'�` ' I ^„ ,.r°g` �� „; n {(1i I� — - 1 a.. } . tl.0 ��y�+9`,, t'$r:�„Law.: c'>F'.� x 'nom'a f 5-' fin. _ q,-- �l$ r . -,i:, .� ..,....._�: �'� I '�I �tl ,11 a I�.6,ti ,!tn. r g [3 k . .,47 -..evfgle..0 g . �' l n 4i ask i i• v ate-lp).1 tit‘444.1/4i4g1 ,moi i f N'" a d t nwlNs 1 N1 n - }lite ,)� r . c. I'll rata:mt.:al { y [ 1 r r 1 a .. 44 t 'Vtty r, �,� ° Ye f �� lla[„ ~ k.�r .moi m... C�ti�,LI:' .tgifil -AtIVTW i_y• 4 • �►ei,, ,.ppTh',.1 at ei f. t t ;2 " .h I', y• y.. + `q'.`_y �(,` _. jv .1 ,-1; i"'t;II ., /J. J/ J # .. Y 44µ_'nlfl • �� an i ` `>.y�+` 1 VI +Y' \ ,•l� y'hq' �� 1 Rai r Y aii aidgoiloods1 1 fc' . 1 , r Y *Si k H : a). ' h t 1 SSS 4 ati r xttYl. 3 Ise ; 1 y amt [ A . i i,,,..ii „At ,,/,. .. .1/2.43.... .. .riuliP I ..., ., ,,. . . ..,, , . .:;;:it. it %ifs-WAttitstri {� Y _ .,„„,,, '-' 1iIP .. .. ..... . e� :.x ?max ,111 ;� .rtes dx'cis rL1-+.tom .. ,+, _ "— �'� �SSlhpy, "" :y ...r' r . V . . ' .ra i .. t [ t ..... , �'' b'sti W z. r jA'.'�+FFI,(it; :a el 7y/�fal 3 ...__,, F ,,'£'4*S' ry t,..t '4w6'�2*i*3x^ `] Fx.. Iy'"'"'.. i.4,:i i .q . .. t ,, r s ': 1 (Ir �I c- {:'.. .x•v ._,.:"S.l.! 1., M ,,, µ 3 sm7rkr-�.:�,a �. ih.,r) ''ned"'{�,f�JftW�< t x�`..:l G=' .1" is R ''" u L r :. 1 IS.�v::i: '.y. ij y ' 'rl �r �j n 1 Jyi i.� .j.- s?:`'e �ot�• 41 l 3. ,t'� -r [ .._. .4 i " $ W» t, �' r� °",M,44T :' { fi - e r r: 1P� j� ` �^ju* tS.vi ogre.§». t'W*1. r T .i1 r+�""'',7 S a x z+•$!?°"'a` ""r`s `F*' ,It7..1�aN � ,ni ` ? ,_` ' ,t7 1 f tit;N ' 'pyx' +puss! � 61 {Y F�-.:xGY'1LGuL"'1�".�.Mtl'{� Ca'I^'V��' ^Tp��"�T1'�-,' ��C Sa� 'if � 'e 11"'?`* �� :r,+.,'�th ,yt" � �t y�: O cp PP i �V rM!x!rL'n'S`a^k� +Vici.a j iti 16.77 `ciWrggn:Thilg4¢eo R-Tru Cimj4P _ 'i $ . t �� r • rYj p4701 5. '': } 8xu.:. o h 1 r + �• gyp,,, , (1L+44Bpd4& ,---„d95�,4 la'f,"t' S` ?Q iput3aAo c.:),37 •� 0a• OOb taganJ Prttim na®n� (�pk r .= '$ala 3z-; I op ti 1 ,�k I kY�Hte�'P© .. ,a:nra�: i,41t�` ¢ t nye �.,� e f � } �� __ I.1E1{{:T noa64Eg aat g ,m,'$'RaPsC7u'4.a .•ttwaavgp fif a �� a'marl®irtallH®®en Q�W oC16�A�d:eYm.� { ]a Y• { h}tA 1gLim anav�n (�o 3p. .,,� giitio firigeFl Ski�(t<e mirati magrAa,a'��4:4 -� 1gc-rnt711Aaa rtvantiwa 0, aittar Csitp+¢,; � eir �= f:,wei xwan att i �+ did @ g FiQf� i7 '` pG Res X r atlEa:"1-1�. fre qi tlnTagr1Io"emao rsogla o ra:a4g gilink., mm0,,,i. tlea,ramam e 4p Adl' pI �S rtmm ��,�s a� rn . ® ��puocear mm ��..rx Raub � 1 P�1 m - • t '76. nnm esp 4" �'"ml t lIfiti p hone p i4e” s%` _1661ab"" q r it 5 a, t:snoFt 4 NYdk,'�Wta: si 4,M FIJI ^t ., t tf F �jg -�tlxgp�,,a�sr�ea�s�°n��t%m�pna��m� + —d$amAo�C$s ��ca'�a�`,tp smUdmavm a ..��.i..I ®e Gx tg ,� {4 R_Q Blis +r ♦11,a� MO '£' ntt 'e:'<nx.r..sm' im! ltd,, �s .?;,.aiiii m q ,--4L-inlW6--j-lesiar“R,Cj-"rb4vetcnmartItt-44,' 9..a 6 s.'46.'4:a7gre m(g r' �ii N'Aci , *a- `a#xAzom'Wf4Uaa.. 4 .: nal t b .. _*•... m•,_ Cr7,,bSp,$@Cl4l6dtm•'rte an L*.' :�;>"`:�. .r ii* 6,Y•b ' ..4 l�l•ydf-'-thizi`rGI opila 4vgarl vi ?nyrewlatiggDOpmaws...: n;nsr,7�� .',a re.rillivmggin.t rma tfp$'patt aFjyAJt • yr:,ly ••: t dint' 1 ! �Jpn mr y A� 4v m44lli2aw mU1@3butly w yr ��cu yyL . j � 5...., g� i; N 3 w`b�� III 77i -gYw /A4:- 4.d aam't9onn0 tttrtai -..Q..4-eaz•e--9 7'm6,.- �:4z Q6itg., `,,,451, asiarciwreem67' a..ar_.w, t '" :zaac Pt-gi >ntu.„” "y ?, m ,Rjr + *� � taea . '4�¢ 49d tyb wam �0 � #s,r0$a<f �.IQR arCdP,aat'(tnRt9., -a p 3paSs i g il® t"' giih.'i mo4.Fin pr117,. pt�,f�A�. L+Fa travat79d5itiM m ant�A�'�00 i o .r,�..p'egqittlrgbV.. _ t,rs.�iK3r'4a !x Co l ees'3:a+in ." a1ttit aam ii-taYl��P.51 dAaein i eirig S}F i ta' r5 la f1itig +.. tillat vy1% ctb mals Casio ttL 77 �-t„ .• t tmoiguno , a3T'iij„t 5E.E3JEG92' rNifo •1"5e`"5✓ talc iigevi l m� wm vtd.335:t7 �eP� 'k'r: •: e"'. an kiss 6S1KIi'm, CA-Tri;it W. �n_*r a! p ^a ii' . ina p ,y. �•01044; ' n+•” -3 q#StFFi Ptw iv9J.1: p$RR'p R&tt�y V 1. vu w•A`--' "+� q`�t tfi "•eat9stl9a a�a>'=••"� oa'L �+m10A8 0 s _I. yt`C� li �; (. +,-..s,.._--. 7ltb N - .nw as T!@[41U, 4 !s P4 infk� ,a d l9llszP R@�a,��i Q J IIIIIIII r, , I 4i jil' PAIS!ir,1l l's",E'.'71.'t` J , V_ },._... ..._..-+y_..`_ '',k1.a.1, . --Om -.7,. nni i ' birim if_9tPn .`. ° x :y l'�5 3 tttrtg e.,:n u'i 7 to eua remotat7n'ttcatalp�vmeandpL�9ES nrrr ■ err..=_'"'`" ImF9d,R9tiCAW50tI VT t�'9- a`Y , y w j' y'r" �j"'r�°�„' fltK _ gy "` ' -,iii,.. ��.4+1 � �i' �� .C��II �` ±.4 iln,nu 'Penin Y t'q a` � r a� �.t'j 'A`1$'�' n ' " ra i ' r� W;9�Pra psa Wirt Oil" .1.1 a �i +a im Ca a' � � •F4t ".*1 ab f ',is.... �. ��... 9:.•9re>ST'm4b �t ,mei+,<t�r5+mym sd t flt 1+d,, 1 ► .a� + n .sr: v' arasc, 'f rm Att�'oCy,�mt.�r a;i ( i da 'D aD' � r'�� w ��' �$YI�II!! 111 �' A � p 3/4z<t�eira�mei.. 14a A} m @ AIi� m y,t# '# +a }! -€.4 t Q x re..ia2 F f, fre �,gadptsnvv f^_.#Opb�< 'aq .�f i - 1 y��a ry� t�tr U z�' ing:ell a o; oocp Q6,.,:7..Cda-- iF ..1 ua ®El qfi Oro w t Y ? txu',.."• efi ' 2 J % r :'q .2 r"''� a'iy\AN'�?�affiDy3al caa�.� Y '^ifi'- ml1&alamv�61 aWk `"`V,. rl '�,. c '� - TW _ x" it ;4.�Q a€3mSlp 3F" itlp aFD.2` w i I.,' t Cti ((�� !' orf—:' �ab�t°�PEafl�b �` � � , `'z # IJf'v( ��"r., �`iIL��'1/! ��' ;.,,,o ,,,,,,4 4/jr amt a a�flir,1@4 8 a c' Ir '4'11'5'0; r a't. u"`., i•t a1F.+ �tks:3a'>9 ( t tai, , 4 `'V1.s^"o ,9',Lsp' 4'A. Rrt<r 1w t,; ttin'i , 1r kis ,..d 1 3 ._ ,..........A .,,_ , t j q 6 'tom ittrointiti B �5 a tali mac$4ea t7 xa 7` j @ w ` MI 't raP :I .A4AOIl4 1 ;t 3 S '" T i1 ,?'0.`S ¢�.pC lc.:e' t •w..� , .'!tam." °"*istase dr u a o, .R, ] ,s _ r.._... F}}i AL1.c a VEr 1 itD-�.�.\ t �� 8,, i is p P 4F r "�y`c m kj,"„��s'i'`�4`(,:`7_+#1":117 ... Ai� ,i)lreco "51- 4� �l � �� '`+•'+. n .•°i.!' 't,,yP gl'3 n 1 Ay 4; �. .`a f....,,�,�mi 'til �'ij MaMRt$39 T'° €�' 1 '*`de , ' ",E't'' " fi•ca a f'`pP�''.2 f f �'�atx�`y�yq� p�y�p'i.,ra-ir .�� +S �*� �� ,, rii($at.n %� 3w. 4 y e y.. C ,„5':,a. � '' `ia''«`.' .`t.p4,01- •i t *`...�f'..--q-N37 10111 �LIAI ,,,e`y�� • xx ,inIrr n��Tf `4Ip, i�''.;at't ",}k�i + kUJR. ryy��•'.�a •u. s i X a J t}"1'•�r. ��y�ryy�Cmtl@y�apry�pgi�� T l� t`iy �� `y 'F • S [ . T W! '�p�tt qI T� ii )1. N ' t' �y{IY 4Raa}f �Q[�lp¢iyQQti��{9��yyW{�}Vmt:� ��1�� .■ 1!� •F4 l qfil. 'Zia ;c'%.±4J U> �J'c�R • or..1 F.� IIF" ! 6 •Tq.hk*/) Yr 21.Cx4aaa � � ��. ��_ti III ma^yZ'F$ `r Y Yt$R ;:t+ p�K, i „t '. "�4:� ¢'SP� t `�'" fI�� Ililla ! •~ t :Wine ente it til nal ,. 'L„ N Y 'L'.:lY .t G.•.•. ( ;. t• Mat to . f m1,4� ii_'lE• ti L.�i�� I ^�� t ter-... �` :I: urri , un tivrpgme as �- 94P-L an tri �iiim. ,,..j.�..t,1l� s�••� `�' ��,, �► ,r/ �F-.f17i. :Q w ...40: 4. +x .* • ' ...„.,„...amstri w$\..ate,+ $@ ss_ T17. zS± i:: 3S el.. F ` .ie 1/4'14 °' r + . az. (4T :eft a .t7 'E '+ •-t. , 4 Y.,.. `�.•. yZ, £ —V x: tf.^-,Q`. x " :e•. '^ . r :. . A 5t . 5�,Rdrk4 y1 t _—. "-' _ • ' c> dt g.+rt x'tW ,q . rs4 der } , G3i A3nnaa'otiit i a .,a. ..?p►• '� ?wJW.r a ,„, � '. r s,, ul I ya .i I . 2 / 4e1. �r I r e it d r . I I t �- } r S 1 t t ' vy.-Y t n sffir) tb � t.��1 4'd } fi.¢N:. � lA.� '� Y gF l2 !'$ 1'L' i '{ C P eSa en 'n rr` gn \t-Cle l' ra4 dq � 4 ° P �� ..1a x rod.�s K .J Y a i k _� n ' �^SL•`ks7�dW.^ "i f�' !Yic ( 4 yr�r I . R } �.S n� { t .�'� 1ptt . . /'-r rq P+7 :' �f[!s{ rza _ '.,� a :. '�' 3A"n � �I $q�� E: 1 2 (h?. r pl :Y -Eftrysec 1 ig „ 'i.«faF4}RDnP,1:„.a (°' ..f C"° - kA �71 145➢I a 6 U.' 1 -. 'Jr.r� I ea 1. eW! t 1n71[P.. drii Y iai rn :� e a �. ') ss�sm.• ¢ xR Al WntelRtp ean[an I m 6�+egE°YHFQW�bx91 �{��a9 wa :'"4 t. •p J / APtq ♦ t Sn Fla r rellRix _ ��!! r �-i- i gxnYB[ "'rill ]-geWBin,0P ..0 .I +4 PP i,Pya'*a 1'r aErvt a� +y .. r 'oi*:41; 1wuF— Ilu?Pn ntl1 a.W�[R{,, in urea Fgno a44I1 ra a o ➢n tlwaeu C „�'-� r-tit.. -' l ! � �`.;; � Ir. 1 :r a�eiieitFQ FRIPWa'irelP i� t .w � rlE;1•V' a� �1 ggrq[nc[�" � � �> I eeW l�� 1 �� '71 \4tt .6U { nn ell: ana[gira[[.D[n � � W 'Rr1 ddwtir4 a tl1A16rg elgj -"W._.i.... „,is trEWE 9 n[E laJ t ... -'A +aim.aL$4G.o<r tiva,:P aagaeri+ vn9ltlulam IFIL 11i IuelRYtl 11t11161nH11 t-, ! Eyre a: R,P1Ey.�I:�� is 'rQn Ru[ttnuuyst a� ([, _n t1 1 ! `� t�. ?,*... w . 1,. y�g'oa�1�Cp �mnva.. Wn/Wn1�u�uaea� { � :1�� ' r� ar `�." W�f r4 �_� 'i:��® : // ■ Fy GR _I gIQICt[VDglIi111Ht9E Qllll �'1� wt r a ee P gneJ C• a �� .� Qr 1-;;Ed r pHlfnl'tr"t't7 6 r F �^ tq[lW[fttl' [t - e ll atgPkP-.4I Il :: litii+ineia\ 1 + tiles tpI Ya. �ry �k1N'ly faxu...lurel•a4raa 1 • � V tgfi`�seaii/la1[ � +�- ¢l 1.'• aaraE.e- r fG� •r_ 'Y�TS�7 lil. W'9�p �(t — ) / s e:i • 4.io total as ♦. r.� kt 4 EnrPi90 ro r ♦ nvl` a ;' '"^ � �� y.,. D�I�&�(n :" '�l'1.'°vt°e°9:E1. 7p,'�irt..rp+/iApoe111�laGt�iEE=f P)aP� 0�•.'1-'' JJ 1t Wroest ..11 '�' ® )_...-_ ,,11._,l EI As >Ee vrPnrP' I a Ar sN �'J. l , Fu l .. .Layys �pu `p "�(,E rhe.' ��m roa[a H sa6elr ] t¢ PBOl rfff f♦"•WI I:� .l l:av_ml�\ •atie:rEe ar< i�mn r relele (1�aI �0 � ��.. Olio ' y �, -'*x�tih. ?a:l E71 k9P@l]lfnneeW¢ a°Qn Oq�',o�sl ee[. ;Q„Ixd +9 E'I ^In '•'ntaiWirrse n.- • � is � 1 or� 'py .....,K dl 1f 111 R,a alanou +e r arEq t 1 ® arERYrIP i[1 ( s._,. trao I, ,. teil{i IT-41l all!ge:� I::: t[ d...w n.. .µ dl )J9 I 107r I aEll_lalla[/¢SJ'r M }r IIBa¢alli� �fAa�,. :¢rI♦!l Y�.T I - ,'` AIX '' t 9j1WI G♦T-ege[n15� E- I w.�C4f,:1lffEfE..i:.aV i t;frr✓ 1 [,s _ rEetm xA aaitY'Sao m o pe ytl't+' - _Wr. a .t% wa�ii °nEaeil sul�e[agaEW o'- t 'w 6d ff rf+o' ¢�ilirl.°-efrrf xi tae •[n[m.aEyl baa ml I. 1agEraU Rglttl Elr I 1 flp flip r- 4t°! LT'I r' � ' ,Ey, 'RW x I4viaup aawtlY'f'3'1 at n:��-.^. �gil ial5wri[k. lalfdp31,t r'^ 1 } es { nlp♦tb♦.: t W1t:,,M .+;•,,. 1 '' as I!am.l ue nWEnt f'1 .i [lltt[It �►PBWtf �ib)sra EWWeI^u1 (e[11,:-.� q I � Inr r': $ m'�i'�q�..x ' a �� tal —� '77 41 ice: 3g r21a1 r:e:r1111 ad 11:.:4 ly,drWrlra 114::i 41 WEa Pt a gaig Y21RrakF4p Wi ranarEp x,� r at { t � iayp� P sp y 4 pg��gQ) '.' �'p4JaA 9tll.rrpP°I glWglan lq Iilq pgW9Pq,ngWQQ¢& rl®+ fMFgl IPlbl ®Y^ reta a fa laallgY tMgW . 411 AY+FpK £Y )'� lii . QII i p B9i thVi.t i *AtiQ F4i nEn(11Et RR1 8 A a N v,.f yrtl"Vo;,4il6p {, b.4'y - 1,!1911 Millallil1 n p a Ip I'EItE[IW '� �' iHFa RklYea9 f T .P tt p tn" F' SW?. 3 am �� 4yiq anlaWsrQ{•,��l�a :nvR:w . . a yaa`11•seai.»a -4avak �.„ '°m. e114 #u`J •; i �v Y k. 't dm$t no r, t ast1 I[r P:IE trr¢se rrsa`'fw ♦ a4 a ?. [ t Ipt[w 11/4 4 g1 11.11:1‘31.44 pRP �16DPWgPIFa e mY i ♦t s'¢r 1i�1. e• 0 1^ tik '•bp.IRS �' �f 11 „y yr ilralo°I ana° s i� I $+•%,fr ll r'�¢ [a P:' . , ' r " �� 4'+X s � .�} by • r Pirr� e[PtRrr9agt"�Q gilt ♦"ir:faYaa l rI„� : ».�i �a�l v�tiif'i!\y.P�e��. r`� a.t�'Lte;t 6sn1”-!"" t2[pl , :tiFS4 ` 1�V ilfii[P�' 4 v. ':1 ,j•. l ti* co r x '41'a♦\so O�ify-t r I{ }xe p4:4k .CrplrglQEta[W t ll #'♦irl�rr al/gta'Rl� ^FP sA ttiqP �r )' es 1IyyAfseott• b .^ ®♦ "Jr..0' (anal,.‘"^",..“1^."P •'l ' [ 1 tIli^.$1.4`. r L ij , 1 , raw 1. 3 ealEr 2r• :tilt'. tbvf 6. - 9 .Y..r W ♦• to41 ®O474,X9 w 4 a.., V QVILI b..y t t. i$ , >:. .�,° e • - iii11111: { 1 }e�eo�s�Otg+•vsr __{{�� -.1 �,_ n. sY y �9 p $: .« + -....d.___4•91064,.470, 1 ♦; sR l 4 f'r , a X11 "•Rnt:[1 lig �t4t g, , 1 ,,y: P k .PV . _ ! 1 1. ria I a'w4 �,dla O em rnm a VV ,k`�!I �� 11111164.1=4,4744A, 1 " 7 prx ,a-ib-s livid 'rii"« t.. 4B $ $1 �` 'le ironline ra—mle .12.' S •MIQ'C{ r,,f Y�.p n�.. ♦s va pg, AI� la 1E11mw[ yr a r!'nr pF��, 1Q14\i w?l � u* , •rtia��b' w' ir,.' r .R� E/1p t iet rig'+» 1^� a �, FYI tgra "b �� {g aaa R t t Q®®��r�t� �� t1LL'A laWp '�'�� 11 f9ffi.x'QR�•...r „! b �. 3 .�.�Q[a�l_II �AI►'R arti r�•®&AP pi' l '� itlb r � ti "iigt�' 't t' P� • '� a, 1: �root" �.a ,a'P w�RB�� e ,� 14 �0� s� ., arr,.Q°fib_.,,.[ , 9 >.., k„ 1 ®_ P ' 3 g +.w. �r rq 4 13 � � ,'t� Iii . nn upA�kSlfb. �1 4 pw.., ,3�.Eb1r bq r rt. 1 I a ` r Y�I ae1 P tits bl � R�"1Q JIpT•14 a {Ibal,:l'ra:P i9 v` } 4r 1Y :L.,,,,,=Vi ,y m a F t{�1 r@a gQbt IW1gwPtl i to Ai aa� r ,y. i r ' Ri�i� �1��sga3a4�P��'p°e�p[paeb° .� a � ° h',gf�4m.1 '0!�^•- 1�� 6 e'�Ai�fiG'�'":1: .lir pr�[l111•' � '1 aall s in_. f��ls � ir ( � otrie .��[ttaEa �� amt. —)♦♦t♦1!i`'�'+..r4-:¢tT�1J'r �1si7/„ 1 Y�� L7rt+6i1tY0 kill./i.IIII Br'arw : , ..rte�;nnfiu irtititib.11 inISk � _.Wl_.," c — _ it . \ 1 1111.11141 � 2ttsi�L� .. L '�fll�r�a'.•�Ip R el�`�a t�10'��'Ai7T�+�° IA ��// //rr1/ �r11M/i!/IIlRifl■lR��. �.:,,,..� .��' „-,. . >s .+.. �'. _� 7�'l �`rfr��Rlw�l♦7�11'rl �� *n'w• � �� rtb�� 1 br 41PP 1/r11RtG w—1■b ioos�litki; ..it rJ4. tt r P..+� [J�rr► *;a mm , 'sir ' � 4 sow, 51,47-Air sztals II allill �.1��\II. 4riA_',II ri: phial Mill i ti, lop. ff. ,...-fir, sabs, ASOiiSt1'kFn kik�� mimal SIM ----—. \IMMIIIMENI fiat, rieijotIN't smell ' nix iW` .1V' ` '4 .,p -Cb♦$ - > *tee ate . • ham' �`..( I - .�"-!'a iln ,n ax—Y"—„°sin's q. is mt _ r a4 w� z .. ."w7 nss `k m • . t .`-#;A n t'1 `��f L ..' b I :0 a°. v n 4S a�..�_ Rea l MO s ev a •. . ? ,� `.. s t.._ --„pe ,,,,g, t,r ��.,.Ir�cObea �. x � . �, '+r+�.. „�,.. � "'.l'.�){p ...�wFa+.'. ....�. _.__ to Y f �4i":` G ,� '. e.4u.f J 1 y+. It I6 i.'1ii'•',f:i '1 Tr `y7 IF3l ' :`'L' ' �' -.1i uf,',I.I "lp,,hY �i 'g41 tl `S : : z ";. 4 1 xt . s r . Y T Jt rk '..:..' t¢. t `4}rr >i Cz r rt, t j(e 7�-.'i�J?� `�u4• t i A +� p ?�'X r w .w i � 43�4�' frS � ¢u r a r�,r�' d '1'F 'H ti 1 h+.m 1i d4'��95x ewa ��^.n #R��xA4d SavAmy's! C +- 4 t x .tw `� `�Rwi 'l 5n v,A i' ..M .+i. ':.,ti � I� i� M'^Dr�,P ��' i3(' �+( {*_' �-g��q� 1�Ji�¢� �•�p m,�rr �t �X�yy�{ �� `s? w� >a, pp '�" t •a �a„�v q� '6:. �5 i. ..?fJ(L itrt H.r ` � 496 C "j " kir r y J „�' W z ; +one ... tif14 bi.'' �t:'t �S NnEs4'C�txA `' ux'$p'.t w `1 x 6+ a W ��F. '} TM '. x+. ! Y } 3Li ILLS.1101- A.�etz Tik`� '122-44;1 WI e. i .70:1:1..:::.,74:70#1,1;L.11:7. I Nc Vr{t` t Y Teti"{ +s* :"'. s $2''..,... - �¢;+»` kJ��} 9�k7t®F'.4lCit Qs1 'I� q (` �. _ �-~ i} 3,}ysy .�y,� �- - - even, #r.�_H}�raglEi _ j s *r{*' '� `* -,,; p•a 3i'k.. r � piAl 1 rs 'ci4. • ifiElg p , . ,p� t �'r .� dt" 'S f 4 i ,. & x 4 4,, st9 f t < 'A }« ., t **414:4, •c w- yfiaz l�i v.,, "i: _ .{t 3 _ L 3:`fie '. IJ±.».: ".It-s.. 1.4 'a,,^ A. ' 2t. r' a fire € ztr A `it MeV IA ti y . a d 1S ;ft y`i '��I�x,ysV'.iF ^t*',:l it e5h: M'. .r.t:S'l .1t: y9'. .1S. (tgpq¢'(,/{�}�� -, - }'` qp }T��,¢yt�y¢` ` vi-...• G _ ^'°.L?L'1T7 : '. '� r 's*. W. 41; L.� 6'Lt mom GW 6SI . ;s j i%�+:a � bail t> - • . • 1 .....Q.z... ,•=y}M okL �{y�4:41.4,47, � t r�I�Irr.�..�s+ .;].{pEa'% 4l pr� t s 1� �� 3ASTra l 4 '§.u� . ,p 'b GI �� T'N tt'T•SV* c [ > e ui 2yZgq'q,'J�' y,F z �3''v"' :,a '� 'y ,.�•;..�i'i Y, , ,,,' . 1£y 5.1,.,0I °...,...:•10,,, \.,4 'KF ..„ aril LAI ex'i't Ait ly"`�¢`@ :xy_.i"�1'y�.- n�,'t'i . +2i r+s`k `Il t", }'� OS clkL '. ° '' �' e }1,5r5 4': E�'.'P,3¢..� ``,k°, ^5,- A 57F 'i'":' e 11 { -¢ d +aK r s`,P.} ..1e y�Y�.¢u"¢�y, a 't'4�. y, - 4'. °''''''';‘' fit. 5 ^v k ,,:t' f�+ �a iiiii! vA y G_ iirii . in . .Tait v p` tut t n. iii s 'rf • __ aty r' t4 6§d,e : ff e`¢ � # .� �aFyv iv iv s ��e'� �. .:- .�Y 1 p.r; ek �w,, wane it`,, ... 0�3• S u .t i; $4, tl I,� X1:.3 j "'i�� - y�.� Jit4.... - i ...,41-*-f 7 r Pit-`(: e.,kV I fi5I'd ...,-�{�,�*( � nnM ° x P -? ��-® ZI {�*u$'" -r" I , .,' .14..-1114". 4 p., 1 fi 3 x :.; ] 1,x 1' w��kt}{ Y'+, TZ.'^ �i'J,�ySt¢�y.�,,y G i JJjj}} LY+£' '+. � ,,{F�'�,* 'iL'7' •Att r:Itgt14' II #" r' {11:f4j'4'`�i'�'5yyM, 4 irry.» f.;]:t3y4 A i '�ssid�^4''T � ttS1"J/ taus} l irYi `VN' 4, �� y <i '" .AictiP ar ± 1' 14-0•4•01y5p4 * !•w. 'U'0 (¢i4 yt r ,� - a V- ¢ y ii n,:. e,pa SE' ,'my C.A.p...+9 ^1i vi. t. t i . 4at-{� '?rT: t v'�. >.ns'(+ .12' i t bM�1 ;L . w tsu. _ (i d ha'"9i Sv'x e t:r:b.rt x� a �e !•"a t r '�*' t r._ tib r �p � ,�p�t��r.�. P{, t n 4.yiw� S�� T. 'ya*u�a r.ur+ T4't ``. 6 ,.�; r, X03�'- [® 143J'1` `�"SC"� *$ ' z.i, + * .r'Jroa :�'� ' . T'� 3 r "It ' �. Zni . - J i. �• t3�y i. a,t'i-^aai`vw >< , ,i t � c k'+� 'u1 s{ i �Ak'a'f 7.n-74J „ 0:,,,i5.,- �ff`"nway. ail Me ,�. k kl¢ �°r - s. �'Y cjw4tkfs' ; r f0""xi ` tY y�"n'j � �P'''t .moi(qte>9t t j ""amua Wy ' r64 h toLi, �YYµ CCom�¢¢ � i a cD.4,f ii � .� ,� t' ;'' . s L T'4ra` f4f',. ':f• -,, , `, »'f�fi fr ¢tl s ; • if 42- ar _ n C. r ' vf'-`crr..$: .004 F'+��iWhI ,-.- r- c,, c .t s,y}f'. fit...* f i47Mi„ 9P r 'x*:,, '{&!3 v- jtt rl�5 k o •-.r--- .,, ,....t._..----.____— ;---e '4� ,.Ti �1{':l$`yo-��.2`k' _ i5t,St .t�4 e. r tir' }3"�` _', f s.. ,»- .'.>. .°..:y t, i' t11: .3Ara:n y.. s � li Cfo7'OiReedera H ,` rx. l � ,grt.F."''a.J-Ills i d I I f,!,pti.}, '.µ:t. .l abn .1.Ip i�" x1'.1 1 f i-1 ' � '�"^ti$poi�xM .�"•Yf,•�'r„i ,p .";d ".A x A rr"s"r3Y}rT&%T f I :i� I J � "CS :v.:° I4. 71: "' r' �F[w'tv�w x a 3 ::V < a r art > rx5,4:4,4>.::... M 7 -`4r a`+srti4' '> y'+e4`7'�tl n[(j({I� tp�,'��(�13 4�1t,'(,� •Yt r t- .e 2 W,h- "`".^.+"'P r^F^.a int r Yw , j$ r i-.4- 1 r •' ' ' i""�l „braitz a i$is r �u. .L. .. „. ,:s ,/ +4ii d ,, -t�y^+,� i -. e'.t25r -..,, r y IL'! 1•E1r®a.. � . I r c [� t� .� F•` it 'm EF . e. ..y� 'iattZ4�R�9 Oports-L v..,-.m, »v.m, '•' ..:Et... i ' l "_ " nm ao Etatis141'.f7� '�='snq OFnt�p®;T0iOlt semen q5¢-E.B us C_+LIDe O2cte�9aaplFa�B[9 ffii �i , �_�� 6 4ai t � v' a*Teas. ie t'"rnz k I aI_ � ad �..__52190B101v18Q r:7, reg 1p irev__ _0__f_ J 6 9i1tP4. 4. Ti » n 366 'r J. ry�gg m pRaS'�!WA ""'_r 4,a 'y °}i lt H&JaFlatBl.tT' y�a tAlprpP kd�1l>�11[mB11'.Ia t�l "�'{Iv,1� w spar eme+ eala�v�rl,��J� p�"�S �a •Y{V{ . 6rrflllle 1gpn v'` .I, 4ri-C---ellen Ftj.iI -fitii p=l td r d `r ' ,.` 1,4,4 'i' ,i,. EP-1' 1InanldtalttliJJiSTll Iiiiti181^ STM""'+. ti. a!r )r b• I i` ',M14 -„[QIIFItit:I.C@Rt l®IS 1ptapttly iillltplr& iup91a9 II �',M, ''` I '' - v`”' `v`' :. �._ - g$ , "' "• (At'ic. ltla 1Al7 y jA1A111r11A rlpireatil •�• .g,s 1 IA[tlatfl1f,rJ1ts_r.YP1af1:AIlA.tA rpt tJ -ISCA{It@{IP141PIflpll¢�$IatQ'n! %66 a " • •a gt, •l ,�,},6:'la(IIIkiOtSi girt ' [Al/p4lI i1A119:�I iL@I1111 `;+1 Ls,' " I1P�1L11ie1jIM111.IIlAI'Inrrren: C:- .. _._---- ,z ;yam i; T: CI ,�,¢��1 j ddidpy -.._ ; _..___..._:. .." ` $.J- a'llk9m a ,'tNp 119 -_ .. ..0A,w 7 -". , AS! .„,sgt Ip'elel ddLllitlr:pHtldab97i1 ,4. 4./.. 'ftea.da ' 1._,.. _......-s..e^`^'^^ ""^H^»`_. _ ^^� - a. � _"'e.�A_ oa0llaflll Al®101@Itt r� g hX .( 41.II nidi111rinuLl ar'"Ihs r H r¢O1:l2 {2:—•11a¢7I®6t.yxen 4@i 7118-8 OF� •' 1" ... "( I¢i'.t AW a p` i S I glib n,04,,,),3 ,..w pMtnat,- pl,• 1'+�y e`"• 4„,1 Y• ::p ,g,,,i't,,"} ,I ( 1111.1,ILulllfl11111 Egt1O111p� , -J_lt¢t16r11.:-1tI11w 13 Ili _-'•- tmYp� ,+vim Tog- G?o d$1 :a "--"" .'r!llaptY 90 a381N:allI 1{iig'^ 1 .rrap * .' „n 4. }{ 'tlu lrf 111tlI 1i1littli tliu 72[♦�II .114 it11'i1a2a !' �._ r_ e1 "0m° 6 Pa Z"`--^^0II 4--�--� , 1 '" 31; ." + r fie` -=' ,.d7 `• .t��.Wim, �.l 4q Inraely xiniclAia'ljjlltnalft!i2 al9Ae t+i ro -� I r11Il IItr1:1110utg1 -c=4I5tY11mr81a1° 1d.i.iti'7. 'y.,:-7 ....r a'r," COWS � tg} `I '" . 1 [ x +ai -. l.•`_.ij_^—•o " F�+"ti4=ame. a�m�. I B! t _3e Azr D I i911e1r iIl.IRII1ltII [8@I[l� y. '�`h a '9 QI11r tN tilll 1pl'llt ll¢ U4ral r1/472o'(;;;77 1 91111[IIM1.11AApprp�yy .,.weir.-�V +v as+" „,,t,il paaa'laltiti AMa©tri,,, grr lOwn ii_rn —,- 'n1nlAa:t411pI1E�11 mill... `11rA17"_�stlntt[di !ri[ti`Ii �kcerEm'BlOeaa �e'I,�d::y, Ao4®�:, / ....z I4_�I c .."'t�4s 1 , �. „ I �q 4 II2ljLl urr gait ry �esl al•voaltla egpltol slap 3-"•'iii.;11 I II g��(�z'. de trio'1 1qv!INai &L'1r1r a'I",.® '� ID:d° 0011541.--� 1 11 rat 1 ®?VMS: WIQRpro fll 1 f,lllYrh Pnt 21XL p/t+ltryl ,p �, • „ �4 'flhI i�r rr:- t_.BZr fill ULNWI.k,,_ _. . .r'617.61..,1, s, t� ri P._.l�L iiia(I. l .r (ata ti-q taLDlip I 11�I t ) ?pt.11 Cf x t !r .,F anima Air �S}g! Dopa po aeut_T 9y�I[II a 11111tH Cmma s tpI[¢enn „ge E ,+ q i`!°I""1"1" HR "tai J}II t '' ;.' Int"/ )..Id 's-. ` :.:14141"•t N itgCd (.natal""-"ffiJ�#SAl�alnln-Tht IA19u11 n111114:9P! alt :z`w. f'i `•" .1* if ,,,!1 Iltllll fllJ1�'''''''al.I:li3i___k9 + 1®L,,.,_,,,,. £- -i:.. .i .J I: u raa•'a L to 'a tk 1rlivis 4 1184t1iIEI rzemo ligliili levrio i rI1911UAA181 lilvitID'tit:PuI1lIQl6C , ,$ E a `/4ee vey ,nr,., ri elnkTl.W:e1 � „ �`1: v5O0 S•'.; ealpa ga J.nmq sit ''"fir ` f7 .4.,, ..•, 1,Stl;ler, 1101loilm stti -sir le Ott tr¢'IIQIt11t11 R714A oto, N a I ale' 1(111 alfrt- :Al1.1t1�6YY tTCl a,. y 1 [I x4'r"�. � I !4 iee!atbl]At" t1AfitY0B 9KWp$168�I4i1Ilr I1�41L(Allll[1lTAlatt'xAtflLftb£r/ a 4ry �I y '� Ilr 1S,1H: . 'ry 1 ++ ' S�24°��,15 �"i. '4 r,'.. �peet�aa11hn1i_ y d : z¢ � lea tea, O* , r R a § Ill T 10110l911IJIIltlt luli)e ,�,.IIg' .: ,.r: b 8tll MIIILl1m, artt0Avol0,IR„ itFI®1�91t8O'e°It1901tAs,vra” a8pt ,gt�q 4„ " 1;'{ a ,r x'r 08 a,1t ser i xrt.a�+1._IF/1+,,\.l t, { i' Ipp-� 'rg. A tm_::t:','hh1 IrL y+C4101 lir {{@@ ¢ lai rpp4p11,rn-tii).e9Aa6cpa f M,4.',,. [11' 5t:r § i„'. vFiuI jI d I.q.r1Aq Ilw ie.r " )) ..._�- W e° NYv xi EO r$L01fffi3Fp1'QS�Prpq }+� � II � ._.... A ._ Imo r:' ofP. rn 41 fp ,„,, ely an 1'1 '.Fltx .. P.P+- d rlrlrt;satilet_JQnl t ilrl . �t 1 ¢ mE4�t 1 It Ila�4°n ams F'' roN°�4°"¢' A; "€4`a' ` r WJlly[Illtlb�'Wpn dll'A,t�r,-lT{A 1 A "�' ' rtfill �i" lj.l 4Nn1 { 4. - r.... 'Rry a. " i-- ei 0' 161 tj Y $F E 11 11111 119011�atp1 null 111111 n41-., illlR.. J Pmt tit aw >� ,{t+ !g. �1 1;:.11•r pt Oca,a ra '4 a-a:i' t 4t} I,„p' 111:1211 "11111111:[1111. 9mc.-terililR'�I let �rI Pus I=r O `"t'4""I lira. •`+' I` &� `$¢kala' �uaanataa is I°'11�ont`:^ ' ..axa :',V ,-t,m I+I� 4 "a t+ '.a t N* r ',}1iiii) Alii mull CItt171 ASI_:-L4@*,f_SA1litlI, dl"[1 lltffftllilrl IiTlll'I �?!'�`+ P 9 A; C�,®fl{®IEl[7�am[w` +' .4l` h x. �. Qt ^yY.k,4/,,.§m t` 'it lar ill Olen IPr�tl e tf It(_(dEr Oiila pini},tuN Wrirl�A1 dd7801 tt* tp/a 6(611(4 9t urarif -.r'ta 19P._�e rrip nArla alit �.4 :�p'.: i. p pa11111 L�iliii titlpl A! IIt1;L Iti-M,a�I:t:+11le tilllltll aanllallt Pllntr iurr p site_"Am lJ©flg,B.aCt[{9Orp w=sr�tr{f tL1p . .Y :dty.�� w::. , . 4aaP . „1"=}� s.f A pili-61ID`I't,113^t11tp 6�Ir11-.rill IE11f111t11111' i hurt ill ,11111: ,e Eva®IZat�Plk'$Is..Q�It p841apatr rRlattOtajp t-A:a -et b+y uo-:�. -'S. - a -rt-IN-4.t.-4,v.y. 1 ; i"te',. } M11niuIl1r41lnuir'.^,;.Mitt ._ esw .'�1.'+A j�rr:+a:► 1411®ffl'. (•*Miall trot� r ' ,, m11ininrimirvpma(ewM ��`� Yl Jrri �ttilSw��:i3:�a� -. aaaqefaaaa _.•_S.y�� "27 r o ;;. . ,}.. c� �il tip 1644/MAIM "�.. iiy4 +'.rw :a rl f �1p A w.. ._.+. "'+.rt i• +,r ..�iw�v 1mQlDfea ed'/i,�l<..___`..�� a !rat` � iy� rt�1,,jj��¢m��.ryry��M�I�R� t: a A. + t1Y._�.\E ' 01 ,,li mi:'4 Sp f`',f�.,'< 91 -. .SW own�[,---- ;" 11411"-4- tall uta rile • �'► set-r•I•-�f f+�aiEr b ♦ a �{- ,. tl�lepluanwrw pe IIIIH�plll¢. IIT.- •'�i,. ��.� Irl i{i y:��:>�.: Iy �p wm no f.%®°'1i�=• .. I! 21,1_4„,111- 1 i{, i fC itn AAr IIC ftts T gluila ,- f+rs y lt� �,.,_ ir., +►r Klz��-�, +/i'w<m._ ve.0 .�'� � E • Y,: �� " a 111°t1tHOpro illi iedifi ,\4, .4 I�� , �- IFlr �IA� �L �� 1p i*at�s_ r 2 itjpiIVpW atlrp@p as4¢9a rbiq u►.,„, * Gtr _.. �` _ � a �! 1�Gp ��►rrlwr►..I r t net il'rmo1.us a fr aq .En -t,¢1- -� } �,� n%#,,,'. �. 'C vt'.` S i "rl t � ^t E ltl.1C � � �� .CM Otdpa4171�ptQ®11111a�41C fr �(j. �� tlr" 5 �'`eN4't � u itj1►1• einno II hill ®, 11 . a � i +,' t' u" k''3, „w.,,,,. i eIltflOOt 6tltiri 1�11rtllitirl l ---_ I ire $# ' Y a lwrrrae uanrm{{lllolsas a+ � �1 ¢�IApnset®INudIBnlmlla^37 � rii�. s:;�� -„ �-::+Al , :d 1 It ilei- ((4�A1111JiA rl4(Ir 1 1 / � 4 1-11-7,11:114, as m� �� Il-J� h �gttgwaa rolll nu nlluu + t I na � lppe Il r1t.C7J��Ia��l 11----ry, l...J1�1r�� fll Ilidllllpr 11111181 qrlt{ ��' , iJ , . Allo Will1191II Illllll.0, II -� ill ii + :Ft,,,,,i 19r1t "illi+lrtt11t,1 Eli,n �I �� J('”` _ 1 / <* q1U FPI eL utrtl:[t 111„,,r0 �= 11 '; RECEIVED - 0 0 5 3 5 EXHIBfTL OCT 0 2 2001 BRB_i _ BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD This mail in poll Was received by 230 registered voters in the Yardley and Alcott areas. We received a return of tr�p�pplls. Out of t9zeturned,4jjndicated they would like to be a part of the New City of Spokane Valley, whilell indicated ttfil to refiein a part of the unincorporated county,while 6 of the 11 stated independently that if they had to choose,they would prefer to be in the New City of Spokane Valley rather that the City of Spokane. No poll indicated a preference to be a part of the City of Spokane. The average poll return is 5%,this poll return was 25.7%. Those returned showed in favor of the New City of Spokane at 81%. 9 August 2001 To All Yardley and Alcott Residents and Business Owners, In the Boundary Review Board hearing Wednesday night at Neville Auditorium, Spokane Mayor John Powers submitted a letter to the Board. This letter requests that the entire Yardley and Alcott areas be annexed by the City of Spokane instead of being a part of the New City of Spokane Valley. Powers' reasoning is that since the City of Spokane Water and Sewer systems service the area,they should be annexed to Spokane. The area will continue to be serviced with water and sewer as they are by the City . of Spokane regardless of jurisdictional changes. Fire District#1 of the Spokane Valley Fire Department services the Yardley and Alcott area. Fire Station#6 is strategically located to serve these areas with 59 years of planning involved. The City of Spokane has no Fire Station that can accommodate the area adequately and in a timely manner. When people's lives are at stake, seconds count, let alone adding minutes to a response to an emergency. The City of Spokane is lusting after the sales tax revenues of the Yardley area to the detriment of the citizens. The Citizens of Spokane Valley value human lives over revenue from sales. We pledge to serve the citizens in a manner that will continue services in a like manner or better at a lower cost. We are dedicated to all of the Citizens of Spokane Valley. The Citizens ARE Spokane Valley. We look beyond revenue and we ask you to consider your life and how you want to be served in the future. The continuation of the Boundary Review Board's hearing will be, August 27th, 2001 at 7PM at the Neville Auditorium 1445 N. Argonne Rd., in the Miracles Bookstore in the Safeway complex. This is the last chance you will have to testify or write a letter in regard to which City you would like to be a part of and what services you choose. We would like to take a poll on how the people of Yardley and Alcott feel about being annexed to the . City of Spokane. 0 Yes! I want to be annexed by the City of Spokane. S3 +St Yes! I want to be included in with the New City of Spokane Valley. - 11-I want to stay, as we are, a part of the unincorporated county. 23-Yes! I feel the New City of Spokane Valley will enhance the services to the area. 25-Yes! I feel my safety and life are the important factor in this decision. 30 Yes! I would like more information by mail. Thank You for responding to our poll. YOU CAN DETERMINE YOUR FUTURE,STAND UP AND BE COUNTED!!! Please return your survey to CITIZENS FOR LOWER TAXES, 15102 E. Indiana Ave., Spokane, WA 99216-1814. • EXHIBIT UI' OiD BAB 5,S'01 TRUNKENBOLZ ROHR DRISKELL-Plic CARY P.DRISKELL 1.509.928.4100 LICENSED IN WA RECEIVED RESPOND TO: SPOKANE • driskell@dmi.net OCT 022001 BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD • October 2, 2001 Boundary Review Board 1026 West Broadway, Second Floor Spokane, WA 99260 Re: Potential Exclusion of Yardley and Alcott Dear Boundary Review Board: Our firm has been retained by the Spokane Valley Community Action Committee to assist them on various legal issues relating to the proposed incorporation of portions of the Spokane Valley. One of the issues that has recently come up, and is of concern to my client, is the request by the City of Spokane to adjust the boundary of the proposed city to exclude the Yardley and Alcott areas. This letter is sent with the hope that the legal issues can be clarified in a way that assists you in reaching your decision on the City of Spokane's request. As you are aware, the Legislature created the boundary review board system for the express purpose of resolving conflicts for unincorporated areas, pursuant to RCW 36.93.010. That is the first and overriding purpose of the boards. Washington appellate case law has interpreted this to mean that boundary review boards are not to make land use decisions. While the statutory scheme authorizing boards allows to add or remove up to ten percent of the total proposed action, that discretion must have a rational basis, and any decision to do so must be supported by "substantial evidence" in the record. The Legislature established nine objectives a board must look to in making whatever decision a board takes under RCW 36.93.180. While these are stated as objectives, case law interpreting this section states that these objectives are not "simply aspirational." Instead, the record must demonstrate by substantial evidence that more of the objectives are furthered than not. Those objectives are as follows: SPOKANE OFFICE- 12704 EAST NORA,SPOKANE,WA 99216;PH.509.928.4100;FAX 509.926.6314;trdvalley@dmi.net COEUR D'ALENE OFFICE- 1400 NORTHWOOD CENTER CT.,SUITE C,COEUR D'ALENE,ID 83814 PH. 208.769.7100;FAX 208.769.7200;trdcda@dmi.net 00537 Boundary Review Board October 2, 2001 page 2 (I)Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities; (2) Use of physical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies of water,highways, and land contours; (3) Creation and preservation of logical service areas; (4) Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; (5) Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and encouragement of incorporation of cities in excess of ten thousand population in heavily populated urban areas; (6) Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts; (7) Adjustment of impractical boundaries; (8) Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of unincorporated areas which are urban in character; and (9) Protection of agricultural and rural lands which are designated for long term productive agricultural and resource use by a comprehensive plan adopted by the county legislative authority. In reviewing those objectives, five, six, seven and nine would not come into play in whether Yardley and Alcott were removed from the proposal. The remaining factors support, to varying degrees, incorporation as proposed. Under objective one, Yardley and Alcott are routinely defined as existing neighborhoods. Beyond that, both areas have historically been defined as part of the Spokane Valley, and residents identify that way. It would be improper to sever that affiliation without a strong basis to do so. Under two, the current proposal would utilize the existing City of Spokane municipal boundary for its western border, along a major arterial, a logical boundary. The City proposes creating an "island" of land between the two cities, assuming incorporation is passed in the election. Under number eight, these areas are clearly urban in nature, and a point nobody disputes. If the objective is to incorporate urban areas, this is the opportunity to do so, rather than leave it unincorporated for a possible annexation by the City of Spokane that will likely never occur. I will address in depth below. Objectives three and four are the more compelling arguments. Under three, the Board is required to create and preserve logical service areas. Removing these areas will create pocket service areas for sewer and water for Spokane County, entirely surrounded by municipalities. Additionally, Fire District One'has presented compelling testimony on the effect of removing these areas. As one of the most important service providers for the health, safety and welfare in its service area, the Board must take heed of the Fire District's concerns. Their testimony included the impact on their overall budget if the areas are removed, and impact on response time in emergency situations. Objective four seeks to prevent the creation of irregular boundaries. 01538 Boundary Review Board October 2, 2001 page 3 The removal of Yardley and Alcott would directly result in that. Rather than creating a smooth, uninterrupted boundary, removal of these areas would create a very irregular shape. In order to remove the subject areas, the Board would have to show substantial evidence that more of the objectives favored doing so. There simply is no logical argument that would allow it. It is important to look to the justification for removing these areas. One must ask what purpose would be advanced in doing so. The only possible purpose, as admitted by the City of Spokane, is that it wants to annex those areas: If that :vete to be the basis for removing them, it would be wholly insufficient. First, any annexation would be purely speculative. The Board should not engage in an action that would have such far-reaching implications based upon speculation. The only possible way the City of Spokane could annex the areas is through use of annexation waivers. The City of Spokane signed an inter-local agreement with Spokane County in 1995 to allow the City to extend sewer and water service to Yardley and Alcott. The County included a prohibition against the City from requiring annexation waivers as a condition of hooking up to those services. The City of Spokane did so anyway. Those waivers are void for being in violation of the inter-local agreement, and Commissioner Kate McCaslin told me personally that the County will prohibit, by all possible means, the City's use of the illegal waivers. Commissioner McCaslin further stated that the County would sue if necessary to prevent annexation there. Second, incorporation proponents sent a very straightforward survey to all registered voters in Yardley to ask if they would preferred one of several courses of action, incorporation, annexation by the City of Spokane, or remaining unincorporated with Spokane County. My understanding is that 58% responded. Not one of them favored annexation by the City. Of the few that preferred remaining unincorporated, and given the hypothetical that they had to choose either incorporation or annexation. none chose annexation. In short, there is zero chance that the residents of Yardley would vote to be annexed by the City of Spokane. Given that, a speculative annexation of that area must be re-characterized as impossible under Washington's annexation statutes. The City of Spokane has been actively lobbying the Legislature to amend the annexation laws to allow all property owners in an affected to vote on an annexation petition, rather than just the residents. Those efforts have been ineffective to date. Aside from that, it would be gross error to reserve these areas for possible annexation based upon potential, but as yet not adopted, legislative changes. In summary, there is no legal basis to support for the City of Spokane's request to remove Yardley and Alcott. I note again the overriding purpose of the Board, to resolve conflict relating to unincorporated areas. Rather than resolving conflict, this Board would create substantial conflict by complying with the City's request. The result would then be a mad rush by both 00539 • Boundary Review Board • October 2, 2001 page 4 municipalities to annex Yardley and Alcott. To meet the statutory objectives, you must leave these areas in. To remove them would not be supported by any of the objectives, and would assuredly be reversible error. This is a matter that should be decided by the residents directly affected by the proposed action, and I respectfully request that the Board leave Yardley and Alcott in the proposal to be decided in the forthcoming election. I hope this letter helps you in your decision-making process. If you have any questions or • comments, or need any further information it this matter, please feel free to call me at 928-4100. Very truly yours, TRUNKENBOLZ I ROHR I DRISKELL PLLC CARY P. DRISKELL CPD/pd c: Ed Mertens cpd\clients\cac\brb letter 10-2-01 EXHIBIT r7 RRB S55-o1 -,ep xs I r M _} ._1 !� 1.111171R- rf n I-.. s -fill $ a 81 11N - i e, , _ — 1P, �I1 .,TF, Ir -.. 71 i .. g , — I1 , .a _. iL �uP V 8 8 ,Ir 1' - I r !I fi' F r f�. h"C �I�y { P� -,—I -Cy �' r"TJ ♦. ]_ _ II ..t1 }� SO my 1 J1 � 1 i i 1 1 _ _ R1 1 rIL 1 _ w !spin: _ L^^'tfi^ J I I , ""fT -' 1 1 uYnl17 al z.t P 4 1 � � � � y y ..6y F_i --. � i -�' t 7 :� xi`. I � r `�� 151 � Cf� � ! � I��.jvg/� ,a��nt�Nlgfill'.'LFt i�N�f 13r :.:ii'x 4 [I 1 w W ui! -.�-.•� � �,\ .' �"°4�..� �� _. • 1 SYIY� :s� : J .-L:;== rid. "thee.^x T 1 Nr' �_C t ? es. 1Y; x.a,. .i` � �� LIT F ° Nir, I",s" I i F-1 "�lSt ud ng; 3'1 nh"r Stl��u��}aAaa r itaaN II i I I a P vY! 1 IR ;Sok' Ar" r. aiv-Whipav x „ ;".a.11rIISUL Il N ' Sia --' ° 1 - acip tigli q k ) V i�g./Pn�ywar auitaglili >p. .00-I,Jw�: :. 1 7 'd. is i "k `1I �R+.a� ' 1 S. '” Tr��gA�nFY��Z i[961W4'.}�s� �` Tt � �IL'� n�3! )- -R',i,�- lfi ,,„, r gSX n^�;,r . (�� -�a. �' r® lar_ pz g P, '.) re t � �- .-r- ,< ...N NP3. � ,1 ,.,, _ �nauuar.r.,a �I�� IS _ II® gig el aC��l�lll.i° , I .. xrl r' rr �` . u m' T '� `u 1� __ �IAft; F. • � ��s1t1 jar :H��IC1`i SAiRn V" •� S .Y11P P o,�I ---_,,-;;,,-;4, E 11105 VW 110 _t_4,051-.1;;,__.n11 / d r cr �\4: ` —affirm-- I.-�. aa,',. 1�1�0�r,,1�lIeI i�� i/01 5�y�[.x �n --,_s„ !"' an sP irh N % -.:“.rd�°' Ii r_- \\ ii `sIi.NNn�In - A �IIACam /r IIIH �'I,• k hr. l.n„ I;. R r �� tl ,4a, 5!,x,„_„4 ,. it7.. 1. it 1 ,.. I: :-/-'I �`5> r7'ii t'' -ld ' .1K ° i �r t t..` I. I{aid P �'i ts s. uIs ,a M Ear 4 a a;iii �cn.i �e�4� 1N —I- _ ,e vm•2I 'v as -. -xm dr y"s".. "r Bnl .° igi PJiCt I all n I ILLN^i3!#J®L+®ii ei '`N T". a ..__I1 , y h>N s w.f& % "Ilwlii 'S1P afS3f$IWIt2+f�atiF+k ��s t v ;i�iP�3�14.1x11. I'y —1 �.,.ep + '-' . r : ian r 1 n7+FID a a i x1.35.4 ibinirim;; r �grg e 1 - \ rc�II:7 . ati '41Ci many F i n.."^'" rlit• 4t lYtF."°a:'I.,!(S;g.15 .3F .4.93 a3'Sk`fiILAATS Au` N I :neutnt ' _ <. 15, l` i -0,,,xnnP -aa. r7AlA" zinl~d� l a 1 l`ii i wa ., tJlIr / Sg'` � .r quza k5 . .Aar ,m'J -nta f 1Ir'"�ps rte' P .�i-IlhlNnllE: _ ,rl s .I-. k ca"'��p'P�"`��YBII _Li, y�■^rp...� � ti � 4 h��k�l �� e:5 7'�3&i! � 'lfr,. 6�y�rw� nr� { �_-tr1� . . _ , ` `- ,,,,an 8n i* P x r 'Ot P E.':'y:*i51!am WWW n• _ I� �i� .ea 7'",.k,8.6i Bal Mari iRC iH '{IF7 !!6 g � ,s,��1�1� .. _�a aarr 5�tg-li ".Te y6}ni `.�"Ct -�t�� :3.AI�liti Yx8`r<§:ids�aE'ir .:Pt nraav �ISI�".. I.��R.76'H � Nitt 8i L'en�`.+.....3-:1 . Gar _ 1��1�"§ 1 Pa .;lro l�I, ,€ a' t e FN4t .. `l; S iN"i PB'lT mit nen '6 "`.nix t I'a w _ I �n a �' 4 o ' n �.- ar " �d%�/' �'11E�i4 -x a �tl Ik'YY!7 Tyrlll f'"471N1 ��y sv era c 1�'e _ a$,l}°7kmtr Y.MS St iE�rIa. me a"�II�IIL�■S`lP1 rai _- t our. �■Ip�plt�-0•Jtn[71'd.°I1�1 .s3 _ J v a. r, r .l� Pv '."d'G;t 'ss st .Il'I i aae n yak war.:A �d ohreY P 9 a 1 1010,191. '1 1 a'a k4" }_' "I" 1:3' me ro :, P 2s rnP A + .r_ .. E[Yr '�`1.�rtu{Nan i � t , ..q: '� X53` }j � � Pl - 1 I '.:� y", ern idi4 fifNn�W[vn° antlaleey 1 n - 1 .p z aP a r .- at &. d} 3i .qw ro ;^t aaaWa __l F:Oir'• ) L �§ p a -� t ! p 1 ��J . ,r¢r.3t l.�,,,ml a „11-x— ( rIPIN{ICi; ,.%. /11 4. ...,J' >` • . ',.. __` — {-i.vl i �b ■a+" t_ i 1 Ib r"t. P l f; ,1 a '8,�''pct #, 'n' 7 4._. l - r--" - �. m _. n ,..,3 4hy f5'"` f � � � 'A b° 5 ;1�,� I P..wpt1IfFH - "'�. I �FrniAn. _ia Or f i G -� N�£auF6s� MACAW, '�. I t I I s».x^ _ i Ia_ }T -i !S ' aiu ae9 11/' �a.vl 1 ' it �1I1 : �L P N ^'NW i '\._ . a =R. , I'a I a .10 r "bac ffi a y' , T ;` IL r l: r x _ { I -I A I - r % a000 ftt IAli, n -, 1_ I i 1 1 ez, . *qt'TT , 1 T &!jL1 8 r ha r 7Al 3�I = t I •"ifsmencl1 /ilac- ,11 roi H 1. ,� u IT 1 i ,1_ -8---r---rpt o " r �°..�,.S Proposed City of Spokane Valley .,l kkii o 0 ""`"'Pry°"'"""` x~ .:.,.....°...... Washington State Boundary Review Board for Spokane Count y _:,jt CFI ...Mn« . _ .� .. . . . .. . _. mn . .... ,._ �... a. O r°.1-.aem unnm..¢.,..m.rxaro --40-44-4,-.4,..,,...—,..,..,,,, EXHIBIT 'a.nn541 BRB .Lc55-o I Winchell, Susan crom: saltie g dooley [sallie1900@gwest.net] nt: Thursday, October 04, 2001 9:47 AM i o: Boundary Review Board Subject: Pasadena Park To: Members of the Boundary Review Board RECEIVED We should like to express our views on including the Pasadena Park area, in the proposed new Valley City. We have lived in this location for 37 0 C T 0 4 2001 years. We have been generally pleased with the services provided by the BOUNDggyR county. We have NO desire to be included in a new city. Several years REVIEW BOARD ago the neighbors spent many hours at meetings to help decide the the direction for our area. All of which would go down the drain with this change. In my opinion, only a long period of disruption and uncertainty would come from inclusion in the new city. Please consider leaving Pasadena Park out of the proposed incorporation boundary. Sincerely, ,avid and Sallie Dooley 8419 E Maringo Dr. Spokane, Wa 99212 1 EXHIBIT 'B • BAB 5--100542 • TRUNKENBOLZ ROHR I DRISKELL PLLC CARY P. DRISKELL 1.509.928.4100 LICENSED IN WA RESPOND TO: SPOKANE driskell@dmi.net October 3, 2001 • Boundary Review Board FiECEi1/ED 1026 West Broadway, Second Floor Spokane, WA 99260 OCT 0 8 2D01 Re: Valley Incorporation 90UNDARYREVIEW BO/RD Dear Boundary Review Board: • On behalf of the Spokane Valley Community Action Committee and the Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce, I would like to request several things. First, the City of Spokane has submitted at least three exhibits to the BRB in support of its request to exclude Yardley and Alcott from the boundaries of the proposed city. Please provide me with copies of those documents within five business days (pursuant to the Public Records Act, RCW 42.17.250 et seq.). If you make them available for pick up, I can have them picked up immediately. Second, the City of Spokane, despite being asked to appear last night and present any evidence and arguments to evidence a financial impact to the City of including Yardley and Alcott in the proposed city, failed to even send a representative to speak on behalf of the City. Instead, the City apparently contacted Ms. Winchell to inform her that written testimony would be provided on or before October 15., Obviously, the BRB chose to extend the comment period to November 5, and the City has until that time to provide any materials it feels supports its position. I respectfully request that the BRB inform me, on the day the BAB'receives those materials, to make copies and have them available for pickup that same day. I will, of course, pay for any copy costs associated with their reproduction. Since the City of Spokane is the only person or entity requesting the exclusion of Yardley and Alcott, it is of critical importance that we have as much opportunity as possible to respond to the City's assertions and documentation. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call me at 928-4100. Very truly yours, TRUNKENBOLZ I ROHR I DRISKELL PLLC CARY P. DRISKELL CPD/pd c: Ed Mertens. cpd\clients\cac\brb letter 10-3-01 SPOKANE OFFICE- 12704 EAST NoRA,SPOKANE,WA 99216;PH.509.928.4100;FAX 509.926.6314;trdvalley@dmi.net COEUR D'ALENE OFFICE- 1400 NORTHWOOD CENTER Cr,SUITE C,COEUR D'ALENE,ID 83814 PH. 208.769.7100;FAX 208.769.7200;trdcda@dmi.net EXHIBIT � q BRB Slzal. • Dobbins, Danette` 0 0 5 4 3 crom: Wilglad195@aol.com ,nt: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 10:59 PM fo: Boundary Review Board Subject: Greenacres Gentlemen: My husband and I have been a part of the Spokane Valley for nearly sixty years. My husband started teaching Vo-AG at Central Valley High School in the fall of 1941, and left, as did so many young men, to serve in the navy, returning in the fall of 1946. I started teaching at Central Valley High RECEIVED School in the fall of 1944. We both remained in the Central Valley school district until our retirement in 1974. OCT 10 2001 In 1953 we built our home on the five acres in Greenacres, which my husband Bial#40ARYREVitu, had bought a few years earlier, and we have lived there ever since. Our five acre plot has not been subdivided and we have no intention of selling it off in lots. A former student grows pumpkins or puts it in hay and in some way puts it to good use. The point I am trying to make is that we are not eager to make money by selling our land, and we want to be a part of the Valley City. I understand that some of the people in the Greenacres area want to be cut out of the new city's boundaries. Mr. Higgins did not contact us, although I am under the impression that he was giving the consensus of the people in our area. We live at 18506 E. 4th Avenue, and that is either the area, or very close to the area, that Mr. Higgins is proposing to remove from the city's boundaries. We definitely do not want to be excluded from "3I1ey City. The time has come for the Valley do its own governing, and in order to do that, it must become a city. Please do not cut any part of Greenacres from the proposed boundaries. Sincerely yours, Wilbert and Gladys Fritz 1 EXHIBIT (15 0 0 5 4 BRB, SS5-0j Carnhope Irrigation District Number 7 - 4903 East Third Avenue Spokane, Washington 99212 Board Members Chairman Carl Cliff Vice Chairman Sam Wood Terry Lynch Ray Splawn Everett Wilcox Water Superintendent—Terry Squibb RECEIVED Saturday, October 06,2001 OCT 1 0 2001 Ms. Susan Winchell, E.D. BOMAR Boundary Review Board 1026 West Broadway Avenue, Second Floor, Spokane, Washington, 99201 Regarding: Alcott Grove and Yardley—New City of Spokane Valley Boundary Dear Ms. Winchell, On behalf of the residents and the Board of Directors of Carnhope Irrigation District Number 7, I wish to convey our desire the Boundary Review Board leave both Alcott and Yardley in the proposal for the new city of Spokane Valley. We recently annexed Alcott to our water district after serving it water for many years. At the request of the homeowners in the Alcott Grove portion, we included them in our district. It is our belief that the citizens (voters) in these districts have a great deal in common with those in the proposed new city and should be allowed to vote yes or no on the new city. My personal regards,AA LL .ree Carl Cliff, Chai Carnhope Irrigation District Number 7 CC: Mike Phillips, Secretary/Treasurer All Board Members Incorporation File/Public.doc OO54r EXHI8It..7 E. sR13. :01 Hutchinson Irrigation District Number 16 '- 618 618 North Sargent Road Spokane, Washington 99212 Board Members Chairman Hugh Kridler Vice Chairman Kevin Williams Don Cochrane Walt McKee Roy Stenson Water Superintendent—Terry Squibb Tuesday, October 09, 2001 RECEIVED Ms. Susan Winchell,E.D. OCT 1 O 2001 Boundary Review Board BOUNDARY REVIEWgp4RD 1026 West Broadway Avenue, Second Floor, Spokane, Washington, 99201 Regarding: Alcott Grove and Yardley—New City of Spokane Valley Boundary Dear Ms. Winchell, On behalf of the residents and the Board of Directors of Hutchinson Irrigation District Number 16, I wish to convey our desire the Boundary Review Board leave both Alcott and Yardley in the proposal for the new city of Spokane Valley. It is our belief that the citizens (voters) in these districts have a great deal in common with those in the proposed new city and should be allowed to vote yes or no on the new city. My� Y personal regards, Hugh Kridler, 'airman Hutchinson Irrigation District Number 16 stit M546 EXHIBIT '7 ... BRB SS;S-o Y} '" W Ti ,. t . October 4, 2001 RECEIVED VP'. K 1026 West Broadway Boundary ReviewBoard mmuronvR e�aE Spokane, WA 99260 ` !i RE: Valley Incorporation Gentlemen: ;, We strongly oppose Pasadena Park and Northwoodbecoming a part of the proposed city. We feel the city limits should sfog'cq the Spokane River. The Cityof;Millwood and the Spokane River separates us from the rest of the valley, so we are a somewhat isolated area. My family has lived in Pasadena Park for fourteen years. We are happy with county government services and would like to opt out of the new city plan. Our area has already gone through a very lengthy three year neighborhood plan. We would like,our area to remain as it is now. ;?:.44 tt Please do not include us in the proposed city boundaries. { P `AR i cerely, or) atop 41€11-fit) CCMAtit fir' 'I )71 y4 Grant and Karin Dunbar `,. rz 4223 North Locust Road '` c' #4 T :y Spokane, WA 99206 i^s=Y.YC EXHIBIT 0 0 5 4 7 RECEIVED BRB 555-01 T1 1 2001 October 10, 2001 NDARY REVIEW BOARD To: Boundary Review Board Re: Proposed Spokane Valley City boundary lines The proposed Spokane Valley City shoulclude the Pasadena Park/Pasadena Terrace or Northwoods neighborhoods and we request that these areas not be included in the proposed city limits. The Spokane River already separates these neighborhoods from the proposed city of Spokane Valley. The only crossing from these neighborhoods is the Argonne Rd bridge. The nearest alternative crossings are the Greene St bridge, miles to the west in the City of Spokane or, the Wellesley/Evergreen/Trent interesections several miles to the east. The Spokane River and the lack of bridge crossings isolates these communities from the proposed City of Spokane Valley. Two upcoming road projects will increase the isolation. During the winter of 2001/2002, Spokane County will close Wellesley for a road re-alignment project, leaving Argonne and the Greene St bridge as our only access to Spokane Valley. Beginning in early 2002, Spokane County will reduce Argonne Rd to two-lanes during the estimated 18 month long project to replace the older half of the Argonne Rd bridge over the Spokane River. The practical impact is to further cut off these neighborhoods from the Spokane Valley. We expect to conduct our shopping in the City of Spokane in areas to the west and northwest of these neighborhoods. To confuse the issue fiuther, our backyard property line is also the line separating Fire District#9 with Valley Fire. However, Fire District 9 also serves a large land area immediately to our west and southwest. The closest District 9 fire station(#94) is one- half the distance to the nearest Valley Fire station(#2). Because of these and other reasons, we do not believe the proposed City of Spokane Valley boundaries should include the neighborhoods immediately north of the Spokane River. These neighborhoods include Pasadena Park, Pasadena Terrace and Northwoods. Sincerely, �r j Edward Mitchell 7717 E. Princeton Ave Spokane, WA 99212 1-509-893-1855 J7� 7'`Enna PUBLIC WORKS &UTILI1IQS5 4 U SPOKANE`JL" 808 W.SPOKANE FALLS BLVD: EXHIBIT SPOKANE,WASHINGTON 99201-3334 APB pFN (509)625-6270 FAX(509)625-6274 RECEIVED 0CT232001 October 19, 2001 BOUNDAgyReviev804RD Washington State Boundary Review Board 1026 West Broadway Avenue Spokane Washington 92260 Dear Ms. Winchell: The following is an estimate of the value of City utility infrastructure in the Yardley area of the proposed City of Spokane Valley Incorporation. • Water Lines: $2,000,000 • Sewer Lines: $4,800,000 Should you have any additional questions do not hesitate to contact me. I may be reached at 509.625.6320 or by e-mail at dmandykespokanecity.orq. Sincerely, t ` Ar + o -- Dave Mandyke Deputy Director, Public Works & Utilities . • 00549 • EXHIBIT�� BRB SS-v E10913 - 19th Spokane, WA 99206 October 22,2001 Washington State Boundary Review Board 1026 West Broadway Avenue Spokane,WA 99260 Re:Proposal to incorporate the City of Spokane Valley. Your attention is invited to the enclosed editorial from the Valley News Herald,dated October 10, 2001. I wish this to be included as part of the testimony supporting the request that the Yardley Industrial Area be left within that part of the Valley described as Fire District#1 Yours truly, r-Z a .'tel Vern She er RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2001 ROUNDAAyAEvjtwBOARD 00550 .. . .. .. . . : . .. . ., . .., . ; ...... : . ;. :. , . , i „.• : . " . . . ..; , , ... . . , . . . , . . . 4 , ,, 0 . .. . .., Valley:New Heralde . :. " • , , ,,, . ,,i, •.- -.1.':ji1IIi11i:;..vi.,4•.;!1.*;;i,,.:I•'.'.:-.-•.•:.'.;...c..:2y•;.:;•.:,,•..:::.••...:,:..4.."..".:l:-:;•,•-..‘";;:".':.;:2..;.g-‘.•;:-%..:.'...•.:'.•'iJ:••'.'-,,-.-..;.-:--;:•••:,--•.'"....-•.•."••:•.'l,:,?••%1.••,'.'‘•<,.,.::.„•.:'c.,.-..:.:,:.,--,:”':..•:':..;,-••:;..-:,:,.:-,''.4.''--".•-.,.i—•3-,'-•,-•.;•c:••-,.•'...,.:•'1''--:,",.-•,--:r;-,•'••;-..".,4-•::•';,:,:-:.\,-cA:.r•..---'.',c.,..?::.-.:.:):r'--:."„;':'•••.::::.•'•,..;'..',::-t,c-::.5-.k.31r:..:-::.:'t-;..:c,;,..;'::'.:..:".•';:.,.i:..H':,.-;':'2-•,..-:-'•'1•.:-..:.-...y..•:1,:...,;:•''•.,-..'.-';;.-..-<)•,•.••.:-'1‘.--•''-„•''•:'-".••:.,.:,.•"-:;",l::,_;-,:."..-,-i'."-.['4•,:.,•'.::'„-:.,-.:•i•:-.••'':',-:,..;.,'-•;••.:,'•..•...•:•.-,'_:--,...,'-•.:••:.L•-.-1;-'.,.•.,.•f?,-'.4..,;;.:.;;•..:;:..*;r::,'--•-.2.:::.,J7J-"•-:•:;,"f..;;i':.-..,.?:,:....:::.i1••::.:':."•,.:'-::S:.•'',•.:-;.,i,-t,••.:12.,'•1..•;:.',:•-"'.•,`1'-.':"•:/3..:.-::-'?''.-',•..:.,.•.:.,.:::,-.,.H.5<-'•I<•41,,.•,,.;-:,••t•.,.:c::.-•.,.1.:':-:.'•.-."'.,:.,.:•:',''...[:..:,...'..t..,:-f-;'•,':..;-..:.-:;•F,.'.',...,'::L'?;•;•.:?"r:•..•:,•'--'=„,:....1•:i;'--:.:'.:•..r'.•i,.:.'.:'-:....:.?;•.:'..•':;,:.'..i.1•..7.:.ie.';:'?-,,.i..:.,-::,?':.'-Jt•,•-,.-.-:i.::,.,;2;•-.:.•.•:•.„!..-.::.::,'.:;•,:.••.:--..;.?S••.,..-['.-,•.".,:..,?'„'.'..•.'.'L••..',i..c:•i„.,ri.'•.•,:1'.",,•:.-s.:-.x:,?'%,1':••:v1..4'r.F--z.:•••-.1-,,:i4`,..4.7._':,:'.4?.:..,0.•;:."e.'-'r-":',"',3.'r.'::A"-4.'i7-,:'--°.fU."-:.t;•,^-0,:.:•,44i•-':45:.•.I•y,ir.;•r-'.:•:;'1.;.';n':•,.•.-:u.-:I-t''.•VS•97‘s,tA-:,,c1;•”"-,.A‘-0:',,S",,,.‘,:(•,;,':,.f,/.--.Lt't..tv.4&.,v.--,,6.,'t4.Cr,-„•-.;.tfr,`-a,,i-:_::,..-,•-+,.l„i,.---:.,r.,,-.y':..:*-L:-±-e,dv'#:I,‘i,.•,7.,„,..s.:q;c,,y,t=7..:1.'r•..!.:,1'-,.;.iwr,:.".';.--4:,-7.•,-----,,•..,:y:,,,-,r-.*,:<--•--..,1..;-,.,.;.•...;.,T't-.2:..-•c.>•,D,,;4•,2,;1,-T,-'„.:•'T•-/•.-i;.-c;c-4-•-),,-,”o,-...,.*4.r.'.\-,';.:.,:--1--,•v•,,•;t*-;4,S.::tL-..qk-.',1'.;;a.--•.-,,m-.•'.....;,rY-4.-..-‘7--•,-rw.'•:.:',.,,i..i:c:',---:,•.'w-*l.••,.na'4it..s• t:.•'k,a,.,:,t4-.,•-.,,.'.1,;2-.'.':7.l-;?'1.c,.',.-•,.,..'.,..•-tzS::„'1.,-o-4'v-:,.,;'•:i-2,i1,',,:::..,•.'dl.;y4..4..:c;,,,•.'.-..:..-5-.,9-o•-.-i.:.7.•..fF-:-:.i..',::,•.:r-t,,.„,4.,-:•'•,”'.,:.';c3:.l,-:iqkt.7:-r1,.r. Yardley's.i_.x‘.„-'.--7,s-;--7.,,c.-f;1,i.:•;;-:.:'a.$.7.:-,-.,t.E-c.:,-•-,--.:,,s:•.-'„.:-'.•"'-,:v'•-‘.,..,'.,•.•":,-.'--:---::,:..-.f'-,'-7.-:..--,'-_'.'1--..,..,--.,,.---••-•,."--'€,,•:•--['•,:..•.:-.A;2,,-',:.:-..g-f.-.,,-r--.-•a.„-a.--:-.,r•.•t;:-!,-r--t.f.,.-.,.-.-f-”:,i.t'-4:.-.c.•-•,,.-.:i.-•-•7,-,,-"'.-':.,-,-.-"a.-,•:----r-.---!•...c..--.•- .-7--,,.-,-:..-.,...,-+-.;"•.".„;--„w-; -'-••-.,.--,.•-•--:.:*,'-A:-:f:•-r-_,-:::--,--:?•-•••-..,-,•,-. .":-1,.:.?,'-,-.-:".7,,,,-:..•-:..',-;,':-".:-:-,-:,:---'1-•• -,,„-_,!-,-::,-•::-.-i-,-..-.:.-,"-.I--.-,,•••i-.,-.:•,E:',.-"-.y--.,,•;c,;•:-..--,-Y .,":•-.---:•:.-"- :,--i,--,•,,,.'--t-••,,..,"--.,r_, :,,,i-.•:i••:.?.-'.-.-:.c;-,-.•.:):••,.:- ,•,.,-:..h••:•:4•-,"rA..-,:,,&,,.:.'!•---4,5:..i-...?-,--i"--.„:-z-i:•-.„-„,:,.-,f-'-•,-•.-;:..,A.,•*.2).-a,:o.-:,-/.-•---.::,ig,-,-,'.-,i„,A•r,-,±-..,:•-.:-,...„-.r'--,:.,--•;i,•-.•-.-,g,..',--„,-t::""•,._.'-,.':,-.-2:-.-,-:..•.--i•---.T,:-.-,-•-.'.,‘t,--,-,..-,.-:-4-:•.--•-.i,•,--.v1--.:;-,--7-.,--i,i,-,.--,,.:,,-.:--1::--.-.-,-.•.-,g--:-5--.-'.-.-.f,..-.,,--,..--,--':-,-A•.',,.',r-',,-,_ For q-.'-i.-!,'--.l-.,-,-‘-;-:,.`f,-',A--.,;:.••,..:'fL,.., •,4%-:..•-'2-:-..-A•:.,:'-.e-.-."•,:.'',,:-r.:-;-Et"-:.!.,•,s such .a:hot area of contention, it's n:,,,1,-i-9c:,$--..,---,.•;-'-.-.-..-1',.;-,j':;-,,-.:,-2-,-:',,,.-7-,•.;r-...,1e;-i,-:.,-.:,.-,-.,.;-,:?,,.:,,•-,,,-•s--,...:,.54.--;i.•„.,,;--.':;:.•--.t-:-,,:1..:.•r:P..;•'•.,---:.4:,-;.:g.":.,.-;.:.":,.-::_.-:-•A7,-'::-.,-,,.f.-;--,..s.•-:,,:2,,.-;'•.t-.--.---i4r•-t.-.i.-.:--.,- ,,f,iA..,.'--„.-,-3.-;.-T..•:?1-.c,-.-.,4-,-"--::--•.'.-A75:.f..'„,.,,c•o.4i •:•...•-•A,1..„,,-:----,1..-,/- ,,•-"1-:.-J,=,4a--A-,,.--:.---•---:h-•,:. .-.,'.•.-'i,i,:.:::--/,.--S-.:;,- s Some construction .-,;,,,--i'•I-,-,„I;l.j..--,±.5.7-rt--.,:.:1,.-.„'.-A-...;.7-,:.'!._,..-*'.":.-,-,,,.-,i•.•:-•L-,---a"'..-,-t.?::-•,-:--....,4•:q1-/.,-,5-.,.,•:..-,.:l?.,.•,i:.•--••-.,:i;](;:..sI•,:4-..--±.:.:.c,'.-'--:'..,”.,:r•i.t,••?-.,-:-,.=---.'„..-:-•;z2.,;::.:,-.fa-'g-i;-,:,.->rc,1-l-•--'1-,:';-ki-V.---"-:4nsi.:-.-.p•;-.;-„"a'-„-,7-•c.i-::•-...:,..•i--i•-::,-.•7..-?...Y„...-14-.--.--•,-,e.r:-:-4..-.,.-R.;,-.:-',wt-.-w:k tiaii*qcC : AequipmentiduLaSrbusi- nessesBody shops utC Yardley qfee:P9Pt9iltb:40 1it'ni?Avenua ap1iscftic4PPJage;flat,IKeeCItTr5-1 '.•-•3-f a36kane'eA9def,- has6eenlhe,mRe4oPV9t9dpiecPy9f lapck.t.1/2ar409-Sarem:iPjfP,6it-ncP9r3 Declared 4,duyig.i-e.comprehen- sive lardzPS0discussions,7ci6j -pisnners,btotOhtcotp47 9ommIS!660t,a,ataCkcP tdocuments supporting the the s idealP5i •sh:iyardleYlshdutd,be within , urbeP-.i„•-:-"-..- ;•,N,c:.:,-r--.•..:-,.:.',.:::.• ;t,-:-.,;E,:4,..,.:„-3:-;.•..:-,.;i-',.•-.,,,:-.-.,(.."c.-.,::„.•.:,:':.,..k,:-,c."-e..,,:e:.-•`:-„.:...;.:,:::.,,,:,.--:-1:-:...::-::,:'..:-.•,).-:-.•t-t.i.:-.,,.1.':•,:.:;,-*-.-,;.•'.-'Y.:.,:--:..-1-,.-.,-..',.:-•.::iE:•,-.'5,1.-i-•..•t:';-1-,-1;"..2:....,:-;:.-.,.rt::-•., :.!--...;1,,-•1:1i:• growtlfarea, siPo?;t09dity'leAafeesyisupplyil9.theiarpo • . • , se1Cf1icniikatefP spekan9ott.c-a1 ::reas°Pee • 116092°Yla ., avecios:oh the land ila:etrPit&-byfrbO_p_trioniiidks6P.Y4raie; kitjij„tn"'VailPy*iKot'sa4asfi: said"cqur . eioret8:" Pdwitha . ii6k;pf • 4hp)" rist,13Py` vrote.Yardley outofthep' Y,s:olats- ‘bw,: !9ikp,lafer! Spokanegain come :cilifg-anr :-1.:.0,.-,"''-:::•,•"H •••..;--.-•': ...-•..4:,l:;._s'•!.,:h:•t,.-,•.,F*A"3:iI.,:':'.,„C';•,..7,:I,;';•1:.:7.--•D•.:•'o-?;,;.,.,t.i.,'.,t-?tf',,..?•.,^c'..-(:b':.,,,:..uit,1 • wants- ardley-out"oftheproposedtc' Yfspokane lb&ders. .. 1giiilfe91:Ptjc771lesion?" led by McCaslin 1 ,totg9at9;rpmod7Citt61 !Pia11bverPC1rare haonlyCUMmod.t.ea66ogsolo:tYefdr :,99htSfby - - '.Sjo<g9e; M9§ . S t•ncludingeost17ron residents . nar9,tancPPlide'PrP1!dm), areprovided:byn,-obbnit. t : 71'hacityllitiiP11psow: its the state's goirIckRev1Pv.edaru, T a te!tP. , „ncrate's" 9 tipRIsi ce testi *y sfoulcik“ 6,6aef:616s90:101rPk b1tgdoth 21,,teitshcIjei'itoak,;anydifference ifrth94Paideniw:ofx0tOlpy.ateinto1estemin pec9ming ? git.sfsotkn9,fiet ,fyto b01aNnexat'oivicc- edings4 - iip p1ntililhaf:4.merrhOWaterf?ardlep,bblongq,Yitt1h?iilath ,; ,j, .;4othQi1j6spt4ca : ate the city of Spokaneis having money - 'IliMsa " .I.,.:--....-..:i,.,•'. :1L• .--.cc=.' ,.,.1,•'.z :..;•• '..f.„r:..-'..,,,':,;-.:-'':•.,.'a7iZ::,:i- :.: .'-a PNoittwli‘1haveii-tockrPno . neatheT- her , 44 eat,t0s04elhef Aike71aittyal , ;i,,...:-•' ci•:, ..::' : Q0551 EXHIBITAL BRB SS,S-OJ 7861 # 97 0321 RECEIVED OCT 302001 BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY IN THE MATTER OF THE ALLOCATION OF THE 20 ) YEAR GROWTH MANAGEMENT POPULATION ) FINDINGS PROJECTION AND ADOPTION OF THE SPOKANE ) and COUNTY INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ) DECISION DESIGNATING INTERIM URBAN GROWTH AREAS ) (IUGA) ) WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.32.120(6) the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the Board, has the care of county property and management of county funds and business; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.020, goals are set forth to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.370 local governments shall utilize the process established by RCW 36.70A. 370(1) to assure that proposed regulatory or administrative actions do not result in an unconstitutional taking of private property; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 36.70A RCW, Growth Management Act (GMA), and WAC 365-195, Growth Management Act - Procedural Board of County Commissioners page 1 Findings&Decision-IUGAs 0 0 5�5N• 63 Board's record and the decisions fall within the discretion granted to the Board to choose from a range of reasonable options; and WHEREAS, after considering all public testimony given at the public hearings, as well as recognizing compliance with State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) procedures, the Board finds that the best interest of the general public, as well as their health, safety and welfare, will be met by the allocation of the 20 year growth management population projection and adoption of the Spokane County Interim Development Regulations Designating Interim Urban Growth Areas (IUGA) as contained within Attachment 'A'; and WHEREAS, the adoption of the Spokane County Interim Development Regulations Designating Interim Urban Growth Areas (IUGA) as contained within Attachment 'A' is in the best interests of Spokane County and its citizens; and WHEREAS, the ordinance entitled Spokane County Interim Development Regulations Designating Interim Urban Growth Areas (IUGA) as contained within Attachment 'A' was reviewed by legal counsel using the "State of Washington Attorney General's Recommended Process and Advisory Memorandum for Evaluation of Proposed Regulatory or Administrative Actions to Avoid Unconstitutional Takings of Private Property" as provided for in the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A370; and WHEREAS, a notice of adoption of the ordinance entitled Spokane County Interim Development Regulations Designating Interim Urban Growth Areas (IUGA) as contained within Attachment 'A' will be published as required by RCW 36.70A.290; and WHEREAS, a copy of the adopted ordinance entitled Spokane County Interim Development Regulations Designating Interim Urban Growth Areas (IUGA) as contained within Attachment 'A' will be sent to the Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED) as required by RCW 36.70A.106(2). Board of County Commissioners page 3 Findings&Decision-IUGAs • the IUGA Process contained in the Spokane County Interim Urban Growth Area Final Environmental Impact Statement highlights the Steering Committee's efforts. These findings and the Board's record detail the extensive public notification and hearing process undertaken by the Board prior to designating IUGAs. Even in the face of the GMA mandated deadline of October 1, 1996 for designating Spokane County IUGAs, the Steering Committee and the Board did not abbreviate the citizen participation process. Both took the time necessary to effectively involve the public in the process which resulted in a nearly five month delay before designating IUGAs. The concept and actual operation of the GMA Joint Planning Interlocal Agreement (BCC Resolution #94-1686) ensured " ... coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts ... " during the Steering Committee's JUGA recommendation process as encouraged by the GMA 'citizen participation and coordination' goal. #4 The Countywide Planning Policies and Environmental Analysis for Spokane County were adopted by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on December 22, 1994 (BCC Resolution #94-1719). The adoption of the Countywide Planning Policies (CWPPs) marked the culmination of a 17 month cooperative effort to design and establish a policy framework for subsequent county, city, and town planning programs. The CWPP development process included participation from the general public, specific interest groups,junior taxing districts, private utilities, and each of the 12 local jurisdictions in Spokane County. Those jurisdictions include the following: • Town of Waverly • Town of Fairfield • City of Medical Lake • Town of Latah - Town of Millwood • City of Cheney • Town of Spangle • City of Airway Heights - City of Spokane • Town of Rockford • City of Deer Park • Spokane County #5 Among other directives, the CWPPs established policies to facilitate the second phase of compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA); the requirement that the Board of County Commissioners page 5 Findings&Decision-IUGAs 00554 • 7867 #7 Summary of the Steering Committee's 2 year process, from December, 1994 through December, 1996, is highlighted in the Spokane County Interim Urban Growth Area Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendix C . History of the IUGA Process. #8 On December 11, 1996 the Steering Committee, after review of the Spokane County Interim Urban Growth Area Final Environmental Impact Statement, approved and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners their recommendation for: 1 . Allocation of population growth to jurisdictions. 2. Designation of interim urban growth areas (IUGAs). 3. Interim development regulations designating IUGAs. #9 The Steering Committee's recommended allocation of population growth to jurisdictions was based upon the growth management population projection made for all of Spokane County by the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM). During the time of their IUGA review, the Steering Committee established a Population Allocation Technical Committee to perform the technical work needed to allocate OFM's 20 year growth management projections pursuant to CWPP Policy Topic #3 - Promotion of Contiguous and Orderly Development and Provision of Urban Services - Policy #9. The technical committee published their report, entitled Population Allocation Recommendation, for the Steering Committee's use on April 19, 1996. Board of County.Commissioners page 7 Findings&Decision-LUGAs 00555 7869 town) and unincorporated Spokane County IUGAs not associated with a city or town. The map is titled Steering Committee Interim Urban Growth Areas (IUGA) Recommendation Map, 11 December, 1996. (An enlarged section of that map for the Spokane metropolitan area, included in the recommendation, allows easier reference.) The official recommendation map is stored on Spokane County's Geographic Information System (GIS). Some IUGAs are so minimal (for example around the Town of Waverly) that boundary details are not readily apparent on the countywide map base. A larger scale version of the map, along with file information, is available for inspection through: Spokane County Public Works Department - Division of Long Range Planning 1026 West Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99260-0240 (509)456-2294 3. Interim development regulations designating IUGAs. Provisions to be included in interim development regulations designating IUGAs was outlined and recommended as follows: General Notes - (1) None of the interim regulations are intended to apply to vested lots or projects. (2) The interim regulations apply to Spokane County. Those areas proposed as extra territorial IUGAs by each of the cities and towns would remain in the county's control until such time as joint planning areas are identified and interlocal agreements are entered into. A. Inside IUGAs 1 . Adequate Facilities Requirements: New development would only be permitted in an interim urban growth area where public sewer and public water can be provided. 2. Joint Planning Areas / Interlocal Agreements: The unincorporated areas adjacent to cities and towns proposed for inclusion in their IUGAs would be designated as "joint planning areas" (or a similar term) as part of an interlocal agreement. In the interim, these lands would retain their existing county zoning. Board of County Commissioners page 9 Findings&Decision-IUGAs 0155C 7871 1. Approximately 3 acres of unincorporated land located adjacent to the west and east corporate limits of the Town of Waverly. 2. Approximately 50 acres of unincorporated land located adjacent to the northern most corporate limits of the Town of Latah. 3. Approximately 101 acres of unincorporated land located adjacent to the north and south corporate limits of the Town of Spangle. 4. Approximately 249 acres of unincorporated land located adjacent to the north, east, southwest, and west corporate limits of the Town of Rockford. 5. Approximately 130 acres of unincorporated land located adjacent to the north, northeast, extreme south, west, and northwest corporate limits of the Town of Fairfield. 6. Approximately 738 acres of unincorporated land located adjacent to the northwest corporate limits of the City of Airway Heights. 7. Approximately 820 acres of unincorporated land located adjacent to the northwest and extreme south corporate limits of the City of Deer Park. 8. Approximately 322 acres of unincorporated land located adjacent to the north and at the extreme southwest corner of the corporate limits of the City of Medical Lake. 9. Approximately 534 acres of unincorporated land located adjacent to the northwest, northeast, and southwest corporate limits of the City of Cheney. 10. Approximately 368 acres of unincorporated land located adjacent to the east corporate limits of the City of Spokane (referred to as the Upriver Joint Planning Area). The area generally lies easterly of Havana Street and northerly / northwesterly of Upriver Drive. 11. Approximately 952 acres of unincorporated land located adjacent to the east corporate limits of the City of Spokane (referred to as the Yardley Joint Planning Area). The area generally lies easterly of Havana Street, southerly of Railroad Avenue, easterly of Fancher Road, westerly of Dollar Road / Thierman Road, northwesterly of Interstate 90, and northerly of Sprague Avenue 12. Approximately 606 acres of unincorporated land located adjacent to the east corporate limits of the City of Spokane (referred to as the Alcott Joint Planning Area). The area generally lies easterly of Havana Street, southerly of 8th Avenue, westerly of Carnahan Road / Glenrose Road, and northerly of 33rd Avenue / Morrill Street. 13. Approximately 1671 acres of unincorporated land located adjacent to the south and southeast corporate limits of the City of Spokane (referred to as the Moran / Glenrose Joint Planning Area). The area generally lies adjacent to the southeast corner of the City of Spokane southerly of 37th Avenue, westerly of Glenrose Road / Glennaire Drive, northerly of 57th Board of County Commissioners page 11 Findings&Decision-IUGAs rlf15r 7873 Appleway east of Flora Road, and Sprague Avenue and the extensions of the Sprague Avenue alignment in the Liberty Lake vicinity. #12 Subsequent to publication of legal notices for the public hearings and during the course of the Board's public hearings, testimony indicated that the there was a minor discrepancy in the description of the gross land area for 2 of the 17 IUGAs in the notices. The Town of Spangle's extra-territorial IUGA actually consists of 153 gross acres, not 101 acres as described in the notice. The Town of Rockford's IUGA, as recommended by the Steering Committee, contained 213 gross acres, not 249 acres. The mapped depiction of both IUGAs, as referred to in the legal notice, was correct. #13 The Steering Committee's recommendation was developed through a lengthy process and cooperative effort, all of which was consistent with the requirements and intent of Chapter 36.70A RCW, WAC 365-195, Chapter 43.21C RCW, Countywide Planning Policies for Spokane County, and the GMA Joint Planning Interlocal Agreement. The extensive technical and environmental documents, reports, maps, and files that were developed throughout the Steering Committee's work program, along with the extensive citizen participation program intended to inform the public and invite public involvement in the planning process, formed the basis for the Steering Committee's recommendation. All is accepted by the Board of County Commissioners as support for the recommendations made by the Steering Committee and as the basis for the Board's findings and decisions. #14 The December 11, 1996 Steering Committee motion approving and forwarding their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners stated the following: "MOVED that the Steering Committee approve the population allocation, interim urban growth area boundary, and interim development controls suggested by the multi jurisdictional planning directors and modified by our Board of County Commissioners page 13 Findings&Decision-IUGAs 00558 7£3:i Section 3. Joint Planning Area Designation and Process. Lands Located Outside Interim Urban Growth Areas Section 4. Limitation of Land Divisions Outside Designated Interim Urban Growth Areas. Section 5. Limitation of Services Outside Interim Urban Growth Areas. Section 6 Commercial and Industrial Development Outside Urban Growth Areas. _ Section 7. Exceptions for Specified Commercial and Industrial Development. Lands Located Within Interim Urban Growth Areas Section 8. Public Services and Facilities Required. Miscellaneous Provisions Section 9. Applicability. Section 10. Conflicts Between Provisions. Section 11. Effective Date. Section 12. Severability. #17 Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106(1), WAC 365-195-620(1), and WAC 365-195-820(3), Spokane County is required to notify the Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED), and other Washington State agencies, of its intent to adopt interim development regulations at least sixty days prior to final adoption. On December 13, 1996, 5 copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Spokane County Interim Urban Growth Areas were sent to CTED for review and comment by CTED and other state agencies. Receipt was acknowledged in a CTED letter of December 18, 1996. A copy of the proposed ordinance, entitled Interim Development Regulations Applying to Lands Designated as Interim Urban Growth Areas (December 10, 1996), along with public hearing notices and other pertinent information, was mailed to CTED by the Spokane County Public Works Department, Division of Long Range Planning as attested to in a Declaration of Mailing executed on January 10, 1997. CTED responded back with no comment in a letter dated February 24, 1997. #18 Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.110(5), the adoption of IUGAs by Spokane County "... may only occur after public notice; public hearing; and compliance with the State Board of County Commissioners page 15 Findings&Decision-IUGAs n n 5 5 9 7877 #21 During the course of the Board's four public hearings, approximately 750 people were in attendance, 300 individuals signed the official roster, and 153 people testified. Over 2,300 packets of information pertaining to the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Steering Committee recommendation, and draft interim development regulations were distributed to the public at the hearings. #22 Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, is demonstrated by the SEPA process leading to adoption of the Spokane County Interim Urban Growth Area Final Environmental Impact Statement (issued December 10, 1996). • The Spokane County Public Works Department, Division of Long Range Planning, serving as lead agency for SEPA compliance, published a determination of significance (DS) and Scoping Notice on August 16, 1996, indicating that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be prepared, and inviting comment on the issues that would be evaluated in the EIS. The DS / Scoping Notice preliminarily identified that the EIS would focus on land use, services and facilities and transportation. • Spokane County has been following a course of phased environmental review and has integrated environmental considerations with its GMA planning process. The county began evaluating potential environmental effects associated with adoption of an IUGA in 1995. Preliminary environmental documents included a series of issue papers discussing approaches to SEPA compliance, GMA criteria for designating IUGAs, impacts associated with different IUGA boundary configurations, and approaches for mitigating development impacts. The August, 1996 DS identified that Spokane County was using phased environmental review. Board of County Commissioners page 17 Findings&Decision-IUGAs 00560 7873 #23 Pursuant to WAC 365-195-825(3)(b), the terminology 'compliance with RCW 36.70A.110' for designating interim urban growth areas is construed to require the same consultation and attempted agreement process between the county and cities / towns as is required for the adoption of final urban growth areas. The interlocal agreement and cooperative Steering Committee IUGA review and recommendation process agreed to by each of the 12 Spokane County jurisdictions demonstrates compliance with the intent of WAC 365-195-825(3)(b). #24 The Steering Committee adopted a Land Quantity Analysis Methodology for' Spokane County on November 3, 1995 as a consistent step-by-step guide for each of the 12 Spokane County jurisdictions to follow as each determined the supply of land considered as available for growth. Adoption of such a methodology was consistent with the CWPPs; particularly Policy Topic #1, Policy #3. The Board recognizes that methodology as the foundation for developing 'best available' land quantity and capacity information. The adopted land quantity methodology attempts to strike the delicate balance between including too much land in an IUGA, which could encourage urban sprawl, and including too little land, which could increase land and housing costs. #25 Each of the 12 Spokane County jurisdictions developed land quantity information relative to their corporate limits and / or existing urbanized areas pursuant to the adopted methodology. The collective information, published as the Regional Land Quantity Report for Spokane County, was accepted by the Steering Committee on June 7, 1996 for their use in formulating an IUGA recommendation. #26 The June 7th Regional Land Quantity Report for Spokane County was subsequently updated with more specific and detailed information, especially by the City of Spokane and Spokane County, relevant to proposed IUGAs and / or joint planning Board of County Commissioners page 19 Findings&Decision-IUGAs An5i61 7880 areas (SPA). That evolved information was included in both the DEIS (issued October 18, 1996) and in the FEIS (issued December 10, 1996). #27 An update of the land quantity information was developed by the Spokane County Public Works Department, Division of Long Range Planning, in regards to the Board's public hearings and decision process on designation of IUGAs. The technical summary of the land quantity information for the IUGAs and JPAs, as designated by the Board in this decision, are reflected in these findings. #28 The land capacity analyses prepared by each of the jurisdictions, along with the subsequent and refined information from the City of Spokane and Spokane County, were used by the Steering Committee to formulate their recommendations, were used in the analysis for both the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements, and were used by the Board presently to designate IUGA boundaries. The land capacity developed by the jurisdictions represents 'best available' information. As has been done in the process at hand, the land quantity information must continue to be refined by each of the jurisdictions to the greatest extent possible so that, during the next and subsequent phases of the growth management planning process, the comprehensive plans and the final UGA boundaries are based upon the most accurate information available at that time. #29 During the course of the public hearings, testimony was presented which challenged the adequacy of the land quantity information compiled by the jurisdictions. The information presented appeared to be developed from a variety of first or second hand sources and it's uncertain whether the information presented was consistent with the adopted methodology. The Board reiterates their findings that the jurisdictions' land quantity information represents 'best available' information and was developed consistent with adopted methodology. Board of County Commissioners page 20 Findings&Decision-MGM • 00562 7882 Impact Statement , the Steering Committee's motion approving their IUGA recommendation, and the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW, WAC 365-195, and the Countywide Planning Policies for Spokane County, the Board finds that the Steering Committee's recommended IUGA boundary requires modification in four general instances. 1. Fine-tuning modifications of the recommended IUGA boundary. 2. The addition of approximately 112 acres of extra-territorial IUGA to the Town of Rockford's JPAs. 3. Minor modifications to the City of Spokane's Alcott and Moran / Glenrose JPAs. 4. The addition of areas to both the unincorporated North Metro IUGA and the unincorporated Spokane Valley JUGA to accommodate the recommended allocation of 20 years population growth. #34 The Steering Committee's recommended IUGAs, especially in the North Metro IUGA, Spokane Valley IUGA, Upriver JPA, Alcott JPA, Moran / Glenrose JPA, and Thorpe Road / West Plains JPA, contained some hard-to-identify boundary lines. The Board found that minor adjustments to the recommended IUGA lines were necessary in order to create boundaries that follow recognizable features or which do not split existing parcels. Adjustments based upon a primary criteria of not splitting existing parcels, readily resulted in a recognizable boundary line following physical features like roads or railroads, natural features such as rivers, and property identifiers like section lines, subdivision boundaries, or sewer basins. The fine-tuning results in a more readily identifiable IUGA and the minor changes are so negligible that there is little or no affect on the overall IUGA. #35 During the course of the Board's January 22nd public hearing, as well as in a January 30, 1997 letter, the Town of Rockford requested that an additional 112 acres of unincorporated land west of the town be included in their extra-territorial IUGA / JPA along with the 213 acres recommended by the Steering Committee. The Board of County Commissioners page 22 Findings&Decision-IUGAs ^ 563 7884 acres of land in the Glenrose Prairie area needs to be eliminated from the Steering Committee's recommendation. #38 The reduction of 202 acres of gross land area from the Alcott and Moran / Glenrose JPAs results in minor modifications to the respective population allocation as recommended by the Steering Committee. Given the adopted land quantity methodology, the reduction results in a net loss of approximately 53 developable acres for residential use (approximately 29 acres in the Alcott JPA and 24 acres in the Moran / Glenrose JPA). At the City of Spokane average projected density of 6 dwelling units per acre for their JPAs and assuming 2.5 persons per dwelling unit, there is a reduction of approximately 800 from the population allocation (approximately a 450 reduction in the Alcott JPA and a 350 reduction in the Moran / Glenrose JPA). #39 The 800 person reduction in the Alcott and Moran / Glenrose JPAs population allocation results in a modest increase in the population allocated to the unincorporated area of Spokane County. Consistent with the proportional distribution of population allocation between the two major unincorporated IUGA designated areas, an additional 100 persons are added to the North Metro RUGA and 700 are added to.the Spokane Valley IUGA. #40 The population allocation pertaining to the unincorporated North Metro IUGA and the Spokane Valley IUGA may need to be adjusted and balanced between the two areas during Spokane County's comprehensive plan process to be consistent with the available amount of developable land, land capacity, and other criteria. Board of County Commissioners page 24 Findings&Decision-IUGAs 00564 %88G scenario area Q as a designated IUGA. Public testimony presented at the Board's public hearings, additional written comments and petitions, and comments directed to the Environmental Impact Statement process indicated significant concern over the water quality impacts to Liberty Lake should scenario area Q be included in the IUGA as available for new or additional growth. The Board concurs with the concern over water quality issues as well as.the Steering Committee's exclusion of the area from IUGA designation. #45 Seventeen whole or modified scenario areas, the identification and technical analysis of which are contained in the records of the Long Range Planning Division of the Spokane County Public Works Department, were identified as meeting the criteria of the CWPPs and both RCW 36.70A.110 and WAC 365-195=335 for designating IUGAs and are consistent with public testimony and staff analysis. Those scenario areas include all or part of: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, R, T, U, and V. #46 An oversight on the maps (entitled Board of County Commissioners Interim Urban Growth Areas (IUGA) Designation Maps #1 & #2 11 February 1997) associated with the Board's February 11, 1997 Motion #97-0134, inadvertently left off a small area of land in the Ridgemont area of the Spokane Valley east of Sullivan Road and south of 16th Avenue. The land is located in scenario area H and includes the preliminary plat Ridgemont Estates 3rd (phase 2 of PE-1437-83) containing approximately 63 additional lots. It was and is the Board's intent to include the area as part of the designated Spokane Valley IUGA. Board of County Commissioners page 26 Findings&Decision-IUGAs nn565 7888 the 20 year sewer plan program or developer funded sewer programs, fire protection districts, and school districts. #52 The 17 added scenario areas and the three modified joint planning area IUGAs (Alcott, Moran / Glenrose, and the Town of Rockford JPAs), coupled with the rest of the Steering Committee's recommended designations, are the most appropriate areas to be designated as IUGAs pursuant to the requirements and criteria of RCW 36.70A.110, WAC 365-195-335, and the CWPPs particularly Policy Topic #1, Policies #1, #2, and #3. #53 With the 17 scenario areas and the area requested by the Town of Rockford added to the Steering Committee's recommendation, the cumulative IUGAs designated for all of Spokane County will include areas and densities sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county for the succeeding 20 year period based upon the OFM growth management population projection. Subsequent comprehensive planning programs by the 12 Spokane County jurisdictions will ensure the opportunity that each final UGA will permit urban densities and will include greenbelt and open space areas. #54 The IUGAs recommended by the Steering Committee, including the City of Spokane / Spokane County Joint Planning Areas (JPAs), along with the 17 added scenario areas include significant commercial and industrial zoned lands which are either currently developed or are vacant / under-utilized. The records of the Spokane County Public Works Department, Division of Long Range Planning, as consolidated in Supporting Documentation for the Interim Urban Growth Area Designation indicate that there are nearly 800 acres of commercially zoned land and approximately 4,000 acres of industrially zoned land available for development within the IUGAs designated for the metropolitan area. Board of County Commissioner; page 29 Findings&Decision-IUGAs C/0566 • .. . 7880 IUGA Component Area Commercial Zoned Industrial Zoned Acres Acres Vacant Under- Vacant Under- utilized utilized Spokane Valley IUGA 236 acres 237 acres 574 acres 236 acres (per Steering Committee ...r. 1 I•f i :: _. e: .R a .`A t&[- sfr. . _ '➢s. �:/r"""v:;wv;� eafreis .az ., a:� c .;ac�i \>_ co' d ,,ys��i'> SA:.°^:8 / -.B:E . 6'1't.: 5 3$= 5 X.,n \ t y� xu'Fi3>w.t3i � �- °E`3 S.'�_ t .> Alcott JPA 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres (as altered by BCC) ' .Tn S' Y . .,.. Fe ral rl ao�✓.st � bat, �..gym raa ' ai:::. * n � ' "� a w ; w »3 > sit Thorpe Road / West Plains JPA 92 acres 39 acres 909 acres 1534 acres (per Steering Committee) - - -r a�iir#*a -i t $CrP.� t y $e $$ ratallialagillanta >ri a. .ex xk ` t k a" terz r� a„c-�r,�. �'tnn.m.rtBn32rit�Cfr'�.ac�:�..7-..�.,.... ..:_._�.,.... :Y..__...._ `za-:�:�3..:.,w'i � � x .,:..-.... -MOW � h.. ^ty. ,< Upriver JPA 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres (per Steering Committee) _tg4 Yr1y Aj ... ....,._. i_a:.. e4tta > S - 49k:x 3 gi r es kdaC kcs i _ ateU $ . . E _ la ks . v> tewita 17 Scenario Areas 38 acres 50 acres 456 acres 123 acres (as added by BCC) TOTALS 397 397 1,988 2;031 acres acres acres acres In addition to the above noted commercial and industrial lands, the Cities of Deer Park, Medical Lake, and Cheney have within their JPAs / IUGAs, by comparison to the metropolitan area, insignificant amounts of lands currently zoned industrial. The City of Deer Park has a minuscule piece of commercial in its JPA. For the most part, all of the commercial or industrial lands adjacent to the three cities are vacant or under-utilized. The comprehensive planning process and the plans themselves for each jurisdiction will address the commercial and industrial land needs for the GMA's 20 year planning horizon. Each jurisdiction must ensure that commercial and industrial land policies are in place prior to designation of final UGAs and those policies must be Board of County Commissioners page 30 Findings&Decision-IUGAs n0567. ., 7892 #59 The Board of County Commissioners desires to adopt regulations that will implement the goals of the Growth Management Act on an interim basis. Required actions include designating interim urban growth areas and ensuring that development within the designated interim urban growth areas are urban in character and development outside the interim urban growth areas are rural in character. #60 The county's growth management planning process will result in the adoption of a long range comprehensive plan, implementing regulations, and designation of final urban growth areas. #61 A process is desirable to continue and enhance coordination among jurisdictions in the region and to facilitate planning in the future. Designation of joint planning areas (JPA), for unincorporated land adjacent to incorporated cities or towns, will provide a framework for ongoing cooperative planning that will address issues related to land use and density, service responsibilities, levels of service, need for and costs of capital facilities, cost sharing arrangements, timing of annexation and joint review of development applications. Interlocal agreements between the county and affected cities or towns, and between these parties and affected special districts, will provide a tool for resolving conflicts and ensuring coordinated planning that serves the region's best interests. #62 The provisions in Section 3, of the ordinance entitled Spokane County Interim Development Regulations Designating Interim Urban Growth Areas (IUGA), in regards to the requirement for interlocal agreements between jurisdictions and service providers for the designated JPAs are consistent with currently adopted CWPPs. Those current policies of particular note which are pertinent to the interlocal agreements include: • Policy Topic # 2, Policies #1 & #2; Board of County Commissioners - page 32 Findings&Decision-IUGAs 00568 7894 Area (UTA) as currently designated in the Spokane County Generalized Comprehensive Plan. Some of those areas are currently zoned for densities up to 3.5 dwelling units per acre or greater. The 5 acre density, while in many cases not nearly what the current zoning allows, does allow increased development potential over the originally proposed 10 acre lot sizes. The clustering concept could allow some economies while leaving planning and re-development options open for areas eventually needed for urban growth beyond the GMA 20 year planning horizon. #64 In the ordinance entitled Spokane County Interim Development Regulations Designating Interim Urban Growth Areas (IUGA), the originally proposed prohibition in Section 6 on the filing of conditional use permits was deleted because it would have precluded the filing of residentially related conditional use permits, provided for in residential zones, which could be deemed commercial or industrial development. Allowing the filing of those conditional use permits would not be inconsistent with GMA. #65 The ordinance entitled Spokane County Interim Development Regulations Designating Interim Urban Growth Areas (IUGA) will not prohibit the extension of public water outside the designated IUGAs. This is consistent with testimony provided at the Board's public hearings, especially from water purveyors and experts, and it can be consistent with the CWPPs; particularly Policy Topic #1, Policy #18. Testimony indicated that emerging changes in federal and state legislation view the provision of public water as a public health and environmental protection issue. In the past, extension of public water has been used as a growth control. The provision of public water to rural developments can serve to protect local water sources from the contamination potential of numerous private wells. In addition, it ensures adequate water supplies to the rural developments which are allowed by comprehensive plans and development regulations. Board of County Commissioners page 34 Findings&Decision-IDGAs - . x ''569 7896 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that based upon the findings set forth herein and the files and testimony in this matter, the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County does hereby allocate the 20 year growth management population projection as follows: The 20 year growth management population projection (for the year 2015) made for Spokane County by the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) is adjusted and allocated as follows. Small Towns 12,000 Waverly 49 Latah 95 Spangle 350 Rockford 273 Fairfield 230 Millwood 172 Airway Heights 3500 Deer Park 2750 Medical Lake 1630 Cheney 2951 City of Spokane 54,000 Joint Planning Areas (Spokane County / City of Spokane) 17,200 Moran/Glenrose 4950 Alcott 3050 Upriver 2270 Indian Canyon 130 Thorpe Road/ West Plains 6800 Yardley 0 Spokane County Unincorporated - Urban Areas 33,300 North Metro 5600 Spokane Valley 27700 Spokane County Unincorporated - Rural Areas 10,000 TOTAL 126,500 Board of County Commissioners pagc 36 Findings&Decision-MBAs 00570 7898 APPROVED BY THE BOARD this J day of APRIL, 1997. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON •i•, ' P / it, Y.�J •. JO 'ROSKELLEY COM ;n�,1 F*HE doe;'lam ;1,, • M. KATE McCASLIN coc '- PI-IILLIP D. HARRIS ATTEST: WILLIAM E. DONAHUE CLERK OF THE BOARD ,I / Re :ANNE MONTAGUE, DE'a 97 0321 • Board of County Commissioners page 38 Findings&Decision-IUGAs EXHIBIT 00571 1 1059 BRB CSS'cl BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RECEIVED NOV 0 5 2001 IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ) BDUNDARYgEytpyygpqRD CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED ) AREAS OF SPOKANE COUNTY; URBAN GROWTH AREAS,AND ) FINDINGS POPULATION ALLOCATIONS FOR SPOKANE COUNTY,THE ) AND CITIES OF AIRWAY HEIGHTS,CHENEY, DEER PARK AND ) DECISION MEDICAL LAKE, AND TFIE TOWNS OF FAIRFIELD, SPANGLE, ) LATAH, ROCKFORD AND WAVERLY, AND IDENTIFYING JOINT ) PLANNING AREAS WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 36.32.120(6) RCW, the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the`Board", has the care of County property and management of County funds and business; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW Chapter 36.70, the Board adopted a Comprehensive Plan for Spokane County on December 22, 1980 and has subsequently amended said Plan; and WHEREAS, on July I, 1993 Spokane County was mandated to update its Comprehensive Plan to conform with the requirements of the Growth Management Act and RCW Chapter 36.70A; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.020, goals are set forth to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.370, local governments must utilize the process established by RCW 36.70A.370(1) to assure that proposed regulatory or administrative actions do not result in an unconstitutional taking of private property; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A, the Board adopted Coital ylc de Planning Policies for Spokane County(CWVPPs) on December 22, 1994 and subsequently arrcnded said policies (BCC Resolutions 94-1719, 96-1205, 97-0297 and 97-0937); and 00572 1 1059 WHEREAS,pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.70A,the Board adopted an allocation of the 20-year growth management population projection on April 8, 1997,and the Spokane County Interim Development Regulations Designating Interim Urban Growth Areas (IUGA), as contained in Board Resolution 97-0321, and as amended by Board Resolutions 97-0874 and 99-0498; and WHEREAS,pursuant to RCW 36.70A.140 and WAC 365-195-600,the Board adopted Public Participation Program Guidelines on February 24, 1998 and subsequently amended said policies (BCC Resolutions 98-0144 and 98-0788, respectively); and WHEREAS,pursuant to WAC 197-11-060, Spokane County followed a process of phased environmental review to meet its planning responsibilities under the Growth Management Act (GMA) and the environmental review process per the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA); and WHEREAS, environmental review for the Comprehensive Plan update integrates the environmental analysis required by SEPA (RCW 43.21C) with the draft Comprehensive Plan titled Draft Plan 2000, pursuant to authorization in the SEPA rules (WAC 197-11-210, -220, - 228, -230, -232 and -235); and WHEREAS, environmental review for the Comprehensive Plan update supplements the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) prepared for the Interim Urban Growth Area (published by Spokane County, in October 1996 and December 1996, respectively); and WHEREAS, the Spokane County Planning Commission, herein referred to as the "Commission" is authorized by RCW Chapter 36.70 to recommend a Comprehensive Plan to Board for their review and consideration for adoption; and WHEREAS, on March 29, 1994, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.172, Spokane County, designated certain critical areas and identified existing regulations to protect frequently flooded areas and areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water by Resolution No. 94-0441; and WHEREAS, on July 9, 1996, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.172, Spokane County adopted by Resolution No. 96-0302 a Critical Areas Ordinance for the Protection of Fish and Wildlife Habitats and Geo-Hazard Areas (including wetlands); and Page 2 of 28 00573 • 1 1059 WHEREAS, a Draft Comprehensive Plan (Draft Plan 2000) and a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) were issued for the Comprehensive Plan update on March 2,2000, with written comments on the DSEIS being accepted until June 1, 2000 for inclusion in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS); and WHEREAS, the Commission held public hearings concerning Draft Plan 2000, including the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement,on April 27, 2000; May 4, 2000; May 11, 2000; and May 18, 2000; and October 5, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Commission, at its October 12, 2000 meeting, recommended an update to the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan referred to as the Planning Commission Recommended Comprehensive Plan, and directed staff to prepare findings and conclusions consistent with their motion; and WHEREAS, the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) on the Planning Commission Recommended Comprehensive Plan was issued for the Comprehensive Plan update on November 2, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) was organized in two volumes: Volume I contains an environmental summary, supplemental environmental information and a description of the proposal and alternatives. Volume II contains comments received on Draft Plan 2000 and responses to the comments; and WHEREAS, a Draft Capital Facilties Plan was issued for the Comprehensive Plan update on November 6, 2000; and WHEREAS, an evaluation of the environmental impacts of the Draft Capital Facilities Plan was included in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement; and WHEREAS, a Revised Draft Capital Facilities Plan was issued for the Comprehensive Plan update on February 22, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 5. 2001, concerning the Revised Draft Capital Facilities Plan, the Final Supplemental Environmental Page 3 of 28 00574 1 1059 Impact Statement and the Planning Commission's Recommended Comprehensive Plan, including Urban Growth Areas and population allocations for all jurisdictions except the City of Spokane • and Millwood;and WHEREAS, at its March 8, 2001 meeting, the Commission recommended adoption of the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan,referred to as the Planning Commission Recommended Comprehensive Plan,and the Spokane County Capital Facilities Plan and directed staff to prepare findings and conclusions consistent with the motion; and WHEREAS, on March 8, 2001, the Commission forwarded the Planning Commission Recommended Comprehensive Plan and the Spokane County Capital Facilities Plan to the Board for their review and action; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, Spokane County notified the Washington State Office of Community Development of the intent to adopt the Comprehensive Plan and Capital Facilities Plan within the required 60 days. Copies of the Comprehensive Plan and the Capital Facilties Plan were transmitted to the Office of Community Development within 60 days of final adoption; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), an interlocal agreement (BoCC Resolution 94-1686, as amended) was executed establishing the Steering Committee of Elected Officials, hereinafter referred to as the "Steering Committee,"to perform certain duties and provide recommendations in conjunction with their obligations under the Growth Management Act; and WHEREAS,pursuant to the Countywide Planning Policies for Spokane County (CWPPs), the Committee is required to analyze each jurisdiction's proposed Urban Growth Area (UGA)and make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners for Urban Growth Area adoption; and WHEREAS, the Steering Committee reviewed the proposed UGAs for the cities and towns of Airway Heights, Cheney, Deer Park, Medical Lake, Spangle, Rockford, Waverly, Latah, Fairfield at a public meeting on November 11, 2000, and Page 4 of 28 • 00575 1 1059 WHEREAS, the Steering Committee conducted a public hearing on January 11,2001,to consider the UGA proposals of the cities and towns of Airway Heights, Cheney, Deer Park, Medical Lake, Spangle, Rockford, Waverly, Latah and Fairfield; and WHEREAS, after considering public testimony and presentations from representatives of Airway Heights, Cheney, Deer Park, Medical Lake, Spangle, Rockford, Waverly, Latah and Fairfield, the Steering Committee voted to accept the UGA boundaries as presented and forwarded a recommendation to the Board; and WHEREAS, the Steering Committee reviewed Spokane County's proposed UGA, as recommended by the Spokane County Planning Commission, on March 23, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Steering Committee held a public hearing on April 11, 2001, and considered public testimony concerning Spokane County's UGA proposal; and WHEREAS, after considering public testimony, the Steering Committee voted to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners the UGA for Spokane County be approved as proposed; and WHEREAS, on April 17, 2001, the Board signed Notice of Public Hearings No. 1-0329, announcing the Board's public hearings concerning the Planning Commission Recommended Comprehensive Plan , the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, the Capital Facilities Plan and Steering Committee recommendations on May 2, 2001; May 3, 2001; and May 8, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Board did conduct public hearings on the aforementioned dates and received written comment on the Planning Commission Recommended Comprehensive Plan, the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Steering Committee recommendations, through May 31, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Board conducted public meetings on July 11, 18, 23, 24. 25, 26; 30, and 31, 2001; and August 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20; 21, 23 and 24, 2001, to review all oral and written testimony of record; and Paee 5 of 28 00576 1 1059 WHEREAS, during deliberations the Board made minor modifications to goals,policies, land use designations as well as minor Urban Growth Area/Joint Planning Area boundary adjustments; and WHEREAS, at the August 24,2001, public meeting,the Board executed an Oral Decision No. 1-0799, wherein the Board approved the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan,the Capital Facilities Plan, population allocations, Urban Growth Areas and Joint Planning Areas for unincorporated Spokane County as well as all cities and towns within Spokane County (except the City of Spokane), and directed County Staff to prepare findings of fact, conclusions of law and decision supporting the oral decision; and WHEREAS, after considering the Commission's recommendation and all public testimony of record, as well as recognizing compliance with the Growth Management Act and the State Environmental Policy Act, the Board finds that the best interest of the general public, as well as their health, safety and welfare, will be met by adopting the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan as set forth within Attachment 'A', the Spokane County Capital Facilities Plan as set forth in Attachment `B' and Urban Growth Areas/Joint Planning Areas as depicted on Attachment 'C'; and Page 6 of 28 00577 1 1059 NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Board that, in adopting the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan,Capital Facilities Plan, Urban Growth Areas and Joint Planning Areas,the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT #1 Spokane County is required to adopt a Comprehensive Plan to meet the requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A. #2 The Board received a recommendation from the Planning Commission, dated March 8, 2001, to adopt their Recommended Comprehensive Plan and Capital Faci!ties Plan. #3 The Board considered the planning goals of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.020) in making this decision, and the decision supports the goals of the Growth Management Act. #4 The Board considered the Countywide Planning Policies for Spokane County(CWPPs) in making this decision, and the decision is consistent with the CWPPs (BCC Resolutions 94-1719, 96-1205, 97-0297, and 97-0937). #5 The Board's decision is consistent with WAC 365-195-725, RCW 36.70A.370 and the Washington State Attorney General's memorandum, State of Washington Attorney General's Recommended Process and Advisory Memorandum for Evaluation of Proposed Regulatory or Administrative Actions to Avoid Unconstitutional Taking of Private Property, March 1995: and does not unconstitutionally infringe upon private property rights. #6 The Board finds that the Comprehensive Planning process integrated and meets the requirements of the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The Board recognizes that Spokane County has followed a phased environmental review (per WAC • Page 7 of 28 1 1059 00578 197-11-060)that integrates the environmental analysis required by SEPA(RCW 43.21C) with the draft Comprehensive Plan, pursuant to authorization in the SEPA rules(WAC 197-11-210, -220, -228, -230, -232 and -235). The phased and integrated review is desirable because it allows consideration of potential impacts throughout the process of developing the Comprehensive Plan and Capital Facilities Plan. #7 Spokane County has provided for early and continuous public participation in the update of the Comprehensive Plan, consistent with RCW 36.70A.140, WAC 365-195-600 and the adopted Public Participation Program Guidelines (BCC resolutions 98-0144 and 98-0788). Some of the major components of the Public Participation Program for the Comprehensive Plan update included: a. Citizen Workgroup Meetings, which were held throughout the summer and fall of 1997; b. Use of a Vision Wall on which residents could write personal vision statements for the future of Spokane County; c. Environmental Scoping Workshops, which were held in April and May of 1998; d. Development of an Options Draft Plan, which was essentially a preliminary draft of the Comprehensive Plan containing a broad range of policy alternatives; e. Publication of a monthly newsletter titled Blueprints 2000 and Planning Ahead that discussed planning issues, the planning process, announced public meetings and hearings, and invited public participation and comments; f Public notice of hearings and meetings as required by Washington State law; g. Development of an interactive website dedicated to the Comprehensive Plan update, including information and direction on how to provide public comment; h. Planner presentations at the request of interested groups; i. Open house discussions throughout the community; and j. Public hearings concerning the Comprehensive Plan update. #8 The Division of Planning provided issue papers, written recommendations for the Plan elements and map revision recommendations to the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. #9 Consistent with the Growth Management Act and considering public input and environmental information, the Commission published Draft Plan 2000 on March 2, Page 8 of 28 00579 1 1059 2000. Draft Plan 2000 is the Draft Spokane County Comprehensive Plan and Integrated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. #10 The Commission held public hearings concerning Draft Plan 2000 on April 27, 2000; May 4, 2000; May 11, 2000 and May 18,2000. Subsequently,the Commission deliberated on the public hearing comments and made revisions to Draft Plan 2000. #11 The Commission held a public hearing on October 5, 2000 to consider comments on the revisions to Draft Plan 2000. Based on those comments, further revisions were made by the Commission. The modifications to Draft Plan 2000 were then incorporated into the Commission's recommended plan, titled Recommended Spokane County Comprehensive Plan. #12 On November 6, 2000, the Draft Capital Facilities Plan was issued for public review and comment. The Commission held a public hearing concerning the Draft Capital Facilties Plan on November 16, 2000. Subsequently, the Commission deliberated on the public hearing comments and declined to forward a recommendation on the document to the Board of County Commissioners. The Commission requested specific information and data to be included in the Revised Draft Capital Facilities Plan, which was issued for public review and comment on February 22, 2001. #13 The Planning Commission held a public hearing concerning the Revised Draft Capital Facilities Plan, the Recommended Spokane County Comprehensive Plan and the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSIES) on March 5,2001. At the end of the hearing, the Planning Commission closed oral and written testimony. #14 • On March 8,2001, the Commission conducted a meeting to deliberate on the Recommended Spokane County Comprehensive Plan and the Revised Draft Spokane County Capital Facilities Plan. The Planning Commission directed staff to make revisions to the Recommended Spokane County Comprehensive Plan and Revised Draft Spokane County Capital Facilities Plan. On March 8. 2001. the Commission forwarded Page 9 of 28 00580 1 1059 the revised Recommended Spokane County Comprehensive Plan and the Recommended Capital Facilities Plan, with their written findings and recommendation,to the Board for their review and action. #15 After providing public notice consistent with the Public Participation Program Guidelines adopted by the Board of County Commissioners by Resolution No. 98-0144 and 98-0788, and providing public notice as required by Washington State Law, and, in addition, after sending individual notice to approximately 64,000 property owners in Spokane County, the Board held three public hearings concerning the Planning Commission Recommended Comprehensive Plan, the Spokane County Capital Facilities Plan and the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSIES). lie hearings where held on May 2, 2001, at East Valley High School; May 3, 2001, at Northwood Middle School; and May 8, 2001, at the Airway Heights City Hall. Two hundred and fifteen (215) people testified before the Board at the public hearings, with approximately 1000 people total in attendance. At the conclusion of the public hearings, the Board established a schedule for Comprehensive Plan deliberations. The Board provided for additional written testimony to be submitted for their consideration and deliberation until May 31, 2001. #16 The Board conducted Comprehensive Plan deliberations on the following dates: July 11, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, and 31, 2001; and August 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17,20, 21, 23 and 24 2001. At the deliberations,the Board reviewed all testimony and files of record, including 273 comment letters received from March 5 to May 31, 2001 and summaries of the 215 oral comments from the public hearings. Land Use Map Changes #17 Upon review of all testimony of record.. and considering the Planning Commission's recommendation and the Steering Committee's recommendation, the Board made minor modifications to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, including Urban Growth Area adjustments and land use category changes. The Land Use Map changes, included on the Comprehensive Plan Map in Attachment 'A', are as follows: Page 10 of 28 00581 1 1059 I. Change the designation at North Hatch Road/Highway 395 Interchange from Community Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial. The Board finds that future growth in the north County UGA will require commercial services in this area. To lessen the potential impacts on the surrounding residential development, the Board finds that Neighborhood Commercial is the appropriate designation for this area. The existing land uses are suburban in character and would be preserved with Neighborhood Commercial Designation. 2. Change Parcel No.'s 35234.9080,9139 and 9170, located east of Carnahan Road, from Low Density to Medium Density Residential. The request is consistent with surrounding uses with High & Medium density to east and west and will allow for increased density in an area with existing services. 3. Change Parcel No. 56363.0125, located at the southwest corner of Rowan and Canal, from Rural-5 to Commercial/Industrial Limited Development Area (LDA). The property has been zoned for Industrial uses for decades and the Commercial/Industrial LDA designation will allow continued industrial use of the property. 4. Change Parcel No.'s 46323.9052 and 44322.9050 from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential. The parcels are located at the southwest corner of Columbia Street and Argonne Road. The current zoning is B-1 and the High Density Residential category will allow a mix of office and residential where services are currently available. 5. Change Parcel No. 34031.0460, located at the Palouse Highway and Freya Street intersection in the Moran/Glenrose Joint Planning Area, from Low Density to High Density Residential. Existing zoning is UR-22 and is compatible-with adjacent uses. Provides a mix of higher density residential development in an area with existing urban services. 6. Change Parcel No.'s 45074.0901, 0902, 0909, 0912 and 0913 from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use. A large Mixed Use area borders property to the east. Current zoning on property is UR-12. The parcels are located on the north side of Mission Avenue, between Marguerite and Sergeant Roads. 7. Add Parcel No. 24081.9071 to the West Plains Joint Planning Area and change designation from Rural Traditional to Light Industrial. Light Industrial land is designated to the north, across Hallett Road. 8. Change designation on parcels fronting the west side of Market Street, from Chatham to Grace Road, from Low Density.Residential to Community Commercial. This land use designation is consistent with commercial Page I I of28 O '582 1 1059 designations along the west side of Market and recognizes some existing business uses. 9. Change Parcel No.'s 14215.0118 and 14225.9041 from Large Tract Agriculture and Rural Conservation to Rural Traditional. The land is marginal for farming and borders Rural Traditional to the north. 10.Change Parcel No.'s 44212.9008,44211.9002 and 44211.9003,located southeast of the intersection of Bnma and Sands Roads, from Rural Conservation to Rural Traditional. The property is adjacent to Rural Traditional land to the west and east and would not provide significant wildlife habitat if surrounding property is developed into 10 acre lots. 11.Change Parcel No. 45163.0193, located at the southwest corner of Bowdish and Broadway, from Low Density to High Density Residential. Change Parcel No.'s 45133.0210, 0211, 0212, located at East 16100 Broadway, from Low Density to High Density Residential. Change Parcel No.'s 45133.0901, 0902, and 1011, located at East 16100 Valleyway, from Low Density to Medium Density Residential. All parcels are currently zoned UR-22. The High Density Residential category allows for higher densities throughout the urban area where services already exist. 12. Change Parcel No.'s 36194.9095 (North Park Racquet Club) and 36194.9065 (First Church Open Bible) from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial. This provides a transition between Regional Commercial and Residential and allows the existing business to operate as a conforming use. 13.The triangle of land formed by Highway 2, Shady Slope Road and Fanvell Road shall be included in the Urban Growth Area. The land is urban in character and has existing urban zoning, including UR 3.5,UR-22, B-2 and 1-3. Land directly south, across Farwell Road, is designated Heavy Industrial. The triangle of land will be designated High Density Residential. 14.Include Parcel No.'s 35354.9050, 35354.9051 and 34021.9003 inside the Moran/Glenrose Joint Planning Area, and designate the land Low Density Residential. The properties are located west of Glenrose Road and are currently served with public water. Sewer will be available soon. The land is directly adjacent to existing urban development. 15. Include Parcel No.'s 46364.9041 and 9042 in the UGA and designate properties Low Density Residential. Properties have full urban services available and are directly across the street from Skyview Elementary School. Page 12 of 28 0e583 1 1059 16.Designate Parcel No.'s 33144.9010 and 33135.9017 entirely Rural Conservation. Portions of each parcel were designated Large Tract Agriculture and should not have a split designation. The Rural Conservation category is most appropriate given the location of the parcels within the Latah Creek riparian area. 17.Parcel No.'s 34031.4001 and 4901, located at 51st and Rebecca in the Moran Glenrose Joint Planning Area, are changed from Low Density to High Density Residential. This is consistent with the current zoning will allow higher densities in an existing urban area with full services. 18.Property at southeast corner of Havana and Bigelow Gulch, parcel No. 36325.9004,has water and sewer available and shall be located inside the UGA. The designation for the property shall be designated Medium Density Residential. 19.Parcel No. 39113.9025 shall be included in the Elk Rural Activity Center(RAC) designation. The parcel is at the crossroads of two major roads and meets the criteria set forth for inclusion in the RAC. 20. Change Parcel No.'s 241519008 and 9009, located on the north side of Cheney/Spokane Road at Marshall, from Rural Conservation to Mining. Land separating these parcels is designated Mining and owned by same company. All three parcels have been used for mining operations in the past. 21. Add Parcel No.'s 35352.0305, 9111 and 9061 to the Moran/Glenrose Joint Planning Area and designate Low Density Residential. The property is adjacent to the City of Spokane, located north of 37th Ave. and east of Morrill, and can be provided with full urban services. 22. Parcel No.'s 24063.9040, 9032 and 9033, located near the intersection of Hayford Road and Geiger Boulevard, are changed from Light Industrial to Regional Commercial. The property was recently changed to the B-3 zone and is adjacent to Regional Commercial property. • 23.Parcel No. 55172.0204, located at the I-90/Barker Road interchange, shall be changed from Light Industrial to Regional Commercial. This designation is consistent with the surrounding uses. 24.Parcel No. 37204 .9047, located in the North Metro Urban Growth Area, shall be excluded from the Urban Growth Area and designated Rural Conservation. The land is adjacent to Rural Conservation land and is still viable land for wildlife habitat. 25. Add Parcel No. 563349170 to the Limited Development Area to the east. The Page 13 of 28 00584 1 1059 property is currently zoned I-2 and meets the criteria for inclusion in an LDA. 26.Parcel No. 45144.2239, located at the northeast corner of Progress and Sprague, is designated entirely Community Commercial. Previous designation split the parcel. 27.Commissioners approved changes to allow new Comprehensive Plan land use designations to align with parcel lines for property in the West Terrace area. Previous designations split existing parcels. 28.Parcel No.'s 24164.9038, 24614.9037 and 24161.9022, located east of Grove and north of Andrus, shall be designated Mining, which is consistent with surrounding land uses. 29. Parcel No. 17195.9001, 17202.9033 and 17202.9032, located at Bernhill and Valley Roads, are changed from Rural Conservation to Rural Traditional to allow the land to divided into 10 acre lots. Clustering is not viable on these parcels. 30. Parcel No.'s 15173.9004, 9008 and 9009, located on the south side of Buckboard Road, are changed from Rural Traditional to Mining. The area has been used for mining since 1951 and the Mining designation is appropriate for this area. 31. Change Parcel No.'s 05262.9006, 9007, 05261.9029, 9004 and 9046, located south of Highway 2 at Deep Creek, from Large Tract Agriculture to Rural Traditional. This designation provides for a golf course. Land is not viable for farming due to topography and soil type. 32.Add Parcel No.'s 26071.9058, 0120 and 0117 to the adjacent Rural Activity Center at 9 Mile Falls. The parcels meet the criteria to be included in the RAC designation. 33. Change Parcel No.'s 36363.0124 and 36353.0126, located east of Havana and north of Valley Springs Road, from Light Industrial to Low Density Residential to allow residential development within close proximity to employment center. 34. Change Parcel No.'s 36063.1101, 1205, 1601, 1602 and 0807, located on Mayfair Road and south of Falcon, from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use to allow existing business to exist as a conforming use. Mixed Use is appropriate in this area because of its proximity to residential neighborhoods. 35. Change Parcel No. 56335.9194 from Rural-5 to Commercial/Industrial Limited Development Area. Property has an established trucking business and meets the criteria for designation as a Limited Development Area. The property is located at Page 14 of 28 00585 1 1059 the southwest intersection of Gilbert and Harvard Road. 36. Change Parcel No.'s 45133.1218 and 1223 from Low Density to Medium Density Residential to allow for increased residential density within close proximity to mixed use development. The property is located on the south side of Valleyway Road east of Sullivan. 37.Add Parcel No.'s 26064.9014, 9021, 9026, 9030 and 9031 to the Rural Activity Center at 9-Mile. The parcels are located along Charles Road and meet the criteria to be located within a RAC. 38. Change Parcel No. 25302.0118 from Light Industrial to Neighborhood Commercial. This will allow limited commercial service to support surrounding Light Industrial development. The property is currently zoned B-1 and is located on the south side of Highway 2 between Hayford Road and Hazelwood Road in the West Plains Joint Planning Area. 39. Change Parcel No.'s 44123.9043,44123.9033, 44122.9057, 44122.9056, 44122.9019, 44122.9020, 44122.9013, 44122.9010, 44122.9011, 44013.9010, 44012.9099 from Rural Conservation to Rural Traditional to allow property to be divided into 10 acre parcels without clustering. The property is located southeast of Bella Vista on the west side of Conklin Road. 40. Change Parcel No. 56334.9054, located southeast of the intersection of Gilbert Road and Corrigan Road, from Rural-5 to Commercial/Industrial Limited Development Area to allow existing use. 41. Change Parcel No. 35234.9099 at 8th and Carnahan from Mining to Medium Density Residential to preserve the residential character of the surrounding area. 42. Change the designation of the parcels fronting Nora Avenue between McDonald and Evergreen from High Density Residential to Mixed Use. This will allow greater land use flexibility for commercial and residential development along the I-90 corridor. 43.Change the Urban Reserve boundary line to follow the Saltese Drainage Ditch. This is a landmark that can be seen on the ground and it makes a better boundary for the division of land use categories. 44. Change Parcel No. 45183.9058, located on the east side of Park Road south of Broadway, from Low Density Residential to Heavy Industrial. The property is surrounded by Heavy Industrial land on three sides. Page 15 of 28 00586 1 1059 45.Designate Parcel No. 03180.9007, south of Drumheller and north of Harrison, as Rural Traditional to correct split designation. 46.Change Parcels No.'s 25193.9005, 9006 and 9027 from Light Industrial to Mixed Use to allow residential opportunities within close proximity to employment center. The properties are located east of Hayford Rd. and north of Highway 2. 47.Change Parcel No. 32255.9006, located on Spangle-Waverly Road, from Large Tract Agriculture to Rural Traditional. Property is not viable farm land. 48.The following land in the Four Mound area is changed from Rural Conservation and Large Tract Agriculture to Rural Traditional: SW 1/4 of Section 4,Township 26 North, Range 41 West; all land north of Four Mound Road, starting at Pinebluff Road traveling west along Four Mound Road to the center of Section 36, Township 27 North, Range 40 West; the SE 1/4 of Section 23,Township 27 North, Range 40 West; the SW 1/4 of Section 19,Township 27 North, Range 41 East, and all of Section 32,Township 27 North, Range 41 West. The changes are due to existing small parcel sizes,unsuitable land to maintain viable farms and to maintain consistency with surrounding land uses. 49. Change Parcel No.'s 34051.0711 and 1001, located in the Moran Glenrose Joint Planning Area at the intersection of 57th and Perry, from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial. Considering existing uses and zoning in this area, this slight expansion will not significantly impact the surrounding neighborhood and will allow moderate expansion of the existing commercial businesses in the area. 50.The land currently zoned UR-7, located north of Mission Avenue and slightly east of University, shall be designated Medium Density Residential. In the same vicinity, change Parcel No.'s 45084.0401, 1102, 1101, and 45093.1519 from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. The Medium Density designation is appropriate because the area has full urban services available and is within close proximity to the freeway. 51. Designate Parcel No.'s 45094.0500, 0538, 0598, 0541, 1003, 1002, 1001, 1103, 1102. 1101, 0646, 0647, 0648 and 0649, located in the vicinity of August and Wither Roads, Medium Density residential. The Medium Density designation is appropriate because the area has full urban services available and is within close proximity to the freeway. Page 16 of 28 00587 1 1059 Policy Changes #18 Upon review of all public testimony and files of record, and considering the Planning Commission's recommendation, the Board made minor modifications to the Comprehensive Plan goals and polices. The changes do not alter the intent or substance of the policies. The changes clarify the intent of certain policies, provide consistency • between similar policies in other sections of the Comprehensive Plan and reflect the public testimony and files of record. Attachment 'A' includes all policy modifications directed by the Board. Sewer Concurrency #19 The Board finds that new development must be served with public sewer service consistent with the definitions of concurrency included in Countywide Planning Polices and Section WAC 365-195-210. By definition,"Concurrency means that adequate public facilities are available when the impacts of development occur. This definition includes the two concepts of `adequate public facilities' and `available public facilities'. Adequate public facilities are facilities which have the capacity to serve development without decreasing levels of service below locally established minimums. Available public facilities means that facilities or services are in place or that a financial commitment is in place to provide the facilities or services within a specified time." #20 The Board finds that the Spokane County 6-year Sewer Construction Program, updated and adopted annually by the Board, establishes a financial commitment to extend sewer service to specific areas, or basins, within the unincorporated County. Therefore, new development may be approved within the adopted Spokane County 6-year Sewer Construction Program areas prior to the extension of public sewer service. Land Divisions #21 Exemptions for dividing land are regulated by Washington State Law and the County's • Subdivision Ordinance. Both the Subdivision Ordinance and the County Road Standards provide specific existing regulations to ensure that exempt divisions of land do not impair or adversely affect the health and safety of the citizens of Spokane County. Page 17 of 28 • 00588 1 1059 Capital Facilities Plan #22 RCW 36-70A-070 requires jurisdictions to adopt a Capital Facilities Plan element as a part of the Comprehensive Plan. The Board finds that Attachment `B',the Spokane County Capital Facilties Plan, includes all requirements as specified in the GMA, including an inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities,a forecast of future needs for capital facilities, a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities, and locations of proposed new or expanded capital facilities. The Board finds that the 6- year Financing Plan is a balanced plan in that all projects listed are within the funding capacity of the County and all changes made by the Board are accommodated within the Capital Facilities Plan. Population Allocations #23 On December 11, 1996, the Steering Committee of Elected Official recommended population allocations for Spokane County including the towns and cities of Airway Heights, Cheney, Deer Park, Fairfield, Latah, Medical Lake, Rockford, Spangle, Spokane, And Waverly Spokane County/City of Spokane Joint Planning Areas, Spokane County Unincorporated Urban areas and Spokane County Rural Areas. The Board of County Commissioners considered the recommendation and adopted adjusted population allocations as a part of the Interim Urban Growth Area and Interim Development Regulations decision (BoCC Resolution 97-0321) on April 8, 1997. #24 • Jurisdictions within Spokane County used the adopted population allocations to develop comprehensive plans and Urban Growth Area proposals. Each jurisdiction utilized the allocation to determine their ability to provide urban services, consistent with Regional Minimum Levels of Servcie adopted by the Steering Committee of Elected Officials, over the 20-year time frame of the comprehensive plans. #25 The Board of County Commissioners' is the final decision making authority responsible for adopting population allocations for all jurisdictions within Spokane County and has the discretion to utilize new data in determining appropriate population allocations. Since the Interim Development Regulations were adopted on April 8, 1997, new data has been collected that must be considered when adopting final population allocations, Page 18 of 28 00589 1 1059 including population figures from the 2000 Census and new building permits for unincorporated Spokane County. The Census data, shown in the table below,provides historic growth trends that must be considered when allocating the projected populations 1 to jurisdictions within the County. The Board analyzed three decades of population trends for each jurisdiction to determine if their respective population allocations were within a low to high range of Census growth rates. The Board finds that the adopted population allocations are consistent with Office of Financial Management projections and historic growth trends. i Low Med I High 1 1999 Diff of Alloc•Final Allocation Jurisdiction 2000 Pop. 70 to 80 80 to 90 190 to 00 Growth E Growth ;Growth I Alloc I to High August 24,2001 Spokane County 417,939 18.9% 5.7% , 15.7% 47,645 131 233 ! 157 981; 126,500 (31,481) 155,597 195 551'....__.. Unincorporated • 20.4% 34,649 81 247 60,500 (135,051) 89,597 199,135 49.1% Incorporated 218,804 2.3% 3.3% 1 11.7% 10,065. 14,441 51,200 Airway Heights 4,500 132.5% 13.9% 1 128 3% 1,2511 11,547 1 11,925 3,500. (8,425) 3,500 Cheney 8,832 12%20.0% 14.4/0 212 2,544 ' 3,533;_. 2,9511 (582) 2,951 0 0 Deer Park 3,017 65.3% 6.4% 32.4% 386 1 955 1 3,940 2,756 (1,190) 2750 Fairfield 494 24.1% -11.3% -4.3% (112) (42) 238 230 (8) 230 Latah 151 -83% 31.0% 25.6% (77) (25) 94 95 I ' 95 Medical Lake 3,758 2.0% 1.8% ' 2.6% 135 150 195 1,630 I435 : 1,630 Millwood 1,649 -3.0% -9.2% 5.8% (303) (99) 1911 172 (19) . 172 8.8% 14.1 /0 (116) 73 2911 , Rockford 413 352% ° - � 2911 273 273 (18) 273 Spangle 240 54.2% -17.0% 1 4.8% (82) 23 I 260; 350 90 1 350 City of Spokane 195,629 0.5% 3.4% i 10.4% 1 956 13,303 40,6911 54,000 13,309 - 54,000 Waverly 121 1063°% 2.0% 1 9.8% 5 24 257; 49. (208) 49 Urban Growth Areas/Joint Planning Areas #26 On May 5, 2000, pursuant to the Countywide Planning Policies for Spokane County, Policy Topic 1, Urban Growth Areas, and upon request of the cities of Airway Heights, Deer Park, Cheney and Millwood, the Steering Committee conducted a public meeting to consider each of the aforementioned jurisdictions Urban Growth Area proposal. At the meeting; the Steering Committee voted unanimously to recommend to the Spokane County Planning Commission that the Interim Urban Growth Areas (IUGAs) of each Page 19 of 28 00590 1 1059 jurisdiction be amended and designated as presented and considered in the County's comprehensive planning process. #27 The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 25, 2000, to consider the respective proposals to amend the IUGAs of the cities of Airway Heights, Deer Park, Cheney and Millwood. After hearing public testimony, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the IUGAs of the aforementioned jurisdictions be amended and designated as presented. #28 On November 1 I, 2000, the Steering Committee of Elected Officials were presented Urban Growth Area proposals for the cities and towns of Airway Heights, Medical Lake, Deer Park, Cheney, Spangle, Fairfield, Waverly, Latah and Rockford. After providing sufficient public notice, the Steering Committee conducted a public hearing on January 11, 2001,to consider the UGA proposals. After considering public testimony, the Steering Committee voted to accept the UGA boundaries as presented and forwarded their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. #29 At a public meeting on March 23, 2001, the Steering Committee was presented the final Urban Growth Area proposal for the unincorporated areas of Spokane County, including the UGA's for all cities except the Town of Millwood and the City of Spokane. After providing sufficient public notice, the Steering Committee conducted a public hearing on April 11, 2001,to consider Spokane County's proposed UGA. After hearing public testimony, the Steering Committee voted to accept the County's proposed UGA and forwarded their recommendation to the Board. #30 The Board finds that the Urban Growth Areas located in unincorporated Spokane County, which are also Joint Planning Areas, located contiguous to the cities and towns of Airway Heights, Medical Lake, Deer Park, Cheney, Spangle, Fairfield, Waverly, Latah and Rockford, meet the requirements of the Grov th Management Act and the Countywide Planning Policies for designating Urban Growth Areas. The jurisdictions adequately demonstrated in their Comprehensive Plans the ability to provide urban services within Page 20 of 28 00591 1 1059 their existing corporate limits as well as within the proposed Urban Growth Areas over the 20-year time frame of their Plans. • #31 All Urban Growth Areas contiguous to the cities and towns of Airway Heights, Medical Lake, Deer Park,Cheney, Spangle,Fairfield, Waverly, Latah and Rockford shall also be considered Joint Planning Areas. Further, all Urban Growth Areas contiguous to the City of Spokane, except for the North Metro and Valley areas shall be considered Joint Planning Areas. Services in the North Metro and Valley Urban Growth Areas are largely served by Spokane County and special purpose districts. It is understood that Joint Planning Areas can be joint, or multi-jurisdictional in areas where more than two jurisdictions have express interest in future development and planning. When executed, interlocal agreements will provide a mechanism to provide for coordinated and consistent planning and delivery of urban services to the Joint Planning Areas. #32 The Urban Growth Areas located in unincorporated Spokane County, which are also Joint Planning Areas, and are located contiguous with the incorporated boundary of the City of Spokane, are depicted in Attachment"C" and described as follows: A. Moran/Glenrose JPA. An area of land located in the unincorporated Urban Growth Area of Spokane County, contiguous to the southeasterly incorporated boundary of the City of Spokane, containing approximately 1,670 acres of land. B. West Plains/Thorpe JPA. An area of land in the unincorporated Urban Growth Area of Spokane County, located between the westerly incorporated boundary of the City of Spokane and the easterly and southerly boundary of the City of Airway Heights, and lying north and south of Interstate 90, containing approximately 12,447 acres of land. C. Indian Canyon JPA. An area of land in the unincorporated Urban Growth Area of Spokane County, located contiguous to the westerly incorporated boundary of the City of Spokane in an area known as Indian Canyon, containing approximately 22 acres of land. Page 21 of 28 00592 1 1059 D. Riverside JPA. An area of land in the unincorporated Urban Growth Area of Spokane County, located between the east side of the Spokane River and the westerly incorporated boundary of the City of Spokane, an area largely owned by the State of Washington known as Riverside State Park, containing approximately 448 acres of land. E. Seven Mile JPA. An area of land in the unincorporated Urban Growth Area of Spokane County, located contiguous to the northwest incorporated boundary of the northwest peninsula of the City of Spokane, lying east and west of Nine Mile Road in an area known as Seven Mile, containing approximately 665 acres of land. F. Shawnee JPA. An area of land in the unincorporated Urban Growth Area of Spokane County, located contiguous to the northeast incorporated boundary of the northwest peninsula of the City of Spokane, an area known as Indian Trail, containing approximately 19 acres of land. G. Hillyard JPA. An area of land in the unincorporated Urban Growth Area of Spokane County, located contiguous to the northeast incorporated boundary of the City of Spokane, on the east side of Havana Road between Bigelow Gulch Road and Wellesley Avenue, containing approximately 103 acres of land. H. Upriver JPA. An area of land in the unincorporated Urban Growth Area of Spokane County, located on the north side of the Spokane River and Upriver Drive with the City of Spokane's incorporated boundary to the east, south, west and north, containing approximately 368 acres of land. I. Yardley JPA. An area of land in the unincorporated Urban Growth Area of Spokane County, located contiguous to the easterly incorporated boundary of the City of Spokane, lying north of Sprague Avenue, containing approximately 962 acres of land. J. Alcott JPA. An area of land in the unincorporated Urban Growth Area of Spokane County, located contiguous to the easterly incorporated boundary of the City of Spokane, south of Interstate 90, containing approximately 458 acres of land. Page 22 of 28 00593 1 1059 #33 The following are Urban Growth Areas in unincorporated Spokane County which are not Joint Planning Areas: K. Spokane County North Metro UGA. An area of land in the unincorporated area of Spokane County, located contiguous to the northerly incorporated boundary of the City of Spokane, containing approximately 10,035 acres of land. L. Spokane Valley UGA. An area of land in the unincorporated area of Spokane County, located between the easterly incorporated boundary of the City of Spokane and the westerly incorporated boundary of the City of Liberty Lake, not including the JPA's known as Alcott, Yardley, and Upriver, or the incorporated Town of Millwood. The Spokane Valley UGA also includes land located in the unincorporated area of Spokane County located contiguous to the northeast and south incorporated boundary of the City of Liberty Lake. The entire Spokane Valley UGA contains approximately 28,363 acres of land. #34 The Urban Growth Areas, which are also Joint Planning Areas between Spokane County and the Cities and Towns of Airway Heights, Medical Lake, Deer Park, Cheney, Spangle, Fairfield, Waverly, Latah and Rockford are depicted on Attachment 'C' and described as follows: M. Deer Park UGA and JPA. An area of land in the unincorporated Urban Growth Area of Spokane County, located contiguous to the north and west incorporated boundary of the City of Deer Park, containing approximately 778 acres of land. N. Ainvay Heights UGA and JPA. An area of land in the unincorporated Urban Growth Area of Spokane County, located contiguous to the northwest and west incorporated boundary of the City of Airway Heights, containing approximately 765 acres of land. 0. Medical Lake UGA and JPA. An area of land in the unincorporated Urban Growth Area of Spokane County, located contiguous to the north and southwest Pace 23 of 28 00594 1 1059 incorporated boundary of the City of Medical Lake, containing approximately 322 acres of land. P. Cheney UGA and SPA. An area of land in the unincorporated Urban Growth Area of Spokane County, located contiguous to the north, northeast, south and west incorporated boundary of the City of Cheney, containing approximately 643 acres of land. Q. Spangle UGA and JPA. An area of land in the unincorporated Urban Growth Area of Spokane County, located contiguous to the north and south incorporated boundary of the Town of Spangle, containing approximately 151 acres of land. R. Rockford UGA and JPA. An area of land in the unincorporated area of Spokane County, located contiguous to the north, west and south incorporated boundary of the Town of Rockford, containing approximately 313 acres of land. S. Fairfield UGA and JPA. An area of land in the unincorporated area of Spokane County, located contiguous to the north, west and south incorporated boundary of the Town of Fairfield, containing approximately 130 acres of land. T. Waverly UGA and JPA. An area of land in the unincorporated area of Spokane County, located contiguous to the easterly incorporated boundary of the Town of Waverly, containing approximately 8 acres of land. U. Latah UGA and JPA. An area of land in the unincorporated area of Spokane County, located contiguous to the northerly incorporated boundary of the Town of Latah, containing approximately 51 acres of land. Land Quantity #35 A land quantity analysis was performed for the Urban Growth Area(UGA) and Joint Planning Areas consistent with the Land Quantity Analysis Met hodology for Spokane County, as adopted by the Steering Committee of Elected Officials on November 3, 1995. Spokane County coordinated with the City of Spokane to ensure consistent application of the adopted methodology for the region. The land quantity analysis concluded that there Page 24 of 28 00595 1 1059 is adequate land area within the recommended UGA and Joint Planning Areas to support the anticipated population growth. The land quantity analysis is consistent with the Growth Management Act(GMA) and Eastern Washington Hearings Board decisions regarding Land Quantity Analysis methodology. Commercial Land #36 Spokane County followed the Steering Committee of Elected Official's commercial land demand allocation and ratio development methodology, adopted by the Steering Committee on March 15, 1996, to determine the amount of commercial land that will be needed by the year 2020 in unincorporated Spokane County. On April 11, 2001, Spokane County presented it's Urban Growth Area proposal to the Steering Committee of Elected Official, wherein the County provided evidence that the Comprehensive Plan includes an excess of over 1,000 acres of commercial land capacity. Industrial Land #37 Industrial land supply is based on industrial employment goals and the Board finds that there is sufficient industrial land designated in the Comprehensive Plan to far exceed the amount of land required to support the industrial employment goals. On April 11, 2001, Spokane County presented evidence to the Steering Committee of Elected Officials that the Comprehensive Plan has sufficient industrial land designated to serve over 100,000 employees. The 1996-2020 goal for industrial employees is approximately 36,000. Arterial Road Plan #38 The Board of County Commissioners reviewed the Planning Commission's recommended Arterial Road Plan and made minor modifications as requested by the Spokane County Engineer. The Board notes that no change is made to the 40i' Avenue corridor, between Dishman-Mica and SR-27 (Pines Road), in the Midilome neighborhood. This corridor shall not be designated as an arterial for Spokane County. Development Regulations #39 The Board recognizes that the Comprehensive Plan must he implemented with Development Regulations and that current County Development Regulations must be Paee 25 of 2S 0059g 1 1059 updated to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The County will implement the Comprehensive Plan in phases through the use of Official Controls. The Phase 1 Development Regulations(PDR's)will make minimal changes to existing Development Regulations to ensure substantial compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and will eliminate any major inconsistencies in existing development regulations. The PDR's will utilize existing zoning regulations, where possible, but will also include new regulations that must be adopted to fully implement the Comprehensive Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that based upon the findings set forth herein and the files and testimony in this matter, the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County does hereby allocate the 20-year growth management population projection as follows: Jurisdiction Population Allocation Unincorporated Area 89,597 Airway Heights 3,500 Cheney 2,951 City of Spokane 54,000 Deer Park 2,750 Fairfield 230 Latah 95 Medical Lake 1,630 Millwood 172 Rockford 273 Spangle 350 Waverly 49 Total 155,597 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that based upon the findings set forth herein and the files and testimony in this matter, the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County does hereby adopt the Urban Growth Area boundary for Spokane County as shown on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map presented in Attachment 'A' and on Attachment 'C'. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that based upon the findings set forth herein and the files and testimony in this matter, the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County does hereby adopt the Urban Growth Areas, which are also Joint Planning Areas, for the cities and Paee 26 of 28 00597 1 1059 towns of Airway Heights,Cheney,Deer Park, Medical Lake, Fairfield, Spangle, Latah, Rockford and Waverly as shown on the Land Use Map presented in Attachment 'C'. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of County Commissioners concurs with the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement as prepared by the Spokane County Division of Planning, issued relative to the Comprehensive Plan update. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of County Commissioners is authorized by the Countywide Planning Policies to execute interlocal agreements with all towns and cities within Spokane County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk of the Board is directed to publish the attached notice of adoption pursuant to RCW 36.70A.290(b). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk of the Board is directed to send a copy of the Comprehensive Plan and the Capital Facilities Plan as contained in Attachments A and B to the Washington State Office of Community Development pursuant to RCW 36.70A_106 within 10 days of adoption. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board makes part of these findings and decision all files in the Spokane County Public Works Department , Division of Long Range Planning, Planning Commission, the Steering Committee of Elected Officials, and the Board of County Commissioners along with the transcripts of all public hearings related to this matter and further adopts all recitals herein as findings of fact. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that those portions of the Comprehensive Plan and Capital Facilities Plan implemented by the Phase I Development Regulations shall be deemed effective upon adoption of the Phase I Development Regulations. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Urban Growth Area, as depicted on the Comprehensive Plan map in Attachment `A' and on Attachment 'C', shall be effective upon signing of these findings and decision, for the purpose of potential annexation and incorporation proposals. Page 27 of 28 1 1059 00598 APPROVED BY THE BOARD this BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5/h day of HOVeMbet/ , 2001. OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON cokakr o4 yl 1', i QO o,EpNE eo f0, 111 ef/I�. Al I EST: ,! m° :y` A.4%. ly ' i 1 l D. s, Chair VICKY M. DALTON i • . i % y k r ! ti 1 7 CLERK OF THE BO• '�I%. SEAL `ri . ` sir �CL---- SCC = /l y M. Kate Iv�c�aslin, Vice-chair ;Y: / A.. — ..k _ - - ..0* ' sAA4 L1.-�. . L. 0 aniela Erickson, Deputy . ' oskelley, Commission. Pagc 28 of 28 CO VD0 0 r i� 1 _, , r AY d 'k.., I P ry. .tea - I = }f^i amcbmema ...fln .. .y..7 Comty ,• :.%. .` ; �. �'.., a" I/'I Li ,°,'..�.{. .F-w.w B Urban Growth Arm 1\ � ' ..... i. ..�. it i / �1/4 Planning Area(IPA) Y LEGEND 1/ �, �y,.rY"Cy F; ? - „ OUrban Growth Am L �4 'x, . ' ' $ - „. _ O manrmuaA 5� 1 1 { 1 / ,'1. Iz • 4 ®lointPWuting Arm �� r �1 a� { i sM _.- 77' -;`` "`"'�� o � m _� 1'^` yG^ i T LA 7..i ..'3 j 1 r uJIl I 1•; .,; ; . � ,. , G T 44 a r l _ R '21k�i�\\�` 1` ii.� , _ '' niljY rill .C--”" r- -_5•. _cmc_ r e"--- r• w.y, .. "at. , I • m �a � �'rs—ad f ft A( � r r^ 1 n pp t ali 1 ' . d 5. vo,mr § hre�:��0-fie mTl r ro l 14 � r , a - ✓•°`. I. ,. Y ..Tie-4 rI m�j =2 l r Z �.er-. P....T f , 1 S `o ,TA p. mal 14 ni ''n I t § ti -, r'S r a Y aRl� 5u�.`.-e,a�JE r IfUlin r i ( s ,I ltet r,it - - i -A vim A , Y v ° . �.,y tl"�{)s y , 611^� j.P � 1iuY igen i.. liF m W�.. �� .. -...�_.r lir x. .�-"1 "Y,a �g64m"", ,IiiilL�i liLL*/.—M\ I�. � irllgil{ imp-u.�r 1..tre„ ii i vek M �� J � P � �ii�! i I 2 a.. i "it'+E. 5 4_1.1";4111-;17a47 y Mllh1 v+gJIC 9,41vei% ' ,a be r , .- ti 4 Tv R lit , + pp, o oa" J I4- r u Yf! br en! * L W `t.m'4§n na ,49,I 14,,Ms a ` . )°rs�, Azov D\n N \e a // �•�a�. �,tegeM {E a v ilL, tpiitag-telogriiirtie .P i ,`- ) 'i JAVA I —� a aL ��!' '� ,4' ts52 ° r , �i - i ci ��i / elly 0- P 3 fel \a\\N„..t,mC NNcal,, ,,„ `a �N - i. ''L4 G .ra Y sl F I- ` -. •• Irk ,i ., v\�C t . ,\\ N. se :.z.. 3�_ K ri ., r ),?3,;:.::,.. r a`tA 16L LJ IC ( I• r, M "_—"—' x -a.% l ,_.. ‘� a'`ax ^_ ' I \Z\�\O� ..331 �'� a ��r E ". NI `;�I /r ,. ,. . .t•-rx� --'- �\ ' r+�d.=- { -- ��: Y 2,..„.1, a I ..`!€ �/"�r, • �4 t� i /yam- .Nmc� I c „� s " r.. 1 )-a. - -,....i....-)b- .I Af i" T 4r' 1v'.. am. .... .� � mid 4�5 . "--',"*k__-'-.1 ! 'r 1 y4 1E_4 .. 1 --L.— Spokane County Division of Planning _ : _` Attachment C C ( G , n Pend Oreille Coo"' • Board of County Commissioners Urban Growth Area(UGA) `\ p _ Joint Planning Area(WA) i' ' " r Legend . .. ?et "1 I „ CLI Urban Growth Area ...int.:c_ a^ C Incorporated UGA A te\ __ ® Joint Planning Area •u...... .. .. _ .. .: , e lk . . .. - G v fl t .) ?} xu .. .• t w `. !• 1 1 W rn e •rocs w \\ .+ - !net .. •, _ yam m... - ©, A, -:tsN ` A a...,w..n.:. - _ Few..u ram • w u xe ..--:..- . 11 ,...: , : .. s-..mm b . I ''lM.PAVt. .-‘3."Aq. : ' IVO . m . wSFW eq.n - a.. ..L In w F._.. I F _ .1 .. _ - I ' i •flu lyp_ I pu . ilu tu. ili Wlutnum Courcy Whitman County ,„riwCarvi 3 m.�1.1� Spokane County Division Of Planning = _$ 'y 00601 EXHIBIT-LI BRB ,Sssral 1 1060 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTING A POPULATION ) FINDINGS ALLOCATION AND URBAN GROWTH AREA FOR ) AND RECEIVED THE CITY OF SPOKANE AND IDENTIFYING JOINT ) DECISION NOV 0 5 2001 PLANNING AREAS ) BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 36.32.120(6) RCW, the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "Board", has the care of County property and management of County funds and business; and WHEREAS, on July 1, 1993, Spokane County was mandated to update its Comprehensive Plan to conform with the requirements of the Growth Management Act and RCW Chapter 36.70A; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.020, goals are set forth to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.370, local governments must utilize the process established by RCW 36.70A.370(1) to assure that proposed regulatory or administrative actions do not result in an unconstitutional taking of private property; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A, the Board adopted Countywide Planning Policies for Spokane County(CII'EPs) on December 22, 1994 and subsequently amended said policies (BCC Resolutions 94-1719, 96-1205, 97-0297 and 97-0937); and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.110, Spokane County is authorized and required to adopt Urban Growth Areas that will accommodate the County's 20-year growth management population projection; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.70A,the Board adopted an allocation of the 20-year growth management population projection on April 8, 1997, and the Spokane County Interim Development Regulations Designating Interim Urban Growth Areas (IUGA), as 00602 1 1060 contained in Board Resolution 97-0321, and as amended by Board Resolutions 97-0874 and 99-0498; and WHEREAS,pursuant to RCW 36.70A.I40 and WAC 365-195-600, the Board adopted Public Participation Program Guidelines on February 24, 1998 and subsequently amended said policies(BCC Resolutions 98-0144 and 98-0788, respectively); and WHEREAS,the City of Spokane included an environmental analysis of their proposed Urban Growth Areas as a part of their Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements, issued as a part of their Comprehensive Planning Process; and WHEREAS,pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), an interlocal agreement (BoCC Resolution 94-1686, as amended) was executed establishing the Steering Committee of Elected Officials, hereinafter referred to as the"Steering Committee,"to perform certain duties and provide recommendations in conjunction with their obligations under the Growth Management Act; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Countywide Planning Policies for Spokane County (CWPPs), the Steering Committee is required to analyze each jurisdiction's proposed Urban Growth Area (UGA) and make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners for Urban Growth Area adoption; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Countywide Planning Policies for Spokane County, Policy Topic I, Urban Growth Areas, Policy #2, "The determination and proposal of an Urban Growth Area (UGA) outside existing limits shall be based on a jurisdiction's ability to provide urban governmental services at the minimum level of servcie specified by the Steering Committee. Jurisdictions may establish higher level of service standards in their respective comprehensive plans." WHEREAS, pursuant to Countywide Planning Policies for Spokane County, Policy Topic I, Urban Growth Areas, Policy #8, "Each Municipality must document its ability to provide urban governmental services within its existing city limits prior to the designation of an Urban Growth Area (UGA) outside of existing city limits. To propose an Urban Growth Area (UGA) designation outside of their existing city limits, municipalities must provide a fully range of urban governmental services based on each municipality's capital facilities element of their Comprehensive Plan". Page 2 of I I 00603 1 1060 WHEREAS,pursuant to Countywide Planning Policies for Spokane County, Policy Topic 1, Urban Growth Areas, Policy#11, "Each jurisdiction's comprehensive plans shall, at a minimum, demonstrate the ability to provide, necessary domestic water, sanitary sewer and transportation improvements concurrent with development." WHEREAS,pursuant to the Countywide Planning Policies, the Steering Committee reviewed the City of Spokane's Urban Growth Area proposal at a public meeting on June 19, 2001 at which time the Steering Committee set a date for a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the Steering Committee conducted a public hearing on July 19, 2001, to hear public testimony on the City of Spokane's Urban Growth Area proposal; and, WHEREAS, after hearing public testimony and considering all files of record, the Steering Committee voted to forward the City of Spokane's Urban Growth Area proposal to the Board of County Commissioners without a recommendation; and, WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on August 14, 2001, to consider the City of Spokane's Urban Growth Area proposal; and, WHEREAS, after hearing public testimony, the Board issued Notice No. 1-0710 to continue the hearing to August 16, 2001, to allow sufficient time for deliberation on the matter, with the public record remaining open until August 23, 2001, to allow sufficient time for comments to be received from special purpose districts (fire, library and water districts) on the City's Urban Growth Area proposal; and WHEREAS, on August 16, 2001, the Board continued their deliberations on the City's Urban Growth Area proposal and population allocation to August 17, 2001; and WHEREAS, on August 17, 2001, the Board directed the Division of Planning to contact special purpose districts, including fire, water and library districts, to solicit comments specifically relating to the City of Spokane's Capital Facilties Plan, to determine if the City complied with CWPP Policy Topic 1, Policy No.'s 2, 8 and 11 and further; and WI-IEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners received comment letters from certain Fire Districts and Water District's and the Spokane County Library District, as well as letters Page 3 of II 00604 1 1060 from the Spokane County Utilities Director, the Spokane County Engineer and the Spokane County Parks Director,all providing testimony that the City did not fully coordinate with service providers or demonstrate the ability to provide all urban services within these proposed Urban Growth Areas, and WHEREAS, the Board held further deliberations to consider the City of Spokane's Urban Growth Area proposal and population allocation on August 20, 21, 23 and 24, 2001; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane's Capital Facilities Plan did not provide sufficient evidence on the ability to provide full urban governmental services and public facilities within their proposed Urban Growth Areas; and, WHEREAS, the Countywide Planning Policies requires the Board to adopt population allocations for all jurisdictions within the County to use as a basis to develop Comprehensive Plans, and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane's population allocation shall be set at 54,000, as originally adopted on April 8, 1997 by Resolution ti 97-0321 and supported by previous Steering Committee recommendations; and WHEREAS, the population allocation of 54,000 can be accommodated within the existing incorporated City boundary, as projected by the City of Spokane; and WHEREAS, the Board analyzed Census data from 1970 to 2000 to determine if growth trends support a population allocation to the City of Spokane in excess of 54,000; and WHEREAS, at their August 24, 2001, public meeting, the Board unanimously passed Motion No. 1-0800 wherein the Board made their oral decision regarding the City of Spokane's Urban Growth Area, Joint Planning Areas and population allocation and directed County Staff to prepare findings of fact, conclusions of law and decision consistent with the Board's motion; and WHEREAS, per the requirements of RCW 36.70A.130, comprehensive plans, urban growth areas,joint planning areas and population allocations may be reviewed annually by the Board. Page 4 of 11 00605 - 1 1060 • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT #1 The Board considered the planning goals of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.020) in making their decision, and the decision supports the goals of the Growth Management Act. #2 The Board considered the Countywide Planning Policies for Spokane County(CWPPs) in its decision, and the decision is consistent with the CWPPs (BCC Resolutions 94-1719, 96-1205, 97-0297, and 97-0937). Specifically, Policy Topic 1, Urban Growth Areas, Policy 2, states: "The determination and proposal of an Urban Growth Area (UGA) outside existing incorporated limits shall be based on a jurisdiction's ability to provide urban governmental services at the minimum level of service specified by the Steering Committee. Jurisdictions may establish higher level of service standards in their respective comprehensive plans." 113 The Board received letters of comment from special purpose districts, including Whitworth Water District, Spokane County Water District No. 3, Spokane Fire District No. 1, Spokane County Fire District No. 4, Spokane County Fire Protection District No. 9, and Spokane County Library District, all providing testimony that the City of Spokane's Capital Facilities Plan did not provide evidence of the City's ability to provide fitll urban services outside their existing incorporated boundary. #4 The Board received letters of comment and testimony from the Spokane County Engineer and Spokane County Utilities Director, each providing testimony that the City of Spokane's Capital Facilities Plan did not provide evidence of the City's ability to provide full urban services outside their existing incorporated boundary. Their testimony included the following points: • P:oe 5 of I I 00606 1 1060 A. The City's transportation capital plan is under funded by as much as$10 million annually. B. The City currently has a$100 million maintenance backlog for its City streets. C. City bridge replacement projects are not represented in the Capital Facilities Plan. D. The City's projections for wastewater flow over the 20-year planning period do not appear to account for increased commercial industrial waste,only domestic. E. The City would did not account for approximately 14.5 million gallons of wastewater currently generated per in the North Metro area. F. The cost to upgrade the Spokane Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant is shown in the City's 6-year Financial Plan to total approximately $30.4 million,while improvements are expected to total nearly $72 million through 2006, based on negotiations between the City and County. #5 The City of Spokane did not hilly demonstrate in its Comprehensive Plan the ability to provide urban services to areas inside their existing incorporated boundary. Specifically, the City of Spokane currently has a $100 million maintenance backlog for its City streets. The City has not fully demonstrated how it will provide adequate maintenance on its existing infrastructure while at the same time provide maintenance and capital budget for projects outside its current incorporated boundary. #6 The Board finds that the City of Spokane did not demonstrate the ability to provide full urban services either inside or outside their city limits and, therefore, has not complied with Countywide Planning Policies, Policy Topic 1, Policy No.'s 2, 8 or 11. #7 The Board's decision is consistent with WAC 365-195-725, RCW 36.70A.370 and the Washington State Attorney General's memorandum, State of Washington Attorney General's Recommended Process and Advisory Memorandum for Evaluation of Proposed Regulatory or Administrative Actions to Avoid Unconstitutional Taking of Private Property, March 1995; and does not unconstitutionally infringe upon private property rights. #8 A land quantity analysis was performed for the recommended Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary consistent with the Land Quantity Analysis Methodology for Spokane Page 6 of 1 1 006u7 - 1 1060 County, as adopted by the Steering Committee of Elected Officials on November 3, 1995. Spokane County coordinated with the City of Spokane to ensure consistent application of the adopted methodology, in accordance with Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board decisions. The City of Spokane also conducted a land quantity analysis on their proposed Urban Growth Areas. The City's land quantity analysis concluded that there is adequate land area within the incorporated UGA to support the anticipated population growth of 54,000 people, and the Board concurs with that conclusion. The Board also notes that the City's methodology for analyzing critical areas is consistent with the methodology used by the County. #9 The Board notes that the City of Spokane included an analysis of their proposed Urban Growth Area in their Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements, issued as a part of their Comprehensive Planning process. #10 The City of Spokane's population allocation shall be set at 54,000, and shall be contained entirely within their incorporated boundary. This allocation is consistent with two earlier similar decisions made by the Board in 1997 and again in 1999, and is consistent with the Steering Committee's population allocation recommendation made in 1996. The City's Comprehensive Plan proposed an allocation of 68,800, which included population allocations in the Joint Planning Areas contiguous to the City. Because the City has not shown sufficient evidence of its ability to provide full urban services to these areas, their population allocation shall be accommodated within their existing incorporated boundary. The City has shown through its land capacity analysis that approximately 54,000 people can be accommodated within the existing incorporated boundary. The County shall count the population in the City of Spokane's Joint Planning Areas. It is inappropriate for other jurisdictions to count the population in these Joint Planning Areas. #11 To determine appropriate population allocations, the Board of County Commissioners utilized results from the 2000 Census, which were not available during the Comprehensive Planning process. The Board analyzed three decades of population trends for each jurisdiction to determine if their respective population allocations were within a low to high range of Census growth rates. The Board finds the City of Spokane's growth rate from 1970 to 2000, shown below, does not warrant a higher population Page 7 of H 00'6 ° 8 1 1060 allocation than recommended by the Steering Committee and adopted by the Board on April 8, 1997 of 54,000 for the incorporated area. The Board also finds that the City of Spokane's Comprehensive Plan-based land quantity analysis demonstrates a population capacity which can accommodate this allocation. Low Med High 1999 I Diff of AIIocI Final Allocation I 2000 Pop 70 to 80 i 80 to 90 jI90 to 00 I Growth Growth Growth Alloc to High August 24,2001 I City of Spokane 1195,629 0.5% 3.4% 10.4% I. 1,956 13,303 40,691 54,000 j 13,309 j 54,000 #12 The Board recognizes that the City of Spokane has extended water and/or sewer service to areas outside their incorporated boundary. Because the City of Spokane provides water and/or sewer service outside their incorporated boundary, future land use planning should be conducted jointly in these areas and the Board hereby adopts Joint Planning Areas within the Urban Growth Areas located within Spokane County as shown on the map titled Attachment 'A'. The Joint Planning Areas located within the Urban Growth Area for Spokane County, contiguous with the City of Spokane, are described in detail below. Joint Planning Areas shall be joint,or multi-jurisdictional, where two or more jurisdictions providing one or more urban governmental services may participate in the joint planning process. #13 The Urban Growth Areas located in unincorporated Spokane County, which are also Joint Planning Areas, and are located contiguous with the incorporated boundary of the City of Spokane, are as follows (see Attachment 'A'): A. Moran/Glenrose JPA. An area of land located in the unincorporated Urban Growth Area of Spokane County, contiguous with the southeasterly incorporated boundary of the City of Spokane, containing approximately 1,670 acres of land. B. West Plains/Thorpe JPA. An area of land in the unincorporated Urban Growth Area of Spokane County, located between the westerly incorporated boundary of the City of Spokane, and the easterly and southerly incorporated boundary of the City of Airway Heights, and lying north and south of Interstate 90, containing approximately 12,447 acres of land. Page 8 of 11 0u6 . 9 1 1060 C. Indian Canyon JPA. An area of land in the unincorporated Urban Growth Area of Spokane County, located contiguous with the westerly incorporated boundary of the City of Spokane in an area known as Indian Canyon, containing approximately 22 acres of land. D. Riverside JPA. An area of land in the unincorporated Urban Growth Area of Spokane County, located between the east side of the Spokane River and the westerly incorporated boundary of the City of Spokane, in an area largely owned by the State of Washington known as Riverside State Park, containing approximately 448 acres of land. E. Seven Mile JPA. An area of land in the unincorporated Urban Growth Area of Spokane County, located contiguous with the northwest incorporated boundary of the northwest peninsula of the City of Spokane, lying east and west of Nine Mile Road in an area known as Seven Mile, containing approximately 665 acres of land. P. Shawnee JPA. An area of land in the unincorporated Urban Growth Area of Spokane County, located contiguous with the northeast incorporated boundary of the northwest peninsula of the City of Spokane, an area known as Indian Trail, containing approximately 19 acres of land. G. Hillyard JPA. An area of land in the unincorporated Urban Growth Area of Spokane County, located contiguous with the northeast incorporated boundary of the City of Spokane, on the east side of Havana Road between Bigelow Gulch Road and Wellesley Avenue, containing approximately 103 acres of land. H. Upriver JPA. An area of land in the unincorporated Urban Growth Area of Spokane County, located on the north side of the Spokane River and Upriver Drive with the City of Spokane's incorporated boundary to the east, south, west and north, containing approximately 368 acres of land. I. Yardley JPA. An area of land in the unincorporated Urban Growth Area of Spokane County, located contiguous with the easterly incorporated boundary of Page 9 of Il 00610 1 1060 the City of Spokane, lying north of Sprague Avenue, containing approximately 962 acres of land. J. Alcott JPA. An area of land in the unincorporated Urban Growth Area of Spokane County, located contiguous with the easterly incorporated boundary of the City of Spokane, south of Interstate 90, containing approximately 458 acres of land. #14 The Board finds that the North Metro area, shown on Attachment 'A', is not a Joint Planning Area. The North Metro Urban Growth Area is located north of the City of Spokane, contiguous with the north boundary of the City of Spokane. Urban services in this area are currently being provided either by Spokane County or special purpose districts and are included in Spokane County's Capital Facilities Plan. The North Metro area is not a Joint Planning Area because the City does not currently provide services to this area and the County has shown through its Capital Facilities Plan that services will be provided by the County and special purpose districts. The North Metro Area was not designated previously as a Joint Planning Area and is not considered as such by the Board. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that based upon the findings set forth herein and the files and testimony in the matter, the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County does hereby adopt joint jurisdictional Joint Planning Areas, which are located within the unincorporated Urban Growth Area for Spokane County, as depicted on Attachment 'A'. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the population allocation for the City of Spokane shall be set at 54,000 which shall be contained entirely within their incorporated boundary. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of County Commissioners is authorized to execute interlocal agreements with all towns and cities within Spokane County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board makes part of these findings and decision all files in the Spokane County Public Works Department, Division of Planning,Long Range Section, Planning Commission. Steering Committee of Elected Officials and the Board of County Commissioners, alone. with the tapes and transcripts of all public hearings related to this matter, and further adopts all recitals herein as findings of fact. Page 10 of 11 00611 1 1060 APPROVED BY THE BOARD this BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ,5Th day of November , 2001. OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON l O Of c . i 111 /141 �/= ;„�- sc T. , 11 in . I. Hams, Chair ATTEST: ; ot.40 i OGS �_ II ` VICKY M. DALTON i •. -I i r '� ' / - `i 11 ®6 - • i i �I CLERK OF THE BOA' 0 (e , �� '�l �Cx 11 'i1j .SEAL" 31Q' i 111 F court' .. . Ka . M aslin Vice-chair ANN`. Y: - 1 I II laniela Erickson, Deputy .o r' oskelley, Commissio y/ Page 11 of 11 • EXHIBIT �� . 00612 BAB SS-0 1 ( r . TRUNKENBOLZ ROHR DRISKELL PLLC 1:) CARY P. DRISKELL 1.509.928.4100 LICENSED IN WA RESPOND TO: SPOKANE driskell@dmi.net November 5, 2001 • Boundary Review Board 1026 West Broadway, Second Floor • Spokane, WA 99260 • Re: Potential Exclusion of Yardley and Alcott - Dear Boundary Review Board: I wanted to take an opportunity to explain a little more my concerns on behalf of the Community Action Committee and the Campaign to Incorporate the Spokane Valley. I outlined in my October 2, 2001 letter to the Board why removing Yardley and Alcott from the proposed boundary would not conform to the requirements of Washington statutes governing actions by this body. This issue of the impact on Fire District One cannot be minimized. Obviously, the City of Spokane intends to annex Yardley and Alcott in the future if they are left out of the boundary for the new city. A simple glance at a map will show you what impact this would have on the Fire District's service area. It would create such a jagged boundary that providing effective fire and police service along the border would be very difficult. Response time for Fire District One would be impeded due to where it could have its stations located to conform to the shape. New stations would have to be built to cover what is already covered, and already paid for. The Board must consider these impacts, as well as those cited by the City of Spokane. • You must also consider the scant evidence provided by the City of Spokane as to its infrastructure costs for the sewer and water pipes in the ground in Yardley. Please note that the City only provided very general estimates of the value of that infrastructure. Certainly there must be more accurate information available. Commissioner McCaslin has stated publicly that the City's statements of its investment that has not been recouped to date are way off. In fact, Ms. McCaslin asserts that the City has likely been paid in full for its investment due to the 30-50% utility surcharge Yardley residents pay to use City water and sewer hookups. While the City of Spokane placed that infrastructure with the hopes it could annex Yardley in the future, it has very likely been paid for that investment. The City would continue to receive the revenue stream from that investment from the Yardley residents even if Yardley becomes part of the new city. If the new city wanted to purchase that infrastructure, Spokane would be paid additional amounts for that. Leaving Yardley and Alcott in the proposed boundary would not result in any loss of money for Spokane. SPOKANE Oma- 12704 EAST NoRA,SPOKANE,WA 99216;PH.509.928.4100;FAX 509.926.6314;trdvalley®dmi.net COEUR D'ALENE OFFICE- 1400 NORTHWOOD CENTER Cr.,Sum C,COEUR D'ALENE,ID 83814 PH. 208.769.7100;FAX 208.769.7200;trdcda@dmi.net 00613 • Boundary Review Board November 5, 2001 page 2 People keep telling me that the BRB has already made the decision to pull Yardley and Alcott from the proposed boundary, that there is an active effort to secure the necessary votes prior to even closing the public testimony on that issue. As I am sure you are aware, any effort by the City of Spokane to directly or indirectly lobby this Board is highly improper. I sincerely hope that has not happened, and I know many people will be watching to see if there is any evidence of that occuring. I hope this letter helps you in your decision-making process. If you have any questions or comments, or need any further information in this matter, please feel free to call me at 928-4100. Very truly yours, TRUNKENBOLZI ROHR I DRISKELLPLLC CARY P. DRISKELL CPD/pd c: Ed Mertens cpd\clients\cac\brb letter 11-5-01 00614 EXHIBIT 8s BRB sss o I MEMORANDUM RECEIVED November 5, 2001 NOV 0 5 2001 • BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD To: Boundary Review Board From: Dennis Scott Re: Yardley It is with some concern that I approach the Board. I have lived in the Spokane area for 27 years and have learned to listen to the "talk on the street" . The "talk" that I have heard recently is that this Board has decided to remove Yardley from the proposed boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley. It would appear that you have bowed to the political pressure from City Hall . If this is true, I am saddened as your job is to be above politics or at least that is what I wanted to believe. This is the fifth time that the voters will have an opportunity to see if they want to form a new city. The proponents believe that several things have changed to make this proposal more viable than at any time in the past. It is interesting to note that Yardley has been included in each of those elections. It is also interesting to note that the City has had many years to annex this area. It has not been done and you should wonder why. Could it be that the property owners in the area aren' t interested in being a part of the City of Spokane? Recent polls of the area have shown that the residents actually want to remain as they are, however, if given a choice, they would elect to form a new city. The City of Spokane wants to try and make a case that they have provided water and sewer facilities in the area and that investment justifies the fact that they should be able to annex the area . The City does not hesitate to state that they have paid for the installation of water lines to the tune of $2, 000, 000 and sewer lines to the tune of $4, 800, 000 . What they neglect to tell you is that they 00615 surcharge the rates of water and sewer up to 50% of the normal rate. This surcharge will repay the City for those investments without any cost to the residents of the City. You would think that paying a surcharge of this amount would be quite an incentive to ask to be annexed but it hasn' t . Why would you take the position that the property owners of the area don' t know what they need or want by taking it out of the proposed boundary of a new city? The City wants to lament that they don' t have any areas to expand and their commercial and industrial land is too small to encourage new development. I doubt that as they have extended water and sewer facilities into the west plains area, which has many properties, that are vacant and ready for new buildings. The area of Yardley is already developed for the most part but the City of Spokane wants the tax base. Having their eyes set on a tax rich area is not bad in itself, however, the City does not take care of the rest of the City. It would be very unfortunate for this Board to allow the City to annex this area and then have the City take the taxes to pay off their increasing debt and then allow this area to degenerate as they have so many other areas . It would seem that the best thing the City could do is to take care of the downtrodden areas that already exist and show a benefit to being within the boundaries. How could this be done? Creating a healthy atmosphere for businesses could do it. Instead, the City wants to take the position of forcing anyone that uses their services to not be able to have a voice in annexation. Does this seem like a fair and friendly approach to individuals that will be paying taxes into the general fund? If your mandate is to resolve conflicts, I would suggest that you leave Yardley within the proposed boundary. If you remove it and the City of Spokane Valley is successful . Yardley then becomes an area in which Spokane and Spokane Valley are in a race to annex the area. Instead of resolving a conflict, you have created one. I implore you to rethink your position if the "talk on the street" is accurate and allow Yardley to remain within the proposed boundaries and let the property owners decide by voting whether or not to create a new city. RECEIVED EXHIBIT Xlt, 00616 NOV 0 5 2001 BRB 555-61 DINDAaARDie -- arcele_- ge. _coae„-f-ce gzotteo -de-pn---rniaziet• in-rotreti (44_e_..-:‘,_. - -17,44-2.214 Peatenii_d Ate- ,,,e,re_ eice --44-role-n-3,04 eartz-c, Ki-n-etpiftstrai, Erit..-o a4Cets#E 2-4,/rt-narill &etz- sc_y wort &C- Waal-0.J tad- fnet-e_np-d>.entet-4 h) < ;litese _52D2 4 fa4-44 emt.ec_si LA r-er 5 „Jr, tto c) zr-e-v;v7ti M . x-reor-- 4n. e-eget / 2.)_arc.et- 7%3 4.4-4;14a eft<eg-nri-b, /e7 ea-c.7. (-AvAr19.34- - gr(-er---icattecdd g five- da4 avte-rt 7-ne-ti,vt-e-t-e--6-0, n-y-y, ini-74-111ea et, ilLiti" prev;eiroi...e-t4 e 'Ace,Ay- pefra: • s</ a& 00617 -/ a 6 EteMG oh02, 4 e1 /1' -t 5sao4, a sac•{, 0107 2002 1 k. (X-irt. men ae-res S S ao F. o f o Z Pi,'c, 200 ( 0 L c� P C( 1)uAeaes 53-9.057,- I/O 9 Ctec 4. -tet2 mo <v t. K`' - s (.5t2o0/09 �1 a 1/ 2, 2 $; Nen r&j go/. crertraccreS 4 : i NibCani CIA-(311- ••• !! Z Z S.. HG n r Y AI. ('ea rl Ct'C re 5 -6 /, / �n 0� Zo / Z. // 4 y�es✓ G� eS E. l/G 1\ 0 / /0/6 P ( ,, �aa ie . ,.1- - D . s gaC G [� 6rraoKC•F Gvee �(c 5 /iwace �q 4 S f'5 /ri,�rou7 (1- Cr tee Qc�-es) 7icr,/ rzz V 71 g't Qa 00618 _...:_,__ ______... :W / , ii--- -dree-n-a,or-e4 a/a 4 Z-e-- .÷::_, /J . von, Cerit Arc- siCkid2/_-a_2.0_ 2.? -- . �.. ij% •- IX 8 irv-e-. -flo/ -`c 7_0.7 ,rte /� 0 4isi oti �1 oS- . ` �-y. g u- 3.. ShCirc7-, CC1 'chi / . l (qaU C . i �rcv_�r. z9d 41 :. (./7,13 d . , ,.. ,., #67 r 71-A a , F 121 Ate. 00 6 1 9 . • IIIIIIII escre - enn.c OVL_J: S-2A-A-frrke--frc. le-e-2-c----_ -_ezetir.e-- opu.,:nal ' 1 , L - / ga__ bizmifez-f-Le-,, • _c•-kte.aperrzis tin ,: . /....„ i . / li,r , •• - /?9,5/7( c,7:,-<:-- . . ... . : . ,,,t , ii .. as • _I - . k 12...en-h-LL at-tA-0"---- i 96-)8 Es:" SpA_At e 11"- ,/ 1-- cr , "T__ a k.:2: ic-076 kz , strojELie '-44ce--. ------------- 4. --i g ' .'7' )fr . ' • ..., —17/1,gAjtc-52-5/111 - ilrejct-'ej ("2-00/e ce, _>zir-c---re-,, ,----, ,peegf,?.?„ -2_00,6_4_---1• S---2,--,7cec: •- :.ek_tt :416-4Th • i<t.--L-0 6---,--,-, c 0/..0 Cr) L7_\ leyan 18\CLA-Th - -- 5(g 3. lb( I z oc-c ,6 /-'(; (.. ie u .. ...._ E • ,;zr) 7&; /7; ‘,.. 2,c, , .---29-,- _....,51:•.-27>c__ --.) c-f.--Cipir Le - ;VMS C )91:•‘<2_,, if•-et-'.1 A:, ,t_• .._.. _.._.. ....,-1I-041.6:_ST .pi..,,c.....--, ityl_. -H_L--j,c, ,... ----- ----------- .. ii- t-ct..z.,--.A.c.: c,---9-4 /Y... .?-0 7 .L.- Ac_-_-„ ,_•./..,.-C-t, , •D6-1. . ..r,-?c,. L_:---__ • • .7,2 iff .<.! - (/2 -‘z. •", ,-.f (I .. ...I.,--- //I La, aez--e-t---at--,---7--to •/f/f)(---! P ,cca_,-cce, / L-, • ---- r bae 6 0 / o lurnit-t- 13a-a-rePI tN ()I it c,galete.;--3--L. -14m-ti- nee, 044-- J., 0431 breLA ,4,4 (/‘.1.A- 990Ra yx-L, tf ice( (6 G Ez",)4 d-c- ig-S-4 2 F.0 syerLI1U/k_ ( a7--iit /1; cyr-co--& .7 I koy ths- cgori ) / g673- &Yfr14 C0 rip 6rcrncrrs W7/>/ 249 /- 07or 7,027)4 C iffive-