CVSD 356-81•
•
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
EDUCATIONAL SERVICES CENTER
Project Sponsor:
Central Valley School District No. 356
November 1981
Lead Agency:
Central Valley School District
Prepared by:
HAWORTH on ANDERSON, INC.
West 621 Mallon Avenue
Spokane, Washington
99201.
• Action Sponsor -
Central Valley School District No. 356, S. 123 Bowdish Road, Spokane,
Washington 99206; (509) 922 -6700.
Proposed Action
Construction of an Educational Services Center to include all functions
supporting the district's schools including: central district administra-
tion, central warehousing; curriculum library; building and grounds mainte-
nance; vehicle maintenance; bus and small vehicle parking garages; possible
central kitchen; and possible central. laundry.
•
•
•
•
•
Central Valley School District Contact Person
Dave Jackman, Facilities Planner
Central Valley School District No. 356
S. 123 Bowdish Road
• (509) 922 -6700
• Authors and Principal Contributors
This draft environmental impact statement has been prepared under the
direction of the Central Valley School District No. 356. Additional re-
search and analysis was provided by:
•
•
Project Location
Lead Agency
Central Valley School District.
Responsible Official
Dave Jackman, Facilities Planner.
Decision Maker
Central Valley School Board.
Haworth and Anderson, Inc.
West 621 Mallon Avenue
Spokane, Washington 992.01
(509) 327 -9579
INTRODUCTION
Approximately 15.4 acres located at the southwest corner of the inter-
section of Sullivan Road and 16th Avenue, as described in the following
legal description:
All of Tract 198 and all of Tract 197, except the East 276 .feet
of Tract 197, in VERA, as per plat thereof recorded in Volume
"0" of Plats, page 30.
i
Larry Gottschalk, Architect
North 404 Pines Road
Spokane, Washington 99206
(509) 926 -9240
Licenses, Permits, and Other Approvals
Central Valley School Board: (1) draft and final EIS approval; (2)
facilities plan approval-,.and (3) financing approval.
Spokane County: (1) potential special use permit; (2) potential zone
change; and (3). construction permits (including electrical; mechanical,
drainage /storm water disposal, sewage disposal 'and hook -up, and building
permit).
Location of Background Data
Central Valley School District, S. 123 Bowdish Road, Spokane, WA 99206
Haworth and Anderson, Inc., W. 621 Mallon Avenue, Spokane, WA :99201
Cost to the Public
A limited number of copies of this Draft EIS have been printed and made
available for public distribution at the School District administration
building, S. 123 Bowdish Road. Additional copies are available from the
district, if needed, for the cost of reproduction.
Date of Draft EIS Issuance
November 3, 1981.
Review Period and Date Comments Are Due
In accordance with the SEPA Guidelines, this draft EIS is being circu-
lated for a 35 -day review period. In order to be incorporated into the fi-
nal EIS, public comments and remarks by consulted agencies or individuals
must be received on or before December 8, 1981.
Mail Comments to
All comments on this draft EIS should be addressed to:
Dave Jackman, Facilities Planner
Central Valley School District No. 356 :.
S. 123 Bowdish Road
Spokane, WA 99206 '
ii
• INTRODUCTION i
LIST OF MAPS AND TABLES iv
DISTRIBUTION LIST v
I. SUMMARY 1
A. Project Description and Objectives 1
B. Impacts 1
• C. Alternatives 3
D. Mitigating Measures 5
E. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 7
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 9
III. CATEGORICAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 16
A. List of Elements of the Environment 16
• B. Elements of the Physical Environment 18
1. Earth 18
2. Air 21
3. Water 27
4. Flora 37
5. Fauna 37
• 6. Noise 39
7. Light and Glare 47
8. Land Use 48
9. Natural Resources 59
10. Risk of Explosion or Hazadous Emissions 59
C. Elements of the Human Environment 61
• 1. Population 61
2. Housing 63
3. Transportation /Circulation 67
4. Public Services 79
5. Energy 85
6. Utilities 87
• 7. Human Health 91
8. Aesthetics 92
9. Recreation 94
10. Archaeological /Historical 95
11. Additional Population Characteristics 95
12. Economic Factors 95
• IV. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT -TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT
AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG -TERM PRODUCTIVITY 98
V. IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 99
VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 100
A. No Action Alternative 100
B. Alternative Site Locations 103
• C. Alternative Design Concepts 109
VII. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 113
REFERENCES 114
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND PLANNING INFORMATION 115
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iii
LIST OF MAPS AND TABLES
Vicinity Map 10
Site Map 11
Site Plan 12
Phase One 13
Topography 20
Non - attainment Area Boundaries 22
CO & TSP Monitoring Sites 23
Summary of Suspended Particulate Matter 24
Expected Contaminant Removals Using Grassed Percolation Areas 29
Aquifer Recharge Area 31
Water Quality Sampling in Site Vicinity 34
Water Quality Standards 35
A- Weighted Sound Levels and Human Response Characteristics 40
Noise Receptors 42
Generalized Land Use 49
Zoning 51
Generalized Comprehensive Plan (1980) 54
Site Plan 57
Population Growth in Subareas by Census Tracts for 1970 and 1980 62
Summary of Spokane County Subarea Growth, 1970 -1980 63
Census Tracts 64
Housing Units by County Subdivisions with Incorporated Area Totals 65
County Subdivisions 66
Average Daily Traffic 69
Traffic Projections for Central Valley Services Center (1995) 73
Accidents Along Sullivan Road 78
School Locations 82
Central Valley School District Enrollment, 1971 -1981 83
View Orientation 93
Assessed Valuations of Central Valley School Facilities 96
Alternative Sites 105
iv
• U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington Archaeological Research Center
Washington Office of the Governor
Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
Washington State Department of Ecology, Ecological Commission
• Washington State Department of Ecology, (2, one to SEPA Register)
Washington State Department of Ecology, Spokane
Washington State Department of Game, Olympia
Washington State Department of Game, Spokane
Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia
Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Olympia
• Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Spokane
Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia
Washington State Department of Transportation, Spokane
Washington State Energy Office
Washington State Office of Financial Management
Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction
• Planning and Community Affairs Agency
Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority (SCAPCA)
Spokane County, Board of County Commissioners
Spokane County Building Department
Spokane County Conservation District
Spokane County Engineering Department (4)
• Spokane County Health District
Spokane County Parks and Recreation Department
Spokane County Planning Department (5)
Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney, Civil Division
Spokane County Public Library, Valley Branch (2)
Spokane County Sheriff's Office
• Spokane County Utility Department
Spokane Regional Planning Conference
Spokane City Planning Department
Spokane Public Library
Spokane Transit System
Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce
• Central Valley School Board
Central Valley PTA
Fire District g1
Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company
Valley Garbage Service
Vera Water and Power District
• Washington Water Power Company
Spokane Daily Chronicle
Spokesman Review
The Valley Herald
Don Stone, Attorney
Stan Schultz, Attorney
DISTRIBUTION LIST •
•
The project under review is the construction of a proposed Educational
Services Cnter for the ,Central Valley School District #356. The develop-
ment, upon final completion, will consist of a 74,000- square foot core
structure housing central warehousing, building and grounds maintenance and
• administration, transportation maintenance and. administration, a curriculum
library, and potential kitchen and laundry functions; a 20,000- square foot
central administration building; and four vehicle storage buildings (two
each for 38 buses and two each for 4n small vehicles). The site also will
be developed with a four- to eight- foot -high landscaped earth berm along
its entire perimeter. .The site is 15.4 acres in area. The project will be
• developed in phases as described under'Section II of this EIS.
The primary objective of the proposed project is to increase the effi-
ciency and reduce the costs of. District operations. Additional objectives
are as follows: (1) to provide a site and facilities that will meet the
anticipated future support needs of the Central Valley School District; (2)
• to gain the advantages and economies of consolidation of facilities on a
single site; (3) to locate the project so that it is central to the exist-
ing and future activity centers of the District (activity centers are de-
fined as schools and other District facilities); and (4) provide the dis-
trict with facilities that it does not currently have but does need, in-
cluding cold storage, central warehousing, and building /grounds mainte-
• nance.
• Earth -
* Disruption, displacement and redistribution of the site's soils.
* Construction of a four- to eight- foot -high earth berm along the
perimeter of the site.
* Alteration of topographic contours.
• Air
* Temporary dust and particulates during construction phases.
* Increase in traffic - related emissions.
* Slight and temporary odor during paving.
* Slight odor from diesel bus operations.
• Water
* Alteration of site's runoff and absorption characteristics.
* Increase in impervious coverage. to 79 %. of total site area - -54%
paving /walkways, 25% rooftops, and 21% landscaping.
Addition of contaminants: to Spokane Valley aquifer via storm water
runoff. .
• * Addition of contaminants to Spokane Valley aquifer via septic
drainfield effluents until hooked into sewer..•system.
B. Impacts
I. SUMMARY
A. Project Description and Objectives
Elements of the Physical Environment,
Flora
* Removal from production of approximately 15 acres of cultivated
agricultural land.
Fauna
* Wildlife species will be displaced temporarily from the site
during construction.
* Existing habitat (which is periodically disrupted by cultivation)
will be replaced by domestic lawn grass, shrubs, trees, and native
grasses over landscaped area, which will be more diverse and sta-
ble than what presently exists.
Noise
* Temporary increase in noise levels during construction.
* Increase of overall noise levels from on -site operations.
* Slight increase in overall traffic noise levels.
* Increase in peak noise levels during departure and return of buses
at access points and along 16th Avenue and Sullivan Road.
Light and Glare
* ' New light sources created.
Land Use
* Change from agricultural to institutional use.
* Potential conflict with adjacent land uses, particularlry resi-
dences to the north.
* Some local residents have objected to the proposed project because
of perceived land use and zoning conflicts.
Natural Resources
* Consumption of energy resources during construction.
• Energy consumption for heating and operation of District vehicles.
* Reduced fuel consumption relative to the District's existing
transportation site.
Population and Housing
* Preclusion of housing and population growth on the affected site.
Transportation /Circulation
* Increase in truck and equipment traffic during project construc-
tion phases.
* Gradual increase in traffic generated by on -site operations
through various construction phases.
* Projected vehicle trips per school day for total operations (at
full build -out (15 to 20 years in the future)): approximately
1,370 per day (approximately 570 employee trips and approxi-
mately 802 operations trips).
•
•
•
•
•
Risk of Explosion or Hazardous Emissions
* Fuel and other potentially hazardous materials stored on -site.
Elements of the Human Environment •
•
•
•
•
•
Energy
* Consumption of energy during construction.
* Consumption of energy (electricity or natural gas) for heating.
• • Consumption of fuels for vehicular transportation.
* Lower fuel and energy consumption relative to existing sites.
•
• Aesthetics
Alteration of aesthetic character of the site.
* Potential aesthetic conflict with adjacent residential properties.
* Some local residents have objected to the proposed project for
aesthetic reasons..
• Economics
* Potential increase in taxes to District residents for construc-
tion..
* Savings to District residents from consolidation, bulk purchasing,
more efficient operation.
• C. Alternatives
* Projected bus trips during, school ;year:. morning (6:30 a.m. to
9:15 a.m.), 148; noon (11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.), 48; and after-
noon (2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.), 164.
* Morning peak hour traffic generation,. approximately 190 inbound
and 45 outbound. -
* Increase in accident potential between vehicles and bicycles and
pedestrians.
* Increase in accident potential .between through vehicles and turn-
ing traffic.
* Construction of bus and small vehicle storage buildings: 96 bus
spaces, 80 small vehicle spaces. -
* Exterior parking for staff members and visitors: 346 spaces.
Public Services
* Increased potential for fire and sheriff demand on proposed site.
* Improved security over existing sites.
Utilities -
* Extension of (or connection of) water, power, communications, and
possibly natural gas lines to site.
* Generation of storm water, sewage, and solid waste.
* Consumption of water.
Human Health
N/A
Recreation
N/A
Archaeological /Historical
* None.
No Action Alternative.
* Site would remain in .agricultural use : for indeterminate time
period.
3
3
* Potential for a range of residential to commercial /office devel-
opments.
* Potential for environmental impacts ranging from lower than, to
similar to, the proposed project (for most cases lower than).
* District would operate from existing facilities and sites at
additional costs to District taxpayers.
* Redevelopment of existing District sites or acquisition of new
District sites for facilities. '
* Possible loss of ability to consolidate facilities on a single
site.
* Potential relative increase in transportation costs.
Alternative Site Locations (see the map on page 1.474105'
* Physical impacts similar for construction on either proposed or
alternative sites.
* Traffic, noise, and land use impacts would affect adjacent resi-
dential uses in similar ways at alternate or proposed sites. De-
gree of impacts would depend on number of residences and existing
noise and traffic environment.
* Several sites considered by District but rejected because of poor
geographic location, poor traffic circulation, high land cost,
property not available, and nearby residences.
* 4th and Conklin site considered as alternative: site size margin-
al; land cost high; lower potential for land use conflict; possi-
ble zone change to restricted industrial; fewer adjacent resi-
dents; potential circulation problems; lower existing traffic
noise environment, thus greater relative noise impact to resi-
dents; increased vehicle mileage and fuel consumption relative to
proposed site, but will decrease somewhat over the long term.
* Site east of Central Valley High School considered as alternative:
cost unknown; size potentially adequate; zone change not antici-
pated; shoreline area of Shelley Lake; adjacent residents to
south; potential land use conflict; no street access, but poten-
tial access to Sullivan through the high school site or to 4th
Avenue; noise impact from site operations to adjacent residents;
nearby residences directly overlook site from above; geographic
location less advantageous than proposed site, but better than the
4th and Conklin site.
Alternative Design Concepts
* Continue existing operations and acquire and develop sites for in-
dividual or combinations of facilities when expansion is required.
* Consolidation of facility on adequately sized site has following
advantages: operational efficiences; savings to District patrons;
room for future expansion; reduced overall land and building
costs; better overall planning;' better inventory and quality con-
trol; better communication; fewer areas in the community impacted
by operational activities. •
* Construction of project on more than one site has following advan-
tages: potential for satellite bus facilities over the long
range; smaller site sizes required; operational impacts of site
not concentrated in one area.
* Potential split site alternative: 4th and Conklin for transporta-
tion, warehousing, and 'buildings and grounds maintenance; reten-
4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.1
tion of existing transportation /administration site for expansion
of administration onto reduced transportation site with satellite
busing from site; satellite bus facility at Liberty Lake in long
term; kitchen and laundry•facilities as presently exist with new
facilities in new schools.
D. Mitigating Measures
• Elements of the Physical Environment
Earth
* Erosion and runoff control during construction phases.
* Landscaping completed site and long term development areas.
Air
* Dust suppressants to reduce construction dust generation. •
* Cleaning. of construction and operational vehicles to reduce dust
carried off the site.
* Paving of all driving and parking areas.
Water
* Drainage . control and runoff plan approved by Spokane County Engi-
neering Department.
* Connection to sewer system when available with interim sanitary
waste disposal'in accordance with Health District guidelines.
Flora
* Landscaping of site, •including landscaped earth berm around peri-
meter of site.
* Maintenance•of landscaped earth berm.
* Increased diversity of plant species compared to existing condi-
tions.
* Permanent flora habitat, uninterrupted by agricultural activities.
Fauna
* Increased diversity of bird. and small animal habitat by increased
diversity of plant species and planting of trees and shrubs.
• Noise
• * Standard construction noise abatement techniques.
* Berming and landscaping to reduce operations noise to off -site •
receptors (can be placed prior to actual construction on- site).
* Plan for scheduling and locating early morning operations to mini-
mize off -site impacts.
• Control bus driving techniques and departure /return routes to low-
er peak noise levels received by residences adjacent to access
points at the north end of the site.
Light and Glare
* Use low density lights and direct to specific.areas to reduce off-
• site intrusions.
* Landscaping will screen light and reduce diffusion t� off -site
properties.
* Use of non- or low -glare building and roofing materials.
5
Land Use
* Site design to reduce impacts on adjacent properties.
* Landscaped berm for screening existing residential and possible
future residential uses.
* Low building profiles and design to reduce appearance of bulk.
Natural Resources
* None.
Risk of Explosion or Hazardous Emissions
* Special storage area for potentially hazardous chemicals.
* Handle materials in accordance with appropriate procedures.
* Underground fuel storage.
Elements of the Human Environment
Population and Housing
* None.
Transportation /Circulation
* Improvement of Sullivan Road to five lanes and 16th Avenue to four
lanes with signalization of Sullivan /16th intersection. Eventual
four- to five -lane improvement of Sullivan Road to 32nd Avenue.
* Provision of left- and right -hand turn lanes into site.
* Careful design of southern access points to ensure adequate sight
distance.
* Separation of various types of vehicles using access points and
internal circulation.
* Provision of sidewalks and bikeways to reduce potential vehicular/
bicycle /pedestrian conflict.
Coordinate access design with Spokane County.
Public Services
* Site and facility design features to reduce potential need for po-
lice and fire services, i.e., secured buildings, storage areas and
fuel storage areas, security lighting, use of non - flammable build-
ing materials, etc.
Energy
* Central location reduces vehicular fuel consumption relative to
existing sites.
* Use of efficient heating sources and conservation techniques.
* Encourage use of transit or carpooling by District employees.
Utilities
* Coordination with various utilities in terms of site design and
construction scheduling.
* Connect to sewer line when available.
* Consider developing recycling program for liquid and solid wastes.
Human Health
N/A
6
•
•
•
Earth
* Disruption of on -site soil.
* Approximately 79% of the site's surface overcovered by buildings,
IS walkways, driveways, and parking areas.
* Slight alteration of the site's topography.
Air
* Potential uncontrollable dust from construction activities.
* Increased emissions from vehicular traffic.
• * Slight and temporary odor from paving and diesel bus operations.
Water
* Alteration of existing absorption and runoff patterns.
* Slight contaminant 'contribution ,from storm water in spite of ad-
herence to County's storm water management guidelines:
• * Slight contaminant contribution from drainfield effluent until
sewer hook -up.
Aesthetics - -
* Sensitive site design.
* Landscaped earth berm with natural flora.
* Use of materials and building design to reduce appearance of bulk
and provide well - maintained.appearance. f
Recreation
N/A
Archaeological /Historical
* Notify appropriate authorities if items of potential significance
are encountered.
E. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Elements of the Physical Environment
Flora
* Removal of approximately 15 acres of land from agricultural pro-
duction.
Fauna
* Reduction of overall habitat area for on -site wildlife species.
Noise
* Generation of construction noise during various phases.
• * Traffic generated by site activities will have a slight impact on
overall traffic noise levels.
*
On-site operations will potentially increase noise levels received
by adjacent properties.
Light and Glare
• * New light sources to local area.
Land Use
* Potential land use conflict with adjacent residential area to the
north.
7
Natural Resources
* Energy consumption in construction and operation of proposed pro-
ject.
Risk of Explosion or Hazardous Emissions
* None.
Elements of the Human Environment
Population and Housing
* None.
Transportation /Circulation
* Temporary increase in traffic during construction phases.
* Permanent increase in local area traffic (approximately 1,370
vehicle trips per school day, with a reduction of bus, kitchen and
laundry related traffic during school vacations or holidays).
* Increase in bus and truck trips on Sullivan Road. Some increase
in bus traffic along 16th Avenue.
* Access points for some buses near existing residences.
Public Services
* Potential demand for police and fire services.
Energy
* Non - renewable energy resources consumed during construction and
project operation.
Utilities
* Use of septic tank and drainfield for interim sewage disposal.
* Generation of sewage and solid waste.
* Water consumption.
* Increased demand on electrical and telephone systems.
Human Health
N/A
Aesthetics
* Alteration of aesthetic character of the site.
* Project will differ in scale and bulk from surrounding structures
to the north.
* Perceived as adverse by some local property owners.
Recreation
N/A
Archaeological /Historical
* None.
Economics
* Potential increase in taxes to District residents to fund con-
struction.
8
•
•
The proposed project will be constructed in several phases, all of
which will be discussed in this draft EIS. The initial phase will involve
the construction of a core structure that will eventually be added to and
• will house the central warehousing facility, possible central kitchen, pos-
sible central laundry, building and grounds maintenance, vehicle.mainte-
nance, and curriculum library. The functions contained in this initial
core structure will include (1) administrative space, (2) building and
grounds maintenance, and (3) some central warehousing. Outdoor covered
storage and parking and loading areas will also be developed. This phase
• will also result in the construction of a landscaped berm around the peri-
meter of the site. (The proposed site plan and phasing are shown on the
following pages.)
The second phase will involve the addition of a vehicle maintenance
facility to the core structure. A vehicle wash facility, a 48 -stall bus
• storage building, and a 40 -stall small vehicle storage building will also
be developed. Paved parking and yard area will also be developed in con-
junction with these facilities. The third and subsequent phases will in-
volve addition to the core structure, the District administration building,
another 48 -stall bus storage building, another 40 -stall small vehicle stor-
age-building, and additional covered storage.
It is anticipated that the initial phase will commence in 1982 and the
second phase in 1984. The timing for the subsequent phases has not been
established at this time. The timing and extent of construction of each
phase (after the first phase) will be dependent on district financing
(through building fund). This draft EIS will discuss the impacts of the
• proposed project at full build -out.
Although the specific construction details for the project have not
been developed at this time, it is anticipated that the structure housing
the warehousing and maintenance functions and the vehicle storage buildings
will be tilt -up concrete construction. The exterior treatment of these
• structures has not been finalized at this time, but the use of flat earth -
tone colors has been suggested. The roof will be a polymer spray -on mater-
ial in either a bronze, grey, or white color. The roof pitch will be mini-
mal in order to maintain a low building profile. The core structure will
be 20 to 25 feet in height, and the vehicle storage facilities will be
about 16 feet in height. The District Administration Building is antici-
pated that the structure will be one story in height. Landscaping will be
provided along the perimeter of the site as well as in selected interior
locations. All landscaped areas will be provided with an irrigation sys-
tem.
•
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed project, the Central Valley School District Educational
Services Center, is sponsored by Central Valley School District No. 356.
As shown on the following vicinity and site maps, the proposed project is
located on a 15.4 -acre site at the southwest corner of the intersection of
Sullivan Road and 16th Avenue.
Information related to zoning interpretation is included under Spokane
County Zoning Admustor File No. I -3 -80.
0
•
h
•
E
a Consultants in trm
HA WORTH v 4
mai anaiy,
pm,
•
•
•
Vicinity Map
•
•
•
•
1 Mile
•
- ratatinatos 11 ;21a1
I - WM
EntaLIMMem
ltmae ii gr
p raztrn Site
rt el
Sixteenth' Avenue
VERA WATER & POWER
J
h
HA WORTH & A.VDFRSON LVC
\ Umdmnu in environmenwi mays
PI
Site Map)
I7r- Kichard C. Langton
Charles G. Sto:
A..:.rarr 4urnr:nr... rr
Neil D. Prescott. Ir.
uti.ontst,floraAt
rr.r.
DIRECTORS
Dr. iierbert H. Osborn
toilet E. nastlne
Dr. Bruce L. Gehman
Darrell A. Thompson
Sheryl L. McCormack
An
Lino/ I ,et:„ rnrr„
C
Vall
N �. 56 In the Spokane Palley
Schooi SPntl1 123 norvdlah. Spokane, Washington 6 9206
150a1 0 P -6700
Di strict
Sikog4Mi Cowin E .
EN
DECi 4 198
Pursuant to WAC 197 -10 -480, the Central Valley School
District No. 356 will conduct a. hearing for the purpose
of receiving public comment on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement issued November 3, 1981 for a proposal
to locate an Educational Services Center on approximately
15.4 acres located at the southwest corner of the inter-
section of Sullivan Road and 16th Avenue, Spokane County.
The hearing will be held at the Keystone Elementary School
gymnasium, S. 612 McDonald Road, commencing at 7:00 PM on rl
Monday, December 21, 1981. Copies of the Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement are available at the Central Val-
ley School District Administration Building, S. 123 Bowdi,h
Road, Spokane, Washington.
Dave Jackman
Responsible Official
Central Valley School. District #356
922 -6700
r
• i \
Sixteenth Avenue
•
•
0
Bus
Stong•
Building
Bus
Storage
Building
tsnsgortafl
Maintenance
Bu se
111111 IIIIIIIII
Admintshefl n
Q11111111111 1
7IIIJIIIIHIIb
Trucks s f
Service Vehicles 4
Illlllllll11111111N
Small Vehicle
Storage Building
Smell Vehicle
Storage Bolding
O
4
O
LEGEND
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 8
Future Phasing
h
HAWORTH G ANDERSON, INC.
Consultants fii en.Hanmenml analysis, plamiing, economies
Site Plan
0
120:
2
12
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
h
• \__
Service
Vehicle Parking
Fenced
Covered Storage
ComoImms in environmental n,dy sis,
Building
Maintenance
R
onornics
Sixteenth Avenue
13
Central Warehousing
(Phase One)
m�o�samg —
y
E
Service Vehicles
�
Construction of the proposed project will involve the following types
of impacts to the site:. grading for building foundations, parking and
driveway areas; excavation for utility lines, and storm and sanitary waste
water disposal; and overcovering of soils with paving and structures. An
internal circulation system (with employee and visitor parking, loading and
off - loading areas) will intertie with Sullivan Road and 16th Avenue. Four
access points will link the site to Sullivan Road. Two will be designated
for school buses, delivery trucks and maintenance vehicles, with the other
two for adminstrative staff and visitors. There will also be two access
points to 16th Avenue for school buses that would use 16th Avenue. Sani-
tary sewage will be disposed of on -site via septic tanks and drainfields.
The on -site system will be designed to facilitate eventual hook -up to a
valley sewer system when available. Storm water will be disposed of on-
site by dry wells, grassed percolation areas, and other means acceptable to
the Spokane County Engineer's Office. It is anticipated that runoff from
rooftops will drain to dry wells and that grassed percolation areas used in
conjunction with dry wells, siltation ponds, or oil separators will dispose
runoff from surface impervious areas.
The site of the proposed project is within the planning and zoning jur-
isiction of Spokane County. The site is presently designated for Urban use
under the Generalized Comprehensive Plan (October, 1980) and zoned for Ag-
ricultural use under the Zoning Ordinance. The following detailed defini-
tion of the Urban category is excerpted from the Comprehensive Plan.
A. Density Characteristics:
Residential net densities should have an approximate density
of 1 unit per acre to 17 units per acre.
B. Characteristic Features:
Since, Urban areas will be the most. intensely developed of
all the Categories, it is primarily a residential Category of
single family, two family, multiple family, and condominium
buildings along with neighborhood commercial, light industrial
and public and recreational facilities.
Agricultural activities will be very limited and considered a
secondary use. The aesthetic setting will be predominately man-
made structures with occasional natural or planned open spaces.
Most areas in an Urban setting may not have a view of natural
areas and open spaces will most likely consist of park and /or
school grounds.
Low to moderate levels of noise and air pollution will most
likely exist in Urban areas due to the intensity of activities
and the high volume of traffic generated.
The more intensive land uses such as light industrial and
neighborhood commercial will be located near the heavily trav-
eled streets while the least intensive single family residential
uses will be isolated from the noise and heavy traffic. Multi-
family structures will usually be a transitional use located be-
tween single family residential and the more intensive areas.
C. Public Facilities and Services:
Urban areas will have public water systems, sanitary sewer
systems, storm sewer systems, and utility systems such as elec-
14
trical, telephone, gas, and cable services. Streets will be
curbed and paved. Street lights and sidewalks will be common to
residential, public, and commercial areas. Specialized pathways
may also be common in the urban area.
Public facilities include elementary, junior high, and high
schools. Parks will normally be associated with schools but not
exclusively. Public libraries, manned fire stations, medical
facilities, and government offices and post offices may be dis-
persed throughout Urban areas.
Other services typical of Urban areas may include police,
public transit, refuse collection and removal, animal control,
and street maintenance.
D. Non - Compatible Uses:
Due to the variety and mix of land uses and activities found
in the Urban Category, there are few land use activities that
would be inappropriate. Many uses may require screening or
other performance standards to make them compatible with one
another.
Mining, major commercial users, heavy industrial uses, and
intensive farming would not be compatible within Urban areas.
The proposed project would generally meet the use definition for the
Urban category. The location of the site adjacent to 16th Avenue and Sul-
livan Road, both heavily traveled streets, and the use of landscaped berm -
ing along with other design considerations to reduce impact of the facili-
ties, would be within the criteria of this category.
At the present time the Spokane County Zoning code has not specifically
envisioned the construction of a School District Administration and Main-
tenance Center on a site without a school. Therefore, assuming that the
existing zoning code is applicable, the existing zoning may potentially re-
quire the following rezone and permits: administration offices and curric-
ulum library -- conditional use permit; central storage facility, central
kitchen, and maintenance areas - -zone change to either commercial or light
industrial; and bus and small vehicle storage -- conditional use permit. The
Spokane County Zoning Code is undergoing substantial revision, however, it
is scheduled for completion in December of 1981.
15
•
• A. List of Elements of the Environment
The following list of the elements of the environment is presented pur-
suant to the requirements of WAC 197 -10 -444. "N /A" ( "not applicable ") ap-
pears beside an item when it is obvious that the proposed action will not
significantly affect the area or subarea of the environment in question.
• The analysis in this impact statement does not address the environmental
categories marked N /A. All other categories are addressed systematically
in this EIS. The order of the discussion is the same as the order of the
categories in the checklist that follows here.
This section contains a detailed analysis of each category which is not
• marked N /A. The analysis addresses the existing conditions of the environ-
ment, the impact of the proposal on the environment, measures proposed or
available to mitigate the adverse impacts identified, and the unavoidable
adverse impacts that will result if the proposed action is taken.
•
1. Earth 18
1.1 Geology 18
1.2 Soils 18
1.3 Topography 19
1.4 Unique Physical Features N/A
• 1.5 Erosion 19
1.6 Accretion /avulsion N/A
2. Air 21
2.1 Air Quality 21
2.2 Odor - 26
- 2.3 Climate N/A
r 3. Water 27
3.1 Surface Water Movement N/A
3.2 Runoff /Absorption 27
3.3 Floods N/A
3.4 Surface Water Quantity N/A
3.5 Surface Water Quality N/A
• 3.6 Ground Water Movement 30
3.7 Ground Water Quantity 32
3.8 Ground Water Quality 33
3.9 Public Water Supplies 36
4. Flora 37
4.1 Numbers or Diversity of Species 37
• 4.2 Unique Species 37
4.3 Barriers and /or Corridors 37
4.4 Agricultural Crops 37
5. Fauna 37
5.1 Numbers or Diversity of Species 37
5.2 Unique Species 38
• 5.3 Barriers and /or Corridors 39
5.4 Fish or Wildlife Habitat 39
6. Noise 39
7. Light and Glare 47
Elements of the Physical Environment
III. CATEGORICAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
16
8. Land Use 48
9. Natural Resources 59
9.1 Rate of Use 59
9.2 Non - renewable Resources 59
10. Risk of Explosion or Hazardous Emissions 59
Elements of the Human Environment
1. Population 61
2. Housing 63
3. Transportation /Circulation 67
3.1 Vehicular Transportation Generated 67
3.2 Parking Facilities 76
3.3 Transportation Systems 77
3.4 Movement /Circulation 77
3.5 Waterborne, Rail, and Air Traffic N/A
3.6 Traffic Hazards 77
4. Public Services 79
4.1 Fire 79
4.2 Police 80
4.3 Schools 81
4.4 Parks or Other Recreational Facilities N/A
4.5 Maintenance N/A
4.6 Other Governmental Services N/A
5. Energy 85
6. Utilities 87
6.1 Energy 87
6.2 Communications 88
6.3 Water 89
6.4 Sewer 89
6.5 Storm Water 90
6.6 Solid Waste 91
7. Human Health N/A
8. Aesthetics 92
9. Recreation N/A
10. Archaeological /Historical 95
11. Additional Population Characteristics 95
12. Economic Factors 95
17
B. Elements of the Physical Environment
• 1. Earth
1.1 Geology
a. Existing Conditions
• The geology of the site and valley floor are characterized by igneous
and metamorphic bedrock overlain by boulders, cobbles, gravel, and sand
from late Pleistocene flood deposits. These flood deposits are mostly very
coarse, very poorly sorted, and open- textured. They consist almost entire-
ly of reworked outwash gravel in the main part of the Spokane Valley. The
marginal parts contain various proportions of flood - transported sand and
40 gravel, reworked kame and lake deposits, and locally derived detritus.
b. Probable Impacts
None.
• c. Mitigating Measures
None.
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
II None.
1.2 Soils
a. Existing Conditions
MO The site of the proposed project contains only one soil type -- garrison
very gravelly loam (GmB) (zero to eight percent slopes). The garrison ser-
ies is made up of somewhat excessively drained, gravelly or stony soils
that were formed under grass in glacial outwash mixed in the upper part
with volcanic ash. The garrison very gravelly loam has a low shrink -swell
potential, moderate to very rapid permeability, high shear strength, high
41 load carrying capacity, and moderate stability. Surface runoff is slow or
medium and the hazard of erosion is slight to moderate. With the exception
of high permeability which allows rapid surface water infiltration and po-
tential contamination of ground water, this soil has no constraints to de-
velopment.
b. Probable Impacts
It is anticipated that the entire surface area of the site (approxi-
mately 671,000 square feet, or 15.4 acres) will be impacted by the con-
struction of the proposed project. At full build -out the site's surface
will be covered by structures (approximately 25 %), paving (approximately
• 54 %), and landscaping (approximately 21 %). (The anticipated phasing sched-
ule and respective construction activity has been discussed in Section II
of this EIS.)
18
Construction activity which will disrupt soils include grading, trench-
ing, excavation, and berming. Prepared soils will then be compacted and
built upon, paved, or landscaped.
c. Mitigating Measures
Soils disruption should be limited to the area of construction for each
phase. Other areas of the site which will not be immediately developed
should be maintained in a cover crop (grass, alfalfa, etc.) in order to re-
duce potential soil erosion and maintain a buffer from neighboring uses for
several years.
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
The soils of the entire surface area of the site will be disrupted over
the build -out period of the proposed project.
1.3 Topography
a. Existing Conditions
The site of the proposed project is relatively flat and generally
slopes downward from west to east, as shown on the following map. The
highest elevation on -site is located along the western boundary (approxi-
mately 49 feet). From this point the terrain slopes gradually to the
southeast corner (the lowest point at 40 feet). The overall slope is less
than 2.5%. The direction of drainage on the site is generaly to the south-
east corner.
b. Probable Impacts
The proposed project is anticipated to have only a slight impact on the
topographic character of the site. While grading and site preparation will
create a more uniform topographic pattern, no significant changes will take
place. The. most apparent impact to the topographic character will be a
berm approximately four to eight feet in height, which will be landscaped
with natural vegetation. This berm will be constructed prior to site de-
velopment in order to provide visual buffering from the surrounding proper-
ties.
c. Mitigating Measures
None.
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
None.
1.4 Unique Physical Features
N/A
1.5 Erosion
a. Existing Conditions
19
HAWORTH & ANOER]ON, INC
Consul ano .n iron Aral analysis, planning. economic
Sixteenth Avenue
Site
(Topography)
20
0'
VE"A WATER & PO E
The garrison very gravelly loam (GmB) is classified by the Soil Conser-
vation Service as having a slight to moderate erosion potential. Because
• of the site's flat terrain (less than 2.5% gradient) erosion hazard is an-
ticipated to be minimal.
Removal of vegetative cover and exposure of the soil to wind and runoff
• will increase the potential for erosion during construction. However, the
relatively flat terrain of the site will minimize potential for water ero-
sion.
• Areas that will not be immediately developed should be mmaintained with
a protective ground cover -- either through mulching or existing vegetation.
Soils that have been disrupted but not developed should be landscaped,
mulched, or contoured so as to prevent rapid runoff and potential erosion.
•
•
•
b. Probable Impacts
c. Mitigating Measures
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
None.
1.6 Accretion /Avulsion
N/A
2. Air
2.1 Air Quality
a. Existing Conditions
There are two categories of air contaminants in the Spokane area that
are considered problems with respect to state and federal air quality
standards. As a result, non - attainment areas have been established for
these contaminants -- suspended particulates (TSP) and carbon monoxide (CO).
TSP is essentially dust that has become airborne from vehicle travel or
• farming activities. CO is an odorless, colorless gas that is generated
primarily by gasoline - powered motor vehicles. (General background informa-
tion regarding air quality is discussed in Spokane County Air Quality Pro-
file, 1980, which was prepared by the Spokane County Air Pollution Control
Authority.)
• The site of the proposed project is located outside of both the TSP and
CO non - attainment areas. The maps on the following pages show non- attain-
ment areas and monitoring locations. The nearest TSP monitoring stations
to the site of the proposed project are East Valley High School, Ponderosa,
and University City. The East Valley High School and Ponderosa stations
would most closely represent the conditions at the proposed project site.
• University C has had consistent violations of the Fegeral Primary Stand-
ard (75 ug /m ) and the State Primary Standard (60 ug /m ). The East Valley
High location showed a violation of the state standard in 1976 (63
ug /m ) but all yearly averages since 1976 have been within state and fed-
21
•
•
•
•
•
•
• • • • •
L-' _r
r. . ,
\
• ' 7 1 )
J
T.S.P.
C0
L
r \ \
C� J
.-----J
h
a NA WOft ?H G AND INC.
Com & 4 n �al mmlyric plate
g, economics
(Non- Attainment Area Boundaries)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
■
1
T.S.P.
1. CITY HALL
2. BOONE ST. #2
3. ROGERS HIGH SCHOOL
4. WASHINGTON WATER POWER
5. ZELLERBACH
6. GIFFORD HILL (A.S.C.) - ALUMINUM SUPPLY
7. MILLWOOD CITY HALL
8. UNIVERSITY CITY
9. EAST VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL
10. MORAN
11. PONDEROSA
12. PUBLIC HEALTH BUILDING
r
r
/s
1
1. CITY HALL
13. POST OFFICE
14. LIQUOR STORE
15. FERNWELL BUILDING
16. VALLEY FIRE STATION
17. STOLZ REALTY
18. DARL APARTMENTS
19. DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCE
20. BOONE ST. #2
91
0 11
•
I
CO
n= 1
f
CO & TSP Monitoring Sites
•
eral limits. The Ponderosa location, for which the data represents only
three months, had levels within state and federal limits.
SUMMARY OF SUSPENDED PARTICULATE MATTER
ANNUAL GEOMETRIC MEANS (ugm /3)
Station 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
• University City 97 2 75 74 86 123
East Valley High School 6 3 41 37 41 53
Ponderosa 46
Motel:
2 Eight months data.
• 3 Five months data.
Three months data.
•
Source: Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority.
The primary source of suspended particulates in the immediate vicinity
of the project site is agricultural activity and vehicles traveling on
paved and unpaved surfaces. The agricultural activity (cultivation and
harvest) generates dust particles on a seasonal basis. The primary traffic
activity in the project vicinity is related to surrounding subdivisions,
• 16th Avenue, and Sullivan Road.
Although no monitoring for carbon monoxide has been conducted in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed project site, it is not expected that
there would be any violations of established standards. The reason for
this is that traffic volumes along Sullivan Road and through the 16th Ave-
• nue intersection are quite low in comparison to areas having periodic CO
violations (such as University City, which is discussed below). The 1981
average daily traffic (factored) for the north leg of the Sullivan /16th
intersection is approximately 5,500 vehicles per day. In addition, the
traffic is relatively fast and free - moving. In other words, there are no
lines of stopped vehicles attempting to cross the intersection even during
• peak traffic periods. (See subsection 3.1 of Section C of this section for
a discussion of existing traffic characteristics.)
The nearest permanent CO monitoring station to the site is located at
the Valley fire station, across Sprague Avenue from University City, as
shown in the map on page 23. The 1979 monitoring data showed a one -hour
• maximum of 21 ppm, for which the standard is 35 ppm, and an eight -hour max-
imum of 12 ppm, for which the standard is 9 ppm. There were six violations
of the eight -hour standard on six different days. The 1980 data showed a
one -hour maximum of 17 ppm and an eight -hour maximum of 12 ppm. There was
one violation of the eight -hour standard. As with the downtown monitoring
locations which showed violations of the CO standards, the air quality is
• affected by high traffic volumes (23,370 vehicles per day in 1980), conges-
tion, (slow - moving, stop and go traffic) and parking lot activity associ-
ated with University City.
24
Although no permanent monitoring stations are located near the site of
the proposed project, temporary air quality monitoring has been conducted
near the Sullivan Road /I -90 intersection and the Harvard Road /I -90 inter-
section (Sullivan Park Center and Homestead projects). Even though traffic
volumes are high at the Sullivan Road /I -90 intersection (25,900 ADT on I -90
and 14,230 in 1980), there were no violations of either the one -hour or the
eight -hour standards. Similarly, monitoring at the Homestead site showed
no violations of these standards. The primary reasons for the lack of vio-
lations even with relatively high traffic volumes is that the traffic is
relatively fast - moving with little congestion.
b. Probable Impacts
The construction of the proposed project, particularly the site prepa-
ration phases, will create the potential for dust and suspended particulate
generation. There will also be a potential for mud and dust deposition on
Sullivan Road and 16th Avenue as a result of construction vehicle traffic.
The use of asphalt paving materials will result in the emissions of hydro-
carbons. This impact will be slight and of short duration.
The traffic generated by construction workers and operation the of con-
struction equipment on -site will generate vehicule - related emissions since
this work will be temporary and of short duration. This impact will be
slight.
Once the proposed project is completed (or phases are completed) vehic-
ular traffic will contribute to an increase of contaminant emissions. The
two types of emissions which will be generated and have historically been
of concern in the Spokane area include total suspended particulates (TSP)
and carbon monoxide (CO).
-Since all of the driveways and parking areas will be paved the poten-
tial for generation of dust on -site will be minimal. The primary potential
for on -site dust generation will result from buses traveling unpaved roads
while on routes, and depositing dust and mud on the site driveways and
parking areas. The deposition of mud or dust and increased bus traffic on
the local streets will also slightly increase the potential for particulate
generation off -site.
The addition of project- related traffic will increase the generation of
vehicle- related emissions in the local area. The primary point of emis-
sions generation will be the intersection of 16th Avenue and Sullivan Road.
However, based on monitoring information of intersections with higher traf-
fic flows and comparing them to the proposed project, it is not expected
that the proposed project will result in violations of air quality stand-
ards.
Initially, the contribution of the proposed project to overall traffic
in the site vicinity will be quite low and will increase over the 15- to
20 -year build -out period to between 1,300 and 1,400 vehicular trips per
day. This would represent approximamtely 7% of the approximately 20,000
vehicles projected to pass through the 16th /Sullivan intersection around
1995. (See subsection 3.1 of Section C of this section for the projected
impacts of project traffic.) The traffic characteristics of District oper-
25
•
ations will tend to spread this traffic throughout the day. Most of the
trips will take place during off -peak periods when traffic flow along Sul-
• livan Road and through the intersection with 16th Avenue is lighter and un-
congested. In the afternoon peak traffic period (between 5:00 p.m. and
6:00 p.m.) most of the District traffic will have departed the site.
With proper signalization and turning channelization, congestion at the
Sullivan Road /16th Avenue intersection can be minimized so that even with
• significant traffic growth in the area, air quality problems should not de-
velop. The primary cause of carbon monoxide generation is the idling of
internal combusion engines in a congested situation such as downtown Spo-
kane or University City in the Valley). When congested traffic volumes are
large enough and dispersal of air is minimal the possibility of carbon mon-
oxide violations is likely. As long as traffic can move relatively freely
• (even in large volumes) the violation of carbon monoxide standards is not
likely.
During project construction dust suppressant techniques should be em-
• ployed in order to reduce generation of dust. If construction takes place
during wet weather, the tires of construction vehicles should be washed be-
fore exiting the site in order to reduce mud deposition on local streets.
All surfaces upon which vehicles will operate or park will be paved. Regu-
lar cleaning of school buses, driveways, and parking areas would reduce the
potential for deposition of dust on local streets.
•
•
Slight quantities of suspended particulates and vehicle- related emis-
sions will be generated during the construction phases of the proposed pro-
• ject. The traffic generated by the operation of the proposed facilities
will emit slight quantities of carbon monoxide and other vehicle - related
contaminants.
• a. Existing Conditions
•
c. Mitigating Measures
The county's proposed improvements to Sullivan Road and the Sullivan
Road /16th Avenue intersection will reduce the potential for congestion and
subsequent vehicle- related emission concentrations. The provision of ap-
proach lanes and channelization to the site access points would improve
traffic flow and reduce potential congestion along Sullivan Road and 16th
Avenue.
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
2.2 Odor
b. Probable Impacts
26
There are presently no unusual or objectionable odors generated on the
proposed project site.
There are two sources of odor that may potentially be created by the
proposed project. ,Neither of these is expected to be significant. The
first is associated with the construction of the project - -the odor emitted
from asphalt paving material. Diesel powered construction equipment will
also emit a faint odor that will be very localized in impact. The second
is associated with the operational activities of the site - -the odor emitted
by motor vehicles, both diesel and gas powered. Again, the odors emitted
will be faint and very localized in impact. It is anticipated that the im-
pact on off -site receptors will be negligible.
c. Mitigating Measures
None.
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Faint odors may be perceived during on -site construction from roofing,
asphalt paving and the operation of construction equipment. During the op-
erational phases faint odors may be perceived during bus operation.
2.3 Climate
N/A
3. Water
3.1 Surface Water Movement
N/A
3.2 Runoff /Absorption
a. Existing Conditions
The site of the proposed project has no man -made impervious surfaces
that would affect the natural runoff /absorption process. The site is
characterized by soils that are somewhat excessively drained with moderate
to very rapid permeability. The site is also used for the cultivation of
various agricultural crops and thus is intermittently covered with vegeta-
tion. Because of the rapid permeability and absorptive characteristics of
the surface, little runoff is normally generated by the site. Potential
for runoff would occur during winter and early spring months when soils are
frozen and precipitation or snow melt cannot be readily absorbed.
b. Probable Impacts
Construction of the proposed project will alter the runoff and absorp-
tion characteristics of the site. Although the site will be graded and
reworked, no major drainage courses will be affected. The primary impact
of the project will be overcovering of soils by impervious surfaces-- struc-
tures, walkways, and pavement.
At full development, the site of the proposed project will be covered
by approximately 533,000 square feet (79 %) of impervious surfaces which
will not absorb precipitation or snowmelt. Approximately 170,000 square
feet (25 %) will be covered by structures with impervious rooftops. Approx-
imately 363,000 square feet (54 %) will be covered by walkays, driveways,
27
•
•
There are two potential impacts with respect to storm water runoff.
These include excess runoff volumes generated by impervious surfaces and
• various contaminants picked up and carried by the runoff. According to the
"Spokane Aquifer Cause and Effect Report" (1978) and the "Spokane Aquifer
Water Quality Management Plan" (1979), contaminants carried by storm water
runoff contribute to the degradation of the quality of the Spokane - Rathdrum
aquifer. The Spokane County "Guidelines for Stormwater Management" (1981)
lists the following contaminants contained in storm water which are of ma-
• jor concern: total dissolved solids, nutrients (especially nitrate due to
its mobility in soil and public health significance), metals, organic chem-
icals, and bacteria. Suspended solids are a concern because they are indi-
cative of heavy loading of metals and organics in storm water runoff.
These potential contaminants will be reduced, however, by the District's
adherence to 208 Water Quality Standards.
•
Although the storm water system for the proposed project has not been
designed at this time, it will follow the guidelines and meet the require-
ments of Spokane County's "Guidelines for Stormwater Management ". Under
• these guidelines
•
•
and parking areas. The balance of the site,, which is approximately 138,000
square feet (21 %) will consist of landscaped berms and grassed areas.
Since the entire site is not planned to be developed in one phase, it
is likely that interim systems for runoff control and disposal will be de-
veloped in conjunction with various construction phases. It is anticipated
that these interim systems will be designed to the greatest degree practi-
cal to interface with the total system. Since there are no storm water
collection facilities available to the site, various on -site methodologies
will be utilized to control and dispose of runoff. The most probable would
involve a system of dry wells and grassed percolation areas.
. . . the rate of stormwater runoff from any proposed land de-
velopment to any natural or manmade point of discharge down-
stream shall not exceed the peak rate of runoff for the design
storm occurring prior to the proposed land development. . . .
Restriction of stormwater runoff from any proposed land de-
velopment shall be effected by stormwater holding facilities
either open or closed or by introduction, on -site, of stormwa-
ters into permeable soils via an infiltration system. Under no
circumstances shall drainage be diverted in the proposed devel-
opment and released to a downstream property at points not re-
ceiving drainage prior to the proposed development. . . .
All development within the aquifer sensitive area . where
deemed feasible by the County Engineer, shall incorporate storm-
water treatment to mitigate the potential for groundwater degra-
dation.
c. Mitigating Measures
• The preferred treatment mechanism recommended by Spokane County is the
infiltration of storm water through a grassed area. This process removes
many dissolved and suspended materials from the infiltrating water by vari-
ous physical, chemical, and biological mechanisms which operate within the
28
root zone. The optimum contaminant removal per unit area (assuming an ave-
rage storage depth of four inches) is obtained by the provision of one acre
of flat grassed percolation area for eight acres of impervious surface.
Overflow for the grassed percolation area to a conventional storm runoff
disposal system is also required. The expected contaminant removals by us-
ing grassed percolation areas are in the following table.
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Nutrients
Nitrate
Total Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Metals
Organic Chemicals
Bacteria
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
EXPECTED CONTAMINANT REMOVALS
USING GRASSED PERCOLATION AREAS
95 percent
50 percent
0 -70 percent (20 -50 percent)
80 percent
90 percent
80+ percent
80+ percent
99.9+ percent
The "Guidelines for Stormwater Management" also allow (in lieu of
grassed percolation areas) any system which can be shown to the satisfac-
tion of the County Engineer to provide contaminant removals equal to or
better than the grassed percolation area.
As stated above, the project as presently proposed will contain approx-
imately 533,000 square feet of impervious area. Of this area approximately
170,000 square feet will consist of rooftops. The remaining 363,000 square
feet will consist of walkways, driveways, and parking areas. According to
the County Engineer's Office, the rooftop runoff can be disposed of by dis-
charging directly into dry wells without treatment by grassed percolation
areas. The remaining impervious surfaces will require discharge into a
grassed percolation area or some other means as effective. According to
the ratio provided by the guidelines, approximately 45,000 square feet of
grassed percolation area would be required to handle the runoff from the
paved area. This area could be reduced by using other systems such as oil
separators or sedimentation ponds for contaminant removal.
The existing runoff and absorption characteristics of the site will be
altered by the proposed project. There may also be a slight contribution
of various storm water runoff -borne contaminants to the aquifer to the ex-
tent they are not removed by grassed percolation areas or other acceptable
means of treatment.
3.3 Floods
29
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
N/A •
3.4 Surface Water Quantity
• N/A
3.5 Surface Water Quality
N/A
• 3.6 Ground Water Movement
a. Existing Conditions
The Spokane - Rathdrum aquifer, which the site overlies, extends from
near Spirit Lake and Pend Oreille Lake in Bonner and Kootenai counties,
• Idaho, southwest across the Rathdrum Prairie and down the Spokane Valley
through the City of Spokane, terminating at the confluence of the Spokane
River and the Little Spokane River (the direction of flow is from east to
west). The aquifer is the primary source of drinking water for approxi-
mately 350,000 people in an area which includes the cities of Spirit Lake,
Athol, Rathdrum, Hayden Lake, Coeur d'Alene, and Post Falls, Idaho, and
• Spokane, Washington. The boundaries of the aquifer and aquifer sensitive
area are shown on the following map.
The Spokane - Rathdrum aquifer is composed predominantly of Quaternay
glaciofluvial deposits which extend from Pend Oreille Lake, Idaho to north
of Spokane, Washington. The deposits consist primarily of sand and gravel,
• fine to coarse, and are poorly to moderately sorted, having scattered cob-
bles and boulders. The sand and gravel is relatively free of fine sand and
silt, except in the uppermost three to five feet, where fine grained ma-
terial fill most voids in the sand and gravel.
The thickness of the aquifer is not well established. The best data
• exist where two seismic surveys have supplemented available drilling data.
The seismic data indicate a total thickness of about 400 feet of unconsoli-
dated material near the Idaho - Washington state line. Because the water ta-
ble is at a depth of about 120 feet, the saturated thickness of the aquifer
is estimated at 280 feet. In general the only wells that penetrate the en-
tire thickness of the aquifer do so near its extremities, in the thinner
• parts of the aquifer. Wells drilled away from the margins generally pene-
trate only 50 feet or less below the water table.
Calculated values of ground water velocities are relatively high. USGS
calculations for the aquifer at the state line indicated a velocity of
about 64 feet per day. In an earlier study conducted by the U. S. Army
• Corps of Engineers, a different set of estimated aquifer characteristics
resulted in a calculated velocity of about 90 feet per day at the state
line. The USGS has calculated the rate of ground water flow in the aquifer
to be approximately 960 cubic feet per second (cfs) at the state line.
These values are relatively high for a ground water system and indicate
that the aquifer is a very dynamic system and not a relatively stable pool
• of water.
The depth to the water table is the greatest in northern Idaho, about
300 to 400 feet below the land surface, and becomes gradually shallower
30
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
h
SPOKANE I:TERNATI
AIRPORT
a HA :1')R TR <'
Gu :dwm.
maly is. pla., economic
P
ant Prairie
SITE
H
O
•
downstream, reaching depths of about 120 feet at the Washington /Idaho state
line and about 40 feet near Spokane. Continuing downstream the depth to
• the water table increases to about 150 feet in the Hillyard trough. in the
vicinity of the project site the depth to the water table is approximately
120 feet.
More in -depth and detailed discussions regarding the aquifer can be
found in the following documents: "Spokane Valey - Rathdrum Aquifer, Wash-
• ington and Idaho ", by D. W. Dost (1978); and "Metropolitan Spokane Region
Water Resources Study: Summary Report ", by the U. S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers (1976).
•
c. Mitigating Measures
None.
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
None.
3.7 Ground Water Quantity
• a. Existing Conditions
•
• The withdrawal from the aquifer was estimated by the Army Corps of En-
gineers (1976) to be approximately 20% (180 cfs) of the aquifer flow. The
Corps estimated that the withdrawal rate during the summer irrigation sea-
son was nearly 40 %. Projections to the year 2020 were made for nearly a
50% increase in average demand. Future withdrawals gram the aquifer appear
to be well within its overall capability for supply.
•
•
b. Probable Impacts
The proposed project will have no impact on the movement or flow of the
Spokane - Rathdrum aquifer.
The USGS and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers have calculated the rate of
ground water flow in the aquifer to be in the range of 960 to 1,000 cfs at
the state line.
The aquifer is recharged by percolation of surface water runoff and un-
derflow from adjacent highlands, by percolation of precipitation, by seep-
age from the Spokane River, by seepage from lakes which lie adjacent to the
aquifer, and by percolation of irrigation water diverted from surface water
sources.
b. Probable Impacts
The proposed project will have no direct impact on the quantity of wa-
ter within the Spokane - Rathdrum aquifer. Indirectly, water obtained from
Vera Water and Power will contribute to the overall consumption of water
from the aquifer.
32
c. Mitigating Measures
None.
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
None.
3.8 Ground Water Quality
a. Existing Conditions
The Spokane - Rathdrum aquifer is designated by the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) as the "sole source" of drinking water for the Spokane
metropolitan area. Although the aquifer generally yields water of excel-
lent quality, the "Spokane Aquifer Cause and Effect Report" (December,
1978) concluded that urbanization is contributing to the slow deterioration
of ground water quality. The following points summarize the conclusions of
the report.
1. The groundwater quality of the Spokane - Rathdrum Aquifer
is currently suitable for domestic, municipal, commercial, agri-
cultural and industrial uses.
2. The glacial outwash deposited alluvium overlying the
aquifer is extremely permeable making the aquifer susceptible to
contamination by certain types of substances spilled or placed
on the ground or in the immediate drainage area.
3. There is percolation (or recharge) of water from the
ground surface to the aquifer. Water from precipitation, irri-
gation, waste disposal and runoff all contribute to recharge and
transport constituents from at or near the ground surface to the
aquifer. The addition of constituents from these sources re-
sults in the variation in groundwater quality with depth and an
increase in the concentrations along the aquifer.
4. Travel time for pollutants through the alluvium overlying
the aquifer is comparatively fast (i.e., weeks) considering the
depth of the water table below ground surface, although it un-
doubtedly varies with moisture availability, soil type, quantity
and distribution of the pollutant and the nature of the constit-
uent.
5. Low flow rates near the aquifer periphery result in a
greater accumulation and higher concentration of dissolved sol-
ids and other constituents than in higher flows in the aquifer
main stem (nearest the center).
6. Industrial development and activities over the aquifer
have resulted in water quality deterioration. Future unregulat-
ed industrial and related activities could further jeopardize
aquifer water quality.
33
•
•
•
Monitoring data indicates that the water quality of the wells in the
project vicinity is good. The Vera Water and Power property adjacent to
the project site is identified as a future well location. Two points
should be made regarding the monitoring data. First, the site is located
near the periphery of the aquifer, thus contaminant concentrations are
• higher than for the central portion of the aquifer. Second, although the
concentrations are higher in this peripheral area, the contaminant levels
are within federal primary drinking water standards. The following table
shows the results of monitoring from the "Spokane Aquifer Cause and Effect
Report" for Vera wells 1, 2, and 4. Federal water quality standards are
shown on the following page.
•
Conductivity 278 290 404
• Nitrate (mg /1) 1.7 1.21 2.9
Chloride (mg /1) 2.7 1.7 3.3
Hardness (as CaCo 130 207
SO (mg /1) 9.5 13
Ca (mg /1) 28.8 23.6
Mg (mg /1) 8.6 14
• Na (mg /1) 2.6 6.0
ALK (as CaCo 92 168
Source: Spokane County Office of County Engineers, "Spokane Aquifer Cause
and Effect Report "; December, 1978.
• * * * * * * **
The human, kitchen, and laundry waste waters generated by the existing
Central Valley School District facilities are disposed of via septic and
drainfield systems. For each school facility all such wastes are disposed
of within a single facility. Grease traps are used in the kitchen facili-
• ties and enzymes are added to neutralize other caustic or non - biodegradable
wastes that may enter the waste disposal systems.
7. Solid waste disposal activities over the aquifer have
caused groundwater quality deterioration.
8. A substantial portion of aquifer dissolved solids in-
crease has resulted from man's activities over and adjacent to
the aquifer. Increase in these activities accompanying popula-
tion growth (urbanization) over the aquifer and on lands tribu-
tary will result in increasing deterioration of aquifer water
quality.
9. There is a risk of bacteriological degradataion of the
aquifer which accompanies current and future development over
and adjacent to the 'aquifer. The risk of contamination will in-
crease with additional population growth.
WATER QUALITY SAMPLING IN SITE VICINITY
34
Vera 1
Vera 2 Vera 4
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Source: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
* * * * * * * *
35
Chemical Standards
Maximum Proposed
Contamin Secondary
Constituent Level Level
Iron 0.3 mg /1
Manganese -- 0.05 mg /1
Sulfate 250 mg /1
Chloride -- 250 mg /1
Fluoride 2.0 mg /1
Nitrate (as N) 10. mg /1 --
Total dissolved solids 500 mg /1
pH -- <6.5 or >8.5
Color 15 platinum
cobalt units
Turbidity 1 to 5 JTU --
Foaming agents (detergents) -- 0.5 mg /1
Arsenic 0.05 mg /1
Barium 1. mg /1
Cadmium 0.010 mg /1
Chromium 0.05 mg /1 --
Copper -- 1 mg /1
Lead 0.05 mg /1
Mercury 0.002 mg /1
Selenium 0.01 mg /1
Silver 0.05 mg /1 --
Zinc -- 5 mg /1
Endrin 0.0002 mg /1
Lindane 0.004 mg /1
Toxaphese 0.005 mg /1
Phenols 0.001 mg /1 0.001 mg /1
Note :
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, 1975). Primary regulations are those which deal
with constituents that may affect the health of consumers.
2 National Proposed Secondary Water Regulations (U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, 1977). Secondary regulations are those which deal with the
aestSetic qualities of drinking water. These are guidelines only.
Chemical standards for phenols are not included in the primary or sec-
ondary regulations. Because of the frequent use of phenol by industries
situated above the aquifer, the available phenol data is included and ref-
erenced to the Public Health Service (1962) recommended limit of 0.001
mg /1.
• The proposed project will have two general sources of waste water which
could potentially add contaminants to the Spokane - Rathdrum aquifer. These
include contaminants carried by runoff and contaminants carried by waste
water from the operation of the various facilities on -site. These contami-
nants will be typical of those now generated by existing facilities but
will be concentrated over a smaller area than under the existing situation.
•
The primary sources of waste water will include human wastes from rest -
rooms and showers and domestic or gray water wastes from the kitchen and
laundry. Restroom facilities with toilets and sinks will be provided in
the administration building and kitchen /library /laundry and maintenance
complex. The maintenance facility will also have showers. Until a sewer
• system is developed in the Spokane Valley, these wastes will be disposed of
by an on -site septic system. It is possible, depending on the phasing of
the proposed project and the Valley sewer system, that sewer will be avail-
able to the site prior to the total development of the site.
The following types of chemicals which are presently used in the opera -
• tion of the building, grounds, and vehicle maintenance facilities, will al-
so be stored and used in the operation of the proposed facility: caustics,
paints, solvents, herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, soil penetrants and
sterilants, and fuels (diesel and gasoline). The storage and transport for
these chemicals may present the potential for accidental spill and leakage
into the aquifer.
•
As an interim means of disposing of waste waters generated by the pro-
posed project, a septic tank and drainfield system will be utilized. This
will- include waste waters generated by the kitchen, laundry, and human
• waste systems. The system will also be designed so that future hook -up to
a Valley sewer system (when available) can be accomplished. The District
will hook up to a sewer system when it becomes available.
Appropriate storage facilities will be developed for chemicals that, if
spilled, could create a hazard to local water supplies. In addition, a
• spill control program will be established so that spillage will not enter
dry wells and so that proper clean -up procedures can be carried out.
It is likely that slight quantities of runoff -borne contaminants will
• percolate into the aquifer in spite of complying with the "Guidelines for
Stormwater Management ", and until the sewage facilities of the project site
are hooked into a Valley sewer system, drainfield effluents will potential-
ly carry contaminants into the aquifer.
b. Probable Impacts
c. Mitigating Measures
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
3.9 Public Water Supplies
For a full discussion of public water supplies refer to subsection 6.3
of Section C (Elements of the Human Environment).
36
4. Flora
4.1 Numbers or Diversity of Species
Refer to subsection 4.4 (Agricultural Crops) which follows.
4.2 Unique Species
Refer to subsection 4.4 (Agricultural Crops) which follows.
4.3 Barriers and /or Corridors
Refer to subsection 4.4 (Agricultural Crops) which follows.
4.4 Agricultural Crops
a. Existing Conditions
The site consists of garrison very gravelly loam (GmB) and is presently
under irrigated cultivation. The garrison soils are somewhat excessively
drained and hold less than five inches of water which plants can use. The
soil is relatively easy to work but causes extreme wear on tillage equip-
ment. Runoff is low to medium and erosion potential is slight to medium.
Typical crops include wheat, barley, oats, grass seed, legumes, and grass.
The soil is in capability unit IVe -5. The Important Farmlands map for Spo-
kane County denotes the soils of the site as "additional farmland of state-
wide importance ".
b. Probable Impacts
Once the project is initiated, the site will no longer be available for
agricultural production. It is likely that the surrounding property to the
west and south will remain under agricultural production until replaced by
some form of development.
c. Mitigating Measures
None will be required with respect to agricultural production. The
site will be landscaped with typical ground cover and other native land-
scaping species. A landscaped berm will be constructed along the bound-
aries of the site and will include trees, shrubs, and native ground cover.
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
5. Fauna
5.1 Numbers or Diversity of Species
a. Existing Conditions
Because the site (and the property to the east, west, and south) is un-
der active agricultural production, the natural wildlife habitat has been
37
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Approximately 15 acres of land will be removed from agricultural pro- •
duction over a 20 -year period.
•
disrupted and permanently altered. Additionally, the habitat is seasonally
altered by agricultural activities. These cultivated areas are surrounded
• by suburban to urban density residential uses. This overall habitat set-
ting impedes wildlife movement and limits the number and diversity of wild-
life species likely to inhabit or range the area. Wildlife movement is
limited by human activity, structures and fences. The number and diversity
of wildlife is limited by the same factors as well as household pets (cats
and dogs) which act as wildlife predators.
The types of wildlife species that may be found in the site vicinity
include gophers, shrews, moles, field mice, skunks, racoons, pheasants,
quail, sparrows, blackbirds, magpies, jays, wrens, thrushes, hawks, owls,
and other species tolerant to a predominantly human environment.
•
• There are no known rare, endangered, or unique species inhabiting or
using the site for their exclusive habitat. There is no fish or water -
related habitat associated with the site.
• The existing habitat of the site will be disrupted and altered by the
proposed project. These wildlife species that are presently dependent on
the site for habitat will be forced to relocate during project construc-
tion. However, given the probability that the carrying capacity of adja-
cent habitat is saturated, a temporary reduction in the number of wildlife
species will most likely result. Those smaller mammals and bird species
• that are more mobile and capable of inhabiting a predominantly human envi-
ronment may return to the site after development.
The north, east, and south boundaries of the site will consist of a
• landscaped earth berm which will be provided to screen the site from adja-
cent land uses. This berm will be planted with a variety of native trees,
shrubs, and ground cover, which will provide a greater diversity of flora
species than under the present use. The greater diversity of flora (which
will remain undisturbed after planting) may provide habitat (although re-
duced in area but higher in quality from the present situation) for a
• greater diversity of human tolerant wildlife species than the existing
habitat.
The existing cultivated habitat of the site will be disrupted and per-
• manently altered by the proposed project. The number of wildlife species
able to exist on -site may be reduced as a result. However, the quality of
the permanent habitat should increase the diersity of species.
• Refer to subsection 5.1 above.
b. Probable Impacts
c. Mitigating Measures
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
5.2 Unique Species
38
5.3 Barriers and /or Corridors
Refer to subsection 5.1 above.
5.4 Fish or Wildlife Habitat
Refer to subsection 5.1 above.
6. Noise
a. Existing Conditions
The noise environment in any given area is of two types: ambient noise
and identifiable noise produced by specific sources. Ambient noise is as-
sociated with the overall effect of long -term noise producing activities
and is essentially the background noise level. It falls within the range
of sound pressures created by the rustle of leaves and the chirping of
birds (the minimum ambient) to the unidentifiable sounds of human activity
in an area (usually the maximum ambient). Identifiable noise levels are
associated with the short -term effect of a singular noise producing activi-
ty (e.g., a passing vehicle) and fall within a similar minimum to maximum
range.
In describing a noise environment for the purpose of assessing its im-
pact on people, it is customary to select a frequency- weighting measure
which approximates the human ear's range of perception or response. The
scale of a standard sound level meter has such a frequency response charac-
teristic and is widely used in environmental noise surveys and for noise
specification purposes. This is the A- weighted sound scale is expressed in
decibels -A, symbolized by "dBA ". All sound levels discussed in this EIS
are A- weighted. The table on the following page correlates sound sources,
A- weighted noise levels, and human response characteristics.
The noise environment of the site vicinity is influenced primarily by
vehicular traffic along Sullivan Road and 16th Avenue. Secondary noise
sources include other human activity associated with the surrounding resi-
dential uses (north of 16th Avenue). Agricultural cultivation (grain
crops) temporarily contributes to local noise levels on a seasonal basis.
In order to assess the existing sound levels in the project vicinity,
noise monitoring was conducted in June and July of 1981. A hand -held Gen-
eral Radio sound level meter, type 1565B set at A- weighting scale and slow
meter response mode was used for the monitoring.
Sound level readings were taken on weekdays between the hours of 6:00
a.m. and 5:30 p.m. The monitoring sessions were concentrated during the
hours of the school bus operation in order to assess the existing noise en-
vironment of the proposed site and also that of the existing bus storage
facility. The monitoring was conducted at 10- to 15- minute intervals. In-
stantaneous readings were recorded at 10- second intervals. This data was
then used to compute ambient or background noise levels, L 0 (the sound
level exceeded 50% of the time) or average noise levels, and L (the sound
level exceeded 10% of the time) or peak noise levels. In addition, indi-
vidual peak sound levels were recorded.
39
•
•
•
A- WEIGHTED SOUND LEVELS AND HUMAN RESPONSE CHARACTERISTICS
• Sound Source dBA Trend of Response
Jet takeoff at 200 feet 120
Discotheque
Riveting Machine 110
Jet takeoff at 2,000 feet 100 Very annoying
Shout (0.5 feet)
• Heavy diesel truck at 50 feet 90
Food blender
Garbage disposal
Loud radio or hi -fi 80 Annoying
Freight Train at 50 feet
Cash register 70 Complaining possible
Typical large store
Automobile (average) 35 -40 mph
Air conditioning unit (20 feet) 60
Residence Acceptance
Quiet conference room Quiet
Living room
150
140
130 Painfully loud
Limited amplified speech
• 40
Bedroom
Whisper at five feet 30 Very quiet
Rustling of leaves 20
10 Just audible
Faintest possible sound 0 Threshhold of hearing
Site Noise Environment
* * * * * * **
Noise readings were taken at the Sullivan Road /16th Avenue intersection
• and the 16th Avenue /Newer Road intersection. Both monitoring locations
were 50 feet from the centerline of the respective roadways. Readings were
taken between June 4th and June llth, and between July 10th and July 16th.
Monitoring was conducted at various times of the day starting at 6:15 a.m.
and ending at 5:15 p.m.
40
Maximum vocal effort
• The background noise level of both monitoring locations was 40 dBA or
less. This level represents the area noise levels without traffic. Other
noise sources such as radios, aircraft, distant traffic on Sprague, and
various outdoor residential activities, contribute only slightly to the
existing noise levels.
• At the Sullivan Road /16th Avenue monitoring location the noise levels
began to increase around 6:30 a.m. AS the morning work traffic began.
Based on the results of the monitoring sessions, the L level increased
from 44 dBA at 6:30 a.m. to 53 dBA at 6:45 a.m., to 55 RIBA at 7:00 a.m.,
and to 59 dBA at 7:30 a.m. The L level decreased to 50 dBA at 8:00 a.m.
and remained at about that level 'Atli noon when it rose to 55 dBA. After
the noon hour the levels remained between 53 dBA and 55 dBA through 5:00
p.m. L levels ranged between 60 dBA and 65 dBA through this entire per-
iod. SiPce the L levels are not as heavily weighted by lower noise lev-
els as the L level, they are consistently higher. The individual peaks
ranged betweei dBA and 80 dBA with the average around 75 dBA. The peak
noise readings resulted predominantly from truck traffic. Some automobiles
and pick -ups generated peak levels up to 76 dBA, however.
The noise levels generated by traffic along 16th Avenue are considerab-
ly lower than along Sullivan Road. This is a function of traffic volume.
The L levels at the 16th Avenue and Newer Road monitoring location are
relatively consistent, ranging between 42 dBA and 46 dBA. The average
throughout the day (between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.) was approximately 44
dBA. Although the traffic along 16th Avenue peaks in the morning and af-
ternoon as does the Sullivan Road traffic, the peak volumes are not signif-
icantly greater than the non -peak periods. This is demonstrated by the
relatively consistent noise levels. The L noise levels ranged between 53
dBA and 65 dBA with the average around 661 dBA. Individual noise peaks
ranged from 61 dBA to 76 dBA with the average around 65 dBA. These peaks
are almost entirely generated by automobile traffic.
Site Vicinity Noise Receptors
As shown in the following schematic, there are five single family resi-
dences immediately opposite the north boundary of the proposed project site
(north of 16th Avenue). Two of these houses face the site and three are
perpendicular to the site. There are also several tiers of houses north of
these. In addition, there is a single family residence on the southwest
corner of 16th Avenue and Sullivan Road approximately 200 feet from the
site boundary. There are also numerous houses located along Sullivan Road,
north of 16th Avenue. The nearest houses to the west of the site lie along
Progress Road (approximately 700 feet away).
School Bus Operations Noise Characteristics
Noise monitoring was conducted at the District's existing bus facility,
two District school sites, along 16th Avenue, and along Sullivan Road be-
tween June 8th and June 11th. The purpose of this monitoring was to assess
the noise levels generated by school bus operations in order to project the
impacts on properties adjacent to the site.
Monitoring at the existing bus facility was scheduled to coincide with
the morning, mid -day, and afternoon operations - -bus start and warm -up, de-
partures, and recoveries. The early morning operations within the yard
area (6:50 a.m. to 7:20 a.m.) generated L levels of 60 dBA.and L levels
of 66 dBA. The low reading was 40 dBA ad peak reading was 72 d� The
mid -day operations generated L levels of 53 dBA and L levels of 64 dBA.
During initial start and warm2Up the buses generated r ?o R ise levels between
58 dBA and 60 dBA. After warm -up, the noise levels generated at idle
ranged from 48 dBA to 50 dBA. (These readings were taken in the yard area
which is subject to substantial sound reflection from the surrounding metal
41
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
R
20th
21st
•
•
•
•
•
■
•
14th Avenue
15th Avenue
■
•
•
■
•
■
•
■
•
r
1
•
•
•
16th Avenue
Note: House locatioae aad else approximate
•
h
Ca
HAIVURTH & ANDERSON, INC.
Consul:anis in environmental analysis, planning, « onomirs
Noise Receptors)
9
42
buildings. Therefore, noise readings received off -site should be lower de-
pending on the characteristics of intervening terrain.)
Buses departing the facility to begin their routes generated peak noise
levels between 62 dBA and 75 dBA. The average peak noise level was 68 dBA.
Instantaneous peak noise levels of over 80 dBA were generated by the air
brakes of the buses. Buses returning to the site generated peak noise lev-
els between 61 dBA and 69 dBA. The average noise level was 65 dBA. Noise
• readings were also taken between 1st and 3rd avenues along Union Road to
monitor departing and returning buses. The buses at these locations were
either slowing to turn onto 1st Avenue or accelerating after turning to
Union Road from 1st Avenue. The slowing buses generated noise levels be-
tween 61 dBA and 69 dBA, while the accelerating buses generated noise lev-
els between 70 dBA and 75 dBA.
•
•
Noise readings were also taken at the exit points in front of Evergreen
Junior High School and Central Valley High School during the afternoon
school -to -home routes (when buses were loaded). The peak noise levels gen-
erated by these buses ranged from 72 dBA to 76 dBA and were representative
of acceleration noise levels. Automobiles exiting the school sites gener-
ated peak noise levels of 70 dBA to 72 dBA during acceleration. These peak
noise levels were short in duration (as the buses passed by), lasting ap-
proximately five seconds. It should be noted that the monitoring distance
was approximately 25 feet from the noise sources during these monitoring
sessions, which would slightly increase the noise readings.
• Buses traveling along Sullivan Road and 16th Avenue at a speed of ap-
proximately 35 mph generated peak noise levels between 69 dBA and 71 dBA.
Corresponding peak noise levels generated by automobiles at these locations
ranged from 65 dBA to 70 dBA.
-One significant observation was noted during the monitoring of depart-
• ing and returning buses. The peak noise levels generated during the accel-
eration to cruise speed were significantly affected by the rate of acceler-
ation. Slow gradual acceleration produced peak noise levels in the range
of 60 dBA to 63 dBA. Rapid acceleration produced peak noise levels between
70 dBA and 75 dBA. Thus, peak acceleration noise can be controlled by
driver operation.
•
b. Probable Impacts
The noise impacts that will be experienced as a result of the proposed
project will be discussed for both the construction phases and the opera-
tional phase, as each will have different characteristics and effects. The
• construction of the proposed project will take place in several phases over
a period of several years. The duration of each construction phase is an-
ticipated to be in the range of six months to one year.
The construction of the proposed project will involve the following
types of activities: excavation, grading, foundation work, erection of
• structures, interior finish work, paving and concrete installation, and fi-
nal site grading. The noise levels characteristic of these activities will
range from 70 to 98 dBA measured at a distance of 50 feet from the source
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Legal Compilation, Washington D.C.:
43
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973). These noise levels will be tempor-
ary and intermittent. Noise will also be generated by construction - related
traffic which will include materials and supply trucks, construction equip-
ment, and worker traffic. (It should be noted that sounds originating from
temporary construction sites as a result of construction activity are ex-
empt from the provisions of WAC 173 -60 under WAC 173 -60 -090 between the
hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.).
The operation of the proposed facility will contribute to the permanent
noise environment of the site vicinity. The noise impacts from operations
will result from the running of school buses, delivery trucks and vans, and
other District vehicles on -site and on public roadways. There will be es-
sentially two components of the vehicular operations which will affect the
local noise environment -- employee commuter traffic and operations traffic.
The operations traffic will be the most significant since it will involve
the school buses and delivery vehicles. The commuter traffic will involve
the morning home -to -work and evening work -to -home trips of persons employed
on the site. The operational traffic and noise generation will involve
start -up and warm -up of buses, departure and return of buses, delivery of
school supplies, and administration - related business traffic. The sounds
generated by motor vehicles operating under Chapter 173 -62 WAC are exempt
from all provisions of WAC 173 -60 -040 when operated on public highways.
Sounds created by motor vehicles when operated off public highways except
when they are received by residential areas are also exempt. The maximum
noise levels that can be generated on -site and received by off -site resi-
dential uses are 55 dBA between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., and
45 dBA between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. These sound levels
can be exceeded by 5 dBA for a total 15 minutes in any one hour period, 10
dBA for a total of five minutes, and 15 dBA for a total of 1.5. minutes.
The initial phase of the proposed project (the warehouse building and
grounds maintenance facility) will have only a slight impact on existing
residences in the site vicinity. This facility will be located 700 to 800
feet from the nearest existing structure. In addition, the number of ve-
hicle trips generated by these facilities will be relatively low. (For a
discussion of projected traffic impacts see subsection 3.1 of Section C of
this section.) Less than 50 vehicular trips per day are projected for the
first phase operations. With the exception of occasional large delivery
trucks, most of the traffic will consist of automobiles, delivery vans, and
light trucks. The operation of these vehicles on -site will generate noise
level's in the range of 55 dBA to 60 dBA. Departure from the site will gen-
erate peak noise levels averaging 65 dBA with occasional maximum peaks of
over 70 dBA.
The entrance of this phase will be located on Sullivan Road approxi-
mately 800 feet from the nearest existing residential structure. The dis-
tance from the operations area to these residences would reduce perceived
noise levels by approximately 20 dBA (5 dBA noise reduction for each doub-
ling of distance from 50 feet). A landscaped earth berm, which will be
constructed during the initial phase will provide an additional 5 dBA to 10
dBA reduction. Thus, perceived noise levels at the property lines of the
residences should be less than 40 dBA. The noise levels at the property
lines of the adjacent, undeveloped properties will be less than 55 dBA:
44
However, occasional instantaneous_ peaks of over 65 dBA may be generated by
larger trucks.
The traffic generated by the initial phase (and by subsequent phases)
will primarily travel Sullivan Road. This would apply specifically to the
larger delivery trucks. Some traffic would also be added to 16th Avenue,
but this traffic would be limited to smaller vehicles such as automobiles,
pick -ups and delivery vans (until the bus storage facility is constructed).
• Given the existing traffic volumes on these roadways, the noise levels will
not perceptibly increase (less than 1 dBA).
As the subsequent phases are developed, increased activity on -site will
increase the frequency of noise events and slightly increase overall noise
levels. Two points should be made regarding the discussion of traffic
• noise impacts. The first is that the overall traffic impacts of the site
will have only a slight impact on overall traffic noise levels. The total
traffic projected to be generated by the proposed project is approximately
1,400 trips per day. This represents about 20% of existing average daily
traffic (at 16th and Sullivan). Further, this percentage will be reduced
in relation to total traffic as traffic along Sullivan Road and 16th Avenue
• increases. As discussed previously, noise levels increase 3 dBA for each
doubling of traffic volume. Thus, the impact of project- related traffic on
overall traffic noise levels would be slight (less than 1 dBA).
The second point is that even though overall traffic noise levels will
not increase significantly, the noise events at specific locations will be
• significant in relation to existing noise levels. This relates specifical-
ly to the noise generated by school buses and other large vehicles as they
depart the site. The noise peak levels generated by departing school buses
in their acceleration mode range from 60 dBA to 75 dBA. Thus, the proper-
ties immediately opposite the egress points of -the site as well as proper-
ties along the path of acceleration will experience these noise levels.
• (This would be the noise level perceived by an observer in the open, 50
feet from the noise source.)
These peak noise levels will impact the existing residences along 16th
Avenue and future residences or other uses along Sullivan Road. The pri-
mary impact will be on those properties opposite the site and in proximity
• to the egress points. Although noise levels generated by motor vehicles on
a public roadway are exempt from the state noise standards (Chapter 173 -60
WAC), they will, nonetheless, impact the receiving properties.
At full development bus departures are projected to take place during
the following time spans: 30 to 35 from 6:45 a.m. to 7:45 a.m.; 10 to 15
• from 11:00 a.m. to 11:10 a.m.; and 30 to 35 from 2:00 p..m. to 2:30 p.m.
Buses will return during the following time spans: 8:35 a.m. to 9:15 a.m.;
12:00 p.m. to 12:3n p.m.; and 3:35 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. In addition five to
six after school activity buses will depart the site from 5:00 p.m. to 5:15
p.m. and return around 6:45 p.m. It is anticipated that 12 to 15 of these
departures would use the 16th Avenue access points and the remainder would
• use Sullivan Road. The exact number of departures from each location will
vary depending on route changes and other possible contingencies. The
buses departing and returning within these time frames will operate on a
daily (weekday) basis throughout the school year. If District finances
•
45
allow, there will also be some buses used during evenings and weekends for
athletics or other extra - curricular activities.
The above projections approximate the impacts of the initial operation
of the bus storage facility on -site (phase II). At full build -out of the
facility it is estimated that 70 to 75 buses will be departing and return-
ing to the site for morning and evening routes. Since most of the growth
within the school district is anticipated to take place in the southern and
eastern portions of the district, most of the new routes are expected to
use the Sullivan Road access points. Unless congestion develops during the
times of departure and return, it is not anticipated that the bus traffic
in and out of the 16th Avenue access points will increase appreciably. In
addition, the 16th Avenue access points will be limited to bus and possibly
some other operational traffic; thus, employee and business traffic will
not use this access area.
The on -site operations of the buses (start and warm -up) will generate
average noise levels of 58 dBA to 60 dBA. These operations will coincide
with the departure times discussed above. The morning routes (beginning
around 6:30 a.m.) will have the longest duration of noise generation. The
noise levels of these operations will be reduced somewhat by distance and
berming prior to reaching off -site properties. These levels will be re-
duced on the average to approximately 55 dBA for the receiving property
immediately to the west and approximately 45 dBA to 50 dBA for the proper-
ties immediately to the north of 16th Avenue (for operation at the south
storage building). The properties along the north side of 16th Avenue will
experience noise levels of approximately 55 dBA from operations at the
north end of the site. All of these noise levels, except for operations
prior to 7:00 a.m., are within state noise level guidelines. Between 10:00
P.m. and 7:00 a.m. the noise levels received in residential areas must be
lower than 45 dBA.
Based on data from Wyle Laboratories (Wyle Research Report, WCR 75 -22,
Community Noise Countermeasures, Cost - Effectiveness Analysis, July 1975),
the noise reduction factors provided by single family structures in a cold
climate (13 to 21 dB with windows open, 25 to 30 dB with windows closed),
noise levels of 55 dBA at the property line will be reduced by a single
family structure to 34 dBA to 42 dBA with windows open, and 28 dBA to 35
dBA with windows closed. Also, the operations of the proposed facility
will take place primarily during the workday when school is in session.
Further, the activity on -site (particularly school bus operation) will be
virtually eliminated during the summer months when local residents may be
outside in their yards. Thus, the impacts on indoor night time activity
and outdoor yard activity of the surrounding residences are not expected to
be significant.
c. Mitigating Measures
The following noise abatement measures may be used to mitigate poten-
tial construction noise impacts on local residential properties:
(1) The use and maintenance of properly operating mufflers and quiet-
ing devices
(2) The use of the quietest available machinery and equipment
46
•
•
The landscaped earth berms will provide a five dBA to 10 dBA reduction
of noises generated on -site (to off -site receptors). The higher the berm
is constructed, the better the noise reduction results will be (up to about
• 15 dBA).
Bus maintenance involving engine run -up will take place indoors. Even
with the doors open, start and warm -up in the garages will provide a reduc-
tion in exterior noise levels for potential receptors out of direct sight
of the noise source.
•
Buses should be parked so that those with the earliest routes are lo-
cated the greatest distance from existing residences. The use of the
southern parking structure would increase distance from the properties to
the north. Use of the east side stalls so that the small vehicle parking
structures act as an additional buffer for any future development to the
• east would achieve additional off -site noise reductions.
The bus drivers should be provided with operational guidelines that
would require gradual acceleration and deceleration in proximity to the ac-
cess points. This could reduce peak acceleration noise levels from a range
of 73 dBA to 75 dBA to a range of 60 dBA to 62 dBA.
•
The proposed project will slightly increase overall traffic noise lev-
els in the site vicinity. There will be an increase of noise levels during
the times of bus start and warm -up (58 dBA to 60 dBA). Bus departures may
• generate noise levels ranging from 60 dBA to 75 dBA from the access points
along 16th Avenue and Sullivan Road during their acceleration mode.
•
(3) The use of electric equipment in preference to gas, diesel, or
pneumatic machinery
(4) Locating construction equipment as far from nearby noise sensitive
properties as possible
(5) Shutting off idling equipment
(6) Limitation of construction hours to coincide with the normal work-
day period, e.g., 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
(7) Scheduling the noisiest operations near the middle of the day
(8) The use of permanent or portable barriers around point noise
sources
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
7. Light and Glare
a. Existing Conditions
Since the site of the proposed project is undeveloped and under agri-
cultural cultivation, there are no sources of light and glare associated
with it. This also characterizes the agricultural and to the east (to
Progres Road) south (to about 22nd Avenue) and to the east. A single fami-
ly residence is located at the southwest corner of Sullivan Road and 16th
• Avenue. Single family development is located north of 16th Avenue and west
of Progress Road. These residences emit light typical of such development.
Night time traffic along 16th Avenue and Sullivan Road is also a source of
light and glare in the site vicinity.
47
b. Probable Impacts
The proposed project will introduce new light sources to the local
area. Although a lighting plan has not been developed at this time it is
possible that the following light and glare sources will be created: the
possibility of some exterior security and yard lighting for the bus stor-
age, maintenance, administration, warehousing and library facilities;
driveway lighting; and interior lighting some of which will be visible from
outside.
Light and glare will also be generated by vehicles entering and exiting
the site during early morning and late evening hours (winter months). Ear-
ly morning traffic generated by incoming drivers and exiting buses (start-
ing around 5:45 a.m.) will create light and glare. The primary impact as-
sociated with this early morning traffic will be that of bus headlights
shining onto off -site properties when exiting the site onto either Sullivan
Road or 16th Avenue.
c. Mitigating Measures
Any exterior security, yard, driveway and walkway lighting will be de-
signed so that intrusion on off -site properties is avoided. Exterior
building materials which have a high glare (or reflective) potential should
not be used where glare patterns would impact on -site traffic patterns or
off -site properties. The use of building setbacks, the low profile of the
proposed structures, and the shielding provided by the berms should effec-
tively reduce the potential of reflected glare.
The landscaped berm will provide screening of light and glare generated
on -site and reduce potential intrusion on off -site properites. The use of
evergreen trees and shrubs on bermed and landscaped areas will provide year
around screening.
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
The proposed project will introduce new light and glare sources to the
local area. With properly designed lighting the impact on adjacent proper-
ties will not be significant.
8. Land Use
a. Existing Conditions
The site of the proposed project is an undeveloped parcel located at
the southwest corner of the intersection of 16th Avenue and Sullivan Road,
as shown on the following map. The site was once part of a larger undevel-
oped parcel that is presently under cultivation. The notch excluded from
the northwest corner of the site consists of property owned by Vera Water
and Power and a single family residence under private ownership. The Vera
Water and Power property is proposed for a future well, an electrical sub-
station, and other related uses. This land is presently undeveloped.
48
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
;;;,,
.lai "
/ / / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / ///
/ / / / / / / / / ///
/ / / / / / / / / ///
/ / / / / / / / / ///
/ / / / / / / / / ///
///////// //
/ ///�///,,/// / / / //I, /"/ / ///
/VNAMVR /// /q.'' / /// / / / //.
/,., /// / / / / //,
/ // / // / // / / / //f /A- / / / / / / / //.
/ / // / /// / /// / //Y / / / / / / / / / / / / ///
// //// / /// //�
////
///// /
ti //// / / ¢ ////
/ / / / /// / / / / /// / / /// /
/ / / / /// / / / / ///w / / /// ,,,
iaA // // / / / / / /// / / / /// ///
/ / /�/ I II / /// • / / / / / //
/ / / / // / / /-■ " % /// / / / / / / //, ,
/ / / / / / / / / / / /// /// ' • / / / / / / ///
/ / / / / / / / / / / / /// / /// / / / / / ///
/ / / / / / / / / / / / /// /// / / / / // //
/ / / / / / / //
/ / / / / / ///
/ / / / / / / / / //
/ / / / / / / / ///
/ / / / / / / / ///
/// '//
/// '//
/// '//
/// ///
/// ///
'// /// ///
'// ✓// '//
'// /7/ / //
/ //r //. '// /7/ ///
- / // /
/ / / / / / / / /// / / / / i /// // iii / / / iii
/ / / / / / / / /// / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / /// / / / / / / / / /// ////7//////
//
//.
//.
//.
//.
//,
//.
//.
/7.
Go mutranu rn enu.orrmnrwl n vlyi . pinr irrg, o
/ / / / / / / ///
/ / / / / / / ///
/ // /`, / / � / f/ // // / 7
/7/A 4 A//
lL
e'
/ ////
/ / ///
////7
/ / ///
Generalized Land Use)
49
LEGEND
Urban Density
Residential
Large Acreage
Residential
Fl Commercial
® Public /Quasi - Public
DEM
Light Industrial
Vacant, Undeveloped
and/or Pasture or
Agricultural Use
0 1 Mlle
Land uses to the north of the site are primarily residential in charac-
ter. They range from mini -farm tracts of one acre or larger to duplexes.
• Considerable new subdivision activity with urban density single family de-
velopment has taken place in the past few years. One such single family
subdivision has been developed on the north side of 16th Avenue, opposite
the proposed site. The area north of 16th Avenue (up to the Central Valley
High School site) and east of Sullivan Road has been developed into subur-
ban density single family tracts with lots over one acre in size.
•
•
The land east of the site and Sullivan Road is presently under agricul-
tural cultivation. The land is cultivated up to the steep bluffs above
which urban density single family housing is developed (Ridgemont). Urban
density single family housing is also located east of Sullivan Road and
south of 24th Avenue. This area also includes several duplexes which are
located along Sullivan Road.
As mentioned above, the land immediately south of the project site is
under cultivation (between Progress and Sullivan roads). The cultivated
area extends south to approximately 22nd Avenue. Residential development
between 22nd and 24th avenues consists of several acreage tracts. The land
• south of 24th Avenue consists of mixed urban density single family subdivi-
sions and acreage tracts, some of which are under cultivation.
The land immediately east of the site is also in agricultural produc-
tion to Progress Road. The exception to this is a group of four single
family residences along the east side of Progress Road (approximately two
• blocks south of 16th Avenue. The area west of Progress Road (between 16th
and 24th avenues) consists of a single family subdivision. Three duplexes
are located south of the intersection of Progress Road and 16th Avenue
(along the west side of Progress Road).
-The land use map also shows Evergreen Junior High School, Adams Elemen-
tary School, and Central Valley High School. The Central Valley School
District maintenance facility (which is presently leased by the district)
is located at 4th Avenue and Conklin Street. This site has also been con-
sidered as an alternative to the 16th Avenue and Sullivan Road site pres-
ently under analysis.
• Zoning
The proposed project site is presently zoned Agricultural (A), as shown
on the following map. The land surrounding the site, bounded by 16th and
24th avenues and Progress and Sullivan roads, is also zoned Agricultural.
The land north of the site (16th Avenue) is zoned primarily Single Family
• Residential (R1), Agricultural Suburban (AS), and Agricultural. Two - family
Residential (R2) is also located in several tracts throughout the area.
The area north of 16th Avenue, immediately opposite the site is zoned R1.
Agricultural zoning predominates in the areas to the east and south of the
site. Single Family Residential with disjointed areas of Agricultural
zoning predominate the area east of the site (west of Progress Road). The
• zoning trend in the site vicinity has been for Agricultural zoned tracts to
be rezoned to residential classifications (primarily R1) in conjunction
with subdivision development.
50
•
•
•
•
•
• R1
•
•
0
LEGEND
A - Agricultural
AS - Agricultural Suburban
C - Commercial
LB - Local Business
MFS - Multiple Family Suburban
111 - Single Family Residential
R2 - Two Family Residential
RI - Restricted Industrial
MZ - Mining
h
C
0
A
Sprague Ave
A d
VERGREEN
r - Jr 3
I ,Hi
c
AS a
3th
A
A
a HA IVOR TW C .{•DFR SUN, 1 \1
Consultants rn n nun wnm..wal alp
P
L._
MFS
J f
a
A
Sprag o Av =
;II
A
Ave
5th
RI C
A
Playtleld•
J
CENTRAL
VALLEY A.
HIGH
SCHOOL
15th Ave
A
16th Ave
17th Ave
R1 1l
22
1st Ave
Ave
I
24th Ave
R1 !
w
51
Zoning
SITE
A
A
RI
A
A
LB
C
RI
Shelley v
Lake
M Z
A
1 Mile
n
The Agricultural zone allows a variety of agricultural and non- agricul-
tural uses. Examples of the uses allowed on a site over 15 acres with not
• less than 300 feet of continuous ferontage on a public street are listed
below.
•
•
•
• At the present time, the Spokane County Zoning Code has not specifical-
ly envisioned the construction of a School District Administration and
Maintenance Center with no school on the same site. Correspondence between
Central Valley School District and Spokane County (January 2, 1980) indi-
cated that the County's original interpretation of the zoning ordinance was
that the proposed uses would be allowed on -site without primary school use.
• This interpretation was challenged in an appeal filed on April 18, 1980 by
homeonwers in the site vicinity. They did not feel that the proposed uses
were in compliance with the Agricultural zone requirements. An agreement
between the District and the property owners who appealed the County's ini-
tial decision was formulated and submitted to the County at a Zoning Ad-
justor hearing on June 4, 1980. The following points of agreement were
• reached:
•
•
(1) Cultivation of various crops and raising of various livestock
under conditions set forth by the Zoning Ordinance.
(2) Public parks, tot lots, playgrounds, and golf courses.
(3) Commercial greenhouses and nurseries.
(4) Single family residences and accessory buildings.
(5) Various institutional uses including churches, libraries, non-
profit community halls and lodges, schools, museums, hospitals,
and sanitariums.
(6) Processing plants, feed mills, packing plants, and warehouses in
conjunction with agricultural production.
(7) Contractor's maintenance, repair, and processing building and
storage yard, when located on the same property with the dwelling
in which he resides.
(8) Dairy products manufacture.
(9) Schools and institutions of correction under specific guidelines.
(10) Commercial riding or boarding stables under specific guidelines.
The zoning ordinance also establishes setbacks for front, side, and
rear yards as well as require that 65% of the site be maintained in open
space, free from structures.
(1) The appeal [of the opponents] shall be granted based upon
the following reasons:
a. The decision of Garry Thompson [that the District's
proposed uses were allowed in the Agricultural zone] of
January 2, 1980 was made upon inadequate information.
b. Central Valley School District withdraws its request
for an interpretation.
(2) Any authority granted by the January 2, 1980 letter is re-
voked, with the further provision that the Central Valley
School District may present its request for interpretation
at such time as its design plans are complete.
(3) The school district agrees to provide twenty days 'notice to
a list of twenty people (such list to be provided by the
appellant) when the district intends to submit its design
52
plans to the County for an interpretation or a conditional
use permit.
The Zoning Adjusor acknowledged these agreements in its findings of fact on
June 16, 1980 (file number I- 3 -80).
Assuming that the existing zoning code is applicable, the ex-
isting zoning code may potentially require the following rezones
and permits: District Administration, Curriculum Library, Dis-
trict Transportation Service and Storage Facility - conditional
use permit; Central Kitchen, District Maintenance Facility, and
Central Storage - rezone to either commercial or restricted in-
dustrial. The Spokane County Zoning Code is presently undergoing
substantial revision and is scheduled for completion in December
of 1981. The determination as to which permits or approvals
will be required on the part of Spokane County for the proposed
project will be made when detailed project plans are submitted.
Comprehensive Plan
The proposed Generalized Comprehensive Plan for Spokane County (1980)
designates the site as Urban, as shown on the following map. The area be-
tween the abandoned Milwaukee Road right of way and 24th Avenue, west of
Sullivan Road is designated as Urban. The area east of Sullivan Road and
south of 24th Avenue is designated as Suburban.
The Urban land use category is "intended to provide the opportunity for
development of a 'city -like' enviroment which includes various land uses,
intensive residential development, and public facilities and services (wa-
ter, sanita5y and storm sewer lines, police and fire protection, and other
features)." The density range within the Urban category is from one to 17
units per acre.
The characteristic features of the Urban category are included in the
following discussion.
Since, Urban areas will be the most intensely developed of
all the Categories, it is primarily a residential Category of
single family, two family, multiple family, and condominium
buildings along with neighborhood commercial, light industrial
and public and recreational facilities.
Agricultural activities will be very limited and considered a
secondary use. The aesthetic setting will be predominately man-
made structures with occasional natural or planned open spaces.
Most areas in an Urban setting may not have a view of natural
areas and open spaces will most likely consist of park and /or
school grounds.
Low to moderate levels of noise and air pollution will most
likely exist in Urban areas due to the intensity of activities
and the high volume of traffic generated.
53
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1
2 1st}
• \�
17th
18th
URBAN
6thh
m
Sprague Ave
•o
cc
8th
10th
c
m
0
c
u>
cd
E
a
7th
9th
i lliiiii CI lig
� q j
Pr
v
CC
E
4th
17th Ave
SUBURBAN
HA (WORTH & A.NOERSO LVC
Can+ulrary Lr ermironmenmi analyn'r, planer «mrornrn
CO
AD AM
Elem i
$1st Ave
SAN —
Ave
m
0
a
VIMERO
c
1 1g
Ave
5th
Ave
al
24th Ave
p 14th Ave
Il l5thl
Generalized Comprehensive Plan
h ( 1980) /
54
L
11th Ave
16th Ave
SITE
SUBURBAN
Sprague Ave
COMNRCIAL
Playfield
CENTRAL
VALLEY SUBURBAN
HIGH
SCHOOL
HIGH
m
p .
= o
Shelley v
Lake
•
•
•
•
•
•
The more intensive land uses such as light industrial and
neighborhood commercial will be located near the heavily trav-
eled streets while the least intensive single family residential
uses will be isolated from the noise and heavy traffic. Multi-
family structures will usually be a transitional use located $e-
tween single family residential and the more intensive areas.
In discussing incompatible land uses within the Urban designated area,
the Comprehensive' Plan states that because of the variety and mix of land
uses and activities found in the Urban Category, there are few land use ac-
tivities that would be inappropriate. Many uses may require screening or
other performance standards to make them compatible with one another. The
use activities that are considered to be not compatible within Urban areas
include mining, major commercial, heavy industry, and intensive farming.
The Suburban category is intended for residential development with low-
er densities than the Urban category. Densities shall range from 0.5 acres
to 2.5 acres per unit. The characteristic features of the Suburban cate-
gory are included below.
The predominant use in Suburban Categories will be single
family units on lots which have considerable space for gardening
or perhaps simply natural open space. Neighborhood commercial
uses in Suburban areas will be clustered in sites of not more
than four acres. Few buildings will be multi- story.
The aesthetic setting should be predominately single family
residential structures on large lots. Houses should be well
spaced and separated by large lawns, gardens, planted trees or
native vegetation. Most homes will enjoy a limited view of open
space in either agricultural use or natural conditions.
Commercial uses in the Suburban Category should be neighbor-
hood services such as a grocery store, insurance office, barber
shop, and /or service station clustered to serve the immediate
neighborhood and adjacent to primary or secondary arterials.
Light industrial uses which would be compatible with Suburban
residential areas, could be found on the perimeter of resigen-
tial areas and adjacent to the major or secondary arterials.
b. Probable Impacts
The proposed project will change the land use of the site from agricul-
tural (crop production) to multiple uses related to the operation of the
• Central Valley School District. The following uses will initially be de-
veloped on the project site: administration, buidings and grounds mainte-
nance, and some central storage. This will be followed in the second phase
by the transportation facility -- administration, maintenance, vehicle wash-
ing, and small vehicle and school bus storage. The operations of the Dis-
trict's bus fleet will be moved to the site. Subsequent phases will in-
clude expansion of the core building (housing the storage, transportation,
maintenance, and warehouse functions) to accommodate additional storage,
curriculum library, additional building maintenance, and possibly other
55
1
uses such as a central kitchen and laundry facility. Additional bus and
small vehicle storage and the district administration building will also be
constructed on -site. . (The proposed site plan with the various phases and
uses is shown on the following schematic.)
The proposed project will contrast with the existing residential uses
to the north of the site. The land use along the north side of 16th Avenue
immediately opposite the site, is single family. Single family uses also
exist to the east of Sullivan Road along the north side of 16th Avenue.
These residences will be impacted by the visual character, the increase in
traffic, and additional noise sources. The residents of the housing in
this area have expressed their objection to development of the site for the
proposed use and feel that it is incompatible with the adjacent residential
uses. They have objected for the reasons stated above as well as adverse
impacts on property values and precedential nature of the proposal. It is
feared that changing the zone to either Commercial or Restricted Industrial
coupled with the proposed use of the site will induce or at least provide
the rationale for general commercialization of Sullivan Road.
With respect to the impacts of a zone change to either commercial or
Restricted Industrial there are several factors that should be considered.
First, the uses that will take place on -site are related to the operation
of a public or institutional use. In other words, they are not of a gen-
eral commercial nature. They are placed in this category because of the
lack of zoning guidelines dealing with public or institutional uses. Since
the site will not be used in the general context of commercial uses (made
or done primarily for sale or profit) it is questionable whether or not
this specific site would be a precedent or inducement for general commer-
cial use on adjacent properties for the reason that the intent of the zone
change for the site is to provide for a public use not specifically defined
in the zoning ordinance - -not to provide for general commercial activity.
Both the Suburban and Urban definitions in the Comprehensive Plan state
that Commercial uses are allowable within these categories. The Urban cat-
egory also identifies light industrial as an allowable use. Under the Ur-
ban definition "[t]he most intensive land uses such as light industrial and
neighborhood commercial will be located near the heavily traveled streets
while the least intensive single- famity residential uses will be isolated
from the noise and the heavy traffic."
Sullivan Road is a major arterial which will carry increasing volumes
of vehicular traffic as the area to the south of 16th Avenue is developed.
Sullivan Road is also planned as a four -lane arterial (with center turn
lane) between Sprague and 16th avenues with signalization at the Sullivan
Road/16th Avenue intersection. As the traffic increases it is anticipated
that Sullivan Road will be extended in a four- to five -lane configuration
further south. Sixteenth Avenue is a secondary arterial which is planned
for eventual expansion into four lanes as traffic demand warrants. The
county engineers have indicated that 16th Avenue will likely be expanded to
four lanes along the north boundary if the District uses the site.
As traffic volumes increase along Sullivan Road and the four -lane con-
figuration is extended further south, the desirability of Sullivan Road for
residential single family development will decline and the pressure for
56
0
Sixteenth Avenue
atmMIM
alwB
aaMI
BEINIEM
INSP sis39
Smm
rs
Svsr as
911l3 nBa
ISISSUMI
spenuares
a
IMMIMMEMM
0
I /r'
740
• • ••
m
Bus
Stonga
Building
Bus
Storage
Building
rmm
Vffinta
mBal
92122190ESS
aOBa
S
r
rs
SSYSItiall
an
l aESg�
Bs5®fagi
m320
SIMISOSSI
S
2903i
--- Gas Pumps 1
- -- -- Wsnln(l - - - -'
rMlgatntlot
alnt•nsne•,
Small V•Mcl•
Storaya Building
Small Vehicle
Storsg• Building
illl l' rill
Clip 1
•
I ' l l II
tur• Blstr ct
A dmInlsM1ltl n
1
Buses
r «.B.d.eea:i
11111111111111 I I l I N Service Vehicles
0
0
LEGEND
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Future Phasing
Can.
H ! ISI1ERNos. Br.
r.rr.r.nnm.l
yLrrrrwy.
Site Plan
57
0
120'
`}
higher density residential development or commercial use will increase.
Based on past growth trends in the Spokane Valley, arterial streets with
• heavy traffic flows have experienced pressure for commercial development
with a displacement of residential uses. This is not to say that such a
trend would be established in this area, but that it has happened in the
past. What actually takes place with or without the proposed project will
depend on future planning and zoning decisions in the project vicinity.
• As mentioned above, a zoning action allowing the proposed project need
not by itself precipitate or justify additional requests for commercial
zone changes. Also, if the past patterns of zoning and land use decisions
prevail the development of Sullivan Road into a major arterial will lead to
uses more intensive than single family development whether or not the pro-
posed project is developed. However, the development of the proposed pro-
• ject on the site coupled with these other factors may facilitate future de-
cisions to allow more intensive uses along Sullivan Road. These more in-
tensive uses might include neighborhood commercial, offices, or multi-
family.
•
c. Mitigating Measures
The site of the proposed project will be developed with a landscaped
earth berm along its perimeter. The berm is presently proposed to be four
to eight feet in height with trees and other native species. It is anti-
cipated that evergreen shrubs and trees will be used in conjunction with
deciduous species in order to provide year -round visual screening. The use
• of the landscaped berm will provide visual screening as well as noise buf-
fering.
The proposed structures will be designed to present a low profile (less
than 20 feet in height for the bus storage facility and 25 feet for the
warehouse /maintenance facility). The county zoning ordinance has no height
• restrictions specified for residential zones. Most zoning ordinances which
provide guidelines for building heights in single family zones establish a
maximum of two stories (3n feet). Thus, the structures on the proposed
project site will be of a lower height than allowable single family struc-
tures. The low building profile coupled with perimeter landscaping and
berming will reduce potential visual impacts of the proposed project.
•
•
The District should develop an operations plan for the site that would
specifically deal with types of operations, locations of operations, and
times of vehicle operations to reduce the potential noise impacts on adja-
cent properties. This can be accomplished with scheduling, routing, and
identification of specific operations areas.
A zone change for the site, if required, should be conditioned so that
only school or public institution use will be allowed within that zone.
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
The proposed project will be in contrast to existing residential land
uses adjacent to the north of the site. Additional vehicular traffic and
noise events, as well as the visual character of the site may be perceived
as adverse impacts by adjacent residents.
58
9. Natural Resources
9.1 Rate of Use
a. Existing Conditions
Aside from the current agricultural productivity discussed previously,
there are no known natural resources associated with the site that can be
economically produced.
Natural resources in the form of fertilizers and fuels are currently
consumed on the site during the production of agricultural crops.
b. Probable Impacts •
Natural resources will be consumed or committed to the site as a result
of construction. This consumption or commitment will be in the form of
building materials (from both renewable and non - renewable sources) and
fuels consumed by construction equipment.
Renewable and non - renewable natural resources will also be consumed in
the operation of the facilities on -site once the project (or phases of the
project) is completed. This will include the energy required to heat (and
possibly air condition) the facilities, to operate mechanical equipment,
and to fuel vehicles.
c. Mitigating Measures
Refer to subsection 5 (Energy) in this section.
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Natural resources, both renewable and non - renewable, will be consumed
and committed to the proposed project, but will provide long -term savings
because of relatively lower fuel consumption than the existing site.
9.2 Non - renewable Resources
See subsection 9.1 above.
10. Risk of Explosion or Hazardous Emissions
a. Existing Conditions
With the exception of those chemicals used in agricultural production
(fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides), there is no risk of explosion
or hazardous emissions associated with the site.
The District presently stores fuels and other chemicals that have the
potential for explosion or would be hazardous if spilled. Fuel is current-
ly stored in underground tanks at the transportation facility (4,000 gal-
lons of regular gas and 1,000 gallons of unleaded gas). Other chemicals
are stored at the leased building and grounds maintenance facility. These
59
•
•
•
include solvents, paints, caustics, fertilizers, herbicides, and pesti-
cides. To this date no accidents involving the use of these chemicals have
• taken place.
The proposed project will house various types of activities that will
use potentially flammable and explosive chemicals. None of these chemicals
• poses unique or unusual hazards when handled in accordance with proper
storage and use procedures. These chemicals will include fuels (diesel and
gasoline), waste oil, solvents, paints, detergents, fertilizers, herbi-
cides, insecticides, etc., which will be used in conjunction with the
transportation, maintenance, warehousing, kitchen, and laundry facilities
proposed for the site.
•
• c. Mitigating Measures
• Other chemicals will be stored in their respective facilities in accor-
dance with prescribed design criteria. Access to storage areas will be se-
cured and limited to authorized personnel.
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
• None.
•
•
•
b. Probable Impacts
The proposed fuel storage facilities would include 2,000 gallons of un-
leaded gas and 10,000 gallons of regular gas and diesel. It is anticipated
that these tanks would be refilled one or two times per week by bulk tanker
trucks.
Fuel storage will be constructed in accordance with appropriate design
and safety criteria. Fuel tanks will be constructed underground and pumps
will be secured to prevent unauthorized access.
60
C. Elements of the Human Environment
1. Population
a. Existing Conditions
Spokane County has shown significant growth in population between the
1970 and 1980 census. The unincorporated area of the county has increased
from 102,083 persons in 1970 to 152,164 persons in 1980 (an increase of
50,081 persons or 49.1 %). The total county, including the incorporated
cities, has increased from 287,487 in 1970 to 341,835 in 1980 (an increase
of 54,348 persons or 18.9 %). Population growth for Spokane County is shown
in the following tables. The first table shows total population growth by
subarea and the second table shows the census tract population statistics
for an area approximating the Central Valley School District.
As can be seen in these tables and the census tract map which follows,
the portion of the Central Valley District within the West Valley Metro-
politan Area showed significant population growth between 1970 and 1980
(49.2 %). Examination of the census tracts themselves shows that tracts
119, 120, and 126 have experienced either negative or relatively little
growth during the decade. Most of the growth has occurred in the southern
and eastern portions of the metropolitan area. Growth in the East Valley
Metropolitan Area has also been significant. Census tracts 130 and 131
showed growth rates of 115.7% and 49.2 %, respectively. However, it should
be recognized that these are large census tracts which had a relatively low
population base to begin with. Census tract 132 also showed a significant
population growth, however, most of this growth occurred in 132.01, which
is outside of the Central Valley School District boundaries.
With regard to census tract 132.02 (which is included within the Cen-
tral- Valley School District) it should be pointed out that two major indus-
trial, commercial, and residential projects have been approved by Spokane
County. The Homestead project consists of approximately 1,175 acres which
will include major industrial, commercial, and re development. A
population of 7,450 people is projected by.1990. The Highlands project,
which is immediately west of the Homestead project, will also include com-
mercial, industrial, and residential development on approximately 822
acres. The projected populat of this project is approximately 2,100
persons in 695 dwelling units.
The major population growth in the District is likely to take place in
its southern, central, and eastern portions. These are areas of relatively
large undeveloped acreage that are designated in the Comprehensive Plan for
Urban and Suburban residential densities. The Urban category would allow
between one and 17 units per acre, while the Suburban category would allow
0.4 to 2.0 units per acre. A population projection for this area has not
been completed by the county at this time.
The ultimate population as well as the growth rate will depend on many
factors including economic conditions,-zoning and planning decisions, demo-
graphic trends and changes, and individual location choices. Of particular
influence will be the development of employment, service, and shopping cen-
ters. These types of activity centers will provide the basis for addition-
al housing and population growth in the eastern portion of the Valley.
61
•
West Valley Metropolitan Area
118 1,987 2,761 774 + 39.0
• 119 3,040 3,108
68 + 2.2
120 3,995 3,957 - 38 - 1.0
124 1,835 6,223 4,388 +239.1
125 1,672 2,476 804 + 48.1
126 2,92.5 2,921 - 4 - 0.1
127 5,224
• 127.01 3,083
127.02 2,511 370 + 7.1
12.8 2 4,228 - --
128.01 4,503 - -- - --
128.02 3,432 3,707 + 87.7
129 3,958
• 129.012 2,964
12.9.02 4,677 3,683 + 93.1
•
Unincorporated Total 47,821 65,546 17,725 + 37.0
Millwood City
116 1,770 1,717 - 53 - 3.0
Area Total 49,591 67,263 17,672 + 35.6
Within Central Valley District 28,864 41,616 13,752 + 47.6
East Valley Metropolitan Area
-130 1,214 2,619 1,405 +115.7
• 131 2,926 4,366 1,440 + 49.2
132 2 3 2,303 - --
132.01 5,689
132.02 1,799 5,185 +22.5.1
Unincorporated and Area Total 6,443 14,473 8,020 +124.5
• Within Central Valley District 8,784
•
South Rural Area
133
Note:
2 Partial census tract.
3 1980 census division.
This census tract includes the East Valley School District.
N.B.: For the south rural subarea the Central Valley School District
population cannot be broken out. For the East Valley subarea a 1980 popu-
lation for the Central Valley School District can be identified, but cannot
be compared to 1970 because census tract 132 before its division included
both Central Valley and East Valley school districts.
Source: Spokane County Planning Department, May 1981.
• 62
POPULATION GROWTH. IN SUBAREAS
BY CENSUS TRACTS FOR 1970 AND 1980
Population Growth
1970 1980 Persons Percent
953 1,712 759 + 79.6
North Rura�
West Rural
South Rural
North Metropolitan
West Metropolitan
South Metropolitan
East Valley Metropolitan
West Valley Metropolitan
City of Spokane
Unincorporated Area
County Total
Note;
Figures include incorporated areas.
Source: Spokane County Population Report - 1980, Part I, 1981.
b. Probable Impacts
The proposed project will have no impact on population growth in the
Spok -ane Valley other than precluding the possibility of residential devel-
opment on this site.
c. Mitigating Measures
None.
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
None.
2. Housing
a. Existing Conditions
SUMMARY OF SPOKANE COUNTY SUBAREA GROWTH
1970 -1980
8,841 17,142 8,301 + 93.9
20,841 25,014 4,173 + 20.0
6,314 9,595 3,281 + 52.0
18,922 27,107 8,185 + 43.3
3,721 4,384 663 + 17.8
2,298 5,557 3,259 +141.8
6,448 14,473 8,025 +124.5
49,586 67,263 17,677 + 35.7
170,516 171,300 784 + 0.5
102,083 152,164 50,081 + 49.1
287,487 341,835 54,348 + 18.9
As with population, Spokane County has also shown significant growth in
housing between 1970 and 1980. Most of this growth has taken place outside
of the City of Spokane and has been concentrated to the north and east of
the city. The Spokane Valley, particularly the Central Valley School
District, has been a major recipient of this housing growth. Specific
information as to the housing growth which took place in the Valley between
1970 and 1980 is not yet available from the U. S. Bureau of the Census.
The only information that is presently available is a breakdown of housing
63
Population Growth
1970 1980 Persons Percent
•
PV /2
a
17th
16th
LEGEND
West Valley.Metro Area
East Valley Metro Area
S Central Valley School
District Boundaries
HAWORTH & ANDERSON, INC.
Cunul.ani: in environmental a,alyn. pL
•
•
•
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / ///
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / ///
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ///
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ///
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / ///
// / / / / / /// /
/ / / /
/ / / / / / / /r/ / / / / / // ///
////
9 / / ////// / /////' ///
' / PX / ///////////
/ r
� ////
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / ///
€.. / / / / ///
/ / / //
//
1
///
//
///
cc Rich
Bie elow Gulch Rd
/ / / / / / / /// / /
c////////////////
b m////////////////
E////////////////
J t /-
`m / / / / / / /� //// 'A
/ /// / 7 /
/ /// /
U /7,7/ / / / / / / / / ///
////////7/////////////
//////// /'///////////
/ / // / / / /K/ // /////y /
( . // "iii / /%ii 7, e
/ / /// d // ///////,
/7///// // //� I "// // /////// /// 4v
/ / /// / / /n 7 1: �11p . - // / /// //
//// a t 4' ; ///1/1/ 7//,,,
7,, " �� / / / / / / / / / / / / / / ///
'
f Mon o ' m e r�. / / / / / / / / /A-.@0 / / / / / / / / / / / /.,
ss / /// / /////// / / / / /// -.
.0, ///
! Tw � / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / ///
/ / / / / / / / / / / /
c /Su ,. t - € / / / _j / / / /// ..�... ` / •� �... _
/ //
/ //
/ /// / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / ///
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /// o'n P
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / ///
/////////////// / / / / / / / / / / /// = d
/////////////1 / / / / / / / / / / //
`pN /////// % ""' // / / / / / / /// 0'
//////// f //r//////////////
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / ///
% / //44 " / / /// "" : Va South Rural Area
NOTE: Percentage figures show population change trot 1970 to 1980.
The percentages for split census tracts (129.01 and 129.02 for example
are shown for the entire annum tract.
Census Tracts
133 ,
•
G
( +T9.6%)
•
•
growth by county subareas. According to the subarea data, the Liberty Lake
division showed an increase of 1,862 housing units (229.9% increase over
• 1970) and the Spokane subdivision (unincorporated) showed an increase of
14,672 housing units (64.7% increase over 1970). Housing by subdivision is
shown in the following table and subdivision boundaries are shown in the
map on the following page.
HOUSING UNITS BY COUNTY SUBDIVISIONS
• WITH INCORPORATED AREA TOTALS
1970 1980 Increase % Growth
Airway Heights Division 749 1,886 1,137 151.8
Airway Heights City 241 762 216.2
•
Colbert Division 894 1,799 905 101.2
Deer Park Division 2,521 6,453 3,932 156.0
Deer Park City 479 871 81.8
• Liberty Lake Division 810 2,672 1,862 229.9
Marshall Division 430 1,188 758 176.3
Medical Lake Division 4,307 5,983 1,676 38.9
Cheney City 1,830 2,601 42.1
• Medical Lake Town 584 904 54.8
Mt. Spokane Division 768 1,256 488 63.5
Rockford Division 1,161 ' 1,245 84 7.2
- Fairfield Town 165 225 36.4
• Latah Town 78 83 6.4
Rockford Town 117 177 51.3
Spangle City 72 110 52.8
Waverly Town 31 43 38.7
Spokane Division 87,654 114,114 24,460 30.2
• Millwood Town 643 728 13.2
Spokane City 64,338 76,041 18.2
Unincorporated 22,673 37,345 14,672 64.7
Turnbull Division 257 538 281 109.3
• Valleyford Division 318 539 221 69.5
Note :
2 1980 housing data by census tract is not available at this time.
Central Valley School District is included within these subdivisions.
• Source: Spokane County Planning Department, May 1981.
65
Marshall
Spokane
Colbert
Bieelow
Gulch Rd
10\
) ,.....‘
1 V `
I \ Noe\
1
Airway Heights
1
Medical Lake
Turnbull
Deer Park
Secs 36,35,3
T25N, R45E
Park Rd leading
to Krell Hill
Valley ford
Rockford
Rd
Mt Spokane
ogress
St H
27
z
O
Oh
Z
N
a
Liberty
z Lake i
z 1
i l
Molter Rd
N Line of
90‘
1
1
1
h County Subdivisions)
a HA WORT G 4N',EPSON, INC.
Consultants Lie Itorlm',IP analysis, planning, «m
66
Ace-
ben o
Duc Due r5
S
`µ!S ( 5
NUJ. 25 '
wi l FA OOa-
Rau C `(.o0 Drt-a1 f
S i AFr pL"o PLC".
11 / -1
2G `PC41 P /--;"/ L
Dec, 0 tin
So
DO 6.1 g y
93,
So w I.&a ' E: E i gal/t1,✓
SPOKANE COUNTY COUPE HOUSE
JC F : lb
INADADIraWair
OFFICE OF
COUNTY ENGINEER
ROBERT S. TURNER
COUNTY ENGINEER
SPOHA rlE ,WASHINGTON 99260
November 19, 1981
TO: Dave Jackman, Facilities Planner
FROM: Jack C. Finney, Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Stat nt - Educational
Service Center
*
The Spokane County Engineering Section have reviewed the subject document and
submits the following comments:
TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION
1). Additional Right of Way will be required on Sullivan Road to
accomodate the proposed road improvements, relocating of the
existing B.P.A. poles and "208" road drainage requirements.
2). Some interim road improvements may be required prior to building
permit approval, if the proposed Educational Services Center is
completed prior to construction of Sullivan Road by Spokane County.
Public Works Building North 811 Jefferson Street Spokane, Washington 99260 (509) 456 -3600
•
As noted in the previous section, two major developments have been ap-
proved in the Liberty Lake area -- Homestead and Highlands. The Homestead
• development is proposed to consist of 2,536 housing units when completed.
Of these units,. 1,505 will be single family, 102 will be two family, and
929 will be apartments and condominiums. The Highlands project is proposed
to have 695 residential units at full development including 561 single fam-
ily and 134 two - family residences. These projects as well as other smaller
plats which have been approved by the county will add new housing to the
• area. As mentioned previously, many factors will enter into future housing
growth in the area. At present, the high cost of obtaining home mortgages
has significantly slowed new development and housing construction. Until
interest rates decline or other means'of financing new construction become
available, housing growth will likely remain slow.
•
•
•
•
The site of the proposed project is served by two arterials, 16th Ave-
nue which forms the northern boundary of the site, and Sullivan Road which
forms the eastern boundary. Both streets consist of two lanes with gravel
• shoulders and drainage ditches. Neither of the streets has sidewalks.
Sixteenth Avenue is classified as a secondary arterial and has a 60 -foot
.right of way with a 22 -foot pavement width. Sullivan Road is classified as
a major arterial and has a 40 -foot right of way with a 22 -foot pavement
width.
• The intersection of 16th Avenue and Sullivan Road is controlled by stop
signs. Traffic approaching Sullivan Road from 16th Avenue from east and
west is required to stop before entering the intersection. Traffic along
a. -Existing Conditions
1'
b. Probable Impacts
The proposed project will have no impact on housing with the exception
of precluding housing development on the project site.
c. Mitigating Measures
None.
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
None.
3. Transportation /Circulation
3.1 Vehicular Transportation Generated
The following discussion of transportation will cover the traffic char-
acteristics of the proposed project site and vicinity and of the operations
of the existing district facilities. The discussion of existing operations
will serve as a model from which the traffic impacts of the proposed facil-
ity can be evaluated.
Existing Street Network
67
Sullivan Road is uncontrolled or allowed to pass through the intersection
without stopping. The speed limit for both streets is 35 mph.
• Sullivan Road, which runs north - south, connects the east -west arterials
between 32nd Avenue along the southern portion of the valley and Wellesley
along the northern portion of the valley. Linkage is also provided to
Sprague Avenue and I -90. The local transportation network and selected
traffic counts are shown on the following map.
Sixteenth Avenue, which runs east -west, provides linkage between the
Dishman -Mica Road to the west and Sullivan Road. Sixteenth Avenue also ex-
tends eastward of Sullivan Road and serves the residential area to the foot
of the bluff. The primary function presently served by 16th Avenue is to
provide access to the residential development west of Sullivan Road.
Future Street Network Improvements
Improvement of Sullivan Road to 16th Avenue is presently on Spokane
County's six -year capital improvement plan. The improvements have been
preliminarily designed, however, full funding has not yet been obtained in
order to initiate the project. The preliminary design calls for four 12-
foot traffic lanes and a 14 -foot two -way left turn lane with protected is-
lands at Sprague, 8th, and 16th avenues. Sidewalks and bicycle lanes are
planned along the east side of the street. The intersections of Sullivan
Road with 16th and 8th avenues will be signalized. The five -lane segment
along Sullivan Road will be extended somewhat south of the 16th Avenue in-
tersection to the southern boundary of the proposed project site.
Sixteenth Avenue will also be improved in this project to a four -lane
section at least at the intersection with Sullivan Road. It is probable
that 16th Avenue will be improved westward to the west edge of the proposed
site.
Long -range county plans for Sullivan Road include widening to five
lanes between Sprague and 32nd avenues. Plans for 16th Avenue include
widening to four lanes along its entire length between Mica - Dishman and
Sullivan roads. The timing of such improvements will depend on future de-
velopment that would be served by these arterials and the availability of
funding.
Traffic Characteristics in the Site Vicinity
As shown in the following map, Sullivan Road is the major traffic car-
rier in the site vicinity. Factored counts for 1981 show daily traffic
volumes of 4,600 and 5,500 vehicles along Sullivan Road south and north of
the 16th Avenue intersection, respectively. Counts for the same time frame
show volumes of 1,2.00 vehicles per day for 16th Avenue, west of the Sulli-
van Road intersection. Sullivan Road primarily serves the residential de-
velopment in the eastern portion of the Valley. Automobile traffic related
to residential development has grown significantly over the past few years
as a result of new residential construction in the area. As an example,
the average weekday traffic count along Sullivan Road (north side of the
intersection with 16th Avenue) has increased from 2,570 vehicles in 1979
68
•
•
•
0
•
� Consultants in enui.onmmml mu
sialyns. plam,ing, eammp
•
69
I
I Sprague Ave
16200
;�,
2080
11070
12480
13520 Sprague Ave
I \
i i n
iase4aJ
01 8410
3000
°x
lir
�1
I J
N
d
� Q
mod
e_
Progress Rd
5th
6 38
`; Shelley
I
ake
• 1140
6400 1
94.10
8th
1010
� Playfield' 1 :,. �.
A J
o
`
6680 CENTRAL I .
8900 VALLEY I •
lsag
p p
1 - L 229
4;th
m z..
co
c
HIGH
BCHGOL
11th Ave
D
o
10th -
12th
Ave
£
• --
ua
F
13th
lk Ave
_
` �
_
O�
o
r
Dr
o
o o"
14th
1 W 1
LL
`
r
15th Ave
14th Ave
ti
\
15th
�y0C
11
25
16th Ave
` `�_
d+
shat
1
VERGREEN,�
1 N r' 3
1 16th Ave
I
,
Jr
24th
, 1
470
Ave
=
in
a
P
'
2 1 0�
a
S IT E °�
ak a
,•
4320
3550
3100
17th
J
T
840 f
nth Av
I
x2 4 0
`
_�,
>,3 °°
¢
.� , y
�
� /
1s Ave
�
21st ¢ <
I
22nd Wve
'
/\
m 40 0
? 2.Ro
N
h
a
X 6 ��
7
.r
9 v
1 60
'
7
2160
L
•
/ \
LEGEND
0000 1979.
.0000 factored for 1981
.
(Average Daily Traffic
C HAWORTH & ANDERSON. INC. 0 .1 Mile
•
•
•
0
•
� Consultants in enui.onmmml mu
sialyns. plam,ing, eammp
•
69
(average annual daily traffic volume (AADT)) to 5,500 vehicles in 1981
(factored AADT).
The peak traffic periods correspond to home -to -work traffic in the
morning (7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.) and work -to -home trips in the afternoon
(5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.). It should also be noted that morning northbound
traffic has a short peak between 6:45 a.m. 7:00 a.m. and then drops off
before increasing sharply around 7:30 a.m.
Based on traffic counts for the 16th Avenue /Sullivan Road intersection
from July 10 to July 17, 1981, the following hourly traffic characteristics
have been estimated. The morning peak hour traffic flow is approximately
480 vehicles while the afternoon peak hour flow is approximately 560 vehic-
les. Off -peak hour flows range from 250 (between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m.)
1 and 340 (between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon). The off -peak traffic typical-
ly decreases after the morning peak, increases around noon, then decreases
slightly before increasing to the afternoon peak. The peak hour traffic
shows two dominant patterns: (1) traffic along Sullivan Road accounts for
approximately 85% to 87% of the vehicles passing through the intersection
(morning, 410 of 480 and afternoon, 490 of 560); and (2) northbound vehic-
les account for approximately 73% of the traffic in the morning and south-
bound vehicles account for approximately 67% of the traffic in the after-
noon. In addition, most of the traffic along Sullivan Road is through -
traffic. In the morning approximately 6% of the traffic turned onto 16th
Avenue and in the afternoon approximately 12% of the traffic turned onto
16th Avenue. Most of this traffic was southbound and turned to the west.
•
The vehicles traveling 16th Avenue through the Sullivan Road intersec-
tion originate or terminate primarily west of Sullivan Road (70% to 75 %).
In the morning approximately 93% of this traffic from the west enters Sul-
livan Road and turns northbound. The traffic originating est of Sullivan
also- turns predominantly northbound (63 %). The remainder passes straight
through the intersection. In the afternoon, the traffic on 16th Avenue
travels predominantly westbound after exiting Sullivan Road from a south-
bound direction (82 %). The primary direction of turns from 16th Avenue to
Sullivan Road (for traffic originating both east and west of Sullivan) is
northbound.
As residential development increases south of 16th Avenue, traffic
along both Sullivan Road and 16th Avenue will increase. Because of the
greater availability of undeveloped land that would be served by Sullivan
Road, it is anticipated that the traffic along Sullivan Road will increase
at a greater rate and magnitude than traffic along 16th Avenue. As a re-
sult the peak hour directional flows will become more pronounced but will
continue to be in the same direction. It will also become more difficult
for traffic to enter Sullivan Road during the peak hours.
Traffic Characteristics of Existing Central Valley Facilities
The functions that are presently being accomplished by the District at
various separate sites that are proposed to be consolidated on the proposed
project site include District administration, bus storage and maintenance,
building and grounds maintenance, kitchen, curriculum library, laundry
services, and warehousing.
70
The operations of the bus storage and maintenance facility (S. 123 Bow -
dish Road) can be considered in two components -- employee traffic and opera-
tions traffic. Operations traffic includes buses and other utility vehic-
les. Employee traffic is generated by -six futi- time - administrative and
maintenance-personnel and .28 =bus- drivers. The full -time employees arrive
around 8:00 a.m. and leave around 5:00 p.m. Assuming a worse case, where
all employees leave the facility for lunch, these employees generate ap-
proximately 24- trips -- per -day. The bus drivers generate approximately 1-32•
tr--i -day. The arrivals and departures of the drivers correspond to
the starting and ending times of their routes. Generally the arriving and
departing traffic is scattered throughout the morning, noon, and afternoon
periods and is not all concentrated at the same time. The breakdown of
driver traffic would amount to 28- trips : inbound - - and -28 -trips outbound for
the morning - runs, 10- -trips = inbound- and -10, tr=ips= outboundcfor - the -noon runs,
and 28- tr-i inbound= and = outbound - for - --the afternoon- runs. These
trip rates are generated under the assumption that all drivers leave the
site after route completion and return for their next route. Although most
drivers follow this pattern, some drivers remain on -site between routes.
During the 1980 -81 school year the operation of the school bus storage
and maintenance facility generated 140 scheduled trips per school day (70
trips outbound and 70 trips inbound). These trips are allocated throughout
the day as follows: morning, 28 trips outbound and 28 trips inbound; noon,
10 trips outbound and 10 trips inbound; and afternoon, 32 trips outbound
and 32 trips inbound. In addition to the school bus route operations, two
food service vehicles each complete one round trip per day, various vehic-
les stop by for minor repairs or service, and 50 to 130 special purpose
trips are made by school buses each month (typically extra - curricular acti-
vities which use buses during afternoon and evening hours).
-The hours of bus operation for the past year ran from about 6:20 a.m.
to about 4:45 p.m. The first buses on the morning routes initially depart
the storage facility around 6:20 a.m. and return between 8:35 a.m. and 9:15
a.m. The peak departures take place between 6:45 a.m.. and 7:15 a.m. The
buses on the noon kindergarten routes depart the facility around 11:00 a.m.
and return by 12:30 p.m. The afternoon routes begin around 2:00 p.m. and
are commpleted by 4:45 p.m. Most of the afternoon buses depart between
2:00 p.m. and 2:15 p.m. and return between 3:45 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. The ex-
ception to this is four buses which haul students involved in after school
activities. These buses depart between 5:00 p.m. and 5:15 p.m. and return
by 6:45 p.m.
With the exception of occasional extra - curricular demands, the school
bus operations are limited to school days. As a result, the bus storage
and maintenance facility generates very little traffic (limited to adminis-
trative and maintenance staff) during non - school days and the summer. Two
bus routes have been eliminated for the 1981 -82 school year. These route
adjustments are the result of ilncreasing walking - limits - 1 - ;5-miles , . At
this time it is uncertain how this policy will permanently affect existing
routes.
The District Administration Building (S. 123 Bowdish) generates both
commuter traffic and business traffic throughout the day. There are cur-
71
rently 30 District staff members based in this facility. It is estimated
that approximately 80 trips per day are generated by these employees (40
inbound and 40 outbound). These trips are primarily generated between 7:30
a.m. and 8:00 a.m. in the morning, at noon, and between 5:00 p.m. and 5:30
p.m.Hn the afternoon. Business trips by either administrative staff mem-
bers or by visitors range from 40 to 50 trips per day. There are usually
three weekly evening meetings during the school year. These meetings nor-
mally run from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. and involve from seven to 25 people.
t There are also about 30 staff members based at Barker Center. The trip
patterns of these staff members is more variable than those of the District
Administration Building, but total trip generation is about the. same.
The building and grounds maintenance facility (4th and Conklin) gener-
ates approximately 26 employee trips per day (13 inbound and 13 outbound).
0 In addition there are approximately 36 trips generated during the course of
the workday. The employees arrive at work between 7:15 a.m. and 7:30 a.m.
and depart after 3:30 p.m. Nine outbound trips take place between 7:30
a.m. and 8:00 a.m., approximately 18 trips are generated during various
hours of the day, and nine inbound trips take place between 3:00 p.m. and
3:30 p.m. These activities take place year- round. In addition two trips
0 per day are generated during the summer by seasonal employees.
The existing food service operations presently take place out of two
high school kitchens. Food for the elementary schools and junior high
schools is prepared in the two high school kitchens and delivered to each
of these schools via two delivery routes. The vehicles serving these
Q routes are based in the bus storage and maintenance facility. For the
1981 -82 school year seven persons will operate each of the high school
kitchens and four persons will operate each of the junior high school kit-
chens. Each of these people will generate two vehicle trips per day (ar-
rive between 5:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. and depart between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00
p.m:). In addition to the employee traffic, trips are generated by deliv-
0 ery vehicles. Deliveries to the kitchens include the following: one trip
per week for canned, frozen and paper goods; two trips per week for pro-
duce; and one trip per day for dairy products. Dairy products are deliv-
ered to all schools on a daily basis.
Under the existing operations the District has no central warehousing
0 facilities. Non -food items such as furniture, school supplies, maintenance
materials, etc., are stored at various locations throughout the District.
These locations include a leased storage facility adjacent to the building
and grounds maintenance facility and various school buildings. Food is
generally stored and delivered directly by the distributors although some
cold storage is presently leased. Delivery of non -food items to the exist -
0 ing storage areas generally takes place during the late summer before the
beginning of the school year. School supplies are delivered to individual
schools on a daily basis. Other goods and supplies are delivered as need-
ed. The delivery of food products has been discussed under food service
operations.
0
The existing laundry operations consist of washing towels and miscel-
laneous items. Bowdish Junior High School, Central Valley High School, and
University High School operate commercial washers and dryers. Laundry
goods are delivered to and picked up from Evergreen Junior High School and
72
North Pines Junior High School. Kitchen laundry is washed at the various
schools with facilities or taken home by kitchen personnel. In any case,
this function generates few vehicular trips -- possibly four to six per day.
b. Probable Impacts
The construction of the proposed project will generate equipment,
truck, and automobile traffic during the various construction phases. The
impact of this traffic on existing (or future) street systems and traffic
volumes will be insignificant. The following types of construction equip-
ment will likely be included in this traffic: earth- moving equipment; dump
trucks; concrete trucks; cranes; other vehicles hauling supplies and mater-
ials; and the private vehicles of construction workers.
Once the proposed project (or phases of the project) is completed, the
traffic generated will consist of two components: employee and staff home -
to -work and work -to -home traffic and operations traffic .(school buses, de-
livery trucks, maintenance vehicles, and other District and private vehic-
les). The following table shows the number of trips projected to be gener-
ated by the proposed project (based on planned 1995 facilities).
TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS FOR CENTRAL VALLEY SERVICES CENTER
(1995)
Employee Trips
Function Employees Trips In Trips Out Total
Transportation
Drivers 74 100 100 200
Staff 10 12 12 24
Building and Grounds
-Staff 37 40 40 80
Warehouse 4 4 4 8
Central Kitchen /Laundry 12 12 12 24
Curricular Library 2 2 2 4
Administration 100 115 115 230
Subtotal 285 285 570
Operations Trips
Trips Out Trips In Total
Function
. Transportation (Buses)
Morning 74 74 148
Noon 24 24 48
Afternoon 82 82 164
Building and Grounds 66 66 132
Warehouse /Kitchen 10 10 20
Curricular Library 25 25 50
Administration 120 120 240
Subtotal 401 401 802
TOTAL 686 686 1,372
* * * * * * * *
73
0
0
Operations Traffic Generated
The operations activities are projected to generate approximately 802
vehicle trips per day. Of these trips approximately 360 would be generated
O by school buses. Heavy delivery vehicles would generate an average of
three trips per day. The remainder of the operations traffic will be gen-
erated by automobiles and service vehicles (vans, pick -up trucks, station
wagons, and light trucks).
The school bus operations are anticipated to be similar in pattern to
O existing operations. At full -build ( aproximately 1995) about 74 buses are
projected to depart between 6:45 a.m. and 7:45 a.m. After completion of
the morning routes, the buses will return between 8:30 a.m. and 9:15 a.m.
Approximately 24 buses will depart around 11:00 a.m. for the noon -hour
routes and return around 12:30 p.m. In the afternoon 74 buses will depart
around 2:00 p.m. and return by 4:00 p.m'. Several buses may also be used to
0 haul students involved in after school activities (depart around 5:00 p.m.
and return by 6:45 p.m.). With the exception of special weekend trips, bus
traffic will be limited to weekdays during the school year.
Buildings and grounds maintenance operations are projected to generate
33 morning trips outbound (between 7:30 a.m. and 8:30 a.m.), 66 trips in
® and out during the workday, and 33 afternoon trips inbound (between 3:00
p.m. and 3:30 p.m.). The remaining operations (central warehouse, kitchen,
laundry, administration building, and curriculum library) will generate
traffic between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Approximately 155 in-
bound and 155 outbound trips are projected to be generated by these func-
tions. Traffic associated with the central warehouse, kitchen, and laundry
0 will generally be scheduled traffic, while traffic associated with the cur-
riculum library and administration building will be unscheduled.
Traffic Circulation
'T 57
i
The site has been designed with two access points along 16th Avenue and
0 four access points along Sullivan Road. Sullivan Road is intended to be
the primary access to the site. The — access— ci•r-cu•lation —is =planned —so — that
bus, —= small, vehicle,= and -r isitor- ntraffic are-separate. The internal on -site
circulation is also designed so that bus traffic is separate from general
Employee Traffic Generated
As shown in the table on the previous page, the personnel working on-
site are projected to generate 570 vehicle trips per day - -285 inbound and
285 outbound. These trips will take place throughout the weekday between
the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. The early arrivals will consist of
kitchen personnel and bus drivers. It is projected that approximately 64
employees will arrive before 7:00 a.m. Approximately 190 employees are
projected to arrive between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., the peak morning traf-
fic hour. An additional 62 trips (31 inbound and 31 outbound) are project-
ed to be generated by bus drivers and administrative personnel around the
noon hour. The, afternoon work -to -home trips will be less concentrated than
the morning trips: Approximately 190 employees are projected to leave the
site between 2:30 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. During the afternoon peak hour (5:00
p.m to 6:00 p.m.) 64 employees would depart the site.
74
traffic. The access points to 16th Avenue are designated primarily for bus
traffic only. Traffic generated by service vehicles and delivery vehicles
would be limited to the Sullivan Road access points.
Based on existing routes, it is estimated that approximately 13 buses
will use the 16th Avenue access points to depart and that 10 buses will use
16th Avenue access points to return (during the entire day). Most of the
departures using 16th Avenue will take place in the afternoon (10) with
most of the returns in the morning (six). Since most of the new residen-
tial development within the District boundaries is anticipated to take
place south and east of the proposed project site, new bus routes will be
served by the Sullivan Road access .points. Thus, bus traffic using the
16th Avenue access points is not expected to substantially increase. It is
possible, however, that during occasional periods of heavy traffic along
Sullivan Road bus drivers will use the 16th Avenue access points to enter
Sullivan Road traffic (because of signalization at the intersection). The
only time that this is anticipated will be during the morning peak hour
(7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.):
It is not anticipated that the traffic generated by the proposed pro-
ject will create any significant long -term circulation or congestion prob-
lems along either Sullivan Road or 16th Avenue. With the exception of the
morning peak hour, the traffic generated by commuting employees and opera-
tions traffic will be spread throughout the day. Most of the employee and
operations traffic will be completed prior to the afternoon peak traffic.
An important factor in considering the impact of the proposed project
is the direction of peak hour flow. As discussed previously, morning peak
hour traffic flows predominantly in a northbound direction (approximately
73 %). Thus, traffic inbound to the site from the north will be added to
the lower directional flow and traffic inbound from the south will be turn-
ing - across the lane of lower directional flow. Upon completion of the fu-
ture improvements to Sullivan Road, this turning traffic would be accommo-
dated by turn lanes. This flow pattern will minimize potential conflict
between through- and site -bound vehicles. It is anticipated that the pre-
dominantly northbound morning peak hour flow pattern will continue in fu-
ture years and, most probably, become more pronounced. (This assumes that
the area south of the proposed project site will be developed into residen-
tial use and not into a use that would attract morning traffic.)
c. Mitigating Measures
The primary measures that will reduce the potential impact of the pro-
posed project are related to physical improvements of the local street sys-
tem. As mentioned previously, the county's improvement of Sullivan Road
and signalization of the Sullivan Road /16th Avenue intersection is prelimi-
narily designed and awaiting funding. (This project is planned regardless
of the District's use of the site.) These improvements would provide for
more efficient traffic flow at the Sullivan Road /16th Avenue intersection.
The existing street system can accommodate the first and second phases
of the proposed project without major improvement south of the 16th Avenue
intersection (provided that traffic growth along Sullivan Road does not in-
crease significantly). However, before the 1995 (full build -out) project
75
traffic and future traffic along Sullivan Road can be accommodated, Sulli-
van Road will require improvement to at least the southern boundary of the
• site, which may be completed in the presently proposed. improvements. The
improvements that would provide for efficient traffic flow include one ad-
ditional southbound lane, one additional northbound lane, and a fifth turn
lane. The most important features would be to provide turn lanes for traf-
fic entering the site so that queuing along Sullivan Road does not occur
and to provide.a lane into which a bus or vehicle exiting the site could
• enter traffic. Ideally, the area along the eastern frontage of the site
would have two traffic lanes in each direction and a center turn lane.
The outbound operational traffic should be scheduled to the greatest
degree possible so that conflicts with inbound employee traffic is avoided.
This would apply specifically to the peak morning hour. No notable con -
flicts are anticipated during the balance of the workday. Potential con -
flicts.could also be avoided by designating specific access points based on
the type of traffic (inbound, outbound, bus, automobile, etc.) and direc-
tion of traffic (north or south).
Sidewalks and bicycle lanes are to be developed along Sullivan Road and
O 16th Avenue. Although pedestrian and bicycle traffic is light at this
time, it can be expected to increase with additional residential develop-
ment in the area.
There are no parking facilities on the site of the proposed project.
Existing School District parking facilities include those associated with
• the school sites, the building and grounds maintenance facility, the bus
maintenance and storage facility, the District administration building, and
satellite administrative center (Barker and Mission). The parking associ-
ated with the building and grounds maintenance facility is included inside
the maintenance building and in the yard area (15 spaces presently in use).
The bus maintenance and storage facility has stalls for 24 buses in five
O parking sheds, stalls for seven buses and small vehicles in the maintenance
building, and approximately 20 small vehicle spaces in the yard area.
Eight buses are currently parked outdoors because of lack of indoor space.
There are approximately 56 marked parking stalls for the District adminis-
tration building. This includes two stalls for the handicapped.
O b. Probable Impacts
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
The proposed project (at full build -out) will add aproximately 1,370
vehicle trips to the local street system. This traffic will consist of 570
employee trips and 686 operational trips. Provided that the long -range im-
provement of Sullivan Road is completed, no congestion or circulation prob-
lems are expected.
3.2 Parking Facilities
a. Existing Conditions
The proposed parking facilities for the site include two structures for
school bus parking, two structures for small vehicle parking, and outdoor
76
parking in the yard area. Each bus parking structure will provide 40 park-
ing stalls. Eighty -two outdoor spaces will be provided for bus driver
parking. The building maintenance function will have 35 spaces for service
vehicles and 36 spaces for employees. Sixteen spaces will be provided for
central warehousing, 10 spaces for educational service center administra-
tion,.four spaces for laundry service, 14 spaces for food service, and 149
spaces for District administration. The final number of spaces may vary
slightly depending on adjustments of curbs and internal circulation.
c. Mitigating Measures
The parking areas will be screened by a landscaped earth berm which
will be constructed along the perimeter of the site.
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
None.
3.3 Transportation Systems
Refer to subsection 3.1 above.
3.4 Movement /Circulation of People or Goods
Refer to subsection 3.1 above.
3.5 Waterborne, Rail, and Air Traffic
N/A
3.6 Traffic Hazards
77
The Sheriff's Office has identified a potential traffic hazard area
along Sullivan Road approximamtely 100 feet south of the proposed project
site's southern boundary. This hazard area results from a change in road
gradient which restricts sight distance along Sullivan Road. Drivers of
low profile vehicles approaching the upslope (driving northbound) have dif-
ficulty in seeing vehicles just beyond the crest of the rise. This would
present a potential hazard to vehicles entering Sullivan Road in the vicin-
ity of the "blind spot ".
Although pedestrian and bicycle traffic is presently light along Sulli-
van Road and 16th Avenue, there are no sidewalks and traffic is relatively
fast moving (35 mph).
1
1
1
1
1
a. Existing Conditions 1
According to the Spokane County Engineering Department, the accident
rates in the vicinity of the project site are relatively low. No problem
areas have been identified. The following table shows the reported acci-
dents along Sullivan Road (between 16th and Sprague avenues) between 1976
and 1980. 1
1
1
O
O
0 Source: Spokane County Engineering Department, 1981.
Intersection 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976
16th Avenue
12th Avenue
12th Avenue to 8th Avenue
8th Avenue
8th Avenue to CV High School
CV High School to 4th Avenue
4th Avenue
Railroad Crossing
Sprague (south of)
Note : •
2 Property damage.
3 lnjury.
Accidents occurred between Sprague and 4th avenues.
b. Probable Impacts
The southernmost access points to the site will be located near the
"blind spot" experienced by northbound traffic. This could present a po-
tential hazard to vehicles approaching the site from the south (northbound
traffic) and vehicles exiting the southernmost access points.
-The •increased traffic generated by the proposed project will increase
the potential for accidents along Sullivan Road. The area of highest acci-
dent potential will•be the access points along Sullivan Road. School buses
and large delivery trucks departing the site and entering the northbound
lane of Sullivan Road will present a potential traffic hazard, particularly
with the present configuration of Sullivan Road. Improvements to Sullivan
Road would mitigate these potential hazards.
Increased vehicular traffic generated by the proposed project will also
increase the hazard potential for pedestrian /bicycle traffic along Sullivan .
Road. Again, this potential hazard can be mitigated by construction of
sidewalks and bicycle lanes.
c. Mitigating Measures
ACCIDENTS ALONG SULLIVAN ROAD
1 pd •
2 pd
1 pd
1 pd
1 pd
4 pd
1 inj 2 pd
3 pd 2 pd
1 inj 1 inj
2 pd 1 pd
2 pd 2 pd 2 pd 2 pd 1 pd
2 pd
1 inj
* * * * * * **
Measures for improving Sullivan Road and the Sullivan Road /16th Avenue
intersection are discussed in subsection 3.1, above. These measures would
provide for overall traffic circulation improvement that would mitigate the
impacts of full project build -out.
A mitigating measure that should be coordinated between the District
and the County Engineering Department prior to operation of the initial
phase includes the improvement of Sullivan Road along the eastern frontage
78
x ilxv-09-
of the proposed site. The primary objective would be to reduce the poten-
tial hazard between northbound vehicles approaching the site and vehicles
departing the site to the north. This can be done by improving sight dis-
tance or by adding a center turn lane for use by departing traffic. The
development of an additional southbound lane along the frontage of the site
for entering traffic would also reduce potential traffic hazard. Initial-
ly, however, this is not as important as the improvements for departing
traffic.
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Provided that the improvements to Sullivan Road are completed as sug-
gested, no significant increase in traffic hazard potential will occur as a
result of the proposed project.
4. Public Services
4.1 Fire
a. Existing Conditions
The site of the proposed project is located within the boundaries of
Spokane County Fire District 1. The District covers the Spokane Valley
from the Spokane city limits to the Idaho border, an area of approximately
74 square miles. The District operates six stations to cover this area.
Fire Station 5 (North 722 Sullivan Road) is located approximately two
miles north of the site. This station is equipped with a 1,250- gallon -per-
minute (gpm) pumper and a 500 -gpm reserve pumper. Three fire fighters man
this station. Response time to the site would be approximately two to
three minutes.
Fire Station 3 (East. 19200 Appleway) is located approximately seven
miles northeast of the site. This station is equipped with a 1,250 -gpm
pumper. Response time to the site is approximately ten minutes.
Fire Station 1 (East 10319 Sprague Avenue) is located approximately
nine miles from the site. Equipment at this station includes a 1,500 -gpm
pumper, a 100 -foot aerial ladder truck, and a rescue unit. Response time
to the site would be approximately ten minutes.
Fire District 1 has made inquiries to the school district with respect
to the possibility of acquiring approximately one acre on the proposed site
for a future fire station. No commitments have been made by either party
at this time.
b. Probable Impacts
Although it may increase the potential demand for fire protection ser-
vices, the proposed project will not require the addition of new personnel
or equipment. Although potentially flammable substances will be stored and
utilized on the site, proper handling procedures will minimize potential
risk of fire or explosion.
79
c. Mitigating Measures
• Potentially flammable substances that are stored or utilized on -site
will be handled in accordance with proper procedures to avoid hazard.
•
4.2 Police
a. Existing Conditions 1
The site of the proposed project is located in Spokane County Sheriff
• patrol district .5, which covers a 33- square mile area. The, estimated re-
sponse time to the site is approximately five minutes. Since the site is
located near the juncture of three patrol districts (districts 3, 4, and 5)
patrol fre9 ency along Sullivan Road is in the range of three to four times
per shift.
• There is presently a Sheriff's substation located at fire station 1
(East 10319 Sprague) but because of budgetary cutbacks, this substation is
closed until January, 1982 and will reopen, pending budgetary constraints.
The long -range operation of this substation will depend on future budgetary
considerations. With closure of this facility, all Sheriff's operations
would be based out of the Public Safety Building (West 1101 Mallon Avenue).
•
The Washington State Patrol also exercises jurisdiction in the Spokane
Valley with a primary responsibility of traffic enforcement. The patrol .
can also provide backup emergency services to assist the Sheriff's Depart-
ment.
•
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
None:
The Sheriff's Department has noted no unusual or atypical crime prob-
lems in the local area. No major problems have been associated with the
existing bus storage or maintenance facilities by either the Central Valley
School District or the Sheriff's Department. The Sheriff's Department has
expressed concern, however, about the growing traffic volumes and sight
distance along Sullivan Road (with respect to potential traffic hazards).
The existing bus storage and maintenance facility (east of and adjacent
to the District administration building at S. 123 Bowdish) has experienced
infrequent minor theft and vandalism problems in the past. The problems
have been limited, however, to vehicles parked outside of the storage
sheds, for which indoor secured parking is not currently available.
b. Probable Impacts
Construction of the various phases of the proposed project may require
increased surveillance of the site by the Sheriff's Department. The pres-
ence of 'building materials and construction equipment will create the po-
tential for theft and vandalism.
Once the project is completed and operational the presence of equipment
and supplies used in District operations will create a potential for theft
80
and vandalism. However, due to design features, increased security, and
the ability to secure all materials and equipment inside, the likelihood of
theft or vandalism will be lower than in the existing facilities. Nonethe-
less, it is probable that increased Sheriff surveillance will be required
in the local area because of site development. This increased surveillance
is not anticipated to increase the demand for either new equipment or
staffing for the Sheriff's Department because the need to patrol District
properties will be limited to a single site.
c. Mitigating Measures
All fuel storage will be underground and fuel pumps will be locked.
All equipment and materials stored on -site will be secured in locked sto-
rage buildings. Access to storage areas will be controlled and the number
of potential access points will be limited. It is also possible that the
warehousing /maintenance /bus storage facilities will be enclosed by a secur-
ity fence.
The District should consult with the Sheriff's Department in order to
develop additional measures that would reduce unauthorized entry to the fa-
cility.
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
None.
4.3 Schools
a. Existing Conditions
Central Valley School District No. 356 provides educational services to
the - southeastern portion of the Spokane Valley. There are presently two
high schools, four junior high schools, and 13 elementary schools within
the District. The following map shows the District boundaries and loca-
tions of the schools within the District. Sunrise Elementary School will
open in the fall of 1981 and Horizon Junior High School which is presently
under construction (adjacent to the Chester Elementary School site) is
slated to open in 1982.
On October 1st (1981 -82 school year) the total regular enrollment for
the Central Valley School District was 10,564 students. This included
9,857 students enrolled in grades 1 through 12, and 707 students enrolled
in kindergarten. In addition, 387 students were enrolled in special educa-
tion programs. (The special education figure includes students from other
school districts who are included in the Central Valley program.) Enroll-
ment in the District has shown steady growth (between one and three per-
cent) until the 1980 -1981 school year when enrollment declined somewhat as
the District experienced conditions common to the area. The following
table shows District enrollment between 1971 and 1981.
Enrollments are projected to remain near current levels in the near
term and are then expected to increase, although at a slower rate than in
past years. the projections based on the 1981 enrollments have not been
completed at this time. Enrollment projections are based on a cohert
81
•
•
O
•
•
DISTRICT eoVNDUT
LEGEND
-Broadway Elem
2 North Pines Elem
8 Blake Elem
Progress Elem
5 Greenaores Jr High
.8 Greeaaores Elem
7 Central Valley High School
8 Adams Elem
9 Keystone Elam
20 Univereit High •
11 Opportunity Elem
12 University Elem School
18 v.rgrGen'.¢ Jr JH High
O
j4 8 y�rgreer .
16 Bowdieh Jr - High
16 South Pines Elem
17 Ponderosa Elem
18 - Chester Elem- =Horison Jr High (open 1982)
10 Sunrise Elem
20 District Administrat ion/
�
Transportation Facility
21 Building & Grounds Maintenance/
Storage Facility
22 Barker Center
District -owned sites
for future facilities
Potential Sites
pending Negotlatio
h
HAWORTH & ANDERSON, INC.
Consultants in enoironmenid analysis, Planning, economics
School Locations
2
•
Special Education
Year Enrollment Kindergarten •PS CV WV EV Freeman
1980 -1981 10,889 722 21 139 64 75 4
1979 -1980 11,098 766 17 126 74 43 3
O 1978 -1979 10,936 709 16 117 135 43 4
1977 -1978 10,678 701 18 117 95 71
1976 -1977 10,360 738 12 120 76 76
1975 -1976 10,245 818 8 87 56 74 2
1974 -1975 10,122 767 9 91 34 73 3
1973 -1974 10,096 676 60 19 62
O 1972 -1973 9,831 686
1971 -1972 9,530 662
Note :
Enrollment figures include kindergarten students but exclude special
• education students.
Denotes pre - school special education.
Source: Central Valley School District.
0
0
0
O
O
CENTRAL VALLEY SCHOOL DIflRICT
ENROLLMENT 1971 -1981
survival projection of existing population. The District feels that the
recent enrollment slump and relatively low growth rates are attributable to
the general decline of the economy. It is anticipated that when the econo-
my improves and residential growth resumes, the actual enrollment will show
strong growth. As mentioned previously (in Population and Housing), two
major employment and residential centers are proposed for the Liberty Lake
area. As these develop enrollments are expected to increase accordingly.
It should also be noted that the District has been experiencing a shift
in school enrollments. The sectors of the District that are included in
census tracts 119, 120, and 126 have been generating fewer numbers of stu-
dents. As a result, the neighborhood schools in these areas have experi-
enced declining enrollments. This is evidenced by the changes in popula-
tion within the corresponding census tracts. As shown in the census tract
data, tracts 119, 120, and 126 have either had negative or low rates of
population growth. The areas in which the enrollments have been increasing
over the past ten years correspond to the areas where population has in-
creased.
f Based on past experience in not only the Central Valley District but
also in other suburban school districts, it is likely that the population
and enrollment shift will continue in future years. New population growth
and the resultant enrollment growth is expected to take place in the unde-
veloped portions of the School District and in the vicinity of the proposed
employment centers in the Liberty Lake area. The actual rate of enrollment
growth will be related primarily to populaton growth attributable to migra-
tion into the District rather than to changes in the demographic characte-
ristics of existing residents.
83
The operations and administrative facilities of the District are locat-
ed at various sites throughout the District, as shown in the previous map.
The District administrative offices and transportation facility are located
at S. 123 Bowdish Road. The site is approximately 3.5 acres in size. The
building and grounds maintenance facility is located near the intersection
of the abandoned Milwaukee Road right of way and Conklin Road. The facili-
ty consists of a leased 16,000- square -foot warehouse on a 1.56 -acre site.
The District currently leases a portion of this warehouse facility for the
building and grounds maintenance function and storage. The curriculum li-
brary and other special educational services are based at the old Green -
acres Elementary School site at Barker and Mission. The kitchen facilities
(for food preparation) are located at Central Valley and University high
schools. Laundry facilities are located at both high schools and at Bow-
dish Junior High School. Other laundry associated with kitchen operations
is washed at some of the schools or taken home by kitchen personnel. Aside
from some warehouse space in the leased building and grounds maintenance
structure, the District has no central storage facilities. Cold food stor-
age is presently leased,at a location outside of the District and limited
quantities of other equipment and supplies are stored at various school
sites. (The operations of these facilities and functions are discussed in
greater detail in subsection 3.1 (Vehicular Transportation Generated)
above.)
In its facilities planning process the District has identified several
problems with the existing support facilities. Generally these problems
relate to facilities dispersal and location, inadequate site and building
sizes, lack of centralized storage, and outmoded buidings. Specifically,
the District administration facility is considered to be poorly located
within the District, the site and building are too small, the value of land
is too great for the present use, and the print shop is inadequate. The
following factors were rated as positive: the site and building are Dis-
trict- owned; and the building is in good condition and has easy access to
Bowdish and Sprague.
The building and grounds maintenance facility is not owned by the Dis-
trict, the location is not central to the District, there is not adequate
covered storage, the floor arrangement is awkward, storage and work space
is insufficient, and vehicle maintenance is not immediately available. The
following factors were rated as positive: there is a good office area, and
there is direct road access.
The transportation facility is not located central to the District, the
size of the site and building areas are inadequate, the, maintenance facili-
ty is outmoded and inadequate, the drivers' area and administrative offices
are inadequate, the fuel storage capacity is inadequate, and there is a
lack of covered storage for all vehicles. The following factors were rated
as positive: the site is near administrative offices which provides good
communication; and most buses are under cover.
b. Probable Impacts
The proposed project will result in the consolidation of the District
administration, transportation, maintenance, kitchen, laundry, and curricu-
84
lum library facilities on a single site. This will increase cost effici-
ency due, primarily, to its central location. It will also provide the
• District with a cold storage /warehousing facility which it presently does
not have.
•
Energy in the form of petrochemicals is presently consumed on -site in
the cultivation of agricultural crops. Energy is presently consumed by the
District in the operation of facilities and equipment. The facilities spe-
cifically related to the proposed project include the District administra-
tion building, bus storage and maintenance facility, building and grounds
maintenance facility, kitchen facilities, and laundry facilities. School
bus operation is the major equipment consumer of fuel. Other equipment fuel
consumption is related to the operation of equipment for inter - district de-
liveries, administration, and building /grounds maintenance.
It is estimated that the District school buses travel approximately
400,000 miles per school year. The estimated fuel consumption for diesel
buses is approximately eight miles per gallon (mpg) and for gasoline buses
is approximately five mpg. Assuming an average fuel consumption of 5.6 mpg
for all buses (existing bus mix - -80% gasoline and 20% diesel), the estimat-
e ed fuel consumption of District buses in a school year is 71,429 gallons.
(There is a range from 50,000 gallons with all diesel buses to 80,000
gallons with all gasoline buses.) Buildings and grounds maintenance and
other departments also operate vehicles and equipment which consume petro-
leum -based fuels.
•
e b. Probable Impacts
c. Mitigating Measures
None.
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
None.
4.4 Parks or Other Recreational Facilities
. N/A
4.5 Maintenance
N/A
4.6 Other Governmental Services
N/A
5. Energy
a. Existing Conditions
The energy consumed in the heating and cooling of the proposed struc-
tures should result in a reduction of energy consumption in comparison to
85
the existing structures. Although the projected energy demands of the pro-
posed project have not been computed at this time, the design of the new
structures and heating /cooling systems will incorporate energy conservation
measures that cannot be readily accomplished in existing facilities. Also,
the consolidation of certain operations such as kitchen and laundry will
allow for more efficient use of energy- consuming equipment.
The major savings that will be realized by the proposed project are re-
lated to vehicular fuel consumption. Even based on the route structure
(1981- 1982), the operation of school buses from the proposed project site
would save approximately 20 miles per day over the existing location.
(This is computed by measuring the mileages from both the proposed and ex-
isting transportation facilities to the beginning and ending of each bus
route, then summing the differences. This does not account for adjustments
to route start and end points in consideration of the new facility.) This
would amount to a savings of approximately 3,600 miles over a 180 -day
school year. Assuming an average fuel consumption of 5.6 mpg for all
school buses, the total fuel savings would amount to approximately 643 gal-
lons per year (a range from 450 gallons for all diesel buses to 720 gallons
for all gasoline buses).
The potential savings would become more pronounced as school sites are
developed in the southern and eastern portions of the District. Any new
additional route that starts or ends east of Sullivan Road and originates
from the proposed site would save approximately six miles per day over the
existing transportation facility (1.4 miles further from the existing fa-
cility to Sullivan Road /Sprague Avenue intersection than the proposed site
for two routes each day). For each new route that starts and ends to the
southeast of the proposed, site (using 32nd Avenue) the mileage savings
would be approximately 14 miles per day (3.5 miles difference for two
routes per day). Essentially, any new route which starts or ends southeast
of Blake Road /8th Avenue will be closer to the proposed site than the ex-
isting site. Thus, with the exception of the Chester area, all of the fu-
ture routes in the District's potential growth areas would be best served
by the proposed site with respect to energy consumption.
The location of the proposed project would also result in fuel savings
for the grounds /maintenance and administrative operations. Based on the
difference in distance between the existing site and proposed site, and the
existing schools (including Horizon Junior High), an average distance of
0.9 mile can be reduced per round trip. With approximately 18 round trips
per day a total savings of 4,000 miles per year would result (16 miles per
day for 250 work days). This would result in a fuel savings of approxi-
mately 320 gallons per year (at 12.5 mpg per vehicle). It should be noted
that these savings would result with the existing school locations. How-
ever, with the construction of new schools to the east of the proposed
site, the relative distance advantage would be reduced with each new school
constructed (for vehicles using I -90 or Sprague Avenue to access these
schools from the proposed site). Each school constructed to the south and
southeast would increase the relative distance advantage of the proposed
site (for vehicles using 32nd Avenue).
Additional fuel savings will be realized by the relocation of adminis-
trative and other small vehicle operations out of the existing District ad-
86
ministration building and Barker Center to a more central location. These
fuel savings will be realized as District school facilities are developed
in the eastern and southeastern portions of the District.
c. Mitigating Measures
' .addition to the savings gained by the central location of facili-
ties, the proposed development could employ innovative conservation mea-
sures which would result in reductions in potential energy consumption.
The project will provide the opportunity to incorporate construction design
features to obtain greater efficiencies in the utilization of energy re-
sources. The following measures are recommended.
(1) Adequate insulation in roofs, walls, and ceilings to reduce heat
transmission.
(2) Use of high performance furnaces that can recover waste heat from
flue gas or those with a flue shutoff.
(3) Use of high performance air conditioning units (if absolutely
necessary for climate control) with open air cycles.
(4) Provision of storm windows and storm doors.
O (5) Provision of windows that can be opened and closed.
(6) Use of tinted glass in windows.
(7) Double glazed windows.
(8) Use of landscaping on the south and west sides of buildings.
(9) Provisions for screens, shades, and curtains.
O (10) Minimize window area.
(11) Use of efficient outside lighting systems.
(12) Use of fluorescent rather than incandescent lights.
(13) Use of energy- efficient kitchen and laundry equipment.
(14) Use of efficient water heaters and enforcement of limits on temp-
erature settings (120/130 degrees).
O -(15) Provision of earth berms along building walls.
(16) Implementation of carpooling and vanpooling by the District.
(17) Encourage use of mass transit for District employees.
The fuel consumption of the District's bus and small vehicle fleet can
be reduced by the use of more fuel- efficient vehicles. This could be ac-
complished by increasing the use of diesel - powered buses and service vehic-
les and by using smaller more fuel - efficient vehicles for deliveries, gen-
eral District business, and maintenance operations.
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
None.
5.2 Source /Availability
Refer to subsection 6.1 (Energy) which follows.
O 6. Utilities
6.1 Energy
a. Existing Conditions
87
Electrical power is supplied in the site vicinity by Vera Water and
Power. There are transmission lines along the northern and eastern bound-
aries of the site.
Natural gas is supplied in the local area by Washington Water Power
Company. The nearest natural gas lines to the site include a two -inch main
along Progress Road extending south to 20th Avenue and a four -inch main in
Sullivan Road extending south to 8th Avenue. There is presently no service
to the site.
b. Probable Impacts
Construction of the proposed project will require the extension of pow-
er and natural gas (if utilized) to the site. Both Vera Water and Power
and Washington Water Power Company anticipate no difficulty in providing
the energy needs of the proposed facility.
c. Mitigating Measures
The District should coordinate its planning efforts with the respective •
utilities in order to assist them in their network and facilities planning.
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
None.
6.2 Communications
a. Existing Conditions
- Pacific Northwest Bell provides telephone and communications services
in the local area. Although there is presently no communications service
to the site, an underground cable is located along Sullivan Road. The ca-
pacity of this cable is adequate to serve projected growth over the next 10
years.
b. Probable Impacts
Construction of the proposed project will require the extension of a
cable from Sullivan Road to the site and the installation of telephones and
other required communications equipment.
c. Mitigating Measures
Early and close coordination with Pacific Northwest Bell will facili-
tate their equipment planning and programming.
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
None.
88
•
•
•
• a. Existing Conditions
The site of the proposed project is within the service area of Vera Wa-
ter and Power. There is presently a 16 -inch water main along 16th Avenue
(westward from Sullivan Road) and a 16 -inch main along Sullivan Road (north
of 16th Avenue). These mains are linked by a 20 -inch main to a four mil-
t) lion gallon reservoir located on the bluff east of Sullivan Road. The Dis-
trict's water plan calls for the extension of the 16 -inch main in Sullivan
Road southward to an existing 12 -inch main at 24th Avenue.. The plan also
calls for additional wells at 16th Avenue and Sullivan Road.
O
c. Mitigating Measures
O None.
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
None.
O 6.4 Sewer
a. Existing Conditions
There are presently no sewage facilities available to the site of the
proposed project. Sewage disposal in the valley is accomplished by either
O individual septic tanks or various community disposal systems. Numerous
studies have led to the conclusion that ground disposal of sewage waste in
the Valley has contributed to the degradation of the quality of the Spokane
Valley aquifer. The 1979 Spokane Aquifer Water Quality Management Plan
recommended that sanitary waste be handled by the collection of all sewage
from urbanized areas and treatment for discharge in such a manner that the
O pollutants cannot enter the aquifer.
O
O
6.3 Water
b. Probable Impacts
Vera Water and Power can provide water service to the proposed facility
with no anticipated problems.
This plan was followed by the Spokane County Comprehensive Waste Water
Management Plan (CWMP) in December of 1980, which provides a guideline for
future sewage waste disposal strategies. (This plan was adopted by the
county on October 20, 1981.) The CWMP designates a Wastewater Management
Area (WMA), General Sewer Service Area (GSSA), and Priority Sewer Service
Area (PSSA). The PSSA identifies those areas which are currently urbanized
or most probably will urbanize and could feasibly be provided with inter-
ceptor sewers within the next 10 years. The PSSA includes approximately a
two -mile band around proposed interceptor facilities identified in the
recommended CWMP. Interceptor lines are proposed along the abandoned Mil-
waukee Road right of way and along 24th Avenue to an eastern terminus at
Sullivan Road. (Phase I of the plan, which includes construction of both
of these lines eastward to Sullivan Road, is planned for implementation
commencing in 1982 with completion in 1992.)
89
The plan sets forth specific management criteria for the site vicinity.
These include the following requirements: (1) connect as soon as sewer is
available; (2) agree not to oppose ULID formation; and (3) comply with an
aquifer protection program including combinations of dual plumbing, dry
sewers, special on -site design criteria, and approved management systems.
The existing District facilities that are slated for replacement under
the proposed project (which include the District administration building,
bus storage and maintenance facility, and building and grounds maintenance
facility) currently use on -site septic and drainfield disposal for sanitary
waste.
b. Probable Impacts
The proposed project will use a septic tank and drainfield as an inter-
im method of sanitary waste disposal until a sewer system is available in
the Valley. Waste water will be generated by the restroom, shower, kit-
chen, and laundry facilities within the proposed project.
c. Mitigating Measures
The waste water disposal system should be designed so as to facilitate
hook -up to a sewer system when it becomes available.
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Until a sewer system becomes available to the site, effluents from sep-
tic tank drainfields will enter the soil and potentially add various con-
taminants to the aquifer.
-6.5 Storm Water
a. Existing Conditions
There are no storm water facilities on or available to the site of the
proposed project. There are no storm water facilities, other than on -site
disposal by dry wells or surface absorption available to the entire Valley
area. (The runoff and absorption characteristics of the site have been
discussed in subsection 3.2 (Runoff /Absorption) in Section 8 (Elements of
the Physical Environment)).
As with the management of sanitary or sewage waste, storm water manage-
ment was discussed in the 1979 Spokane Aquifer Water Quality Management
Plan. The recommendations of this plan have resulted in the development of
Guidelines for Stormwater Management (1981). According to the guidelines,
all development within the aquifer sensitive area, where deemed feasible by
the County Engineer, shall incorporate storm water treatment to mitigate
the potential for ground water degradation. • The preferred treatment mech-
anism is the infiltration of storm water through a grassed area. In lieu
of this method, any system which can be shown to the satisfaction of the
County Engineer to provide contaminant removals equal to or better than the
grassed percolation area may be employed.
90
The existing District facilities use standard dry wells or surface ab-
sorption to dispose of storm water runoff. It is reported that during win-
• ter months (when surface soils are frozen) there are occasional problems in
the existing bus parking facility with ponding and freezing water.
0
0
0
Solid waste collection in the Valley area is provided by Valley Garbage
Service. Solid waste is ultimately disposed of at the Mica landfill which
has a projected life of approximately 10 years.
The solid waste materials generated by the District consist primarily
0 of paper from classroom and administrative activities, and containers and
food waste from kitchen operations. A portion of the waste paper is re-
cycled and the remainder is thrown away. Cardboard waste is generally re-
cycled.
0
•
b. Probable Impacts
Refer to subsection 3.2 (Runoff /Absorption).
c. Mitigating Measures
Refer to subsection 3.2 (Runoff /Absorption).
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Refer to subsection 3.2 (Runoff /Absorption).
6.6 Solid Waste
a. Existing Conditions
b. -Probable Impacts
The proposed project will generate solid waste similar in type but of
greater volume than is presently being generated. Because of the consoli-
dation of warehousing, kitchen, and administrative facilities on -site,
there will be better opportunity to collect and control solid waste genera-
tion. In other words, there will be a greater opportunity for recycling.
c. Mitigating Measures
The District should develop a program to separate and recycle solid
waste materials.
e d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
To the degree that solid waste materials cannot be recycled, there will
be an adverse impact.
7. Human Health
N/A
91
8. Aesthetics
a. Existing Conditions
The site is presently characterized by, agricultural land use with resi-
dential development to the north of 16th Avenue and west of Progress Road.
The aesthetic character of the site and the properties to the south and
east is essentially open space over relatively flat terrain.
There are two residential properties which are located along the north
side of 16th Avenue that have direct views at approximately the same eleva-
tion of the site. These residences are located across 16th Avenue from the
site. Other residential properties with views of the site include those
along the west side of Progress Road and those situated on the bluff along
Vera Crest Drive (approximately one -half mile east of the site). The resi-
dential structures in the immediate vicinity of the site are shown on the
following schematic.
b. Probable Impacts
As shown in the site plan, the proposed project will consist of the
following structures: the core structure which will include the warehous-
ing, curriculum library, building and grounds maintenance shop, storage and
administrative area, transportation shop, and probably a central kitchen
and central laundry (370 x 250 feet); two bus storage buildings (290 x 80
feet); two small vehicle storage buildings (240 x 45 feet); and the central
administration building (240 x 85 feet). The height of the core structure
will be less than 25 feet and the height of the bus parking buildings will
be less than 20 feet.
The height of these structures will be consistent with the height of
the -nearby single family residential structures, but the bulk will be con-
siderably greater. Three residences to the north of the site (along the
north side of 16th Avenue) will potentially view the end elevations of the
bus and small vehicle parking structures. As shown on the schematic, two
residences face directly into the site. The other three residences front-
ing 16th Avenue will have angled views of the site. The residences between
Newer and Sullivan roads are oriented east -west and will not view the site
directly. Also, the structures on -site will be screened by a four- to
eight -foot landscaped berm and plantings which will be constructed along
the perimeter of the site. Thus, with the exception of one residence at
the northwest corner of Newer Road /16th Avenue, the views of the structures
and interior of the site will be well screened.
The residences along the west side of Progress Road will view the core
structure and the long axis of the bus parking structures. Again, these
views will be screened by the landscaped berm and plantings. There is one
residential structure located immediately to the east of the proposed
project site. This is the single family home located on the southwest
corner of the 16th Avenue /Sullivan Road intersection. Future residential
or other development along the east side of Sullivan Road will view the
long axis of the small vehicle parking structure and the central district
administration building. The view of small vehicle parking structures will
be screened by a berm and plantings extending around the perimeter of the
92
r
14th Avenue
c
15th Avenue
16t Avenue
f®
Note: House locations and size approximate
0
m
ra
D
0
0
00-
Y)R F 4N0£RSO.Y, .4:.
\� H111
wmuLa•e. Li nu'I•U•rmnlIaI I m•a l y m, T la.•':i•• g , vono
View Orientation
1
93
O
0
0 c. Mitigating Measures
The landscaped earth berm which is proposed for the perimeter of the
site will screen and break up the appearance of structural bulk. The ex-
tensive use of evergreen trees and shrubs on the berm and within the site
will provide year -round visual screening of the site.
The low- profile design of the structures will create a vertical scale
that is consistent with the existing and any future residential structures
near the site. The exterior facades of the structures in terms of color
and texture should be designed to soften the visual impact of the proposed
project.
O
0
Vera Water and 'Power site. Future development to the south of the site
will view the core structure and the end of the District administration
building. This view will be screend by a:four -'to eight -foot berm with
plantings. Residents of the Ridgemont area (to the east of the site) will
overlook the proposed project site from a• distance.. Thus, they will view
rooftops as well as elevations over the top of the landscaping.
The materials used for the proposed structures will probably be tilt -up
concrete. The exterior materials and color patterns will be designed to
reduce the appearance of bulk. Earth -tone colors will be used on both the
walls and roofs. Also, the roofs of the structures will have a very shal-
low pitch in order to reduce the profile (or height) of the buildings. The
use of landscaped earth berms will reduce the direct views of the site and
soften the visual character of portions of the structures that are visible.
Landscaping on the interior of the site will further soften the visual ef-
fect.
Local residents have expressed objections to the proposed project on
aesthetic grounds.
Security fencing, if used, should be located and designed so that it
does not present an obtrusive visual appearance to off -site viewers. In
order to accomplish this, the fencing should be integrated with landscaping
and where this is not possible (as in the case of gates) special design
treatments should be developed. The use of wrought iron, steel, or some
material other than cyclone fencing material, for gates should be consid-
ered.
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
The proposed project will be in contrast with the visual character of
the existing single family residences immediately north of the site. Al-
though the design of the structures and the perimeter landscaping will
mitigate the visual impacts of the proposed project, it will still be
viewed by some local residents as adverse.
9. Recreation
N/A
94
The list of significant archaeological. or historical sites located in
Spokane County shows no sites of archaeological or historical value on or
in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project site. Also, the site's
surface has been totally disrupted by agricultural cultivation.
b. Probable Impacts
None.
c. Mitigating Measures
Should any item of potential archaeological or historical value be en-
countered during excavation, the appropriate local and state officials
should be notified prior to the continuance of further construction work.
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
None.
11. Additional Population Characteristics
N/A
12. Economics
a. Existing Conditions
-The proposed project site was purchsed by the District for $154,000 in
April of 1980. The 15.4 -acre site is currently being cultivated under a
sharecrop agreement between a local farmer and the District.
The current District administration and transportation functions are
located on adjacent District -owned sites at S. 123 Bowdish Road (2.0 and
1.5 acres, respectively). The building and grounds maintenance facilities
are located on a 1.5 -acre site (Milwaukee Road right of way /Conklin Road),
which is under lease for $2,330 per month (October, 1981). The curriculum
library and special educational services are located at the Barker Center
site (Mission and Barker). This site is approximately 6.4 acres in area.
The assessed valuations of these properties are shown on the following
table. The 1981 Spokane County levy rate is $14.968 per $1,000 of assessed
valuation for taxable property. The school district is not subject to
property tax assessments.
The last column in the table shows the estimated assessed valuation per
acre for each specific site. Note that the administration /transportation
and building and grounds maintenance sites have high assessed values per
acre. This is primarily a locational function of zoning and activity on
the property or adjacent properties in similar use. As an example of as-
sessment differences resulting from zoning and use the property immediately
north of the building and grounds maintenance site which is zoned agricul-
95
10. Archaeological /Historical
a. Existing Conditions •
•
•
•
•
•
•
A
Note-
• No taxes are collected for school -owned property.
Q b. Probable Impacts
The proposed project will require the commitment of financial resources
by the Central Valley School District. Funds for the purchase of the site
and some initial construction work were committed from 1977 and 1978 bond
issues. The remainder of the project will require additional funding, most
41 likely through a voter - approved bond issue. The construction cost for
Phases I and II is estimated at $3,257,700.
Phases I and II include those facilities necessary to meet the current
needs of the District. Phase I will include approximately 17,400 square
feet of building area for an estimated cost of $934,461. This phase is
• planned to consist of the following facilities: (1) perimeter landscaping;
(2) administration for support services (meeting rooms, clerical space, and
offices); (3) facility or building /grounds maintenance (to replace the
leased warehouse shop space); and (4) central storage (partial to replace
leased food service cold storage and provide centralized storage space).
Approximately $873,000 frm the 1978 bond issue is available to complete
this work.
Phase II, which will consist of expansion of the core structure to in-
clude transportation administration, vehicle maintenance, additional stor-
age, and bus and small vehicle storage buildings, is estimated at a cost of
approximately $2,323,295. There is currently no funding available to con-
• struct this phase or other future phases.
Future phases will consist of construction to meet long -term needs of
the District. The facilities that are proposed from future phases include
Site
ASSESSED VALUATIONS OF CENTRAL VALLEY SCHOOL FACILITIES
Administration/
Transportation $89,500 $ 403,500 $493,000 $7,379 $25,500
Greenacres School 22,500 293,300 315,800 4,726 3,500
Building and Grounds
Maintenance 32,000 127,800 159,800 2,391 21,300
16th and Sullivan 23,500 - -- 23,500 351 1,500
Source: Spokane County Assessor's Office.
Land Value
Land Improvement• Total Tax Per Acre
tural and in pasture use is assessed at approximately $500 per acre. An-
other factor of note is that the assessed valuations of the land do not
reflect actual market values. Although properties are mandated to be as-
sessed at 100% of full value, the assessed values generally lag behind the
market values, particularly in an inflationary economy.
96
additional expansion of the core structure to house possible kitchen and
laundry facilities, additional storage, additional bus and small vehicle
storage, and a new administration building. A cost estimate for future
work beyond Phase II has not been developed at this time.
The ownership of the proposed site by the District removes it from
property tax rolls and reduces potential tax revenues to Spokane County
(for 1981 this figure is $351). In addition, the potential tax revenues
that could be generated by the site under private development and ownership
will also be lost to the county. This potential loss relates to the long-
term development potential of the property in another use. On the other
hand, the existing District administration and transportation facilities
would generate approximately $7,300 if it were on the county tax rolls.
Redevelopment of the transportation facility into an office or commercial
use would yield an even higher return to the county in the form of tax
revenues. This potential revenue would be available to the county when the
proposed project is fully developed and the existing administration /trans-
portation site is sold as surplus property.
The sale of the existing administration /transportation site and the
abandonment of the leased buildings and grounds maintenance facility will
partially offset the projected expenditures for proposed project construc-
tion. In addition, the consolidation of the facilities on a single site
will bring about ongoing savings in operational costs. These savings will
result from fuel and maintenance, driver time, administrative efficiency,
inventory control, bulk supply and materials purchases, staff efficiency,
etc. Although the operational savings will not offset building costs for
several years, they will contribute to a relative reduction in the Dis-
trict's operational budget as service demands increase.
Finally, consolidation will reduce future potential costs of land ac-
quisition for individual facility sites and potential cost of constructing
individual facilities. However, the assumption that these savings will be
realized is based on another assumption - -that the population within the
District will continue to grow and that land costs and building costs will
continue to increase over the long term.
c. Mitigating Measures
None.
d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Funding for construction of the proposed project, if obtained through
bond issues or capital levies, will increase the tax burden of Central
Valley School District taxpayers over the life of the indebtedness. How-
ever, increased operational efficiencies are anticipated to reduce overall
operational costs.
97
•
The site of the proposed project is presently under agricultural pro-
duction as are the adjacent properties to.the east, west, and south. The
retention of the site in its present state would allow the continuance of
the existing agricultural use. Because the site is adjacent to an area of
residential, development and is designated for such use in the county's
O Generalized Comprehensive Plan, there is a strong likelihood that the site
will eventually be developed. The development of the proposed project will
take this land out of agricultural production and preclude its future de-
velopment for other purposes.
The non - residential use of the proposed project and impacts of site
O operations (traffic and noise) will conflict with existing residents locat-
ed near the site. The presence and operations of the proposed project will
be seen by these residents as a detriment to their long -term enjoyment of
their property. Also, the proposed project may affect future decisions of
adjacent property owners with respect to the ultimate use of their proper-
ty. Although the adverse impacts of the project will be largely mitigated,
O the adjacent residents will be affected to some degree. Even without the
proposed project, future development of the area and its resulting impacts
will adversely affect the residents living near Sullivan Road and 16th Ave-
nue.
The proposed project will provide the Central Valley School District
• the ability to consolidate its various support facilities and add new fa-
cilities on a site of adequate size to meet future District needs. Given
that the District will continue to grow, the existing facilities and sites
will continue to be inadequate to meet present demands and future growth.
Under the present proposal the District's overall ability to support its
educational services'will be enhanced, resulting in ongoing operational
O savings to District patrons. The postponement of the project to some fu-
ture date would not serve to enhance the District's service capability or
the long -term character of the local area. Although it might allow the
consideration of other alternatives, it would not assist in the improvement
of existing facilities or operations.
•
•
IV. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT -TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT
AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG -TERM PRODUCTIVITY
98
V. IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
O The proposed project would not involve significant commitments of re-
sources that would be considered irreversible and /or irretrievable. There
will be an increase in the consumption of energy and other resources during
the construction phase. These include essentially the labor, energy, fos-
sil fuels, and building materials required to prepare the ground and con-
struct the buiding. These resources will be irreversibly and irretrievably
O committed to the proposed project. Further, if such resources are not com-
mitted to this project they will be committed to other projects on this
site within the county or region. The proposed project will also consume
energy in the form of electricity and fossil fuels after the facilities are
operational.
99
VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
• The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Guidelines require
a discussion of alternatives that includes a description and objective
evaluation of any reasonable. alternative action which could feasibly attain
the objectives of the proposal. Reasonable alternatives shall include any
action which might approximate the proposal's objective, but at a lower en-
vironmental cost or decreased level of environmental degradation. The
• Guidelines also require that a "no action" alternative be compared to and
evaluated with the other alternatives.
The no action alternative will be discussed both in terms of the School
• District not developing the site as proposed (anticipating development of
the site in accordance with existing planning and zoning guidelines), and
not developing the proposed project on any site.
If the site is not developed in accordance with the present proposal,
it would be expected that the existing agricultural use would be maintained
• for some indefinite period. Given past development trends in the site vi-
cinity and existing land use guidelines for the site, however, it is anti-
cipated that some form of development will eventually take place. The
type and timing of such development will depend to a large degree on the
future economic conditions of the Spokane metropolitan area. An important
additional factor will be the response of future land use decisions based,
• on the potential sewering of the Valley.
According to the draft of the Spokane County 201 Comprehensive Waste-
water Management Plan (December, 1980), first phase interceptor sewer lines
will be developed along the abandoned Milwaukee Road right of way and along
24th-Avenue. This phase is planned to occur from 1982 to 1992. It should
• be emphasized that this plan is a draft and is subject to change before fi-
nal approval. Implementation of the plan will depend on the availability
of funding. The development of the plan and interceptor lines as proposed,
if and when it may take place, will increase the prospect of higher density
residential development in the potential service areas. The corridor along
Sullivan Road, along which a link between the two interceptors could be
• constructed, would be particularly subject to such development.
Spokane County has slated the improvement of Sullivan Road between 16th
and Sprague avenues to four traffic lanes with a center turn lane. Signal -
ization of the 16th Avenue /Sullivan Road intersection is also planned.
These improvements have not as yet been fully funded. Longer range plans
• look to the extension of similar improvements to 32nd Avenue. The improve-
ment of.then entire length of 16th Avenue (between Mica- Dishman and Sulli
van roads) to four lanes is also under consideration in the long term.
The County's Generalized Comprehensive Plan designates the area (in the
site vicinity) west of Sullivan Road as Urban and the area east of Sullivan
• Road as Suburban. The Urban category would allow residential densities
(net) of one to 17 units per acre. It also provides for more intensive
land uses (such as commercial and light industrial) at locations served by
A. No Action Alternative
100
heavily traveled streets. The Suburban category would also allow neighbor-
hood commercial uses located adjacent to primary or secondary arterials.
Given the location of the site relative to local arterials, the planned
improvements to such arterials, and the proposed sewer interceptors, it is
' likely that more intensive land uses will develop along Sullivan Road.
Past development trends in the Valley along arterials such as Bowdish,
Pines, Sullivan, and Argonne have shown transition from single family uses
to' commercial, office, and multi - family. This is particularly the case
along more heavily traveled arterials.
Two additional factors with respect to existing land uses should also
be considered. First, the property adjacent to the northeast of the site
is owned by Vera Water and Power. Its use will be restricted to utility
functions including a well site. an electrical substation, and possibly
other uses. Second, the property to the south of the site and along the
east side of Sullivan Road between 16th and 24th avenues is undeveloped.
At least a portion of these properties could be developed into more inten-
sive residential uses than presently exist in the area, or into commercial
uses.
All of these factors present a wide range of potential development sce-
narios for the site of the proposed project. These would range from devel-
opment that is consistent with the existing residential pattern to a mixed
pattern of urban residential and commercial uses. Assuming that the site
develops in a pattern consistent with adjacent development to the north
(approximately 3.5 units per acre), approximately 54 single family resi-
dences could be developed, on the proposed site. The maximum residential
development of the site under the Urban category (at 17 units per acre) is
approximately 260 units.
- Eventually, some type of residential development, and possibly commer-
cial use, will take place on the site. Any development of the site will
disrupt soils, alter the topography, eliminate agricultural activity, and
alter the runoff /absorption characteristics. The degree to which the
runoff /absorption characteristics will be altered will depend on the inten-
sity of development. In any case, all development will be required to com-
ply with the Spokane County storm water management guidelines. Given pres-
ent economic and development pressure conditions, none of these potential
physical impacts would be expected to take place for some time. For the
short -term, the site will continue to be used for agricultural purposes.
The noise impacts of the potential range of development for the site
will generally be, less than that projected for the proposed project. With
the development of single family uses on the site, the total number of ve-
hicular trips and number of heavy vehicle trips would be less than under
the present proposal. However, automobile trips would be generated over a
longer time period including weekends and holidays. For more intensive de-
velopment of the site, including multi- family and commercial development,
increased human activity and vehicular trips would increase noise levels
equivalent to those of the proposed project. The exception to this would
be the elimination of potential bus trips accessing 16th Avenue. The num-
ber of vehicular trips that would potentially be generated by various types
of site development range from approximately 430 trips per day for single
101
family development (54 units at eight trips per day) to approximately 1,430
trips for maximum residential development or commercial development (260
• units at 5.5 trips per day).
The light and glare impacts of future development of the site would be
similar to those of the proposed project. Future single family residential
development would not require zone changes and would be comparable with ex-
isting land use patterns in the site vicinity. Potential multi - family or
• commercial use would require zone changes and would pose some potential
conflict with existing residential development.
Future residential development would increase housing and population in
the local area and increase demands on utilities and public services. The
generation of sanitary waste would be greater than the proposed project.
• Energy demands would also be similar or greater for residential development
of the site. Communications systems would have to be extended to the site.
More solid waste would potentially be generated by the proposed project,
but the possibility of recycling would also be greater. With increased
residential population on the site (under the no action alternative), the
demand for police, fire, schools, and parks or recreational facilities
0 would be greater than under the proposed project.
The aesthetic impacts under the no action alternative may be lesser or
greater than under the present proposal. With single family development,
the character would be similar to existing single family uses in the site
vicinity. With a mix of single and multi - family development, the character
• and scale would differ from the existing uses. Should more intensive resi-
dential or commercial uses (or both) be developed, the aesthetic impacts
may be similar or greater. The height and bulk of potential structures and
probable omission of landscaped berming may result in a greater adverse
aesthetic impact than under the present proposal.
• The no action alternative would mean that the Central Valley School
District would, in the short -term at least, continue to operate from exist-
ing administrative, maintenance, bus storage, and warehouse facilities.
Existing facilities would be retained and continue to function as under the
present situation. It is probable that if enrollment stabilizes the exist-
ing facilities could continue to support District operations. However, the
• locational inefficiencies of the building /grounds maintenance, transporta-
tion, and Barker Center facilities would continue and would become more
pronounced as fuel and other operational costs increase. The physical
plants of some of the District facilities are generally inadequate for ef-
ficient operation. The maintenance shops are poorly configured and are not
suitable for expansion or rehabilitation. Enclosed storage for materials
• and vehicles is insufficient. The kitchen and laundry facilities are
adequately serving the existing school population. The administration
building is physically sound and, with the exception of the print shop,
generally adequate to serve existing needs. However, there arer 30 staff
members located at Barker Center, which is poorly located with respect to
• District activity areas. The District does have a shortage of storage fa-
cilities which precludes economies of purchasing large lots under a single
bid. Materials are stored in halls and classrooms of existing buildings.
There is also no cold storage for food goods within the District.
1
102
Over the longer term, the existing facilities will become severely lim-
ited both in terms of physical space and even more operationally ineffec-
tive. The transportation facility and administration building are located
on adjacent sites which are developed to their maximum potential. Addi-
tional capacity (in response to future demand) cannot be added to the
transportation facility. The work and storage areas of the transportation
facility are inadequate and obsolete. Additional demands on this facility
would create immediate operational inefficiencies. The location of the
curriculum library and other educational support services at the Barker
Center site is poor in relation to schools and the District administration
building. As school sites are developed in the eastern and southeastern
portions of the District, the location of the existing District administra-
tion building will become inefficient with respect to District activity
areas. The existing shortage of storage for supplies and food will become
more pronounced as the use of such items increases. The operational costs
of the storage functions will continue to rise when compared to the poten-
tial of centralized District storage. Buildings and grounds maintenance
operations can potentially expand into warehouse space that is currently
under lease. However, the configuration characteristics of this building
are not adequate for efficient operation.
Even if the project as presently proposed (at the 16th Avenue /Sullivan
Road site) is not developed, the District will be required to expand exist-
ing support facilities in order to increase operational efficiency and ac-
commodate future growth in enrollment. The expansion of support facilities
can be accomplished in several ways. First the existing facilities could
be maintained, and expansion of capacity could take place at other satel-
lite locations. Second, a new site could be acquired to accommodate the
entirety of the proposed project. Third, a new site could be acquired to
accommodate a portion of the activities of the proposed project (i.e., the
transportation, building and grounds maintenance and central storage could
be combined on a new site; administration could remain at the existing lo-
cation and expand into the existing transportation site; the central kit-
chen and laundries could be operated as under the present situation with
new preparation kitchens developed in new secondary schools).
B. Alternative Site Locations
Prior to purchasing the proposed site the District completed an exten-
sive site search. The primary criteria upon which this search was based
included the following: (1) location near the geographical and future ac-
tivity centers of the District; (2) size adequate enough to provide space
for existing and future operations; (3) convenient access to major streets
and arterials; (4) land availability; and (5) land cost. Initial analysis
by the project architect showed the Sullivan Road corridor, between 16th
and 24th avenues to be the best location for the proposed Educational Ser-
vices Center. Also, sites located north of Sullivan Road were ruled out
because of the distance from existing and future activity centers.
The District considered approximately 17 sites during its acquisition
process. A number of these sites were eliminated without formal evaluation
or inquiry - -sites north of Sprague, 4th and McDonald (northwest corner),
4th and Evergreen (northwest corner), 4th and Adams (southeast corner), and
4th and Sullivan (northeast and southeast corners). The following reasons
103
were given for the rejection of these sites: poor or marginal access, poor
location with respect to District needs, residences nearby, inadequate
It size, not available, and high cost.
The existing sites on which District facilities are located were also
formally evaluated. The site at S. 123 Bowdish (existing administration
and transportation facilities) was eliminated because of size and location
as well as the potential commercial value of the land. The Barker and Mis-
• Sion site (oldGreenacres school) was eliminated because of size and loca-
tion with respect to District activity centers and unavailability of ad-
joining land. The 4th and Conklin site (existing building and grounds
maintenance facility) was rated as having marginal size and location, poor
road access, and high cost. (Selected alternative site locations are shown
on the following map.) The Barker and Mission, 4th and Conklin, and 16th
• and Sullivan sites were evaluated by transportation consultants from the
office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. This report is includ-
ed in the Educational Services Center Task Force report which is reproduced
in Appendix A to this EIS.
Formal inquiries were made toward sites at 32nd and Sullivan, and 16th
• and Sullivan (southeast corner). With the exception of a portion of the
property at the northwest corner of 32nd and Sullivan, none of the other
properties were available. Additionally, the impacts of developing these
sites would be substantially the same as the proposed site. All of these
sites would have potential impact on surrounding residences. A site east
of Central Valley High School was also evaluated. This site was rated as
• having good location and potentially adequate size. The access was rated
as questionable and there are residences to the north and east. This site
was not readily available for District purchase.
The Educational Services Center Ta Force also discussed the possi-
bility of two alternative properties. This task force consisted of a
• group of District citizens who worked with the District to review decisions
to centralize service center functions, purchase the 16th and Sullivan
site, and look at alternative site locations. The Educational Services
Center Task Force Report and Design Committee Recommendations are included
in Appendix A to this EIS. The first property is located east of the pro-
posed site on property bounded by Sullivan Road, 16th and 24th avenues, and
• the steep slopes of the Vera Crest area (Renz property). The advantages of
this site were that it is visually screened from the neighborhoods north-
west of 16th and Sullivan and west of Progress, and that it could be buf-
fered from future surrounding housing by higher density residential and of-
fice uses. The disadvantages of the site are that the District would not
have full control in selecting the site location, a master plan for the
site had not been developed, the purchase price was too high, there was no
direct access to a major east -west or north -south arterial, and the site
would be immediately visible from some areas of existing residential devel-
opment. The second site recommended for consideration was the property
east of Central Valley High School (Rice property). The District, however,
was not able to develop any negotiations on this property.
Before discussing reasonable site alternatives that meet the basic ob-
jectives and criteria of the District there are several general points that
should be made. The physical impacts to any site will essentially be the
•
104
Co
nonmenid analysis. planning, economics
105
Sprague Ave
Sprague Ave
cc
Buildings at Grounds
Maintenance(leased:
° ,
-
3
c
O
U
3rd
m l
o]
' , Shelley U
7th
el
ALI
----- - - - ---
Hayfield' I
J
Lake
8th
,•
10
12 ,
CENTRAL
VALLEY 1
HIGH
__ SCHOOL __J
_ m L
10th
9th
>
o
ref
Av
11th Ave
D
I
L
„a`
. m
13
13th
6. 5
S o pO�
Dr
14th ' Ave
I 14th ((
•
` ,
m
!1`m
nr
15th Ave
14th Ave
15th
16th Ave
3
16th Ave
Shattj
�,
24th Ave
17_1`
O
n
l /
v ¢
�
O O
cc Cr"
O
g
z
L
r
ns
c SITE 4 ,esib.
Ave
22rn'
IAve
32nd Ave
F
L
o
rip
Sites analyzed
O Sites considered
O
Alternative SitesO
\\.... l
0 1 Mile
Co
nonmenid analysis. planning, economics
105
•
The existing building and grounds maintenance operations are currently
• based along the abandoned Milwaukee Road right of way and Conklin Road.
This site consists of 1.52 acres and has two existing structures (12,000
square feet with a 3,600- square foot addition, and 1,500 square feet).
There is an.additional 7.5 -acre undeveloped parcel adjacent to this site
which extends to the northwest corner of 4th and Conklin. This combined
site was formally evaluated by the project architect. The site was felt to
• have marginal size and to be too costly. price of $351,000 for the 1.52-
acre site was established by the owner.) The value of the 7.5 -acre site
was estimated from approximately $135,000 ($0.40 per square foot) with
multi-9'01y zoning to $337,000 ($1.00 per square foot) with restricted
zoning. The property owner sta a price of approximately $245,000 for
the -site ($0.75 per square foot).
Aside from the cost considerations, it may be possible with alternative
facilities planning strategies to fulfill most of the objectives of the
proposed project on this site. As discussed above, the physical environ-
mental impacts of this site will essentially be the same as for the pro-
posed site (16th and Sullivan). These physical factors include soils,
• topography, air quality, runoff /absorption, ground water, flora, fauna,
light and glare, natural resources, and risk of explosion or hazardous
emissions. A portion of this site would require a zone change to Restrict-
ed Industrial (RI) since it is presently split - zoned. The parcel adjacent
to the railroad right of way is zoned RI and the parcel south is zoned
Agricultural. There is a pasture and a meat packing plant located to the
• east of this site, residential and agricultural uses to the south and .west,
and residential, pasture and commercial uses to the north. The land to the
north of the railroad right of way and south of Sprague Avenue is in mixed
use and appears to be transitioning from residential to commercial and in-
dustrial uses. Given this land use and zoning situation, it would appear
that this site would have lower potential land use conflict than the pro-
posed site, at least at this time.
Nonetheless, the traffic and associated noise impacts would affect the
residents in the vicinity of the site, particularly those along 4th Avenue.
•
same as for the proposed site. Since the soil, topographic conditions,
ground water (Spokane Valley aquifer), flora, fauna, natural resources,
energy, utilities, and public service characteristics are basically the
same for alternative sites the differences in impacts will vary little from
the proposed site. Each of the sites considered by the District as well as
reasonable alternative sites are located either adjacent to or near exist-
ing residential structures. Thus, the impacts related to the operations of
the site, primarily traffic, will be the same as for the proposed site with
respect to noise, air quality, congestion, and safety. There will, how-
ever, be a difference of degree depending on the number of existing resi-
dences impacted.
, Potential land use conflicts as well as aesthetic impacts can be mini-
mized by two alternative sites. These are sites that are adjacent to or
near the existing industrial /commercial or school uses -4th and Conklin and
east of Central Valley High School.
1. 4th and Conklin
106
Although there would be fewer residences directly impacted, the relative
impact would be greater because 4th Avenue has significantly less traffic
than either 16th Avenue or Sullivan Road. Furthermore, Sullivan Road is
expected to carry high volumes of traffic in the future (up to 20,000 ye
hicles per day at the Sullivan /16th intersection within 15 to 20 years) ,
thus the relative impacts of traffic noise in the future would be much
lower than for 4th Avenue, which is expected to remain a local access
street.
The Spokane County Planning Department, in a letter to the project ar-
chitect (June 25, 1979), recommended that traffic flow be directed to Conk-
lin Road (if this site were selected) in order to minimize potential con-
flict with residences along 4th Avenue. The letter also indicated that
severe circulation problems would be created by traffic from Conklin enter-
ing Sprague Avenue. In order for traffic to enter and exit Sprague Avenue
to access this site, it is probable that the intersection will require sig-
nalization. There are presently no plans to signalize this intersection,
although such an improvement was suggested in conjunction with the Valley
Mall proposal. Conklin Road was recommended for improvement as a potential
access point to the Valley Mall during its planning and approval process.
Even if such improvement were accomplished, District traffic that would
travel to the southern activity areas of the District would use 4th Avenue.
There is no signalization at the intersection of 4th and Sullivan, nor is
any planned in the proposed improvement to Sullivan Road. Without signali-
zation at 4th Avenue, traffic would have an extremely difficult time turn-
ing southbound onto Sullivan Road. Also, the traffic volumes at 4th and
Sullivan will be several thousand vehicles higher than at 16th and Sullivan
because it is in the "downstream" direction of traffic flow. Access to
I -90 is somewhat more difficult from this site than the proposed site be-
cause the site would not have direct access to Sullivan Road. Sprague Ave-
nue would provide the least disruptive access with respect to local resi-
dents, but would also involve more difficult turning movements than the 4th
Avenue access.
The location of the 4th and Conklin site in comparison to the proposed
site is further from the existing District activity centers. In terms of
existing school bus routes, approximately 54 miles per day would be added
to the total route mileage (approximately 9,700 miles per school year).
This distance would add approximately 1,732 gallons of fuel consumption per
year (at 5.6 mpg) as well as other operating costs. However, as additional
routes are added to the east this relative disadvantage would decrease
somewhat. On the other hand, routes added to the south and southeast would
increase this disadvantage. For eastern routes using I -90, approximately
0.4 miles per route would be saved from this location; and for routes using
Sprague approximately 1.6 miles per route would be saved. For routes that
would use Sullivan Road to the south or southeast approximately 1.5 miles
would be added. The relative disadvantage of this site for the buildings
and grounds maintenance operations amounts to approximately 4,000 miles per
year in additional mileage relative to the proposed site (approximately 320
gallons per year at 12.5 mpg). The District administrative functions would
also incur higher costs for travel between activity areas and loss of ad-
ministrative time. As with the school bus routes, school locations to the
east would decrease this relative distance disadvantage.
107
2. East of and Adjacent to the Central Valley High School Site
• This site is currently under agricultural production and a parcel of
adequate size to meet the requirements of the District could be segregated
from it and joined to existing District• property, provided that it is
available. The physical characteristics of the site, as with the 4th and
Conklin site, are similar to the proposed site. Thus, impacts to the site
would be similar.
•
This site is presently zoned Agricultural. The Comprehensive Plan des-
ignation is Suburban. Shelley Lake lies to the southeast, and the site may
fall under a shorelines management zone. The land uses to the south in-
clude single family residences on one -acre or larger lots. Central Valley
High School is adjacent to the west. The land to the north consists of
• pasture and single family residences on one -acre tracts. Because the site
is adjacent to a school site, it would not appear to require a zone change
under the existing zoning ordinance. Since there are existing residential
structures to the south and to the north along 4th Avenue, development of
the site may create potential land use conflicts. Four residences bound
the southern portion of this site, two residences directly overlook the
• site from above. In addition, the rear yards of four residences overlook
the site from above.
Access is also a potential problem with this site. Two potential ac-
cess points exist provided that they can be developed. A 4th Avenue access
would present the same impacts to existing residents along 4th Avenue as
• the 4th and Conklin site alternative. However, it would provide access to
Sprague Avenue via Conklin Road which would save some distance with respect
to the eastern school sites. A Sullivan Road access would have to pass
through the Central Valley High School site at 6th Avenue. The 6th Avenue
access is not planned to be signalized, but would have turn lanes which
could be used by ingressing and egressing vehicles. However, heavy traffic
• along Sullivan could conflict with buses turning southbound.
From a standpoint of mileage and fuel efficiency this site, although
not as advantageous as the 16th and Sullivan site, would provide greater
potential mileage and fuel savings over the 4th and Conklin site. This
alternative is approximately half way between the proposed site and the 4th
• and Conklin site -- approximately one -half mile to each site. With a direct
access to 4th, it would be closer in distance to the 4th and Conklin site.
The noise levels of this site and the properties to the north, east,
and south are significantly lower than along Sullivan Road and 16th Avenue.
This is primarily a function of traffic flow. With the exception of out-
• door activities associated with the high school, agricultural activities,
and typical residential activities, there are few noise generators in these
areas. Since Sullivan Road is over 1,300 feet to the west, the noise gen-
erated by traffic is considerably reduced at the site and adjacent proper-
ties. As a result, the relative noise impact of on -site operations would
be greater than for the proposed site. The impacts of traffic noise would
• be similar to the proposed site. If traffic does access the site from Sul-
livan Road via 6th Avenue, the residents opposite the access points would
receive the same absolute noise impacts as the residents along 16th Avenue
108
(for the proposed site). However, because of the higher existing noise
levels along this part of Sullivan, the relative impacts would be lower.
C. Alternative Design Concepts
These alternatives consider the possibility of using a combination of
site and design alternatives. As discussed under the no action alterna-
tive, existing facilities and sites will eventually need to be expanded as
the District enrollment grows. These include the transportation facility
and the District administration building. The shop, administrative, and
bus driver areas as well as the structure in which they are housed are in-
adequate. The building and grounds maintenance facility is leased and has
a poor configuration for efficient operation and storage. The, District
does not have a central storage facility -- storage is presently leased or
maintained in school buildings. Kitchen and laundry operations are located
in existing schools. The curriculum library and some special education fa-
cilities are based at Barker Center.
There are two approaches to meeting the support needs of the District
as the existing facilities become inadequate. The first would consist of
consolidating all of the above facilities (or functions) on a single site
as under the present proposal. The problem then becomes one of selecting
the most adequate site that meets the objectives of the proposal. The sec-
ond approach would consist of developing new facilities to replace disfunc-
tional existing facilities on a piecemeal basis on individual sites or
grouping compatible facilities on two or three sites. The second approach
might also involve maintaining some facilities such as kitchen and laun-
dries at present locations.
The consolidation of all facilities on a single site whether it be the
proposed site or on an alternative site has certain economic and adminis-
trative advantages over individual sites for each facility. The environ-
mental cost would not appear to be significantly different under either ap-
proach. The environmental difference is primarily a function of location.
Consolidation on a single site allows the comprehensive planning of various
functions and relating them spatially for the most efficient operation. It
also allows, with a site of sufficient size, the ability to expand in re-
sponse to future demands without having to acquire additional land. The
use of a single core structure that is designed for future expansion can
reduce potential costs involved in constructing duplicative structures. A
single structure can also bring about savings in energy and overall space
and equipment economy. Consolidation of the various administrative func-
tions (buildings and grounds maintenance, transportation maintenance, and
central administration) provides for greater efficiency and effectiveness
in communication.
Central storage would relieve the present storage burden on individual
schools, enable the economy of bulk purchase, provide better cost and ad-
ministrative control, and improve distributive efficiency. When located in
the same facility as the end users, inventory control and distributive ef-
ficiency would be further improved. The location of a central kitchen in
conjunction with the central storage provides better inventory and quality
control, and allows bulk food storage that is readily accessible to the
kitchen. The central kitchen reduces duplicative facilities and equipment,
109
improves management and supervisory as well as reduces the need for such
personnel, improves quality and portion control, and reduces energy con-
• sumption. Energy savings can also be realized by reduction in trips be-
tween facilities and (with a central location) trip lengths.
The environmental impacts of consolidating all facilities on a single
geographically central site as compared to individual sites. would be dif-
ferent. The differences in impacts are primarily locational. The primary
• environmental benefit of developing a single site is the ability to con-
sider the impacts of total operation and develop strategies to mitigate ad-
verse impacts. The cost of developing mitigative strategies for individual
sites would be such that the best measures might not be used. The use of
landscaped berming to reduce noise and aesthetic impacts, for example, on
individual sites may not be cost- effective even though there are aspects of
• the on -site operations that would be mitigated by such a measure. The
ability to combine sewage waste into a single system would increase the
feasibility of extending to a trunk line whereas the extension from indi-
vidual sites may not be feasible. Overall traffic and goods movement can
be better controlled and directed to streets properly designed to meet the
demands. Also the impacts of operation are confined to a single site, thus
• impacting fewer areas. This concentration, on the other hand, places the
burden of the greater cumulative impact on the residents near a specific
location rather than placing lower impacts over a more widespread popula-
tion.
There are various combinations of alternatives to that of developing
• all of the proposed facilities on a single site. In general, these would
include the following: (1) satellite bus facilities in conjunction with
the existing central transportation facility; (2) maintaining the operation
of kitchens and laundries in existing schools and adding new facilities as
necessary in new schools; (3) developing a new site for central administra
tion-, curriculum library, and special educational services; (4) expanding
• the existing administration site into the transportation site which would
be relocated; (5) combining the transportation and buildings and grounds
functions; or (6) developing a central warehousing facility on a separate
site or combining it with other facilities.
The alternative of satellite busing has been considered by Superinten-
dent of Public Instruction consultants and was determined to be impracti-
cal, at least for the near future. It was suggested that it would not be
feasible until the Liberty Lake area developed and that at least 10 buses
could be operated out of a satellite facility. District planners do feel
that in the long term when the District reaches sufficient size, that a
satellite might become cost - effective. The advantages of satellite busing
• include shorter bus routes and potentially less driver time. Shorter bus
routes would also result in fuel savings. The disadvantages include poor
preventive maintenance, some added personnel cost (supervisors for satel-
lite centers and loss of mechanic time), poor communication with drivers,
and more need for spare buses and security. A satellite facility would
also require an additional site. If the District were large enough to sup-
• port service centers at the satellite locations, some of these disadvan-
tages could be overcome.
110
Separating the various facilities on different sites would have two ad-
vantages from an environmental aspect. First, it would reduce the concen-
tration of impacts on a single area. Second the most traffic and noise in-
tensive facilities could be located in an area where fewer residences would
be impacted. The disadvantages have been discussed above.
One alternative that might be considered is the use of the 4th and
Conklin site for the building and grounds maintenance, central storage, and
transportation facility, maintaining the kitchen and laundry operations as
they presently exist, and expanding the administration facility onto the
existing transportation facility site. Because of the potential value of
the existing administration site (commercial and office potential) and the
relatively low cost of the proposed 16th and Sullivan site, a subalterna-
tive may be to locate administrative, curriculum library, and special edu-
cational functions on the proposed site and sell the remainder.
The 4th and Conklin site would reduce the need for a large enough site
to house all of the facilities proposed for the 16th and Sullivan site. The
proposed core facility and bus storage facilities (first phase) with room
for some expansion could be accommodated on this site. Satellite bus fa-
cilities could be retained on a reduced transportation facility at the cur-
rent location and developed at Liberty Lake when demand warrants.
The physical impacts of site development under this type of alternative
would not differ significantly from the proposed project with two excep-
tions. First, the potential land use conflicts would be reduced. Since
the 4th and Conklin site is adjacent to an RI zone, the likelihood of sig-
nificant problems in extending the zone to the site would be reduced. Be-
cause there are fewer residents in the immediate vicinity of the site, few-
er people would be directly impacted. Second, the traffic and noise im-
pacts related to school bus operations would be relocated from the 16th and
Sullivan site to the 4th and Conklin site. Again, fewer existing residents
would be impacted by the increased noise levels. However, several points
to the contrary should be made. The access to the 4th and Conklin site
with respect to Sullivan and I -90 is not as good as the proposed site.
Also, the relative impacts of traffic and noise on residents along 4th
would be greater than residents along 16th or Sullivan. (This has been
previously discussed under alternative site locations.) Finally, the Dis-
trict administration building would not be near the District Center.
In summarizing the various alternatives, there are several factors that
become apparent. The proposed project no matter on what site or under what
design concept, will affect immediately surrounding residents. These envi-
ronmental impacts, for the most part, can be placed into two categories- -
traffic related and land use related. Potential land use conflicts can be
mitigated by sensitive site design relative to surrounding properties or by
locating the site in an area with similar uses. Traffic impacts can be
mitigated in much the same way. The site can be located where the least
number of residences will be impacted or in an area that has high existing
traffic and noise levels (such as commercial or industrial zones).
The location of the existing transportation facility, for example, is
surrounded (with the exception of residences on the south) by compatible
uses. To maximize cost savings to District patrons and operational effi-
111
ciency, the consolidation of the facilities on a single site in a central
location as proposed is the best solution. Although some of the facilities
• could be excluded without losing significant cost benefit (kitchens and
laundries, for example), the core facilities should be consolidated. The
reduction of impacts to the existing residents adjacent to the 16th and
Sullivan site by selecting an alternative site will involve a trade -off in
land costs and ongoing operations costs. The location of the project on a
site where it would have the least impact on residential property would
• also be the most costly because of the potential commercial or industrial
value of the land. This is clearly the case when considering the existing
building and grounds maintenance site. The existing location has a poten-
tial value of at least $351,000 for a 1.52 -acre site with two buildings
(which are inadequately configured for such use) as compared to $154,000
actually paid for the 15.4 acres at 16th and Sullivan. In addition, the
• price of the 7.5 -acre site to the south (4th and Conklin) has been placed
at approximatmely $245,000.
•
•
•
112
VII. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
* Disruption of on -site soils.
* Approximately 79% of site's surface overcovered by buildings, walkways,
driveways, and parking areas.
* Alteration of site's topography.
* Increased emissions from vehicular traffic.
* Slight and temporary odor from paving and diesel bus operations.
* Alteration of existing absorption and runoff patterns.
*
Slight contaminant contribution from storm water.
* Slight contaminant contribution from drainfield effluent until sewer
connection.
* Removal of approximately 15 acres from agricultural production.
* Reduction of overall habitat area for on -site wildlife.
* Generation of construction noise.
* Traffic generated by site activities will slightly impact overall traf-
fic noise levels.
* On -site operations will increase noise levels received by adjacent
properties.
* New source of light and glare.
* Potential land use conflict with adjacent residential uses.
* Energy consumption in construction and operation of proposed project.
* Temporary increase in traffic during construction phase.
* Permanent increase in local area traffic (approximately 1,370 vehicle
trips per school day).
* Increase in bus and truck trips on Sullivan Road and 16th Avenue.
* Access points for buses near existing residences.
* Non - renewable energy resources consumed during construction and project
operations.
* Potential demand for fire and police services.
* Sewage and solid waste generation, water consumption.
* Demand on electrical and telephone systems.
* Alteration of aesthetic character of site, perceived as adverse by some
local property owners.
* Different scale and bulk than surrounding structures.
* Potential increase in taxes for District residents.
113
•
•
REFERENCES
• 1. Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority, "Spokane County Air
Quality Profile ", 1980.
2. Spokane County, Office of County Engineer, "Spokane Aquifer Cause and
Effect Report ", December, 1978.
• 3. Spokane County, "Generalized Comprehensive Plan ", October, 1980.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
• 6. Ibid.
7. Haworth and Anderson, Inc., "Homestead - A Planned Community ", Draft
Environmental Impact Statement, August 1978.
8. Highlands Development, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Spokane
• County, May 1978.
9. Traffic survey conducted by Haworth and Anderson, Inc., July 10 -17,
1981.
10. Interview with Walt Treefry, Spokane County Sheriff's Department, June
• 1981.
11. Central Valley School District, July 28, 1981.
12. Interview with Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company, June 1981.
• 13. Memorandum of Central Valley School District, "Minutes of July 28, 1980
Educational Services Center Task Force Meeting ", July 30, 1980.
14. Letter from Emmett E. Burley, Jr., December 16, 1979.
15. Memorandum of Central Valley School District, "Fourth and Conklin Site
• Educational Services Center ", December 11, 1979.
16. Letter from Ralph Rice, December 10, 1979.
17. Memorandum of Central Valley School District, "Minutes, June 9, 1980
Meeting [Educational Services Centerl Task Force]", June 10, 1980.
114
APPENDIX A
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND PLANNING INFORMATION
including
Report of the Educational Services Center Task Force
and
Service!Center Design Committee Recommendations
115
a
•
•
r REPORT
of the
• EDUCATIONAL SERVICES CENTER
TASK FORCE
September 1980
•
•
•
•
•
Central Valley School District No. 356
South 123 Bowdish Road
Spokane, Washington 99206
116
Central Valley School District No. 356
F
•
•
•
•
•
L
•
•
•
Report of the
EDUCATIONAL SERVICES CENTER TASK FORCE
September 23, 1980
TASK FORCE MEMBERS
Patrons Directors
Jim Barlow* Sheryl McCorniack
Karen Sodorff Bruce Gehman
Gerald Thomason Administration
Maria Trunkenbolz R. C. Langton
Mike Vantine* Dave Jackman
*Moved from Spokane before conclusion of Task Force work.
117
• Report of the
1
•
i
•
Page
Forward iii
• I. Summary 1
6 II. Participants 2
III. The Task 3
IV. Task Force Operation 3
• V. Conclusion 5
•
•
•
•
•
Educational Services (enter Task Force
CONTENTS
Appendices
A. Summary of Meetings 8
B. Summary of Sites Considered 11
C. Potential for Satellite Bussing
and Site Evaluation 14
D. Minority Report 21
118
•
•
Planning for these facilities began in Spring, 1979 when the District
oaanissioned Larry Gottschalk to evaluate suitability of taw sites for
maintenance, transportation, storage, and curriculum library functions.
• Mr. Gottschalk's July, 1979 report indicated that the most favorable sites
would be located near the District's projected enrollment and transporta-
tion center. Mr. Gottschalk identified the prime geographic area as being
along Sullivan Road between 16th and 24th Avenues.
•
i
•
•
•
•
•
lbrward
Central Valley School District's 1978 Long Range Planning Cbnnittee Report
recomnended that the District consider providing a transportation center
and warehousing facility. In view of continuing District growth, this
concept was subsequently expanded to include a centralized location for
the District's administrative offices, maintenance facilities, and curricu-
lum library.
The District determined that adding administrative offices to the Educational
Services Center complex would be advantageous. After checking appropriate
zoning, the District retained a negotiator who approached owners of various
properties near the prime geographic area.
en April 8, 1980 the District approved purchase of a 15.41 acre parcel near
the southwest corner of 16th Avenue and Sullivan Road. A number of patrons
living nearby subsequently voiced concern regarding the District's plans.
In finalizing purchase of the property at their April 15, 1980 meeting,
Central Valley School District's Board of Directors provided that an ad hoc
committee representing these patrons review possibilities for using the
newly acquired property. Board members made a eonmitiwnt to review this
committee's reoannendations before the District proceeded further With plans
for development of the 16th and Sullivan site. The report which follows
stnnrarizes the work of this ad hoc committee and constitutes its recommenda-
tions to the Board of Directors.
119
• I. SUMMARY
4
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Educational Services Center Task Force met periodically from April 28,
1980 until September 8, 1980. In the course of these meetings, views were
shared and all available information was discussed. While full oonoensus
was not attained, Task Force members at their September 8, 1980 meeting
recommended to the Central Valley School District's Board of Directors that:
Recommendation Task Force Vote
Favor Oppose
1. The Central Valley School District develop its 5 2
present 15 4 acre site near the southwest corner
of 16th Avenue and Sullivan Road for the District's
Educational Servirps Center.
2. The Central Valley School District, while continuing 5
to consider potential alternate sites, proceed
immediately with planning for the Educational
Services Center and that construction of the
Services Center proceed at the earliest practical
date.
3. Interested District patrons be encouraged to 7 0
continue in efforts to identify acceptable alter-
nate sites and that tangible offers for District
acquisition of any such sites be brought by the
patrons for District consideration.
4. The architect for the Educational Services Center 7 0
be required as part of his official charge to
address the following patron concerns in design
of the facility:
A. Potentially lowered property values.
B. Potentially unattractive security precautions.
C. Increased traffic and pollution on Sullivan
Road and nearby arterials.
D. Potentially increased traffic noise levels.
E. Potentially increased danger to pedestrians.
F. Potential influx of crime
120
At the April 22, 1980 meeting, the Board of Directors established member-
ship of the ad hoc Educational Services Center Task Throe as follows:
•
t
•
•
•
f
•
•
i
At its April 15, 1980 meeting, Central Valley School District's Board of
Directors specified that a citizen's ad hoc ccnmittee be established to
examine potential uses for the District's property near 16th Avenue and
Sullivan Road. The Board directed that the group consist of five patrols
representing neighborhoods near the proposed center, two representatives
of the Board, and two District administrators. Between April 15 and
April 22, 1980, the Board solicited names of patrons interested in working
with this group.
Patrons
Jim Barlow
Karen Sodorff
Gerald Thomason
Maria Trunkenbolz*
Mike Vantine
II. PARTICIPANIIS
Board of Directors
Sheryl McCbrmack
Bruce Gehman
*Joined the Committee by Board invitation May 13, 1980 in place of an
April 22, 1980 appointee who subsequently was unable to serve.
121
District Administration
R. C. Langton
Dave Jackman
• III. THE TASK
t
•
• 1. Review rationale for a central Services Center and for the proposed
site.
•
•
1
•
t
• IV. TASK FORCE OPERATIO
The Task Force met periodically from April 28, 1980 until their June 10,
1980 termination date. Since additional work remained June 10th, the
• Board extended the Task Force's operation for a period not to exceed sixty
(60) days.
•
•
•
4
At their April 22, 1980 meeting, the Board of Directors asked that the
ad hoc Educational Services Center Task Force:
2. Review alternatives to the proposed site, including satellite
bus parking facilities.
3. Communicate findings to community, Board, and staff.
4. Suggest timeline for development of Services Center facilities.
5. Present Services Center recommendations to the Board
Dr. Langton chaired the Task Force meetings. Dave Jackman acted as secre-
tary. Printed minutes of each meeting were made available to Task Force
members. Following their approval at a subsequent meeting, the District
provided approximately 100 copies of the minutes to members of the Task
Force for neighborhood distribution. Approved minutes were also supplied
to the local press. Copies of all minutes are available for inspection
at the School District Administrative office.
122
The Services Center Task Force considered a number of topics in response
to the Board's charge. Appendix A recaps principal topics of each meeting.
Substantial time was devoted to 1) re-examination of sites considered by
the District for the Services Center, 2) detailed consideration of two
additional potential sites, and 3) satellite bussing. Appendix B enumerates
potential sites reviewed during the Task Force's work.
At the Task Force's request, the District invited a nurber of resource
people to assist in our work. Representatives of the Spokane County Long
Range Planning and Ehgineering staff addressed the group. Other guests
included Chuck MacKenzie and Roy Bauman, pupil transportation specialists
headquartered in Yakima and Vancouver, respectively, who analyzed the Dis-
trict's potential for satellite bussing. Mr. Mad{enzie and Mr. Bauman
thoroughly examined Central Valley's transportation situation during their
June 26 - 27, 1980 visit to the District. They concluded that the District
should not consider satellite bussing at this tine. Their report presenting
this thinking and commenting on three potential Services Center locations
appears as Appendix C.
By June 10, 1980, the Task Force was ready to examine the potential alter-
nate sites. Committee members representing neighborhoods near 16th Avenue
and Sullivan Road felt that two potential sites warranted further investiga-
tion The Task Force was therefore granted up to 60 additional days in which
the group could explore possibilities offered by these sites.
One alternate site was located across Sullivan Road, east of the 16th and
Sullivan site. Further investigation of this site quickly showed that it
was not available at terns considered attractive by the District. The
second alternate site, located generally east of the Central Valley High
School campus, was the subject of several discussions. No definite proposal
for making this property available to the District had, however, been
received by the September 8, 1980 date of the Task Force's final meeting.
123
1
•
•
i
•
•
•
•
•
V. CCNCLDSION
During the course of its work, the Services (enter Task Force responded
to their April 22, 1980 charge as follows:
Charge
1. Review rationale for central
Services Center and for the
proposed site.
2. Review alternatives to the
proposed site, including
satellite bus parking facil-
ities.
3. Communicate findings to com-
munity, Board, and staff.
4. Suggest timeline for devel-
opment of Services Center
Facilities.
5. Present Services Center
• recommendations to the
Board.
124
Task Force Response
Rationale for both a central Services
Center and the 16th and Sullivan site
was reveiwed in detail during the Task
Force's early meetings. Task Force
menders indicated that they were satis-
fied with this review.
Task Pbrce members agreed that all viable
alternatives near the geographic center
of the District had been examined. The
Task Force's timeline was extended to
allow investigation of two alternatives
previously considered but not thoroughly
investigated by the District.
Task Force members heard reports on satel-
lite bussing from sources within Spokane
County and from transportation authorities
headquartered in Vancouver and Yakima.
Consensus was that satellite bussing was
not a workable alternative for the District
at present.
Copies of approved Task Force minutes were
regularly made available to the press and
interested patrons.
The School Board and District staff were
periodically updated throughout the course
of the committee's work.
Task Force members felt that District plan-
ners and the project architect should deter-
mine a realistic timeline for progress
toward realization of the Services Center.
Recommendations were presented at the Board
of Directors' September 9, 1980 meeting.
Task Force meetings were characterized by good faith and frank exchanges of
views. While it was agreed that available information had been sought and
reviewed, Task Force meabers did not reach full accord regarding conclusions.
Differences of opinion centered on the proposed location of the Educational
Services Center. Most members who directly represented neighborhoods near
the proposed Services Center retained concerns in areas such as the Center's
potential impact on property values, neighborhood appearance, and traffic levels.
One neighborhood representative, however, joined the balance of the Task -
Fbrce in concluding that a centralized Services Center on the 16th Avenue
and Sullivan Road site would be in the District's best interest.
At its September 8, 1980 meeting, the Task Force recommended to the Board
that while continuing to consider alternate sites, the District proceed
with planning for an Educational Services Center on the 16th Avenue and
Sullivan Road site in a manner that addresses neighborhood concerns.
125
t
•
•
1
•
•
•
•
•
•
Appendix A
Services Center Task Force
SUMMARY OF MEETINGS
126
•
•
•
6
•
Meeting Resource
Date People
April 28, 1980
May 5, 1980
May 12, 1980
June 2, 1980
June 9, 1980
June 16, 1980
July 7, 1980
Stocker
Mikesell, Mayer
Gottschalk
Fbrgan, Kennaly
127
Principal Topics
Introductions
Review Board charge
• Review neighborhood's concerns
Identify potential resource people
Review rationale for centralized
Services Center
Review events leading to purchase of
site at 16th and Sullivan
Tour of present Transportation facility
Discussion of Transportation Depart -
n>ent's operation
Discussion of satellite bussing
Review of site analysis
Discussion of general design treat-
ment of potential facility
Review of Long Range Planning data
Review of access considerations and
plans
Heard tape of conversation with
Caldwill regarding centralized vs.
satellite bussing
Discussed potential alternates to
16th and Sullivan site
Heard tape of conversation with
Bauman and MacKenzie
Review site alternatives
Request that the District consider
either of two alternate sites
t
Meeting Resource
Date People
July 28, 1980
September 8, 1980
Person
128
Principal Topics
Review of terms for potential acqui-
sition of an alternate site
Discussion of terms as outlined
Report on initial meeting with owner
of a second alternate site
Review of response to Board's charges
Discussion of recommendations for
Board consideration
Approval of resolutions to serve as
recommendations to the Board
•
•
•
•
•
•
1
•
•
•
•
Appendix B
Educational Services Center
SUMMARY OF Si1'E5 CONSIDERED
129
• Site C<nment Action Taken
A. S. 123 Bowdish Present site
Poorly located
Too small
• Potential camiercial site
e Clearly inadquate as Ser-
vices Center site
B. Barker & Mission District owned Formally evaluated
Ito small
• poorly located
Access good +
Residences to the east
and nest
• C. 4th & Conklin Size marginal Formally evaluated
Location marginal
Poor road access
Costly
•
1
•
•
•
•
D. Sites north of
Sprague Avenue
E. 4th & McDonald
NW corner
F. 4th & Evergreen
NW corner
G. 4th & Adams
SE corner
H. 4th & Sullivan
NE corner
• I. 4th & Sullivan
SE corner
Access marginal
Location marginal -poor
Residences nearby
Potentially costly
Residences nearby
Poorly located
Marginal access
Size marginal
Poorly located
Residences nearby
Marginal arrpss
Size marginal
Residences nearby
Marginal location
Marginal access
Size marginal
Not available for purchase
Size marginal
Potentially costly
Access good -
Size marginal
Substantial home an property
Potentially costly
Access good -
130
Checked availability
i
Site
J. 16th & Sullivan
near SW corner
K. 16th & Sullivan
SE corner
L. 24th & Sullivan
NE corner
M. 32nd & Sullivan
NW corner
N. 32nd & Sullivan
NE corner
Comaent Action
Location excellent Formal inquiry
Size excellent Negotiations
Arn ss good Purchased 4-15-80
Adjoins Vera Power land
Residences to north of 16th
Property available
Location excellent
Size potentially excellent
Access good -
Residences to north of 16th
Property not available
Formal inquiry
Location excellent Formal inquiry
Size potentially excellent
Access good -
Residences to west and south
Property not available
Location good + Formal inquiry
Size adequate Negotiations
Access excellent
Residences to south
Property offered; sane ques-
tion about availability
Location good Formal inquiry
Size potentially excellent Sune negotiations
Access good +
Residences to southwest
Appropriate -sized property
Not available
0. 32nd & Sullivan Location good Fbnal inquiry
SE comer Size potentially excellent
Access good
Residences to west
Not available
P. W. of Sullivan, S. of Location good + Formal inquiry
16th, N. of 24th Size potentially excellent
Access questionable
Residences to north and east
Property available
Somewhat costly
Q. E. of Central Valley Location good - Formal inquiry
High School site Size potentially excellent
Access questionable
Residences to southeast
Availability probable
Cost - unknown
131
•
$
Appendix C
Central Valley School District
POTENTIAL FUR SATELLITE BUSSING
SITE EVALUATION
132
•
•
••
•
•
•
•
•
t
•
4
Superintendent of Public Instruction
DR. FRANK B. BROUILLET • OLD CAPITOL BLDG., OLYMPIA, WASH. 98504
Dear Dr. Langdon:
July 3, 1980
Dr. Richard C. Langdon, Superintendent
Central Valley School District #356
S. 123 Bodish
Spokane, Washington 99206
In response to Mr. Jackman's request of Don Carnahan, Pupil Transportation
Supervisor, OSPI, Chuck MacKenzie and I visited Central Valley School
• District on June 26 and 27, 1980. The purpose of our visit was to study
ft and evaluate the serviceability and total economical cost effectiveness
of several site locations under consideration for construction of a
school district service center. It should be noted that although our
studies included all of the various activities which would be directly
related to such a facility, our priority concern was the total transpor-
• tation system, and even more specifically, economical and efficient main-
tenance and operation of the school bus fleet. Our studies included, but
were not limited to, the following major factors:
1. Adequacy of current facilities, size, serviceability, location,
etc.
2. Centralization versus decentralization.
3.' Potential for cost effective use of auxiliary or satellite school
bus parking areas.
4. Transportation service levels required to and from or within
each building attendance area for current schools and projected
new school locations.
5. Anticipated population growth in the eastern and southern portions
of the district.
6. Student population decline in the Northwest area.
7. Current main arterials and alternate access routes.
8. Proposed improvements of main arterials and access routes.
133
T
July 3, 1980
SP1
Page 2
Cost Computation:
The following data was used to compute vehicle operations cost comparisons
for the three sites considered.
1. Average number of buses normally operated on 180 school days -- 30
2. Average number of smaller vehicles used on 180 school days - - -- 16
3. Average cost per mile, school buses including driver $1.20
4. Average cost per mile, small vehicle, including driver $ .60
5. Hourly salary, craftsmal drivers (small vehicles) $10.00
6. Average miles per hour, small vehicles 25
7. Fuel and maintenance cost per mile, small vehicles $ .Y0
8. Excess miles computed at two round trips per day between the proposed
transportation facility site and a current school location.
9. Other cost considerations:
a. Bus drivers are on a 2 -hour call minimum salary guarantee and must
be paid for two hours on each call out a.m. and p.m., whether or
not their work assignment covers the full two hours. Mr. Meyer
stated that 50% of the drivers work a few minutes less than two
hours for each call out. In these cases there would be no increase
in drivers' salaries; therefore, the excess costs would be limited
to fuel, oil, maintenance, etc., which according to current records
in Central Valley School District, is approximately $.35 per mile
(maximum).
b. Of the 30 buses normally in use each school day, only 24 would
have excess mileage when comparing the Conklin site to the Sullivan
site.
c. No computation for the limited mileage or time saved by the six
buses working as close or closer to Conklin than to Sullivan has
been made or included in the comparative data.
d. Conklin is 1} miles further away from school destinations for 24
buses than is Sullivan; Barker is three miles further than Sullivan.
134
SPI
• Page 3
1
•
t
•
1
•
•
•
July 3, 1980
Cost Comparison: Conklin versus Sullivan
School Buses
30 buses total
6 buses no excess miles '
24 buses - excess miles per day each 6
24 buses x 6 miles = 144 miles per day
50% of excess miles @ $I.20 per mile:
72 x 1.20 = $86.40 daily
50% of excess miles @ $.35 per mile:
72 x .35 = $25.20 daily
Total excess daily bus transportation cost: $111.60
180 days x $111.60 = $20,088 annually
Small Vehicles
16 vehicles total at 6 excess miles per day each.
16 vehicles x 6 miles = 96 miles per day
96 miles x $.60 = $57.60 per day
$57.60 x 180 days = $10,368 annually
Total annual vehicle operations costs for school buses and small vehicles:
Conklin site will exceed Sullivan site by $30.465.
Cost Comparison: Barker Versus Sullivan
The Barker site is approximately double the distance from the school
service areas than Conklin. In the interest of time and brevity, i
will take the liberty of forgoing a display of the computation and,
hopefully, you will accept the statement that operations costs
from the Barker site will exceed the costs from the Sullivan site
by not Tess than $60,000 annually.
135
1
July 3, 1980
SP1
Page 4
Evaluation of Options:
1. Satellite or auxiliary bus parking areas:
There are numerous items which must be considered in order to
determine the feasibility of storing or parking of buses to an
area removed from the repair facilities and administrative offices.
Those which directly relate to program costs are as follows:
Site acquisition - (cost of real estate)
Security -
Building -
fence, lighting, etc.
for small parts,
blades, spare ti
antifreeze, oil,
storage, i.e. Tight bulbs, belts, wiper
res, minor tools, cleaning materials,
and restroom, telephone, etc.
Fuel storage and pumps - gas and diesel. If not available at the
satellite, it will be necessary to travel empty to and
from the main service area on a regular basis, thus
offsetting any savings in time or miles which might
otherwise be experienced.
Maintenance - satellite buses would need to be moved to the main-
tenance facility for both scheduled and non - scheduled
maintenance or repair. Generally this will require a
mechanic's time, which is not considered to be cost
effective use of skilled craftsman time.
Supervision - a minimum of three hours per day of supervisory
time would be required to insure that the satellite
activity is functioning properly.
Currently all buses serve schools located in the western portion of the
district. The development of an eastern satellite in the Liberty Lake
area would be of no benefit at this time. At some future time, when
the construction of schools in the eastern area takes place, it may
be appropriate and cost effective to implement a satellite facility to
serve the area.
Use of.a small satellite in the western part
a move of the main facility from its present
in some very limited cost benefits. However
would be more than offset by costs of mainta
and the difficulty which will be experienced
tration, and maintenance.
136
of the district, following
location, may result
, in my opinion, these
ining the second area
in supervision, adminis-
•
•
f
•
•
t
•
•
•
•
ii
t
July 3, 1980
SPI
Page 5
2. Barker Site: 6.42 acres
The Barker site is poorly located geographically, and the route access
to current and proposed school facilities and bus routes leaves a
great deal to be desired.
Transportation costs from this site would immediately escalate substan-
tially and without any possible relief through the foreseeable future.
(Please refer to cost comparisons elsewhere in this report.) The
size of the site is insufficient for the proposed facilities. The
Barker site is considered to be the least acceptable of the three
sites evaluated.
3. Conklin Site: 9.44 acres
This site does not appear adequate to include all facilities as proposed.
In the event that all facilities could be placed on the site at this
time, it would certainly be impossible to expand to meet the anticipated
growth.
Main arterial access routes to the current school service areas are
poor. Our investigation revealed no plans to improve this situation
in the foreseeable future.
Transportation operations costs from the Conklin site will exceed the
costs from the Sullivan site by more than $31,000 annually.
The Conklin site could be developed to meet most of the current district
needs. However, it is recommended that this alternative be given no
serious consideration until all other options are exhausted.
4. Sullivan Site: 15 acres
This site is of sufficient size to allow development of all district
needs and allow for expansion as required in the future. It is satis-
factorily located geographically, and access routes to school service
areas are acceptable. Our investigation has revealed that major improve-
ments for north -south access are planned for the near future.
Due to the environmental conditions in the Sullivan site area-- "resi-
dential"-- construction costs, especially landscaping and other
aesthetic - related costs for development of this site, may exceed those
for the other sites studied.
Based on the current program and forecasted growth factors, the Sullivan
site, when compared to the Barker site and the Conklin site, has the
best potential for long range cost effective transportation operations.
137
July 3, 1980
SPI
Page 6
5. Other Site Alternatives:
This report of our findings is in no way intended to suggest a specific
course of action. Our sole objective is to provide factual information and
assistance, which your district officials may find helpful in making
decisions that are in the best interest of all concerned.
Dr. Langdon, If
fication of any
call on me. In
with your board
project, 1 will
tion.
Please convey my thanks to the members of your staff who worked to closely
with Mr. MacK,a9zie and myself throughout the study.
Sincerel
auman
rdinator, Pupil Transportation
egion 1
RB:jc
Although no other specific site locations were evaluated during the
study, it was noted that there are other parcels of undeveloped property
In the general area of the Sullivan site. No effort was made to
determine availability, cost of acquisition, or other factors. However,
based on location alone, all of these parcels of sufficient size, and
located within one mile of the Sullivan site, could be considered as
viable options.
c.c. David Jackman
you or Mr. Jackman desire additional Information or ciari-
matter relating to this study, please do not hesitate to
the event you feel it would be appropriate for me to meet
of directors or other concerned parties regarding this
make every effort to return to Central Valley for a visita-
138
•
•
1
•
s
s
Appendix D
MINORITY RETORT
139
•
11
•
The designated spokesperson for the citizen's group, Mr. Mike Vantine,
•i submitted a list of directly affected community residents to serve as
members of the.task force. Thereupon, the District, presumably under the
supervision of Mr. Dave Jackman, determined that the task force should
consist of nine persons. The selection of those nine persons, again
• presumably being made by Mr. Jackman, orisisted of: Mr. Jackman himself,
and Mr. R. C. Langton, both representing the District, along with Mrs.
Sheryl McCormack and Dr. Bruce Gehman, representing the board of directors
1
•
EDUCATIONAL SERVICES CENTER TASK FORCE
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CENTRAL VALLEY
SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MINORITY REPORT
I.
INTRODUCTION & PURPOSE
WHEREAS, be it known, the aforementioned task force was created to
explore the feasability of C. V. District's proposed "bus barn" and
misc. buildings at the southwest corner of 16th Avenue & Sullivan Street.
Due to a strong showing of community hostility toward this proposed
construction in a quiet, residential area of the Spokane Valley, the
C. V. School District agreed to allow the creation of said task force.
of the District; four members on the list originally submitted by Mr. Vantine,
to wit: Jim Barlow, Maria Trunkenbolz, Karon Sodorff and Mike Vantine; and
Mr. Gerald Tomason, a party to whom the proposed project will have a
minimal impact and whose views do not reflect that of the "minority" or of
the directly affected community. Thus it is clearly evident that the concerned
citizens committee, represented by Mr. Vantine, was of minority status from
the inception of the task force, and that a majority vote of said task
force would never represent the view of the majority of Central Valley
taxpayers who stand to be directly affected by the District's proposed
"bus barn" facility.
Due to inescapable job committments and transfers, Mr. Barlow & Mr. Vantine
were forced to resign midway during the task force life and the District
chose not to replace either member, by turning down a request that Mr.
140
t
1
!
1
Jerry Trunkenboiz be allowed to fill one of the positions. The District's •
feeling was indicated that there was no need to fill the positions, as the
life of the task force was drawing to a close.
II.
SUBSTANCE OF MEETINGS
The task force met at various intervals throughout the summer of 1980,
during which various presentations were made by alleged specialists obtained
by the District to review such topics as: the feasibility of satellite
bus parking facilities, the rationale behind the proposed "bus barn" at
16th & Sullivan and the reasons why other sites were neither chosen nor
investigated by the District. The task force also attempted to discuss the
fears held by the community concerning the 16th & Sullivan site. It was
clearly made known to the task force by this "minority" that the community
position is that the proposed use of the 16th & Sullivan site
violates Spokane County ordinances & that said use is probably an
outright nor. - permitted use or at least will require a conditional use permit,
which will not receive community support when applied for.
III.
RESOLUTIONS
•
•
•
•
•
1.) Based on the information presented and discussion obtained during the
task force meetings, the "minority ", as hereinbefore defined, voted in
total opposition to the majority resolution that the District develop
its recent purchased fifteen point four acne site at the southwest
corner of 16th & Sullivan for the District': proposed "bus barn" facility.
The "minority" further questions the need for a new " bus barn" facility or
other buildings at the present time, noting the expenditures recently made to
upgrade the present facilities.
2.) The minority further voted.in total opposition to the majority's second
resolution, to wit: That the District proceed immediately with plays for
the said "bus barn ", due to the detrimental. and adverse impact that said
facility will have upon the Central Valley residential area and further; •
that such time and expenditure are a needless waste of taxpayers dollars
since the proposed use of the subject property will violate Spokane County
Ordinances and that an application for zone change: will have a slim chance
of success based on the community position. Further, it is the minority's •
141
•
1
•
Ott
•
•
Maria Trunkenbolz
position that to proceed at once on this project is a hasty decision
that may well lead to further alienation of C. V. taxpayers and
seriously jeopardize future harmony between the taxpayers and the
District.
3) The " minority" voted in total to recommend that the District, at
a minimum, continue to explore feasible alternatives to the proposed
site due to the lack of overall feasibility of said site and on the grounds
that a minority of the task force was able to locate two potential
alternatives upon short notice and that these need further exploration
as well as other possible sites closer to Sprague Avenue. It is felt by
the "minority" that all efforts should be expended by the District to
locate another site, even though it may be higher in raw land cost than
the proposed site, as this higher cost will be more than offset by the
lack of extreme adverse impact to the Central Valley and the lack of
County zoning problems that an alternate site would have.
4.) The ".minority" further voted with the majority on the majority's
fourth resolution, since it is essential that the architect for a "bus
barn" address those listed factors regardless of the location of the final
chosen site.
IV
SUMMARY
The " minority" does hereby request that the C. V. School District
analyze the "totality of' factors" involved in a project of this
magnitude, including its extreme adverse impact. on the surrounding
taxpayers dollars at the proposed site, to wit: the southwest corner
of 16th & Sullivan.
Respectfully submitted:
2220:/lt! yi([:,
Karen Sodorff
142
_ MEMO
• RE: Services Center Design Committee Recommendations
•
• 0,
Sam Angove
Patti Bailey /Chan Bailey
• Will Hall
Patty Kilcup
Phyllis Lamb
Dennis Pehl
Lou .Sutton
Gerald Thomason
• John Thomason
The Committee's work was based on the Board's March 10, 1981 directive that prelimi-
nary Services Center design focus on the proposed 16th & Sullivan site. The
Committee met at appropriate times throughout preliminary design of the Services
Center. Lou Sutton presented the group's recommendation for phasing to the Board
• March 20, 1981. In concluding its work June 17, 1981, the Ebmnittee summarized
appearance recommendations for Board consideration. The group's thinking has been
incorporated into the recently completed model for the proposed Services Center.
Committee members appreciate the opportunity to present recommendations about how the
• proposed Services Center might be developed. A summary of the Committee's recommen-
dations regarding phasing and appearance is attached.
DJ /sl
• Enclosure
DATE: June 19, 1981
TO: R. C. Langton
FROM: Dave Jackman, Director
Facilities & Planning
At its October 14, 1980 meeting, the Board formed the Services Center Design Commit-
tee. The Committee's charge was to prepare recommendations for Board consideration
in these areas*
1. Review support activities which may be included in the Services Center.
2. Scope and phasing of Services Center construction.
3. Character and appearance of Services Center.
The Board invited several patrons from throughout the District to serve on this cam -
mittee. Committee members were:
Ccmnunity Board Architect Administration
Dr. Bruce Gehman
143
CENTRAL VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 356
Larry Gottschalk Dave Jackman
•
•
•
•
Services Center Design Committee
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD
June 23, 1981
SCOPE AND PHASING
The Design Committee in in accordance with the District's plans to ultimately locate
support services at one geographically central site. The group recommends that
• currently available monies be used to begin construction of this facility. The
Committee believes that development of this facility should be phased to provide the
greatest benefit from available funds while preserving the District's ability to
continue operating support services in the most logical, cost effective manner pos-
sible. Recommended phasing of the Educational Services Center is:
Phase I
Use currently available funds to provide facilities which the District does not now
have or which the District leases.
• 1. Perimeter landscaping
r 2. Administrative area for maintenance, transportation, and central storage.
3. Building maintenance
4. Central storage (partial)
• Phase II
1. Transportation, maintenance, and storage facility
2. Drivers' area /meeting room
• Phase III
1. District administration
2. Additional central storage space
3. Additional vehicle storage
4. Additional supporting services, as needed
phase IV
1. On -site expansion beyond the scope of currently identified needs
144
• CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE
The Design Cbmittee believes that appearance of the Services Center is of particular
concern if the Center is located at the proposed 16th & Sullivan site. Structures
associated with the proposed center should be:
1. Shielded from surrounding areas by use of berms and plantings. Berms should
contain substantial plantings, particularly at the north side of the site.
Natural ground cover should be considered to minimize maintenance on berms.
• 2. Buffered with plantings. Parking areas and space immediately surrounding build-
ings should be softened by use of planted areas. Plantings should require
minimum maintenance and be designed for easy snow removal.
•
•
•
3. High quality buildings which are adequate for foreseen needs or readily expand-
able to meet these needs. Volume of construction within eash phase should be
limited to those facilities which can be built well within the funds available.
4. Energy efficient. Conservation may be enhanced through use of earth sheltering
and grouping of heated spaces.
• 5. Designed for maximun joint use of administrative, conference, storage, and access
spaces.
6. Designed with clean, low profile lines. Roofs will be visible from surrounding
neighborhoods. They should not therefore be cluttered with mechanical
• equipment.
7. Designed for miminun maintenance.
8. Neutral in color. Earthtone colors on walls are recommended. Roofs should
feature non - glare, natural colored finishes.
145
/^
SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: BOB TURNER
N. 811 JEFFERSON
SPOKANE, WA. 99201 076 • as, Y 05/
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT
EDUCATIONAL SERVICES CENTER
MARCH 1983
LEAD AGENCY:
Central Valley School Dist
No. 356
JCF:lb
S4 -26
r
oFrxon of
COUNTY ENGINEER
ROBERT S. TURNER
COUNTY ENGINEER
Snorta.Nm ,Wasszxtvrov 99260
November 19, 1981
TO: Dave Jackman, Facilities Planner
FROM: Jack C. Finney, Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Staten nt - Educational
Service Center
The Spokane County Engineering Section have reviewed the subject document and
submits the following comments:
TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION
1). Additional Right of Way will be required on Sullivan Road to
accomodate the proposed road improvements, relocating of the
existing B.P.A. poles and "208" road drainage requirements.
2). Some interim road improvements may be required prior to building
permit approval, if the proposed Educational Services Center is
completed prior to construction of Sullivan Road by Spokane County.
Public Works Building North'811 Jefferson Street Spokane, Washington 99260 (509) 456 -3600
• Central Valley School District No. 356
•
•
•
•
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. STATEMENT
EDUCATIONAL SERVICES CENTER
Project Sponsor:
March 1983
Lead Agency:
Central Valley School District No. 356
Prepared by:
HAWORTH AND ANDERSON, INC.
West 621 Mallon Avenue
Spokane, Washington
99201
This document, together with the previously published draft environmen-
tal impact statement (November 3, 1981), comprises the final environmental
• impact statement for the proposed Central Valley School District Education-
al Services Center. The project will eventually consist' 'of a 74,000+
square -foot core structure housing central warehousing, building /grounds
maintenance and administration, transportation maintenance and administra-
tion, an instructional materials center, possible kitchen and laundry func-
tions; a 20,000- square -foot central administration building; and four ve-
• nicle storage buildings (two each for 38 buses and two each for 40 small
vehicles). It will be constructed on a 14.4 -acre site located near the in-
tersection of 16th Avenue and Sullivan Road. The proposed project also
calls for a landscaped earth berm to be constructed along the perimeter of
the site as necessary to buffer the warehousing and bus storage facilities.
The proposed project will be constructed in several phases.
•
Since the issuance of the DEIS on November 3, 1981, the District has
sold a one -acre parcel to Fire District 1 for a future fire station. This
parcel, as shown on the schematic on the following page, is located in the
northeast corner along 16th Avenue. The parcel is 180 by 242 feet in di-
mension with the longest side fronting along 16th Avenue. The site design
• will be altered slightly as a result of the new configuration. The north-
ern bus storage and small vehicle storage facilities (future phase)'will.De
moved south to adjoin the Phase II facilities (which will not be altered).
This will set the facilities back approximately 200 feet from 16th Avenue
(as compared to approximately 60 feet under the original proposal). The
total number of storage spaces will be reduced from 48 to 30+ for buses and
• 40 to 30+ for small vehicles. This change would result in a slight reduc-
tion of the environmental impacts discussed in the DEIS. These include
moving of yard area (and noise generated from bus warm -up) further from the
residences along 16th. The displacement of the structures further south of
16th would also reduce visual impact on these residences. The fire station
(when constructed) would also provide visual buffering. The change will
• reduce the District's potential vehicular storage capacity, however.
This environmental impact statement was prepared in accordance with the
Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (RCW 43.21C) and the SEPA
Guidelines (WAC 197 -10 -580). The EIS generally analyzes the impacts asso-
ciated with the development of the proposed project.
The material contained in this document represents the 'product of the
draft environmental impact statement review process and contains comments
received from the consulted agencies and other interested parties. The
,document also contains comments received from the public in a hearing held
on December 21, 1981. Responses are provided to applicable. written and
• oral comments. Tne final date for receipt of written comments was December
8, 1981. For purposes of clarity, the summary of the draft EIS along with
the table of contents of that document also nave been included in this
document.
•
INTRODUCTION
This final EIS was prepared under the direction of the Central Valley
• School District as lead agency with the assistance of the consulting firm
of Haworth and Anderson, Inc., West 621 Mallon Avenue, Spokane, Washington.
i
O0
Note: Site plans
on pages 11,12
and 13 depict
original site plan
30 v
11 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII\
Sixteerith Avenue
hic
Bus
Storage
Building
Bus
Storage
B Ildl g
r
elO
• Imo
l %/Ad
„4
ab M
s fut
O • s
mtmimm
t
B
mamas
Sera
r
t
Gas Pam s
--_ - Washing
Transportation--
Malntenanca-
P
er
Mow
WWI
10 LW
q
yak
COW
COW
1BOaspip,'
30
LJIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Buses
a• I
I
Fire District #11
Vera Power &
Water
vehicles fut.
Small Vehicle
Storage Building
Small Vemcla
Storage Building
r
« 4
— F tune Dlstr ct
dminlatratl
= LI1IlIII V
- 1IIIIIIIIIIIII`
Trucks a 0
Service vehicles e*
i
LEGEND
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Future Phasing
h
a HA Ii'ORTH & ANDERSO�v. 1
C walm.n niuronmevol.
lan Inp, mrmn
CRevised Site Plan
0
120'
2
Background data in support of this document may be found at the offices ot
both the lead agency and Haworth and Anderson, Inc. The official date ot
issue of this tinal EIS is March 22, 1983.
The circulation of this document is prescribed in the SEP/4 Guidelines
(WAC 197 -10 -600) which directs tnat the final EIS must go to "the depart-
ment of ecology, office of the governor or the governor's designee, the
ecological commission, the lead agency, agencies with jurisdiction, and
federal agencies with jurisdiction which received the draft EIS ". It is to
be made available to the public in the same manner and cost as the draft
EIS. Cost for the final EIS is the cost of reproduction and mailing.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
t TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THE DRAFT EIS
DISTRIBUTION LIST vii
I. SUMMARY OF THE DRAFT EIS 1
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 9
IV. HEARING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 79
•
•
0
•
•
III. FINAL EIS COMMENT LETTERS 17
A. Letters Not Requiring Responses 17
B. Letters Requiring Responses 23
APPENDIX A: PROJECTED COSTS OF MAKING EXISTING FACILITIES
COMPARABLE TO PROPOSED PROJECT 113
APPENDIX B: POTENTIAL SERVICES CENTER SITES CONSIDERED BY DISTRICT 117
APPENDIX C: EFFORTS TO CONSIDER OR NEGOTIATE ALTERNATIVE SITES 120
iv
INTRODUCTION i
LIST OF MAPS AND TABLES iv
a DISTRIBUTION LIST v
I. SUMMARY 1
A. Project Description and Objectives - 1
B. Impacts 1
C. Alternatives 3
D. Mitigating Measures 5
i E. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 7
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 9
III. CATEGORICAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 16
A. List of Elements of the Environment 16
B. Elements of the Physical Environment 18
1. Earth 18
• 2. Air 21
3. Water 27
4. Flora 37
5. Fauna 37
6. Noise . 39
7. Light and Glare 47
e 8. Land Use 48
9. Natural Resources 59
10. Risk of Explosion or Hazadous Emissions 59
C. Elements of the Human Environment 61
1. Population 61
2. Housing 63
• 3. Transportation /Circulation 67
4. Public Services 79
5. Energy 85
6. Utilities 1 87
7. Human Health 91
8. Aesthetics 92
• 9. Recreation 94
10. Archaeological /Historical '95 '
11. Additional Population Characteristics 95
12. Economic Factors 95
IV. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT -TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT
AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG -TERM PRODUCTIVITY 98
• V. IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 99
VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 100
A. No Action Alternative 100
B. Alternative Site Locations 103
C. Alternative Design Concepts 109
VII'. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 113
• REFERENCES 114.
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND PLANNING INFORMATION 115
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THE DRAFT EIS
v
Vicinity Map 10
Site Map 11
AO Site Plan 12
Phase One 13
Topography 20
Non - attainment Area Boundaries 22
CO & TSP Monitoring Sites 23
Summary of Suspended Particulate Matter 24
AD Expected Contaminant Removals Using Grassed Percolation Areas 29
Aquifer Recharge Area 31
Water Quality Sampling in Site Vicinity 34
Water Quality Standards 35
A- Weighted Sound Levels and Human Response Characteristics 40
Noise Receptors 42
• Generalized Land Use 49
'Zoning 51
Generalized Comprehensive Plan (1980) 54
Site Plan 57
Population Growth in Subareas by Census Tracts for 1970 and 1980 62
Summary of Spokane County Subarea Growth, 1970 -1980 63
• Census Tracts 64
Housing Units by County Subdivisions with Incorporated Area.Totals 65
County Subdivisions 66
Average Daily Traffic 69
Traffic Projections for Central Valley Services Center (1995) 73
Accidents Along Sullivan Road 78
At School Locations 82
Central Valley School District Enrollment, 1971 -1981 83
View Orientation 93
Assessed Valuations of Central. Valley School Facilities 96
Alternative Sites 105
•
•
•
•
LIST OF MAPS AND TABLES
vi
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• vii
DISTRIBUTION LIST
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington Archaeological Research Center
Washington Office of the Governor
Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
Washington State Department of Ecology, Ecological Commission
Washington State Department of Ecology, (2, one to SEPA Register)
Washington State Department of Ecology, Spokane
Washington State Department of Game, Olympia
Washington State Department of Game, Spokane
Wasnington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia
Washington State Department of and Health Services, Olympia
Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Spokane
Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia
Washington State Department of Transportation, Spokane
Washington State Energy Office
Wasnington State Office of Financial Management
Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Planning and Community Affairs Agency
Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority (SCAPCA)
.Spokane County, Board of County Commissioners
Spokane County Building Department
Spokane County Conservation District
Spokane County Engineering Department (4)
Spokane County Health District
Spokane County Parks and Recreation Department
Spokane County Planning Department (5)
Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney, Civil Division
Spokane County Puolic Library, Valley Branch (2)
Spokane County Sheriff's Office
Spokane County Utility Department
Spokane Regional Planning Conference
Spokane City Planning Department
Spokane Public Library
Spokane Transit System
Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce
Central Valley School Board
Central Valley PTA
Fire District #1
Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company
Valley Garbage Service
Vera Water and Power District
Washington Water Power Company
Spokane Daily Chronicle
Spokesman Review
The Valley Herald
Don Stone, Attorney
Stan Schultz, Attorney
•
•
The primary objective of the proposed project is to increase tne effi-
ciency and reduce the costs of District operations. Additional objectives
are as follows: (1) to provide a site and facilities that will meet the
anticipated future support needs of the Central Valley School District; (2)
to .gain the advantages and economies of consolidation of facilities on a
• single site; (3) to locate the project so tnat it is central to the exist-
ing and future activity centers of the District (activity centers are de-
fined as schools and other District facilities), and (4) provide tne Dis-
trict with facilities - ,that it does not currently have but does need, in-
cluding cold storage, central warehousing, and building /grounds mainte-
nance.
•
A. Project Description and Objectives
Tne project under review is tne construction of a proposed Educational
Services Center for tne Central Valley School District #356. The develop-
ment, upon final •completion, will consist of a 74,000- square -foot core
structure housing central warehousing, building and grounds maintenance and
administration, transportation maintenance and administration, a curriculum
library, and potential kitchen and laundry functions; a 20,000- square -foot
central administration building; and four vehicle storage buildings (two
each for 38 buses and two each for 40 small vehicles). The site also will
be developed with a four- to eight- foot -high landscaped earth berm along
its entire perimeter. The site is 15.4 acres in area. The project will be
developed in pnases as described under Section of this EIS.
B. Impacts
I. SUMMARY OF THE CONTENTS OF THE DRAFT EIS
Elements of tne Physical Environment
Earth
• * Disruption, displacement, and redistribution of the site's soils.
* Construction of a four- to eight -foot -nigh earth berm along the
perimeter of the site.
* Alteration of topographic contours..
Air
• * Temporary dust and particulates during construction phases.
* Increase in traffic- related emissions.
* Slight and temporary odor during paving.
* Slight odor from diesel bus operatons. :
Water
• * Alteration of site's runoff and absorption characteristics.
* Increase in impervious coverage to 79% of total site area - -54%
paving /walkways, 25% rooftops, and 21% landscaping.
* Addition of contaminants to Spokane, Valley aquifer via storm water
runoff.
* Addition of contaminants to Spokane Valley aquifer via septic
• drainfield effluents until Hooked into sewer system.
Flora
* Removal from production of approximately 15 acres of cultivated
agricultural land.
Fauna
*
Wildlife species will be displaced temporarily from the site during
construction.
Existing habitat (which is periodically disrupted by cultivation)
will be replaced by domestic lawn grass, shrubs, trees, and native
grasses over landscaped area, which will be more diverse and stable
than what presently exists.
Noise
* Temporary Increase in noise levels during construction.
* Increase of overall noise levels from on -site operations.
* Slight increase in overall traffic noise levels.
* Increase in peak noise levels during departure and return of buses
at access points and along 16th Avenue and Sullivan Road.
Lignt and Glare
* New lignt sources created.
Lana Use •
* Cnange from agricultural to institutional use.
* Potential conflict with adjacent land uses, particularly residences
to the north.
* Some local residents nave oojected to the proposed project because
of perceived land use and zoning conflicts.
Natural Resources
* Consumption of energy resources during construction.
* Energy consumption for heating and operation of District vehicles.
• * Reduced fuel consumption relative to the District's existing trans-
portation site.
Risk of Explosion or Hazardous Emissions
* Fuel and other potentially hazardous materials stored on -site.
Elements of the Human Environment
Population and Housing
* Preclusion of housing and population growth on the affected site.
Transportation /circulation
* Increase in truck and equipment traffic during project construction
phases.
* Gradual increase in traffic generated by on -site operations tnrougn
various construction phases.
* Projected vehicle trips per scnool day for total operations (at
full build -out (15 to 20 years in the future)): approximately 1,370
trips per day (approximately 570 employee trips and approximately
802 operations trips).
2
•
Aesthetics
• '* Alteration of aesthetic ,character of the site.
* Potential aesthetic conflict with adjacent residential properties.
* Some local residents have objected to the proposed project for
aesthetic reasons.
Economics
• * Potential increase in taxes to District residents for construction.
* Savings to District residents from consolidation, bulk purchasing,
more efficient operation.
•
* Projected bus trips during school year: morning (6:30 a.m. to 9:15
a.m.), 148; noon (11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.), 48; and afternoon
(2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.), 164.
* Morning peak hour traffic generation, approximately 190 inbound and
45 outbound.
* Increase in accident potential between vehicles and bicycles or
pedestrians.
* Increase in accident potential between through vehicles and turning
vehicles.
* Construction of bus and small vehicle storage buildings: 96 bus
spaces, 80 small vehicle spaces.
* Exterior parking for staff members and, visitors: 346 spaces.
Public Services
* Increaed potential for fire and sheriff demand on proposed site.
* Improved security over existing sites.
Energy
* Consumption of energy during construction.
* Consumption of energy or heating (electricity or natural gas).
* Consumption of fuels for vehicular transportation.
* Lower fuel and energy consumption relative to existing sites.
Utilities
* Extension (or connection) of water, power, communications, and pos-
sibly natural gas lines to the site.
* Generation of storm water, sewage, and solid waste.
* Consumption of water.
Human Health
N/A
Recreation
N/A
Archaeological /historical
* None.
C. Alternatives
No Action Alternative
* Site would remain in agricultural use for indeterminate time per-
iod.
* Potential for a range of residential to commercial /office develop-
ments
* Potential for environmental impacts ranging from lower than to
similar to the proposed project (for most cases lower than).
* District would operate from existing facilities and sites at addi-
tional costs to District taxpayers.
* Redevelopment of existing District sites or acquisition of new Dis-
trict sites for facilities.
* Possible loss of ability to consolidate facilities on a single
site.
* Potenial relative increase in transportation costs.
Alternative Site Locations (see the map on page 107)
* Physical impacts similar for construction on either proposed or al-
ternative sites.
* Traffic, noise, and land use impacts would affect adjacent residen-
tial uses in similar ways at alternate or proposed sites. Degree
of impacts would depend on number of residences and existing noise
and traffic environment.
* Several sites considered by District but rejected because of poor
geogrpahic location, poor traffic circulation, high land cost,
property not available, and nearby residences. •
* 4th and Conklin site considered as alternative: site size marginal
land cost high; lower.. potential for land use conflict; possible
zone change to restricted industrial; fewer adjacent residents; po=
tential -circulation problems; lower existing traffic noise environ-
ment; taus greater relative noise impact.to residents; increased
vehicle mileage and fuel consumption relative to proposed site, out
will decrease somewhat over the long term.
* Site east of Central Valley High School considered .as alternative:
cost unknown; size potentially adequate; zone change not anticipat-
ed; shoreline area of Shelley Lake; adjacent residents to south;
potential land use conflict; no street access, out potential access
to Sullivan through the 'high school site or to 4tn Avenue; noise:
impact from site operations to adjacent residents; nearby rest
dences directly overlook site from above; geographic location less
advantageous than proposed site, out better than the 4th and Conk-
lin site.
Alternative Design Concepts
* Continue existing operations and acquire and develop sites for in-
dividual or combinations of facilities when expansion is required.
* Consolidation of facility on adequately sized site has following
advantages: operational efficiencies; savings to District patrons;
room for future expansion; reduced overall land and building costs;
better overall planning; better inventory and quality control; bet-
ter communication; fewer areas in the community impacted by opera-
tional activities.
* Construction of project on more than one site has following advan-
tages: potential for satellite bus facilities over the long range;
samller site sizes required; operational impacts of site not con-
centrated in one area.
* Potential split site alternative: 4tn and Conklin for transporta-
tion, warehousing, and buildings /grounds maintenance; retention of
4
•
Air
4 * Dust suppressants to reduce construction dust generation.
* Cleaning of construction and operational vehicles to reduce dust
carried off the site.
* Paving of all driving and parking areas.
•
Flora
* Landscaping of 'site, including landscaped earth oerm around peri-
meter of the site.
* Maintenance of landscaped earth perm.
* .Increased diversity of plant species compared to existing condi-
tions.
* Permanent flora habitat, uninterrupted by 'agricultural activities.
Noise
• * Standard construction noise aoatement tecnniques.
* Berming and landscaping to reduce operations noise to off -site re-
ceptors (can be placed prior to actual construction on- site).
* Plan for scheduling and locating early morning operations to mini-
mize off -site impacts.
* Control bus driving techniques and departure /return routes to lower
• peak noise levels received by residences adjacent to access points
at the nortn end of the site.
Light and Glare
* Use low density lights and direct to specific areas to reduce off -
site intrusions.
• * Landscaping will screen light and reduce diffusion to off -site
properties.
* Use of non- or low -glare building and roofing materials.
existing transportation /administration site for expansion of admin-
istration onto reduced transportation site with satellite busing
from site; satellite bus facility at Libery Lake in long term; kit -
cnen and laundry facilities as presently exist with new facilities
in new schools.
D. Mitigating Measures
Elements of the Physical Environment
Earth
* Erosion and runoff control during construction phases.
* Landscaping completed site and long term development areas.
Water
* Drainage control and runoff plan approved by Spokane County Engi
neering Department.
* Connection to sewer system when available with interim sanitary
waste disposal in accordance with Healtn District guidelines.
Fauna
* Increased diversity of ird and small animal naoitat oyincreaseed
diversity of plant species and planting of trees and shrubs.
5
Land Use
* Site design to reduce impacts on adjacent properties.
* Landscaped berm for screening existing residential and possible
future residential uses.
* Low building profiles and design to reduce appearance of bulk.
Natural Resources
* None.
Risk of Explosion or Hazardous Emissions
* Special storage area for potentially hazardous chemicals.
* Handle materials in accordance witn appropriate procedures.
* Underground fuel storage.
Elements of the Human Environment
Population and Housing
* None.
Transportation /circulation
* Improvement of Sullivan Road to five lanes and 16tn Avenue to four
lanes with signalization of Sullivan /16th intersection. Eventual
four- to five -lane improvement of Sullivan Road to 32nd.Avenue.
* Provision of left- and right -hand turn lanes into site.
* Careful design of southern access points to ensure adequate site
distance.
* Separation of various types of vehicles using access points and
internal circulation.
* Provision of sidewalks and bikeways to reduce potential vehicular/
bicycle /pedestrian conflict.
* Coordinate access design witn Spokane County.
Public Services
* Site and facility design features to reduce potential need for po-
lice and tire services, i.e., secured buildings, storage areas and
fuel storage areas, security lighting, use of non - flammable ouild-
ing materials, etc.
Energy
* Central location reduces venicular fuel consumption relative to
existing sites.
* Use of efficient heating sources and conservation techniques.
* Encourage'use of transit or carpooling by District employees.
Utilities
* Coordination witn various utilities in 'terms of site design and
construction scheduling.
* Connect to sewer line when available. -
* Consider developing recycling program for liquid and solid wastes.
Human Health
N/A
6
Aesthetics
* Sensitive site design.
* Landscaped earth berm with natural flora.
* Use of materials and building design to reduce appearance of bulk
and provide well - maintained appearance.
•
Recreation
N/A
a Archaeological /nistorical
* Notify appropriate authorities if items of potential significance
are encountered.
E. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Elements of the Physical Environment .
Earth
* Disruption of on -site soil.
* Approximately 79% of the site's surface overcovered by buildings,,
walkways, driveways, and parking areas.
• * Slight alteration of the site's topography.
Air
* Potential uncontrollable dust from construction activities.
* Increased emissions from vehicular traffic.
* Slight and temporary odor from paving and diesel bus operations.
Water
* Alteration of existing absorption and runoff patterns.'
* Slight contaminant contribution from storm water in spite of adher-
ence to county's storm water management guidelines.
* Slight contaminant contribution from grainfield effluent until
• sewer hook -up.
Flora
* Removal of about 15 acres of land from agricultural production.
Fauna
* Reduction of overall nabitat area for on -site wildlife species.
Noise •
* Generation of construction noise during various phases.
* Traffic generated by site activities will have a slight impact on
overall traffic noise levels.
• * On-site operations will potentitally increase noise levels received
by adjacent properties.
Light and Glare
* New light sources to local area.
• Land Use
* Potential land use conflict with adjacent residential area to the
north.
Natural Resources
* Energy consumption in construction and operation of proposed pro-
ject.
Risk of Explosion or Hazardous Emissions
* None.
Elements of the Human Environment
Transportation /circulation
* Temporary increase in traffic during construction phases.
* Permanent increase in local area traffic (approximately 1,370 ve-
hicle trips per school day, with a reduction of bus, kitchen, and
laundry related traffic during school vacations or holidays).
* Increase in bus and truck trips on Sullivan Road. Some increase in
bus traffic along 16th Avenue.
* Access points for some buses near existing residences.
Public Services
* Potential demand for police and fire services.
Energy
* Non - renewaole energy resources consumed during construction and
project operation.
Utilities •
* Use of septic tank and grainfield tor interim sewage disposal.
* Generation of sewage and solid waste.
* Water consumption.
* Increased demand on electrical and telephone systems.
Human Health
N/A
Aesthetics
* Alteration of aesthetic cnaracter of the site.
* Project will sifter in scale and bulk from surrounding structures
to the north.
* Perceived as adverse by some local property owners.
Recreation
N/A
Arcnaeological /historical
* None.
Economics
* Potential increase in taxes to District residents to tuna construc-
tion.
41
Population and Housing •
* None.
O
•
The proposed project, the Central Valley School District Educational
Services Center, is sponsored by Central Valley School District #356. As
■ shown on the following vicinity and site maps, the proposed project is lo-
cated on a 14.4 -acre site near the southwest corner of the intersection of
Sullivan.Road and 16th Avenue.
Information related to zoning interpretation is included under Spokane
County Zoning Admustor File No. I -3 -80.
The proposed project will be constructed in several phases, all of
which were discussed in the draft EIS. The initial phase will involve the
construction of a core structure that will eventually be added to and will
house the central warehousing facility, possible central kitchen,, possible
central laundry, building /grounds maintenance, vehicle maintenance, and in-
structional materials center. The functions contained in this initial core
structure will include (1) administrative space, (2) building /grounds main-
tenance, and (3) some central warehousing. Outdoor covered storage and
parking and loading areas will also be developed. This phase will also re-
sult in the construction of a landsacaped berm around the perimeter of the
site. (The proposed site plan and phasing are shown on the following
• pages.)
•
The second phase will involve the addition of a vehicle maintenance
facility to the core structure. A vehicle wash facility, a 40+ - stall bus
storage building, and a 40+ -stall small vehicle storage building will also
be developed. Paved parking and yard area will also be developed in con-
junction with these facilities. The third and subsequent phases will in-
volve addition to the core structure, the District administration building,
another 30+ - stall bus storage building, another 30+ -stall small. vehicle
storage building, and additional covered storage.
It is anticipated that the initial phase will commence in 1984 and the
• second phase in 1986. The timing for the subsequent phases has hot been
established at this time. The timing and extent of construction of each
phase (after the first phase), will be dependent on district financing
(through building fund) and economic analysis. The draft EIS discussed the
impacts of the proposed project at full build - out.
• Although the specific construction details for the project have not
been developed at this time, it is anticipated that the structure housing
the warehousing and maintenance functions and the vehicle storage buildings
will be tilt -up concrete construction. The exterior treatment of these
structures has not been finalized at this time, but the use of flat earth-
• tone colors has been suggested. The roof will be a polymer spray -on mater
ial in either a bronze, grey, or off -white color. The roof pitch will be
minimal in order to maintain a low building profile. The core structure
will be 20 to 25 feet in height, and the vehicle storage facilities will be
about 16 feet in height. The District administration building is antici-
pated to be one story in height. Landscaping will be provided along the
• perimeter of the site as well as in selected interior locations. All land-
scaped areas will be provided with an irrigation system.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
Sixteenth Avenue
Site
I
I
L
VERA WATER & POWER
J
U 160'
h
\
(Site Map)
11
Sixteenth Avenue
0
.Baia n
B103/!
=soma
MM.
MN UM
IMP'
'rte
Mt all
Wan
s�
Bill
NSISVIRW
MEW
Bu.
Steng•
Building
dminlatratl n
Truck• • •
S.rrle• V•hiclos 4
Bu•
Stop...
Building
•
•
gas Pump. -
Washing
•as post el o
MMVMSMS
Bye
MMM
BS9
itSM
VMS ZEiNg
MEG
Etilt
111111111111111111 IN
Small V•nlcl•
SIor000 Building
Small V.uicl•
Storage Building
O
4
LEGEND
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 8
Future Phasing
h
nd MIRTH C- 4%Oe INC.
Wind a.1 i. environmental nJyde. pL.,dnq. era. wmu.
Site Plan
Service
Vehicle Parking
Fenced
Covered Storage
Building
Maintenance
HAIWORTH G ANDERSON, INC
Co.udmms n! nu..u..,,,td ✓adyss, ['boning. CCOPIOPPliCI
Administration
Sixteenth Avenue
Central Warehousing
(Phase One)
13
mroye s7
Service Vehinlps
0 120'
Construction of the proposed project will involve the following types
of impacts to the site: grading for building foundations, parking and
driveway areas; excavation for utility lines, and storm and sanitary waste
water disposal; and overcovering of soils with paving and structures. An
• internal circulation system (with employee and visitor parking, loading and
off - loading areas) will intertie with Sullivan Road and 16th Avenue. Four
access points will link the site to Sullivan Road. Two will be designated
for school buses, delivery trucks and maintenance vehicles, with the other
two for administrative staff and visitors. There will also be one access
• point to 16th Avenue for school buses that would use 16th Avenue. Sanitary
sewage will be disposed of on -site via septic tanks and drainfields. The
on -site system will be designed to facilitate eventual hook -up to a valley
sewer system when available. Storm water will be disposed of on -site by
dry wells, grassed percolation areas, and other means acceptable to the
Spokane County Engineer's Office. It is anticipated that runoff from roof-
tops will drain to dry wells and that grassed percolation areas used in
• conjunction with dry wells, siltation ponds, or oil separators will dispose
runoff from surface impervious areas.
The site of the proposed project is within the planning and zoning jur-
isdiction of Spokane County. The site is presently designated for Urban
use under the Generalized Comprehensive Plan (October, 1980) and zoned for
• Agricultural use under the Zoning Ordinance. The following detailed defi-
nition of the Urban Category is excerpted from the Comprehensive Plan:
A. Density Characteristics:
Residential net densities should have an approximate density
of 1 unit per acre to 17 units per acre.
B. Characteristic Features:
Since, Urban areas will be the most intensely developed of
all the Categories, it is primarily a residential Category of
single family, two family, multiple family, and condominium
buildings along with neighborhood commercial, light industrial
and public and recreational facilities.
Agricultural activities will be very limited and considered a
secondary use. The aesthetic setting will De predominantly man-
made structures with occasional natural or planned open spaces.
Most areas in an Urban setting may not have a view of natural
• areas and open spaces will most likely consist of park and /or
school grounds.:
Low to moderate levels of noise and air pollution will most
likely exist in Urban areas due to. the intensity of activities
and the hign volume of traffic generated.
The more intensive land uses such as light industrial and.
neighborhood commercial will be located near the heavily trav-
eled streets while the least intensive single family residential
uses will be isolated from the noise and heavy traffic. Multi-
family structures will usually be a transitional use located.be-
tween single family residential and the more intensive areas.
•
•
•
C. Public Facilities and Services:
Urban areas wil have public water systems, sanitary sewer
systems, storm sewer systems, and utility systems such as elec-
14
trical, telephone, gas, and cable services. Streets will be
curbed and paved. Street lights and sidewalks will be common to
residential, public, and commercial areas. Specialized pathways
may also be common in the Urban area.
Public facilities include elementary, junior high, and high
schools. Parks will normally be associated with schools but not
exclusively. Public libraries, manned fire stations, medical
facilities, and government offices and post offices may be dis-
persed throughout Urban areas.
Other services typical of Urban areas may include police,
public transit, refuse collection and removal, animal control,
and street maintenance.
D. Non - Compatible Uses:
Due to the variety and mix of land uses and activities found
in the Urban Category, there are few land use activities that
would be inappropriate. Many uses may require screening or
other performance standards to make them compatible with one
anotner.
Mining, major commercial uses, heavy industrial uses, and in-
tensive farming would not be compatible within Urban areas.
The proposed project would generally meet the use definition" for the
Urban category. The location of the site adjacent to 16th Avenue and Sul-
livan Road, both heavily traveled streets, and the use of landscaped berm -
ing along with other design considerations to reduce impact of, the facili-
ties, would be within the criteria. of this category.
At the present time the Spokane County Zoning Code has not specifically
envisioned the construction of a School District administration and Mainte-
nance center on a site without a school. Therefore, assuming that the ex-
isting zoning code is applicable, the existing zoning may potentially re-
quire the following rezone and permits: administration offices and curri-
culum library -- conditional use permit; central storage facility,, central
kitchen, and maintenance areas - -zone change to either commercial or light .
industrial; and bus and small vehicle storage -- conditional use permit. The
Spokane County Zoning Code is undergoing substantial revision', however, no
date has been set for adoption at this time.
15
The following pages contain the comments received on the Central Valley
School District Educational Services Facility.draft EIS. The written con-
* ments received from consulted agencies and .other interested parties are re-
produced in the form in which they were received. The first section con-
tains letters which require no response. The second section includes let-
ters to which responses were made. Each comment to which a response was
given and the appropriate response is numbered.
• A. Letters Not Requiring Responses
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I1I. FINAL EIS COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED
17
'f d IN I'll I \t 1\
(n.“(n(it
NOV L 3 1981 0
Mr. Dave Jackman, Facilities Planner
Central Valley School District No. 356
S. 123 Bowdish Road
Spokane, Washington 99206
Dear Mr. Jackson:
sl AII i Ns! IIA( l'•;
UI_PARTh9ENT OF FRANSPOR I;\ FION KF -01
November 20, 1981
Central Valley School District
Educational Services Center
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
We have reviewed the subject document and have no continents to
offer regarding the proposal.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this information.
Sincerely,
ROBERT S. NIELSEN
Assistant Secretary
Public Transportation and Planning
By /JOSEPH BELL
. Manager
Planning Implementation
and Environmental Policy
RSN:sab
JB /WBH
cc: W. R. Horning
18
Ill'. \Nr ill RI V T >(
Soi roian
O
O
•
•
•
•
•
JOHN SPELLMAN
Governor
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
STATE (* 1A ASHIN(;l i. Cd
WASHINGTON STATE ENERGY OFFICE
409 Union. 751 Floor. ER-11 • Olympia, W.uhinpinn "1C04 • (1(x,) 754 -0700
Dear hlr. Jackman:
November 24, 1931
Mr. Dave Jackman, Director
Facilities and Planning
Central Valley School District No. 356
S. 123 Bowdish Road
Spokane, WA 99206
Re: Central Valley School Dist
Educational Services Center
SUBJECT: Review of Draft Environmental Impact Statements
We have received your recent Environmental Impact Statement. Current
budget constraints, however, preclude the review of such documents
by the Washington State Energy Office at the present time.
In the event that we may in the future allocate resources to this
purpose, we will be glad to offer our comments and observations.
RHW /jc
19
Richard H. Watson
Acting Director
wxxxxxxxaax
NNW
I( if IN SKI I MAN
Co 6 ern
1f \IE (lF 1\ - \"HbN( ;I(
V Id(I S((lp l9 " - 11 • ( )ly(npii. 11 (,1),,iu „II ' 4i ;0•! • l_lki) 459 -6(Xk)
December 1, 1981
Mr. Dave Jackman, Director
Central Valley School District No. 356
South 123 Bowdish Road
Spokane, Washington 99206
Dear Mr. Jackman:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft environmental
impact statement for the Educational Services Center. Department
staff have reviewed the document and have no comments to offer.
If you have any questions, please call me at 459 -6026.
Sincerely,
DF:11c
Debbie Fristoe
Environmental Review Section
i)( )N: \) .I 1 \\ \I( )()y
I )ur(
DEPARTMENT OF KOLA )GY O
4)
•
•
•
•
•
20 •
JOHN SPELLMAN
Governor
STATE OF WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION
111 West Twenty -First Avenue, KL• 11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (2L$) 753 -4011
Mr. Dave Jackman, Director
Facilities and Planning
Central Valley School District No. 356
South 123 Bowdish Road
Spokane, Washington 99206
21
Form AIIP R - 6 (2/81)
Date: December 4, 1981
Log Reference: 276- C -SP -08
Project Title: Educational Services Center
Dear Applicant:
We have reviewed your draft environmental impact statement and
find there are no historic or archaeological properties on the
State or National Register of Historic Places, or the Washington
State Inventory of Historic Places, that will be impacted by the
project.
In the event that unknown archaeological resources are inadvert-
ently unearthed during construction activities, please notify
the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in Olympia,
and the Washington Archaeological Research Center in Pullman,
Washington. '
Sheila Stump
db Archaeologist
JACOB THOMAS
Director
Dave Jackman - Director
Facilities & Planning
Central Valley School District #356
S. 123 Bowdish Rd.
Spokane, Wa. 99206
Dear Mr. Jackman:
JAL /tw
p.. SSA t aJ ~ LGAN
22
Sincerely,
By
OPYl08 OF
COUNTY UTILITIES
WILLIAM R. DOBRATZ
UTILITIES DIRECTOR
N. 811 JEFFERSON ST. 456 -3604
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260
Dec. 3, 1981
Subject: Educational Service
Ctr - Draft EIS
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft EIS for Central
Valley School District's proposed educational service center. The
County Utilities Department has no comments.
William R. Dobratz, P.E.
Utilities Director
ames ea: ,
Utilities Engr.
nEC ? 1981 •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
B. Letters Requiring Responses
• 23
United States Soil
AV Department of Conservation
Agriculture Service
Dave Jackman, Director
Facilities ; Planning
Central Valley School District No. 356
S. 123 Bowdish Road
Spokane, Washington 99206
Dear Mr. Jackman:
Thank you for.the opportunity to review your draft.
Sincerely,
,
LYNN A. BROWN
State Conservationist
1 he Sod Censer
lQJ
24
Room 360
H.S. Courthouse
Spokane, F.:'shington 99201
Page 21,C.,Mitigating Measures: Change the word "should" to "wii:'', i.e.
"...will be maintained with a protective groundcover... ", and "... ..i.11 be
landscaped..." i
DEC
Dcce: 7, 1981
The Soil Conservation Service has reviewed your dr::i't environment;; imprct
statement for Central Valley School District's proposed Education;.:. Services
Center. We offer the following comments and suggestions for your consideration.
Page 2, Fauna: We question the cited temporary displacement of wildlife spcel
sine, as you state on Page 7.E.Earth, "Approximately 79% of the .site's :_rface
(will be) covered by buildings ".
Page 3.C.,Alternatives: It .should be noted these Garrison gravelly silt Loam
soils are, by criteria, prime agricultural lands.
Page 7, Water: Regarding "Slight contaminant co:itribution from storm water...
it is our understanding the Spokane County Aquifer Water Quality Managcr.:cnr
Plan of 1979 does not allow for any variance from the Plan criteria. Whenever
variances occur, it is our recommendation the Plan be referred to
• 2. This comment is noted. See page 37 of the DEIS (Section 4.4, Agricul-
tural Crops).
3. See page 29 of the DEIS. The table showing' expected contaminant
removals using grassed percolation areas (as recommended by the coun-
ty) indicates that complete contaminant removal will likely not be
achieved by the implementation of the methods required by "Guidelines
for Stormwater Management" (1981). Therefore, slight quantities of
contaminants may be contributed to ground water even by using county
approved storm water management techniques.
4. These comments are noted and included in this FEIS.
•
•
•
•
Responses to letter from Soil Conservation Service
1. See page 38 of the DEIS.
25
` \ STATF.OF
WASHINGTON
John Spellman
Gocer,or
December 8, 1981
Dave Jackman, Director
Facilities and Planning
Central Valley School District 356
S. 123 Bowdish Rd.
Spokane, Wa. 99206
Subject: Draft E.I.S., Proposed Educational Services Center
16th and Sullivan Road
Dear Mr. Jackman:
I have reviewed the subject E.I.S. and have the following comments:
1. On page 19 the project will involve site grading for leve,ing. Al- O
though this leveling may not be extreme, the soils in this area
have very little top soil. In removing this top soil, the coarser
sands and gravels become exposed. This coarser material has limita-
tions for on -site sewage disposal. How will the school district.
mitigate this effect as the reasoning outlined in "c" on page 21
is really directed at erosion and surface runoff.
2. On pages 89 and 90, the sewage system proposed for the interim is
septic tank and drainfield. What is.the projected sewage loading
for the various phases? Since a majority of the site will he paved
where is the proposed drainfield disposal area? Will the storm
runoff infiltration areas be in the sanit general area as the drain-
fields? Have any test holes or soils ahalyses been performed - Lc
determine if the site is suitable for on -site sewage and storm
water treatment for a complex of this size?
3." On page 36, paragraph 3, chemical storage will be provided for on O
proposed site. This office sees a definite concern of not only
the handling of such chemical but in the way they are used and
disposed of. Many of the solvents and degreasers used contain in-
soluble organic compounds that, if entered into :Fie groundwater
even in minute quantities, can cause serious health concerns. The
E.I.S. only addresses an emergency spill procedur_ and no;, Jay -to -day
procedures. How will solvents and degreasers be disposed of? Will
there be any wash down of trucks using pesticides and herhicides
and how will this be disposes of? With Vera' ,,:(4)erty being ad-
jacent and a proposed well s to this whsle secticl on chemicals'
and their disposal needs to be expandec.
This is the extent of our comments at this time. Should you have any
questions feel free to contact this office.
Sincerely, �/ /
Georg . Schlender
Environmentalist
DEPART?"li::'l _;( 1CJI!',':_ ..ND
cc: Gary Plews - John Acen
Vera Water & Power
Spokane C.H.D.
26 Spokane Lo. Utilitie,
DEC S 1961 •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Responses to letter from Department of Social and Health Services
5. Soils in proposed septic drainfield areas will be tested for suita-
bility prior to construction of drainfields. Should these areas have
• unsuitable soils for drainfields (because of coarser materials), top
soils that have been graded from other portions of the site can be
used to reach appropriate drainfield fill depth. In any event, drain-
fields will be constructed in accordance with the regulations of and
under the approval of the Spokane County Health District.
• 6. The proposed loadings for the various phases are as follows: Phase I,
maximum occupancy of 30 persons, generation of 15 gallons per person
per day, for a total of 450 gallons per District work day (750 - gallon
septic tank with 150 lineal feet of drainfield); Phase II, maximum oc-
cupancy of 60 persons, generation of 15 gallons per person per day,
for a total of 900 gallons per District work day (including Phase I,
• 1,350 - gallon septic tank with 375 lineal feet of drainfield); Phase
III, maximum occupancy of 60 persons, generation of 16 gallons per
person per day, for a total of 900 gallons per District work day (in-
cluding Phases I and II, 2,250 - gallon septic tank with 625 lineal feet
of grainfield); future phase (administration building), maximum,occu-
• panty of 100 persons, generation of 15 gallons per person per day, for
a total of 1,500 gallons (1,500- gallon septic tank and 417 linear feet
of drainfield); and future phase (central warehousing and vehicle
storage), maximum occupancy of 50 persons, generation of 15 gallons
per person per day, for a total of 750 gallons (750 - gallon septic tank
with 210 lineal feet of drainfield).
•
The proposed placement of septic tanks and drainfields includes a
2,250 - gallon septic tank and 625 feet of drainfield north of the cen-
tral warehouse and east of the offices (approximately 4',000- square-
foot drainfield area); a 750 - gallon septic tank and 210 feet of drain =.
field south of the central warehouse (approximately 3,000- square -foot
• drainfield area); and a 1,500- gallon septic tank and 420 feet of
'drainfield east of the administration building (approximately 1,200 -
square -foot drainfield •area). This results in a total septic tank
capacity of 4,500 gallons and 1,255 lineal feet of drainfield.
The storm water infiltration areas will be in the same vici-
nity as the septic tanks and drainfields, but these arias will not
overlap. Adequate area will be set aside to meet the separate re-
quirements for grassed percolation areas and drainfields. No test
holes have been excavated at this time.
The projected sewage generation of the fully developed project is
• equivalent to 15. single family houses. Further, these are maximum
projected daily loadings which will occur only on school days (180'
days per year).
7. Solvents and degreasers used by the transportation and buildings/
grounds maintenance shops will be collected and stored in bulk con-
tainers for recycling. Use of such chemicals will be within shop
areas over concrete floors. Spills will be contained within the shop
areas and will be cleaned up without discharge to areas where perco-
•
• 27
lation to the aquifer could occur. Storage of these materials will
also be contained within the shop facilities. Waste oil will be (as
is presently done) stored in bulk containers for collection and re-
cycling. All maintenance involving waste oils will take place within
the shop area over concrete surfaces. Steam cleaning of vehicle
motors, cnassis, and undercarriages will be performed in a designated
wash area. This area will be enclosed to contain the wash residue .
(oils, soapy water). The residue will be drained to an oil separator
and then discharged via a dry well. - (The oil separator will be de-
signed to process the oil /detergent /water mixture.) Tanks containing
herbicides and fertilizers will be washed on a concrete pad (the Dis-
trict presently uses two tank rigs with 250- to 300 - gallon capacity).
The wash water will then be applied to the grassed percolation areas
or landscaped areas of the perimeter berms. No direct infiltration
into non - vegetated soil will be permitted.
The District will also comply with Chapter 773 -303 WAC (Dangerous
Waste Regulations) and Chapter 170.105 RCW (Hazardous Waste Disposal)•
in its usage of various chemicals on -site. The District will also be
required to obtain permits for underground fuel storage and comply
with County building and safety regulations. The procedures for un-
derground tank installation are outlined in the following information-
al bulletins: "Installation of Liquid Petroleum Tank and Equipment"
and "Installation of Underground Flammable Liquid, Storage Tanks"
(available from the Spokane County Building Department).
2 8
• PN[J4' i o 1ytJl
•
•
Throughout the document, reference to the r ^1:nntinl degradation of the Smlkane®
Aquifer by sewage effluent is made. The prepenf1 involves the use of an on -site
sewage disposal facility (septic tank - drainfi.e!.d): and immediate connection to
• a public sewage collection system is a.nticinated as soon as one is available.
The potential impact of the drainfield disposal system on the Aquifer is dis-
cussed in detail; but potential degradation of the flnokane River in sot.. The
future collection of sewage from the Snckene '.rr'lr•v, with ultimate disposal to
the Spokane River after treatment at the City of Spokane Sewage Treatment Plant
could /would potentially impact the Ri-m ' nn of t.hn rrr•rered-Edur,n.-
• tional Service. Center to the future "Vniley . wot':d n -. rtrihu' v'rtii1onn
scware to the City' treatment fn. ^111 ty, t .. .1 .rely to th ;n ^'''-1.r.e River..
We feel this roint should he addressed in !.tin F nn1 Trnrt Statement.•
•
West 1101 College Avenue Spokane, Washington 99201
November 12, 1981
Central Valley School District #356
Administrative Offices
S. 123 Bowdish Road
Spokane, Washington 99206
Attention: Dave Jackman, Director - F.nni1il.irr ,r,1 Planning
Dear Sirs:
Please be advised that this agency has reviewed the Draft Fnviron:rental Tmpnct
Statement prepared for Central Valley Schott l'iatriet's proposed Edu^ational
Services Center. We have found the imnt't stnternn' to he generally
well- written, and informative. We do wish, hpp°nvnr, to make the
comment:
Thank you for the crportunity to comment
..... r.r.,... Tf vn.t here any r,::n::t-
ions, p1ensn feel free to eontact us at 1 :13 F,_�t
Very Truly,
EN\1lti NMENTAL PF,AJT!! ^.-TTIT2?0N
Darr.l. F.
Fnvirnnm
DEW /dcw
Spol`ane County
Health District
nmoanpil
Re: Fincatiena.1 .Services Center
Draft } :n .7ironmental. Tmna.ct'Statement
R.S. ,
;al. Health Sneci.al.ist
Arlministrorion 456-3630 Personal Health :155-.3613 Environmental Hen'th 456-604(.:
Clinic 456-3640 Vital Statistics 4;)6.3670 Laboratory 456-3667
An Equal Opportunity Employer
29
Responses to letter from Spokane County Health District
8. While it is true that sanitary waste material from the proposed pro-
ject will be treated by the City of Spokane's sewage treatment plant
and will ultimately be disposed of in the Spokane River (when connect-
ed to the proposed valley sewer system), it is beyond the scope of
this EIS to address this issue. The appropriate arena in which to ad-
dress the issue of discharge from the sewage treatment plant into the
Spokane River was either the approval of the treatment plant or the
approval of the valley sewer. See the following documents for a dis-
cussion of this issue: "Spokane County Comprehensive Wastewater Man-
agement Plan, Volumes I and II" (Spokane County, July 1981); "Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the Comprehensive Wastewater Man-
agement Plan" (EPA, Region X, February, 1981); and "Final Environmen-
tal Impact Statement for the Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan"
(EPA, Region X, August, 1981).
•
30
•
•
•
SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Educational
• Service Center
• 2). Some interim road improvements may be required prior to building
permit approval, if the proposed Educational Services Center is
completed prior to construction of Sullivan Road by Spokane County.
•
•
•
TO: Dave Jackman, Facilities Planner
FROM: Jack C. Finney, Traffic Engineer
The Spokane County Engineering Section have reviewed the subject document and
submits the following comments:
1). Additional Right of Way will be required on Sullivan Road to
accomodate the proposed road improvements, relocating of the
,existing B.P.A. poles and "208" road' drainage requirements.
JCF:lb
31
COUNTY ENGINEER
ROBERT S. TURNER
COUNTY ENGINEER
SYos't .-E ,W'tsnxso'ox 99260
November 19, 1981
TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION
oFI^I .0= o
NOV1)n1981
SIP C CD r
009A0 (SO9)4F6- 36(1(1
Responses to letter from Spokane County Engineer
9. The District is aware of the need for additional right of way and will
cooperate with the county resolution of this requirement. .
10. The District will also work with the county to satisfy these require-
ments in the event that the county's proposed Sullivan Road improve-
ments are not completed prior to initiation of construction of the
proposed project. Based on the county's current schedule for the Sul-
livan Road improvements, it is anticipated that the road construction
(at least to 16th Avenue) will be completed prior to the completion of
Phase I of the proposed project.
32
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
SPOiyLNC COUNT. COURT NOOSE
Dave Jackman, Director
Facilities and Planning
Central Valley School District
S. 123 Bowdish
Spokane, WA 99206
RE: Draft EIS - Educational Services Center
Dear Mr. Jackman:
33
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BROADWAY CE N r;.r FUILDING N 721 JEFFERSON STREET
PRONE 456 -2205
SPOKANE ft Sw NGTON 99260
December 4, 1981
The Planning Department staff has reviewed the DEIS for the Educational
Services Center finding that most of the Department's concerns have been
• addressed. However, we would like to offer the following comments in regard
to the proposal.
1) The site has been designated "Urban" by the County Comprehensive (flan. it
This category is intended to provide the opportunity for development
of a "city- like" environment which includes various land uses, in-
• tensive residential development, and public facilities and services.
Public facilities include schools, parks, fire stations, government
offices and post offices. Due to the variety and mix of land uses
and activities found in the Urban category, the Plan suggests that
such uses may require screening or other performance standards to
make them compatible with other uses. Careful consideration should
• be given to providing screening.
2) The extensive use of evergreen trees and shrubs on the berm and with- OD
in the site will provide visual screening. It is being assumed that
the landscaping will appear through the site and not limited to the
perimeter.
r
3) The aesthetics of buildings should he a key consideration in -achiev- 13
ing design compatibility with surrounding residential development.
Perhaps a more complete description on the intent of providing a "low -
profile" design and color scheme should be given.
Dave Jackman
TLD /pam
-2- December 4, 1981
4) Eventhough the section on energy described conditions and energy
systems which will incorporate conservation measures, no reference
is made to the use of solar energy as a technique to further reduce
energy consumption. The employment of either solar devices and /or
passive solar designs such as orientation of buildings (southern
exposure) should be evaluated for a project of this size.
5) In reference to the section on Risk of Explosion or Hazardous Emission
it would be strongly recommended that this section be exoanded to deal
with the risk ofaccidential spillage. The amounts of fuel and chemicals
to be stored are significant enough to require a spill control plan
and installation of devices for containment. The fact that the site
is located over the Spokane Aquifer commands that these concerns are
mitigated to the absolute.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, or we can be of further
assistance, please call me at 456 -2205.
cc: Wallis Hubbard, Planning Director
34
Sincerely,
Thomas L. Davis
Soecial.Programs Administrator
i
•
•
•
•
Responses to letter from Spokane County Planning Department
11. The District fully intends to provide site screening. The proposed
project calls for the construction' of an earth berm which will be
landscaped around the perimeter of the site. (See pages 59 and 145 of
the DEIS.)
12. Preliminary plans envision that landscaping will also be provided
along the proposed warehousing and administration facilities and along
the parking strips accompanying these facilities. The area along Sul -'
livan Road in front of the proposed administration building will also
be landscaped. Landscaping will also be provided at the ends of the
vehicle parking structures.
13. Low horizontal features, berms, and landscaping will be used to reduce
the visual impact of the complex. Off -white to soft beige color will
be used on the building exterior. A model depicting the complete pro-
ject is on display at the Central Valley Administration Building, lo-
cated at South 123 Bowdisn Road.
14. The energy design package will be incorporated to include solar col-
lection and distribution. Areas specifically being considered for
active systems are heating of water for laundry and bus washing. Sub-
ject to future engineering studies, passive systems may be employed to
reduce energy consumption. Insulation considerations will be given to
building orientation, use of solar lighting, vestibules, earth berms,
glazing, insulation measures and shading devices. Openings facing
north will be minimized. Artificial lighting source will be Via high .
pressure sodium in warehouse, bus storage, and maintenance areas and
fluorescent in administrative areeas.
15. See response 7.
• 35
December 8, 1981
Mr. Dave Jackman
Facilities Planner
C. V. School District No. 356
South 123 Bowdish
Spokane, Washington 99206
Dear Mr. Jackman:
Re: Draft EIS - Educational Service Center
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for Central Valley's proposed Educational Service
Center. After reviewing the statement, we feel that the school
district has well covered every aspect of the project, and the tax-
payers in Central Valley School District should be made aware that
the job done by the staff, consultants, and eventually the school
board, is commendable.
We wish to go on record expressing some concern with regard to the �s
underground areas which would be used for the disposal of the various
pollutants and contaminants. As indicated in your statement, the
plan for the facilities includes vehicle maintenance,'a'possible
laundry, kitchen facilities, domestic waste, etc.
As indicated to you in our preliminary discussions, Vera owns land
adjacent to the land on which the proposed service center will he
located. Our future plans involve construction of a pumping complex
on that site, which would pump 5,000 to 20,000 gallons of water
per minute into our domestic water system, commencing in 1983.
It is our intention to work closely with you in the design of our
pumping complex so it will harmonize esthetically with your educa-
tional service center.
Our concern at this time is that the philosophy, design and con-
struction of your facility be carried out as set forth in the
environmental impact statement.
36
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
C
•
•
•
Mr. Dave Jackman
Page 2
December 8, 1981
We anticipate the eventual installation of a valley sewer system. ®
In the interim, we are confident that you will place proper priori-
ties on the disposal of any wastes, to insure against possible
contamination of the acquifer.
We appreciate the spirit of cooperation between our utility and
the school district, and we . look forward to working with you on
this project.
Sincerely,
VERA WATER AND POWER
,/ [4,
William J. J
• Assistant ManagEsr
WJJ:cmb
132.1
781.56
37
Responses to letter from Vera Water and Power
16. The District is aware of potential use of your site for a pumping sta-
tion. The District will comply with all appropriate regulations re-
garding sewage disposal and storm water runoff disposal and work with
Vera Water and Power to ensure such facilities are appropriately lo-
cated. The District will also develop appropriate storage facilities
and use procedures for various chemical materials used on -site.
17. See response 16.
38
Dave Jackman- Director
• Facilities and Planning
Central Valley School District No. 356
South 123 Bowdish Road
Spokane, Washington 99206
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Educational Services Center (Bus Barn).
AD The following comments pertain to areas where I feel the above referenced DEIS is
inadequate, erroneous or misleading. I have.read the entire DEIS and feel that the
following comments require your written response in an amended Draft and /or the Final
EIS, pursuant to WAC 197- 10 -h20 et seq. I fully expect a complete analysis of each
comment, and not merely-a "comment noted" response. This is due to the fact that I
feel the DEIS is critically inadequate in some respects and must be clarified so that
the School District and the public can realistically evaluate the true environmental
impact of the proposed project at 16th and Sullivan, in the Spokane Valley.
Comments will reference the DEIS by page and paragraph number. The following comments .
are only a partial list of those I feel should be addressed in the DEIS. Accordingly,
I am submitting, in addition to those comments, several pages of signed petitions-by
• residents within the impacted area or within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.
You will find a sufficient number of signatures on these petitions to require a public
hearing on the DEIS, which allows for additional public commentary, as provided by
Chapter 197 -10 W.A.C. At this hearing I plan to submit, both orally and in writing,
certain additional points regarding the DEIS and its section on Alternative Actions,
that I feel are extremely necessary to your proper evaluation of the project impact.
In your compliance with Chapter 197 -10 WAC and SEPA, I ask that the public hearing be
held at Central Valley High School during the evening hours, so that you may receive
all of the input necessary to correctly analyse the true environmental impact of the
proposed project at 16th and Sullivan Road. The time and place of this hearing is
critical so as to provide you with input in a meaningful manner. I would additionally
• ask that you provide me with as much prior notice of this hearing as is possible, so
that I may inform those interested individuals of the time and place, to insure max-
imum input of their valuable views, comments and concerns.
Comments: (See following pages.) '
•
•
•
•
Dear Mr. Jackman,
39
December 1, 1981
i raft Eib, 12/1/61 C.V. i3US DART! p.2
page 9, "Description ". Why was this DI'lS prepared at all when specific con-
struction details and financing certainty are yet to be determined" How can
the true environmental impact be analysed with so many unknown variables pre-
sent? Phrases such as "earth tone colors has been suggested ", "roof pitch will
be minimal ", "anticipated.., buildings will be tilt up concrete ", etc., used
here and throughout this DEIS gives the District and the public absolutely no
guarantee as to what the finished product will look like. Why has the number of
stories of each building not been positively determined? Is it nbt true that
the eventual buildings could be 3 to 5 or more stories tall? To assess the true
environmental impact, you must know exactly what is going to be built.
2 ) page 15, last paragraph. In this paragraph, the DEIS states that a zone change
to Commercial or Light Industrial may potentially be needed at the 16th and
Sullivan site, (which is now zoned Agricultural), yet on page 106, in the an-
alysis of the 4th and Conklin site the DEIS assures us that since part of this
is zoned Agricultural, it " would require a zone change ". You need to know
whether the DEIS is exaggerating the negative aspects of the 4th and Conklin
site or whether it is failing to disclose all of the negative aspects of the
16th and Sullivan site!
1)
40
18
3) pages 18 and 19, Soils and Topography. The DEIS states that the proposed pro-
ject at.,l6th and Sullivan will have a 4 to 8 foot high dirt bunker or berm ar-
round the perimeter. Nothing is stated about the effect of such a dirt bunker
to the immediate environment. Several problems immediately come to mind. If you
would check the history of Sullivan Road, south of 16th, you will find that blowing
snow often closes the road during the winter. Just imagine the effect of having
a 8 foot high solid wall of dirt along the South and West boundaries of the site
will do to this condition. The snow drifts created by nature and these dirt walls
will certainly keep Sullivan, South of 16th and most probably 16th, West of Sul-
livan, closed during every major snow storm. How does the District plan to cope
with this problem? How will the District keep its buses running ?(will probably
have to go hack to Sprague, then West, then back South? Isn't this a big waste
of fuel, energy and driver costs to the District?) Who will pay for this snow
removal? (Taxpayers ?) Can the County even handle this snow removal burden? How
long will it take? How much will it cost citizens using 16th and Sullivan Roads
to detour this area?
What will be the effect of the melting of all of this snow lying outside of the
walls of the proposed project? (There are no sewers to cary it away, and probably
won't be for many years.)
The use of dirt bunkers around the proposed project also means sizeable'snow
drifts will be created inside the walls. When all of this snow starts melting,
where is it going to go? Outside and flood 16th and Sullivan and nearby residences ?)
How will the buses and administrative cars be able to negotiate these snow drifts?
What will be the cost of snow removal inside the walls? Where will it be removed to?
All of these aspects will certainly affect the impact on the environment of the
Central Valley and the added costs will be borne by the taxpayers.
4) page 19, Unique Physical Features. The DEIS stated this area to be not applicabe',
but it appears that the snow situation with Sullivan Road, South of 16th is in fact
a very unique physical feature of this property, and its negative aspect will be
increased, thus must be addressed adequately. The same is true for paragraph 1.5,
(Erosion), and must be thoroughly addressed, and appears to have Unavoidable:Adverse
Impacts.
•
Draft 1S1S, 12/1/81 C.V. BUS BARN p.3
5) page 24, paragraph 3. Here, the DEIS nOmits that no monitoring for carbon mon-
oxide has occurred at 16th and Sullivan, yet it goes on to state that "it is not
expected that there would be any violations of established standards ". It is quite
possible that there is currently no violation of the standards, but how can this
be assumed , without actual testing? What will be the affect of the addition of
1372 bus trips and 570 light vehicle trips (total of 1942 tripe) per day to this
part of the Valley on its air quality? don't this gretiy the Carbon mon-
oxide and suspended particles in the air? Won't we then be facing the same Standards
violations that face the University City area? Won't the addition of 1372 bus trips
per day slow the traffic significantly on Sullivan and 16th (turning, lights, etc.)
thus further deteriorate the air quality?
6) page 25, last paragraph. Why does the DEIS use the figure of 1300 to 1400 vehicle 23
trips per day at the proposed site, in figureing pollution emmisions, when its own
table of estimated vehicle trips on page 73 shows that there will be 1942 trips
per day? Which figure is in error? Why does the table at page 73, which shows that
of the 254 employees that will.be on the site, only 31 of them will leave the site
for lunch? Isn't this number (31 of 254) largely understated in relation to the
average figures . for normal businesses? Won't there really be more trips per day
than this table states?
page 25, last paragraph, and page 61, paragraph 1 - Population. Considering the past 24
present and future economic and population conditions of the Central Valley, isn't
• it unrealistic to expect that the population of the Southern portion of the Valley
will quadruple within the next 13 years ?( Your projected vehicle trip rate on Sul-
livan shows a four -fold increase to 20,000 by 1995.) How do you reconcile this es-
timated 400% population increase when, agencies such as Spokane•County Health Dis-
trict, ( in a letter dated 9/24/80 to Gary Fergen of the Spokane County Planning
Department, found in the Final EIS for the Comprehensive Plan) strongly feel it
• necessary to begin "depopulating the Valley in the Aquifer Sensitive Area "? (By de-
populating, the Health District means actually implementing a plan to encourage
existing residents to move North and West, and to stop further growth of population
in this portion of the Valley.) They feel this in essential to stop the potential
time bomb that will explode if we continue to contaminate the sole source Aquifer.
A so , what effect will possible placement of a regional mall in North Spokane in-
stead of the Valley have upon population projections for Central Valley?
8) page 26, paragraph C (Mitigating Measures), and pages 67 - 76, Traffic.
The DEIS states that the counties proposed improvements to 16th and Sullivan will 25
mitigate congestion and vehicle related emissions. We have often heard that these
improvements were going to be made, yet the county keeps pushing the target date
further ahead each year. Can the county give any written guarantee when and if these
• improvements will ever be made? Isn't the fact that when and if these improvements
will be completed is so uncertain that it is quite likely that the traffic expected
by the proposed project will cause a large and unavoidable adverse impact to this
area of the Valley? Shouldn't you know these potential impacts to be able to prop-
erly assess their impact on the environment?
•
• 9) pages 33 - 36, Ground Water Quality, The DEIS admits that slight quantities of run- 26
off borne contaminants will percolate into the aquifer. Since the aquifer is a very
sensitive sole source of our drinking water, don't you feel it is important that this
DEIS specify just what amounts of contaminants will be exposed to the aquifer and
what their impact will be? Also the proposed project will deal with many toxic chem-
icals in large amounts, but the DEIS only states that "appropriate storage facilities"
• and a "spill control program" will be used. Don't you think we need to know the de-
tails of these facilities and programs to insure that the potential environmental im-
pact is as little as the DEIS writer thinks it is?
7)
41
-raft is15, l2 /i/01 C.V. dU3 :SARA p.4
10) page 37, paragraph 4.4 - Agricultural Crops. Since the property in question is
listed on the map of "Important Farm Lands" for 'Spokane County, we need to know
what the effect of taking this land out of farm production will be, as well as
the remainder of farm land in the tract (40 acrea approx.) that this property
was a prior part of, since development of this 15.4 acres will most certainly
spur on development of the remainder of the ori.giional tract.
11) page 59, paragraph 10- Risk of Hazardous Emissions and Explosion. 28
This section of the DEIS states that there will be no unavoidable adverse impacts
from the storage of chemicals and 22,000 gallons of gasoline and diesel. However,
there is no data concerning the probability of leakage and /or explosion for stor-
age of this type and magnitude. Isn't data available from large private or public
installations storing similar bulk fuels? This proposed storage is greater than
four times what is currently being stored, thus is hardly comparable. You will al-
so need to know the probabilities of spillage which may contaminate the aquifer to
properly analyse the environmental impact of this large storage of toxic fuels and
chemicals. Is it really true that this will present no Unavoidable Adverse Impacts,
as the DEIS writer states?
14) page 80 paragraph 4.2- Police. On page 81, the DEIS states that there will be n
unavoidable adverse impacts. lased on the following possibilities, shouldn't this
section be rewritten to include the same? The DEIS has earlier shown that the bulk
of the proposed project will be encircled by a 4 to 8 foot earth bunker or berm, for
screening sound, light and glare, and to make the project more attractive. Given this
situation and the fact that "kids will be kids ", absolutely no security is provided
for the project. Certainly anyone old enough to be in school will be able to climb
up the dirt bunker and enter the project grounds at will. Once inside,these individuals
42
•
•
12) page 77 paragraph 3.6. 29
The DEIS recognizes the ,existence of a "blind spot" just North of Sullivan and24th,
for IJorth bound vehicles. (Proposed project is located to the North of the blind
spot). The DEIS also states that the county plans to eventually make improvements
from Sprague to 16th on Sullivan, and possible up to the southern property line of •
the proposed site. To correct the blind spot, won't improvements to Sullivan have
to be made nearly to 24th, a distance far short of where the county plans to im-
prove to? Therefore, is it really true that, as is stated on page 79, there will
be no unavoidable adverse impacts due to there being no significant increase in th
traffic hazard? (It looks like there will be significant impacts). 30
Secondly, to assess the full environmental impact of this project, don't you nee •
to show some data stating how much more road improvement cost to the county and tax-
payers will be incurred from extending the improvements from Sullivan and 16th to
the Southern property line of the proposed project (this being the distance the county
had not origionally intended to improve, but has apparently agreed to complete if
the proposed project is approved.) Additionally, don't you need to know the total
additional cost that will be incurred in accelerating the county's improvements to •
Sullivan and 16th, due to having to complete these improvements prior to the com-
pletion of Phase I of the proposed project ?Isn't this data necessary to allow you to
assess the true environmental impact of the proposed project?
•
13) page 79, paragraph 4.1 Fire. The DEIS recognizes that there will be at least min 31
imal potential risk of fire or explosion from the storage of chemicals and fuel in •
large amorats (42,000 gallons), yet does not describe what specific "proper pro-
cedures" will be implemented to assure this minimal risk. Don't these procedures
need to be defined, and shouldn't it be stated that there are at least minimal un-
avoidable adverse impacts, with an attempt to define what "minimal "means? Otherwise,
the government and public may have one idea of what "minimal" means, and the DEIS
writer may have a far different idea. •
[?raft EIS, 12/1/81 C.V. BUS BARN
p 5
will easily be able to hold large alcohol and drug parties, as well as any other
criminal acts that may enter their minds, including rape. If, in fact, these in-
dividuals are noticed by police or citizens due to crowd noise, etc., since all
of the land to the South and West is open fields, all they would need to do is walk
over the earth bunkers and run through the fields. During the Fall, when the fields
are in grain or corn, it will be next to, impossible to apprehend them. Statistics
generally show that once difficult to prevent crime starts in an-area, it tends to
spread rapidly to nearby areas. One possible suggestion would be to put a 7 to 8
foot fence on top of the dirt bunker (putting it in front would erase the aesth-
etic features of the concept, and putting the fence in back of the bunker provides
the same blind spot as there would be without the fence.) However, this alternative
probably won't work either since a 7 to 8 foot high fence on top of a 8 foot bunker
will give the overall project anL mage of the State Penitentiary at Walla Walla.
Surely the District and the community do not want this image. The only solution
left is to retain armed security guards during nonworking hours. Won't the expense
and impact of this have at least some unavoidable adverse impacts on the environ-
ment?
J5) a es 81 -85 are raph on Schools. On page 84, -as well as in numerous other refer-
ences in the I , it is state that the reason the proposed project is needed is
because of such things as existing facilities having "awkward floor arrangements ",
"insufficient storage and work space ", "inadequate size of buildings ", and "inade-
quate administration offices ". Assuming these to be true, a private. business, in the
same position, first generally calculates the cost of making its existing facilities
adequate. It then compares that figure to alternatives, sometimes including a totally
brand new facility. This DEIS completely lacks -the first element of this decisio S
making process, namely the cost to make existing facilities adequate. Instead, it
merely states that the existing facilities can be sold at a tidy profit, anda Bond
issue or two can be obtained from the taxpayers to pay for whatever the new facility
will cost. In order to know just what the environmental impac t will be to the Dis
trict and the taxpayers, of correcting this problem, shouldn't the DEIS provide data
concerning the'cost to make the existing facilities adequate? -
16) pages 85 -87, paragraph 5- Energy. The first full paragraph on page 86 of this DEIS
states that the "major savings" to be realized by the proposed project is "vehicle
fuel consumption ". Additionally, it is stated that the proposed project will save the
District a total of 20 miles per day for buses-over the existing location. Assuming
gas and diesel can be purchased in bulk for around $1.00 per gallon and-,bus-mileage
averages 5.6 m.p.g., the total savings for buses is 3.6 gallons $3.60 per.day. Ad-
ditionally, grounds, maintenance and administrative operations vehicles will sav
"16 miles per day ", which translates into 1.28 gallons or $1.28 per day (based on
DEIS stated m.p.g. of 12.5)•
In total, a savings of $4.88 ($3.60 and $1.28) per day will be realized. ($968.00
per year based on 180 working days for buses and 2 0 for all others.) The DEIS fails
to provide data as to how much additional fuel will be used by District employees and
the public in transportation to the proposed site for work and business. Don't you
need this data for a proper environmental impact analysis?
As the above data shows, the District will save $4.88 per day or $968.00 '. per
year by "centralizing" the proposed project. Can this really be.seen as a "Major
Savings "? Accordingly, shouldn't this part of the DEIS be rewritten so as noa
be misleading and to allow a realistic appraisal of the corresponding environmental
impact? Also, basing any further savings on an increase in population in this area
is quite speculative, at best. Past projections of population increase for the Valley
are currently being rewritten to reflect this changing pattern.
43
iraft isl.i, 12/1/81 C.V. BUS BARN p.6
17) page 87 and 88, paragraph 6- Utilities: -Gas. This section of the DEIS acknow- O
ledges that the closest natural gas mains to the proposed project are at 20th
and Progress and at Sullivan and 8th. To properly analyse the environmental
impact of the proposed project, shouldn't the DEIS be amended to show the cost
of extending gas service to the site? Otherwise, a project of this magnitude
would be quite crippled if it did not have natural gas service to the site, and
to provide it to the site after improvements to Sullivan Road would be quite costly
to the District or taxpayers.
18) pages 89 and 90, paragraph 6.4 Sewer. Much of this DEIS relies upon being able
to connect to sewer lines of the city, to avoid potential contamination of the
aquifer ( our sole source of drinking water). What will be the environmental im-
pact on the aquifer if severing can not be completed for many years (as the case
appears to be) or that the Northern part of Spokane County is sewered first or
county funds never allow for severing clear out to Sullivan? ( Assuming Liberty
Lake Sewer District expands to fully service Liberty Lake in the future) Shouldn't
attention be focused on this in the DEIS?
19) gage 91, paragraph 6.6 Solid Wastes. This DEIS states that the proposed pro-
ject will generate a greater volumine of solid waste than is currently being gen-
erated. How can the environmental impact of this be examined when no specific
amounts are identified? Also, are existing county facilities capable of handling
this increase of solid waste?
44
20) page 91, paragraph 7- Human Health. This section was given a response of N/A in ,-
the DEIS. Isn't this quite improper since the proposed site will add traffic to
a already often congested area on Sullivan and will pose a great potential for
accidents (ie. buses turning on Sullivan and 16th)? Also, since there are no
'sidewalks nearby, won't there be an increased risk to life of children, bicylists,
joggers and horses with riders? Won't the storage of large amounts of fuels surely
pose life and health threats both on and off the proposed project? Therefore, isn't
it somewhat misleading and erroneous to N/A this section?
21) pages 92 - 94, paragraph 8 - Aesthetics. Isn't it impossible to truly assess the im 39 t
of the aesthetic features of the project when plans have evidently not yet been
formed concerning such things as type of fencing that will be used, color and tex-
ture of the buildings and type of structures? Isn't using words such as "will prob-
ably be..." and "should be designed..." and " should be considered..." ambigious?
Doesn't this fail to provide a guarantee that later decision makers of the District
will not order cyclone fences and olive green 4 story buildings be constructed?
This is very important to the existing and yet to be built residences since
the vast majority of the residences are and will be split level or two story con-
struction, with living areas clearly viewing the project above the earth bunkers,
not to mention all, those individuals that will have to drive by the project often
22) pages 95 - 97, paragraph 12- Economics. According to the data provided in this secti
The District lacks $61.461.00 of being able to complete the very first phase of this
project. Further, it has absolutely "no funding available" to construct phase 2 or 3.
Since a bond issue will apparently be required to even get the first phase completed,
and additional bond issues for each later phase, why is the DEIS now being completed
and circulated? Isn't it quite possible that, in the economy we have (which appears
now to be long lasting), any one or all of the planned bond issues may be defeated
by the taxpayers? Also, assuming the District finds funds to get the first phase com-
pleted, won't failure to get voter approval for the subsequent phases defeat the en-
tire purpose kf the project, leaving the District in a far worse position than cur-
rently? ( ie. greater distance between facilities than currently) Why then, are no
mitigating measures proposed in paragraph C ?
•
•
•
•
•
•
• Je4'ry L. Trunkenbolz
9 Chairman of Concerned Central Valley Taxpayers group
•
•
•
•
Irraft EIS, 12/1/$1 C.V. BUS BARN page
We sincerely hope these comments are of rssistance to you. I would like to
thank you for this opportunity to review the DEIS and comment thereon. The
Central Valley is a rather close -knit community, and all of its residents
are extremely concerned over growth in the Central Valley occurring on a
rational and carefully analysed basis. If you wish to discuss our concerns,
please call me at 922 -3942.
Sincerely yours,
45
Responses to letter from Concerned Central Valley Taxpayers Group
18. The principal purpose of an EIS is to provide information concerning a
proposed project to public officials, agencies, and interested citi-
zens. The focus of the document is upon the identification and as-
sessment of potential adverse impacts on the environment and an analy-
sis of measures to mitigate these.potentially adverse consequences. A
further purpose is to provide a conduit for feedback from agencies and,
interested citizens to identify inadequacies or misinformation pre-
sented in the DEIS. It is not the intent of the EIS process to pro-
vide unnecessarily detailed information. The EIS is also of greater
value to the decision maker and the.public when it is developed before
the proposed project is "cast in concrete" so that changes can be made
in response to comments which may offer substantive critique or sug-
gestions to mitigate potential adverse impacts, if required.
The DEIS has identified .the major engineering and design factors as
well as the potential impacts of the proposed project. Specific de-
tails which have not been firmly decided upon have been so identified.
Mitigating measures which have been suggested are recommendations of
the EIS writer. Those that the District has incorporated into the
design have been prefaced with "will" or "shall ". Those that had
either not been firmly established or considered by the District have
been prefaced with conditional statements. The decision as to what,
specific mitigating measures and what specific design details will be
incorporated into the final project will be made by the Board.
The project architect has provided a model of the project (located at
the District Administration Building, South 123 Bowdish Road) as well
as tentative site plans. The model has been available for public re-
view since July of 1981. The proposed project will substantially foil
low these guidelines. Essentially, the only impact that alterations
of building design details will alter is visual perceptions. The
major impacts which the EIS addressed relate to the scale and function
of the proposed project, and minor alterations of design will not al -.
ter these impacts. The District is aware of the potential aesthetic
impacts of the proposed project and is working to provide a design
which will reduce the visual impact to the greatest degree possible.
This is an on -going process which will not be finalized until the
final drawings are completed.
The height of the proposed structures is discussed on pages 9, 58, and
92 of the DEIS. It will be one to two stories and no greater.
19. The statement made on page 106 of the DEIS should be changed to re-
flect that a zone change may potentially be needed.
20. Drifting snow is a natural phenomenon that does occur from time to
time in the Spokane Valley and affects the operation of buses on Sul-
livan Road as well as other District route segments. The District has
coped with such problems in the past and expects to d� so in the fu-
ture. The following procedures will be followed by the District in
the event of drifting snow problems along Sullivan Road or any other
road in the District: (1) chain the bus wheels; (2) adjust routes to
46
avoid closed roads; (3) open schools at a later time (if roads can be
cleared); and (4) close school (District schools have on occasion been
closed in past years because of road closures).
Since the wind direction which predominates during the winter months
originates from the northeast, the berms along the western and north-
ern boundaries of the site will potentially result in drifting snow
accumulation along the Sullivan Road and 16th Avenue sides of the
site. As with any barrier, including fences and houses along the west
side of Sullivan Road, northeast winds will cause the accumulation of
snow along the Sullivan Road side of the' property. Presently wind
blown snow presents problems between approximately 20th and 24th along
Sullivan Road in the segment which is cut below the natural terrain.
Depending on the extent of'drifting, the county (which is responsible
for snow removal on public streets) will use a truck mounted with snow
blade, a grader, or under severe conditions a loader mounted with a
"V" blade. The loader has been used in the past to remove snow troth
the cut area between 20tn•and 24th.
According to the county operations engineer, an average winter may
produce two storms which create drifting problems that would necessi-
tate special clearing operations. Generally, the road can be'cleared
in two to four hours. The winter of 1968 -69 (the worst in recent
years) required a full day for snow removal. Since the problem of
drifting snow is not an unusual occurrence in tne area, the county is
equipped to manage it.
The Vera Water and Power site occupies approximately one half of the
Sullivan Road frontage. The proposed berm on District property will
not be located directly adjacent to Sullivan Road. The Sullivan Road
frontage south of the Vera Water and Power site would not be bermed
since the future District administration building would occupy this
area. Since District 1 has purchased a one -acre site in the
northeast corner of the District site (242' feet frontage) along 16tH
Avenue, with the exception of a short section along 16th Avenue, any
berming along the north would be set back from 16th (approximately 180
feet). Thus, any snow drifting attributable to the Di site
along 16tn Avenue or Sullivan Road is expected to De minimal and.
clearance would be incidental to normal clearing under drifting condi-
tions.
Tne melting snow would be handled as it nas oeen in the past, througn
natural percolation. Tne county is planning the use of grassed perco-
lation areas along Sullivan Road in compliance with "208" require-
ments.
The District has snow removal equipment to clear tne yard area and nas
managed this problem in the past. During the typical winter, snow re-
moval is not a significant problem, but it can present a problem dur-
ing winters such as that of 1968 -69. Snow melt will be disposed of
via tne grassed percolation areas provided on -site. It should be
pointed out, however, that it a storm exceeds design limitations (10-
year storm), excess water may accumulate and leave the site as it
would for other facilities, including Sullivan Road for storms in ex-
47
cess of design criteria. The site's topography would direct the run-
off or snow melt to the southeast corner of the site. Runoff from the
site would not flow upgrade to 16th except only that generated at the
northern periphery.
21. The purpose of this section is to discuss impacts to unique physical
or geologic features. There are none on the site of the proposed pro-
ject.
The potential impacts of erosion on the site can be mitigated by the
measures discussed on page 21 of the DEIS. Thus, the potential im-
pacts related to erosion are avoidable. Once developed, the erosion
potential on -site will be nil. Further, even during construction
pnases erosion potential is expected to be less than under current
agricultural use.
22. The volume of traffic projected to be generated by the proposed pro-
ject is well below the volumes that would be required to exceed the
established standards. It might also be noted that the County Air
Pollution Control Agency had no comment on the air quality section of
the DEIS. 'Further, the total bus' trips is projected at 360 trips per
day, as shown on page 73 of the DEIS. The total of 1,372 represents
all vehicle trips including employees, business, buses, and other
operations.
23. It is stated on page 73 of the DEIS that the total traffic generated
by the proposed project is projected to be 1,372 trips. The 570 trips
generated by employees is a subtotal as identified in the table. The
total is the sum of these 570 employee trips and the 802 operations
trips.
The number of employees leaving the site for lunch is based on the ex-
trapolation of existing employee trips and the provision of a lunch
room for bus drivers. While it is possible that more employees would
leave for lunch, they often share cars. Even if more than 31 vehicle
trips are generated, the noon hour is an off -peak period. Thus, this
trip generation is insignificant.
24. The projected traffic count of 20,000 per day through the 16th and
Sullivan Road intersection is an estimate provided by the Spokane
County Engineering Department (Memorandum, "Minutes, June 9, 1980
Meeting" of the Educational Services Center Task Force, June 10,
1980). While it is desirable to limit growth and "depopulate the val-
ley in the aquifer sensitive area ", there .is no guarantee that this
will, in fact, occur. There is sufficient land area that can poten-
tially be accessed by Sullivan Road and its feeders to provide this
increase in population and resultant vehicular trip generation. A
past constraint to the development of much of this land has been the
lack of sewer. With the construction of a valley trunk line and feed-
ers into the south valley area, expansive growth can take place.
Whether it will or not is another consideration dependent on numerous
factors. In the event that it does not take place, the projected
traffic impacts of the project and future traffic growth would be low-
er than projected in the DEIS. Although the District's proportional
48
•
•
The procedures for operations involving cnemicals are discussed in re-
sponse 7.
26. See pages 28 -29 of the DEIS. This discussion provides tne anticipated
degree of contaminant removal by the use of the gras percolation
areas as established in the county's Guidelines for Stormwater Manage-
ment. The amount of contaminants that may reach the aquifer has not
been quantified by the 'county or in past aquifer studies. The county
is presently undertaking a stormwater monitoring program.to determine
stromwater chemical constitutents. Seven storms will be monitored in
this program which is expected to be completed by Marcn of 1983. The
program will monitor dry wells and adjacent wells-to determine whether
or not contamination from dry wells is taking place and to what de-
gree.
snare of total traffic (when fully constructed) would be greater with
lower total traffic growth, the ultimate traffic impacts would not De
as great as projected.
There are two regional malls proposed in the valley -- Broaaway and Sul-
livan, and I -90 and Sullivan. The likelihood of either of these two
malls or the North Spokane Mall being constructed is about equal. The
placement of a mall, while providing a stimuluus for commercial and
population growth, will not necessarily retard population growth if it
does not develop. This is particularly true of the valley which has
potential industrial and commercial development which will provide the
stimulus for further residential growth.
25. The county cannot provide written guarantee that the improvements will
be made until the funding has been 'approved and obtained. At the
present time, the county is in the process of acquiring rignt of way
for the'improvements. Once tne right of way is acquired, final fund-
ing will be applied for (funds have been set aside) ana Dids will be
let. It is anticipated that these actions will have been completed by
the early part of 1983. However, if right of way acquisition is de-
layed, the construction schedule may be set back to 1984. If so, con'
struction is planned to Degin in the spring of 1983. In the event
that these actions are not accomplished, the first phase of the pro-
ject can be constructed without significant adverse impact to traffic
conditions (provided traffic volumes do not significantly increase).
However, if the improvements are not completed the construction of the
following phases will have . a significant impact on traffic flow in the
vicinity of the 16tH and Sullivan intersection.
It should De further noted that the proposed facility will be designed
• to accommodate the fuel and chemical as well as runoff. This
is sometning that the District's existing facilities ( whicn are also
over the aquifer) do not do because - of space and facility limitations
of pre - existing structures.
27. The proposed project will preclude the agricultural use of this par-
cel. It is very likely that this would occur in the near future re-
gardless of the outcome of the proposed action. Tne area is designat-
ed in the county's Comprehensive Plan for residential development
49
(either at urban or suburban densities) and is surrounded by residen-
tial development. The decision as to whether or not this parcel would
be set aside for future agricultural use has been made independent of
the District's action. Past development patterns, Comprehensive Plan
designation, and the future construction of a sewer line will be the
determining factors on the future disposition of these lands.
28. There is no data available from either the local office of the Depart-
ment of Ecology or the County Engineer's Office as to the probability
of fuel leaks from underground fuel storage tanks. While underground
tanks or lines have had leaks in the past, the occurrences have been
rare. If properly installed (to avoid damaging the protective sur-
face) and purged of excess water (which may cause internal rust) the
likelihood of leaks from underground tanks is very low. According to
interviews with local underground fuel storage tank fabricators, the
incidence of tanks being returned for leakage has been almost nil. In
addition, the county is developing guidelines to ensure protection of
the aquifer with respect to fuel or other underground storage spills.
Preliminary recommendations include tanks to be enclosed in sealed
concrete vaults or double - walled tanks coupled with monitoring to de-
tect leakage and the ability to pump out tanks to facilitate mainte-
nance. The monitoring can consist of detectors to identify leakage or
close inventory to compare fuel amounts placed in storage with amounts
withdrawn and consumed. These methodologies can be incorporated into
the fuel storage facilities used by the District.
The relevant factor in assessing the risk 'or probability of fuel spil-
lage is not necessarily the total volume of fuel stored but the number
of storage tanks. A larger tank has no more probability of leakage
(if properly installed) than a smaller tank. The difference in.risk
would be related to the total volume stored. If undetected, a tank of •
greater volume could potentially discharge a greater volume of fuel
into the aquifer. This can be avoided, however, by close monitoring
of total volumes in order to detect leakage at. the earliest possible
time so as to avoid larger volume spills.
Provided that the tanks are constructed and installed properly in ac-
cordance with building code regulations, the potential adverse impacts
associated with fuel spills can be avoided. Additional protection can
be provided by the use of double - walled tanks or sealed concrete
vaults as well as close monitoring of stored volumes. This would be a
problem regardless of where the site was located along the Valley
floor.
29. According to the County Engineering Department (Jack Finney, November
of 1982), adequate sight stopping distance will be provided on the
grade for both cars and buses. Improvements will not be required as
far south as 24th Avenue. The county does not feel that there will be
significant traffic safety problems in this area.
30. The purpose of the EIS is to identify potential problems that may re-
sult from a proposed project and possible measures to mitigate those
problems. The responsibility for making the improvements beyond those
originally proposed in the county's Sullivan Road improvement project
50
will be worked out in negotiations between the District and Spokane
County. There is no evidencce that the county is accelerating their
improvements to Sullivan to accommodate the District project. The
county's improvements to Sullivan Road will not be accelerated by the
proposed development of the site for District use. The proposed im-
provements to Sullivan Road will be completed regardless of the com-
pletion or abandonment of the District's proposed project.
31. Tne DEIS does not state that there is any difference in the potential
for fire hazard or explosion when, comparing the existing volumes of
fuel storage and the volumes proposed in the new facility. According
to a conversation with the Spokane Valley Fire Department, the poten-
tial for fire or explosive hazard from properly constructed fuel stor-
age and distribution facilities is almost nil. This is what "minimal"
is intended to mean. Specific discussion of proper procedures is not
detailed because the requirements fall under existing codes and /or in-
spection requirements of the Valley Fire Department and County Build-
ing Inspector. These consist of standard requirements which are ap-
plied countywide. Tne fire prevention section of the County Building
Department inspects tank installation and plumbing to ensure compli-
ance with building codes. According to the fire prevention section,
the risk of fire or explosion from properly installed tanks is almost
nil.
Underground storage of'fuels constitutes negligible risk of fire or
explosion. The only incidences related to fuel fire or explosion in
Fire District 1 have been related to vehicles colliding with above
ground pumps. This can be avoided by properly constructing pump
islands to prevent vehicles from hitting the pumps. Measures include
railed concrete islands' with solidly constructed posts or barriers
around the pumps to prevent inadvertent collision. Potential acci-
dents resulting from spills or explosion during transfer of fuels from
bulk carriers to tanks can be avoided by following the procedures pre=
scribed in conducting such operations. Essentially, this involves
grounding of fuel trucks and constant attention by the fuelers to en-
sure pumps and couplers do not malfunction during fueling. (Also, see
response 7.)
•
32. The possibilities' discussed in the scenario developed in this comment
are avoidable. The Spokane County Sheriff's Department is capable of
curtailing such activity on the site. Tne project architect will work
with the Sheriff's Department to provide secure facilities particular-
ly where fuel, tools, and vehicles will be stored to prevent unwar-
ranted entry. Sound detection devices can also be placed at building
entrances to detect unwarranted entry. The facility has also been de-
signed to allow Sheriff's patrols to drive through the site to inspect
buildings and the yard area. If necessary, a fence can be constructed
in selected portion of the site to control entry. This fence. can also
be designed and constructed to avoid adverse aesthetic impact. The
District does not feel that armed security guards will be necessary to
patrol the site.
51
The location of a fire station at the northern portion of the site
would provide the possibility of 24 -hour surveillance of activity on-
site, particularly during the nighttime hours.
33. The purpose of an EIS under SEPA is to discuss and disclose the envi-
ronmental and socio- economic impacts of a proposed action.. A full
cost /benefit analysis is not required. However, the following infor-
mation is included for review. Any additional information or comments
regarding the economic considerations of this project can be made to
the District Board of Directors prior to their decision regarding the
proposed site.
Since the proposed project is intended to meet the long -term needs of
the District in providing educational support services, the following
discussion addresses both the immediate as well as long -term needs (in
other words, making existing facilities comparable to proposed facili-
ties). This analysis also considers the improvement of existing fa-
cilities on existing sites, rather than a consolidated complex on the
proposed site. It should also be noted that the analysis includes
only physical costs of facilities and does not consider
the increasing costs of operating District activities out of existing
sites which are not central to the District (or the advantages of cen-
tral location). The total projected cost for making the existing
facilities adequate to provide the same functions as the proposed pro-
ject is $6,262,269 in 1982 dollars (see the following table and Appen-
dix A to this FEIS).
Facility
PROJECTED COSTS TO MAKE EXISTING FACILITIES
COMPARABLE TO PROPOSED PROJECT
(not considering location)
Source: Gottschalk and Associates.
Immediate • Long -term Total
Administration $ 370,000 $ 380,000 $ 750;000
Maintenance 751,418 468,000 1,219,418
Storage 919,967 398,143 1,318,110
Transportation 1,568,076 1,271,665 2,839,741
Curriculum library None 15,000 15,000
Central kitchen None 80,000 80,000
Central laundry None 40,000 40,000
Total $6,262,269
Motel:
Assumes that existing leased facility cannot be economically fit-
ted to serve adequate maintenance needs. An additional assumption is
that land not adjacent to existing administration building of school
site purchased (two acres at $0.751 per square foot).
Assumes purchase, renovation, and expansion of leased maintenance
facility.
52
34. An estimate of the difference in fuel that would be consumea by em-
ployees and District residents when comparing the proposed site and
the existing site would be speculative and have little value in as-
sessing overall impacts. Tne primary components of the savings anal-
• yzed in the DEIS are the District's own day to day operations. The
public is not generally involved in these operations ana would nave
little regular need to visit these facilities. The District adminis-
tration facility which does receive some public traffic would, with
the present population patterns of the District, probably require
additional driving distance when comparing the existing with the pro-
CO posed site. However, this facility is projected to be constructed as
a final phase of the project. Population is projected to increasingly
shift to the eastern and western portions of the District in future
years and this shift will have become greater than at present when the
proposed administration facility is constructed. While it is possible
that some visitors and employees would, fdr the immediate future, nave
O a slightly greater distance to drive .to reach the proposed location,
the primary concern of the District with respect to fuel savings. is
its own operational budget.
The paragraph that begins with: "The major savings that will De real-
ized by the proposed project are related to vehicular fuel consump-
• tion. " related only to school bus fuel savings. -(This section
deals only with energy - -not other operational costs.) Further, the
figures cited were oased on 1981 -82 existing route structures. Thus,
even with those existing routes, a savings in fuel consumption was
projected. As the'population of the District shifts to the east and
southeast and facilities are constructed to accommodate new students
• in these areas, the 1ocational advantage of the site (and fuel sav-
ings) will become more pronounced. (The District is presently'experi-
encing falling enrollments in the nortnwest sector as population
shifts to the south' and east and is studying a shift in facilities as
warranted.) Since the proposed project is planned to serve District
needs over at least a 50 -year time span, the anticipated savings will
• be realized over each year for the life of the facility. It snoula oe
further noted that the savings discussed in this section do not con-
sider other operational expenses related to route distance. These
include driver salaries, maintenance, total number of vehicles, and
route miles. These factors will be compounded as the District grows.
• Projections must be based on long range trends (with the best avail-
able population information) for planning purposes. Various unpre-
dictable factors may influence these projections to either be overly
optimistic or too conservative. 'Nonetheless, the District has a re-
sponsibility to its patrons to plan,,with the best available informa-
• tion, the future growth of the District and the probable facilities
that will be required. Since the valley sewer is proposed to run'
through the area included within the District, it is reasonaole to
assume that the areas with access to the sewer will be developed be-
fore non - sewered areas, and at a greater density. Also, the most re-
cent industrial and commercial growth in the valley has taken place
• within the District. These land uses provide employment base which,
in turn, attracts population growth. These factors, assuming the lo-
cal ana national economies will recover, make the undeveloped areas
53
within the District logical areas for a significant share of future
valley growth.
The final EIS for the Spokane County Comprehensive Wastewater Plan
(August, 1981) states the following: "In summary, the comprehensive
land use plan assumes a population accommodation of 155,000 persons
from 1970 to 2000; the State Office of Financial Management projects
an increase from 1970 -2000 of approximately 89,000 persons; the Bonne-
ville Power Administration projects an increase of about 120,000 per-
sons from 1970 -2000; and the CWMP [Comprehensive Wastewater Management
Plan] projects that 171,500 persons will be added to the county's
population between 1970 - 2000 ".
35. According to Washington Water Power, there will be no cost to the
District for extending the lines from their present locations (16th
and Progress or 10th and Sullivan).
36. At the present time, the county is projecting that the proposed valley
trunk sewer will be completed as far as Sullivan Road by 1985. Even
if the District site cannot be hooked into the trunk line immediately,
the loading is projected to be relatively low (see response 6) until
the administration facility is constructed (such construction is not
anticipated for a few years). This loading will be temporary and is
not expected to cause any permanent or.significant ground water con-
tamination.
37. Regardless of whether the new facility is constructed or not, a growth
in District enrollment will create an increase in solid waste genera-
tion. The proposed project will have no impact on this category with
the exception that centralized solid waste generation and collection
will allow more efficient means of control, separation, and recycling.
38. These items have been discussed under the appropriate sections of the
DEIS. Traffic impacts have been discussed on pages 73 -74 and 78 -79.
Impacts of fuel and chemical storage have been discussed on pages 59 -.
60 of the DEIS. Also see response 28.
39. The EIS is not intended to guarantee the specific aesthetic details of
a proposed project. As discussed previously, a purpose of the EIS
process is to consider comments that will assist the decision maker in
not only deciding the merits of a total project, but also details
which may mitigate adverse impacts. Since final design 'details•such
as exact color or texture have not been specified, the EIS recommended
that those parameters that have been preliminarily planned be incor-
porated into the final design (as recommended by the Services Center
Design Committee (see pages 143 -145 of the DEIS)). It is the intent
of the District to minimize to the greatest degree possible the aes-
thetic impacts of the proposed project. The Board has the authority
to establish design criteria and specific details that would guide the
project's completion. The Board will also consider specific recommen-
dations and evaluate them in terms of the functional requirements of
the project. (See response 13.)
54
40. The purpose of the EIS process is to discuss the potential environmen-
tal impacts of a proposed project and to suggest means to mitigate po-
tentially adverse impacts. This is essentially a lead document to aid
in planning decisions prior to the commitment of final project approv-
al which is required prior to seeking additional funding.
Although it is possible that future bond issues may not be approved by
District voters, this does not relieve the District of the responsi-
bility to plan for the long term demands of providing educational and
support facilities.
The first phase of the proposed project is intended to provide facili-
ties that the District currently leases and to provide warehousing and
storage facilities which the District does not have. Since DEIS issu-
ance, interest earnings have boosted Phase I funding to $1,300,000.
This amount is in excess of the anticipated cost of Phase I. Subse-
quent phases are intended to replace obsolete facilities and provide
additional capacity to meet future District growth demands. Failure
of bond issues necessary to fund future phases will place the, District
in the position of operating out of facilities that will be obsolete
or of insufficient capacity to meet future District demands. It would
also delay subsequent phases of the service center and encourage the
District to consider the use of the proceeds of sale or lease of real
property to finance subsequent service center phases.
The District would benefit from whatever services can be centralized
whenever they might be developed.
The project site will provide the District with the land area neces-
sary to meet the demands for future expansion. In the long run, it,,is
anticipated that these facilities will be constructed and the proposed
site will be used for them rather than to expand on existing sites.
55
Dave Jackman, Director
Facilities and Planning
Central Valley School District No. 356
South 123 Dowdish.Road
Spokane, WA 99206
Dear Mr. Jackman:
December 4, 1981
The State Environmental Policy Act (R.C.W. 43.21C) has mandated that environ-
mental considerations be genuinely undertaken in good faith prior to any agency
decision involving a major action having a potentially significant effect on the
quality of the environment.
The purpose of the Environmental Impact Statement required by the Act is to pro-
vide a valuable aid to rational decision making by thoroughly examining all
realistic alternatives and balancing each according to equal considerations of
economic cost, current technology, and environmental costs (i.e. unmitigated
sacrifices of the existing environment).
Central Valley School District has properly, though reluctantly, acknowledged
that such a study is indeed required by law and has issued a draft FIS which is
the subject of this letter. Herein please take note of comments, objections and
suggestions pertaining to deficiencies in the EIS which require formal acknowledgment
and analysis in the final EIS before a practically and legally adequate statement
can be achieved.
As this statement and prior procedures form the record for a judicially reviewable
agency decision, it therefore is in the District's hest interest to comply fully
with SEPA mandates of "an environmental full disclosure law" Norway Hill v. King
County Council 87 Wn.2d 267 (1976), which are not to he taken lightly as merely
post hoc rationalizations of a decision made far in advance of careful, environmental
planning.
56
This brings forth an initial inquiry into the timing of the purchase of the property
at 16th and Sullivan. Although the draft EIS claims that an "extensive site search"
was conducted prior to purchase (pg. 103), that search was based merely on a projected
geographical center of the District analyzing only District convenience.. land avail-
ability and land cost. •
•
•
(b) Please clarify what "appropriate storage facilities" for fuel and 46
• chemicals will entail. (pp.36, 60)
(c) If the County is not able to improve Sullivan and 16th as a result 41
of current economic realities, what mitigating factors does the Distri•::'
propose in coordination with the County Engineer to reduce traffic hazards
on streets not adequate for the proposed use? (pg. 78),
(d) The "possibility" of fencing the Warehouse, maintenance and bus storage
facilities must be clarified to actual design plans of their exact place-
ment on site in order to determine the visual nature of the entire project.
(pp. 81, 94)
• 6. No actual on site air quality monitoring was undertaken to evaluate 49
existing carbon monoxide levels. Extensive discussion was undertaken
with regard to the University City, Fast Valley high School and Ponderosa
sites. These sites have no hearing on the existing air quality at 16th
and Sullivan and unless an actual on site measurement is obtained, no
realistic comparison could possibly he made between the quality of the air
• now and that projected after the buses are in full operation on site.
•
Page 2
1. What other property was considered prior to actual purchase and 41
why was each rejected?
2. Was the decision to construct a bus barn actually made prior to 42
the purchase of the 16th and Sullivan property?
3. Was the seller of the 16th and Sullivan property informed of the 43
true intent of the District to use the land for a bus barn rather
than for construction of a school or educationally- related con-
struction which would more logically fit within existing zoning
constraints?
4. Was the initial zoning approval request (January, 1980) based on
good faith disclosure of the District's actual intent, or rather
on a misleading reference to school construction?
It must be noted that notuntil after actual purchase in April, 1980; did the
transportation study.and formal alternative site analyses begin, and then only
as a response to extreme persistence and expressions of concern from local District
residents and taxpayers. A response to the above questions will shed some light
on the apparent nature of the draft E15 as merely a post hoc rationalization of a.
decision made far in advance of any consideration other than convenience and land
cost.
In addition, please address the following:
5. (a) Mitigating measures listed in the summary (pp.5 -7) are phrases 45
connoting actual District implementation; however, in the body of
the EIS, they are phrased in terms of "should..." (pp.19, 21, 26, 81,
88, 90 and 91); "May..." (pg.46); and "could..." (pp.87). No realistic
assessment of actual mitigation is possible unless these vague terms are
replaced by realistic treatment of what will he done in each of the
above instances. Please disclose in more concrete terms what actions
will be taken.
57
Page 3
Please provide an actual measurement figure comparing present
conditions and future projections.
7. Traffic resulting from this project is cited in 1995 to have only
a 7% increase in total traffic volume (EIS figures unrealistically
equate bus and auto impacts).
(a) Was the projected population increase based on previously
inflated growth patterns, or on a realistic decrease in density
based not only on current economic exigencies but also the need
expressed by the Comprehensive Plan to depopulate the Valley in
the Aquifer Sensitive Area in which the EIS includes the proposed
site and surrounding areas?
(b) Even given the unrealistically high 1995 traffic projections,
since the actual operation of buses is projected as early as 1984
(Phase 11), impacts of traffic from that date (1984) must be included
for a rational comparison.
10. Finally, and of biggest concern, a realistic analysis of costs to the
taxpayers is not only mandated by statute, but also an indication of
the quality of District fiscal planning.
(a) What are the cost /benefit ratios of
1) Satellite bussing;
2) All operations at CVHS site and /or 4th and Conklin site
3) Administrative /educational functions on proposed site and
transportation /maintenance functions at CVHS and /or 4th and
Conklin?
58
50
51
53
56
•
•
8. What specific uses of the surrounding property might he included if
the District were to obtain the zone change it is seeking in terms of
least harmony with existing uses?
9. Reduced fuel consumption is cited and compared with current consumption
netting a savings of less than $1,000 annually. As this factor (r,educ-
ing costs of District operations) is presented as the underlying
rationale behind the entire project, a more substantial fuel savings
amount in terns of overall project cost is in order.
(a) A fuel consumption comparison is necessary between the proposal 55
and alternatives of:
1) Satellite bussing; •
2) All operations at CVHS site and /or 4th and Conklin site; and
3) Administrative /educational functions on proposed site and
transportation /maintenance functions at CVHS and /or 4th and
Conklin;
all of which quite probably provide equal or greater preser-
vation of natural resources and, more importantly, taxpayer •
dollars.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Page 1 4
(b) If good faith negotiations were actually conducted with
respect to CVHS /4th and Conklin/ and Renz property, actual cost
figures need to be included for comparison. The CVHS site is
designated "cost unknown" which reveals no good faith effort
at bargaining or even investigating alternatives reasonably
available.
(c) In order to evaluate total costs, a total projection is ab-
solutely required for the entire. project. The draft EIS divulges
approximately:
$70- 100,000
$2,000,000
no projection
necessary to complete
u .11
Certainly some realistic economic cost estimate must he included
to provide a reasonable view of the project contemplated and the
resulting tax burden to the ultimate pavors, the District residents.
As such a resident, I am vitally concerned with the fundamental goal of Central
Valley School District to provide the hest education possible by administering
assets in the manner most likely to achieve that goal. As a parent and educator,
I oppose detrimental effects of any sort if, ultimately, education will suffer,
particularly in light of recent legislative cutbacks and trends toward failure
of school levies.
In proceeding with a decision which clearly ignores more rational alternatives
in not only harmonious use but economic responsibility, the District is departing
from its goal and potentially alienating its own base of support. Given present
economic realities, a thoughtful, planned and harmonious approach must he under-
taken by our elected decisionmakers.
59
Sincerely,
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
Linda G. Tompkins
S. 1411 Century Road
Veradale, Washington 99037
Responses to letter from Linda G. Tompkins
41. The District considered 15 sites (including the proposed site) prior
to April 15, 1980 (date of site purchase). Subsequent to site pur-
chase, an additional 11 sites were considered. A listing of these
sites with reasons for rejection is included in Appendix B of this
FEIS.
42. Prior to purchase of the 16th and Sullivan site (April 15, 1980) the
need for a transportation and bus storage facility had been antici-
pated for several years. Need for improved bus storage and central-
ized storage was seen as early as 1973. Funding for these facilities
was included in. 1977 and 1978 bond issues. Improved facilities for
transportation were among the needs identified when the District began
seeking sites in 1979. For example, the site analysis for transporta-
tion/ maintenance /warehousing /curriculum library /instructional materi-
als center prepared by the project architect was initially developed
on June 25, 1979, with subsequent revisions on July 2, 1979 and April
of 1980. The June and July 1979 site analysis included the 4th and
Conklin site and Barker and Mission site. The April 1980 site analy-
sis included the two previous sites and also the 16th and Sullivan
site. The District had also discussed the prospect of developing an
educational services center including transportation with the County
Planning Department and various property owners in 1979, prior to ac-
quisition of the 16th and Sullivan site.
43. The seller of the 16th and Sullivan site' was aware of the potential
uses of the site prior to purchase. A letter from the personal repre-
sentative of the seller (Mr. R. J. Wallis, April 18, 1980) states the
following: "It was only after considerable consideration and viewing
possible architectural designs that it was decided to sell to the Dis-
trict. The seller continues to reside on and own adjacent property
and I feel should have knowledge of continued plans and /or any possi-
ble changes in District plans for this property."
44. The District approached the county regarding zoning in December, 1979.
On December 14th, Mr. Jackman, representing the District, outlined the
proposed services uses to Gary Thompson, Assistant Zoning Administra
tor. These uses were discussed in relation to each of 11 potential
sites. Mr. Thompson stated that the facility would be allowed on any
of the sites. This interpretation was confirmed with Mr. Thomas
Davis, also of the county. On December 19, 1979, the District posted
a letter to Ms. Raines, County Zoning Administrator, stating that the
services center was intended to accommodate support services including
administration, storage, transportation, and maintenance. Mr. Thomp-
son's letter of January 2, 1980 confirmed the December 14th conversa-
tion and specifically stated that administration, storage, transporta-
tion, and maintenance were included as proposed uses for the services
center. His letter stated that such uses were allowed in agricultur-
al, agricultural /suburban, and multi- family zones. The distict then
reconfirmed the content of the conversation (of December 14th) by
posting a letter on January 9, 1,980 to Mr. Thompson stating that the
District was proceeding on the basis of the January 2nd letter.
60
•
•
45. The decision as to a mitigating measure being incorporated into the
proposed project is that of the District Board of Directors. The EIS,
in the case of most mitigating measures, is making recommendations
that should be adopted in order to mitigate adverse impacts. It is up
to the Board to require these mitigating measures be adopted and car-
ried out.
46. See response 7.
47. The county is currently acquiring additional right of way along the
Sullivan corridor to complete the proposed improvements. Construction
is planned to begin in 1984 (see response 25). Completion will take
place prior to construction of any 'of the bus storage facilities on-
site.
• 48. The possibility of incorporating fencing and its potential location
has not been definitely iestablished at this time. This is a decision
that will be made by the Board with input from the project consultants .
and concerned citizens.
49. The volume of traffic at the present time is not sufficient to warrant
• air quality monitoring, nor is the volume traffic to be generated by
the proposed project projected to measurably degrade existing air
quality.
50. Bus and automobile impacts are discussed separately on pages 74 and 75
of the•DEIS. They have not been equated.
51. The traffic projections were based on information provided by the
County Engineer's Department. As far as "depopulation of the valley"
is concerned, neither the Comprehensive Land Use Plan nor the Compre-
hensive Water Management Plan would indicate such action. In fact,
these plans indicate that the area contained within the Priority Sewer
• Service Area (PSSA) will receive a larger share of the overall valley
development since this is the area that will initially be sewered and
have access to sewer. Most of the undeveloped area within the PSSA
lies within the Central Valley School District. While it may be true
in general that densities will be reduced, this is intended to take
place in the areas outside of the PSSA or areas that are not slated
• for future sewering. The densities within the areas that will receive
immediate sewer service (Phase I service) will be greater in order to
fully utilize the sewer and reduce unit costs.
52. Assuming that the entire project was fully completed in 1984 and
reached full operational capacity, the traffic impacts of the project
• would not vary provided that the proposed Sullivan Road /16th Avenue
intersection improvements are completed. If the projected non - project
related traffic does not grow as greatly as cited in the DEIS, the
overall traffic impacts will not be as great as discussed in the DEIS.
The District share in relation to overall traffic will be greater, but
this will not alter overall traffic conditions.
•
•
61
53. Since the District has no control over the property surrounding the
project site, it is impossible to describe specific uses to which it
may be put by present or future owners. Based on the Comprehensive
Plan designation for the area and the trend of past growth, it is
probable that some form of residential use may be developed in the
area. Lands surrounding the site that have specific use proposals in-
clude the Vera Water and Power site for utility use (adjacent to the
northeast corner), Fire Protection District 1 for a fire station (ad-
jacent to the northeast corner), and the property east of Sullivan be-
tween 16th and 24th avenues which received preliminary plat approval
in July of 1982 for 284 homes (125 acres). The general uses to which
adjacent property along Sullivan might be put would include neighbor-
hood commercial, offices, and single or multi- family residential as
mentioned on page 58 of the DEIS. '
54. The objectives for the proposed project are included on page 1 of the
DEIS. Fuel savings is out one of the major rationales for the pro-
posed project. Also see response 34 for a discussion related to fuel
savings.
55. The alternative of satellite bussing was considered oy the District
and discussed in a report completed by Pupil Transportation Supervisor
of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction at the request of
the Services Center Committee in June of 1980. This report (July,.
1980) is included on pages 133 -138 of the DEIS. The evaluation of
satellite or auxilliary bus parking areas concludes by stating: "Use
of a small satellite in the western part of the district, following a
move of the main facility from its present location, may result in
some very limited cost benefits. However, in my opinion, these would
be more than offset by costs of maintaining the second area and the
difficulty which will be experienced in supervision, administration,
and maintenance." It is probable that an eastern satellite would re-
sult in fuel savings over operating all of the buses out of the pro-
posed site, but this would be offset by other costs as cited above..
Tne options of operating all activities out of the 4th and Conklin and
Central Valley High School sites are discussed under the alternatives
section on pages 106 -109 of the DEIS. Operations out of the proposed
site would provide fuel savings over the alternative sites discussed
in the DEIS. Since the major components of District fuel consumption
are pupil transportation and maintenance activities, operating the ad-
ministrative /educational functions on the proposed site and operating
the transportation /maintenance functions out of the alternative sites
would not result in a savings over the proposed site.
56. See response 55 for a discussion of satellite bussing. The purpose of
an EIS under SEPA is to discuss and disclose the environmental and
socio- economic impacts of a proposed action. A full cost /benefit an-
alysis is not required. However, the following estimates of cost com-
parison between sites are provided for review. Any additional infor-
mation or comments regarding the economic considerations of the pro-
ject can be made to the District Board of Directors prior to its deci-
sion regarding a site.
62
If the existing District vehicles were operated out of a site located
either east of the Central Valley High School or at 4th and Conklin,
the cost of such operations would be roughly the same. The anticipat-
ed savings within the next few years (as facilities are developed in
the southeastern and eastern portions of the District) from operating
out of either of these sites would be approximately $102,360 when Com-
pared to continued operation from existing District sites. The pro-
posed site (16th and Sullivan) is anticipated to provide an operation-
al savings of approximately $129,240 per year as existing District
vehicle operations (to be included in the proposed services center)
are consolidated in a central location. It would cost the District
approximately $26,880 more each year.to operate existing vehicles from
either the 4th and Conklin or CVHS sites than from a site within the
prime area (which includes 16th and Sullivan).
The District anticipates that annual operational savings of this ar-
rangement for existing District vehicles would be about $115,800 when
compared with continued operation from existing District sites. It
would thus cost the District about $13,400 more each year to operate
existing vehicles under this arrangement than if all vehicles were
based at a site in the prime location.
It should be pointed out that these estimates are based on anticipated
District operations within the next several years, the existing number
of vehicles, current fuel prices, and current labor /driver wages. As
the number of vehicles and total route miles increase and the opera-
tional costs increase, the relative advantages of the proposed site in
terms of cost savings will become increasingly pronounced. Also as
services center components ( which presently do not exist within the
District) are added to District facilities and operations, additional
operational savings will accrue as a result of the relative mileage
savings. Operational savings will also increase as ,current contract -,
ural agreements are implemented, phasing out the two -hour "minimum
call back" for bus drivers.
57. Consideration and attempts to negotiate on the 4th and Conklin proper-
ty by the District took place between April 24, 1979 and February 3,
1981. Efforts were made to determine availability and price of the
land east of Central Valley High School between July 7, 1980 and Feb-
ruary 3, 1981. Efforts were made to obtain costs of the Renz property
between July 7, 1980 and August 4, 1980. A summary of the contacts
made during these periods is included in Appendix C to this FEIS.
58. The estimated cost of developing the entire Educational Services
Facility is shown on the following table. Again, the inclusion of
these figures is provided for informational purposes only, since this
type of information is not specifically related to the environmental
and socio- economic discussion and disclosure as required by SEPA. It
should also be noted that the District will proceed with subsequent
phases of construction only when they can be justified on economic and
operational grounds.
63
ESTIMATED CURRENT DOLLAR COSTS FOR FULL
BUILD -OUT OF EDUCATIONAL SERVICES CENTER
Estimated Costs:
Site (assuming 16th and Sullivan used)
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
Total
$ 200,000
1,075,000
2,672,000
3,157,000
$7,104,000
Estimated value of existing District assets freed
by proposed services center:
Present administration /transportation site $ 905,000
Barker center, land only 251,000
Total $1,156,000
Estimated net cost of proposed services center:
Estimated cost $7,104,000.
Estimated value of existing assets freed 1,156,000
Net services center cost $5,948,000
•
•
64 •
•
•
•
Dave Jackman, Director
Facilities and Planning
Central Valley School District #356
South 123 Bowdish
Spokane, WA 99206
Dear Mr. Jackman:
i
65
December 5, 1981
Re: DEIS on Educational Services
Center (Bus Barn)
The following are concerns we feel are inadequately addressed in the
DEIS.
• Ground Water Quality 59
The DEIS states that the. Spokane /Rathdrum Aquifer is the "sole source'
of drinking water for the Spokane Metropolitan area. It needs to spe-
cify what quantities of pollutants will he exposed to the Aquifer and
the impact this exposure will have on the Aquifer's quality of water.
The School District states that they will connect to sewer lines as
• soon as "it's available ". What time frame are we looking at and what
irreversible damage will be done before the Valley sewer system is
available.
Risk of Ex losion or Hazardous Emissions
Paragrap 10; age 59 and 60 states the proposed project will house
• potentially flammable and explosive chemicals. What specific measures
will be taken to ensure proper handling, storage and unauthorized
entrance to these volatile substances.
Public Services - Police si
Page 80 states that - budgetary cutbacks have forced the closure of the
• Sheriff's substation located at Fire Station #1 (E. 10319 Sprague).
The reopening of this substation will depend on future budgetary con-
straints. The closure of this facility will increase the response time
for Sheriff deputies to respond to calls involving theft, vandalism and
illegal entrance into this facility. Page 81 states the District
"should" consult with the Sheriff's Department in order to develop
• additional measures that would reduce un:nitliorized entry to the
facility. What guarantees do we have that this will in fact be done.
Si,cerely,
rt i/ : «, � } i / c ; �.
Mr. and Mrs. Wayne L. McLaughlin
S. 1520 Century
Veradale, WA 99037
As a resident and taxpayer of the Central Valley School District we
are concerned with the quality of education our children are receiving.
In light of recent budget restrictions, we feel a more realistic and
• sensible approach should be made by the School Board concerning the
proposed project.
Responses to letter from Mr. and Mrs. Wayne L. McLaughlin
59. Two potential sources of contaminants will exist on -site which may
contribute slight quantities of contaminants to the aquifer. These
are storm water runoff and effluent from septic drainfields. Storm
water runoff will be treated in accordance with Spokane County's
"Guidelines for Stormwater Management" (1981). As shown on the table
on page 29 of the DEIS, most contaminants will be removed from storm
water treated according to'the county's guidelines. The quantity of
contaminants that will actually reach the aquifer has not been deter-
mined by the various agencies that have tested aquifer water quality
over the years. At the present time, the county is conducting a study
of ground water in the vicinity of dry wells in the attempt to deter-
mine contaminant loading. The projected loading of the septic drain -
field system is discussed in response 6. Again, the quantity of con-
taminant loading that will reach the aquifer cannot be definitively
determined.
The valley interceptor (along Sprague) is expected by the county
Utilities Department to be completed to Sullivan Road by spring of
1985. Extension of trunk lines to the District site will be accom-
plished when a ULID has been approved and funded. This action could
be accomplished as the interceptor construction is taking place. The
earliest that the proposed facility could be connected would be in
1985. If a ULID is not put together by property owners in the area,
the date at which connection is made could take much longer. Essen -
tially, _the timing is dependent not only on District desires but also
on local property owners' desires. The District will cooperate with
local property owners in funding the appropriate ULID.
60. See responses 6, 7, and 28.
61. The closure of the substation has resulted in increased response time
during the times when shift. changes are being made. When shifts have
been placed in the field, however, response time is no different than
with the substation. It should be added that the date of substation
reopening has not been established at this time.
The District will work with the Crime Prevention Unit of the Sheriff's
Department to coordinate design and security features which will con-,
trol unwarranted entry.
It should also be noted that Fire Protection District 1 plans to lo-
cate a fire station on property adjacent to the District site. This
station will be manned 24 hours per day and will provide substantial
security to the proposed services center site.
•
•
66 •
ALAN P. 0 /KELLY
JOHN HUNEKE
• ROBERT L. SIMPSON
RICHARD D. McWILLIAMS
WM. FREMMING NIELSEN
LAWRENCE R. SMALL
JOHN R. QUINLAN
FREDERIC G. EMRY. 11
CURTIS L. SHOEMAKER
DAVID L. BROOM
JERRY K. BOYD
GARY A. DAHLKE
DANIEL E. MCKELVEY, JR.
TIMOTHY W. QUIRK
• DONALD G. STONE
PHILIP S. BROOKE, 111
SCOTT L. SIMPSON
RICHARD W. KUHLING
JAMES M. KALAMON
JAMES B. KING
•
•
•
•
•
Mr. David Jackman
Facilities Planner
Central Valley School District #356
South 123 Bowdish Road
Spokane, Washington 99206
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement /Bus Barn
Dear Mr. Jackman:
LAW OFFICES OF
PAINE, LOWE, COFFIN, HAMBLEN & BROOKE
1400 WASHINGTON TRUST FINANCIAL CENTER 99204
1215 WASHINGTON MUTUAL BUILDING 99201
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON
PHONE 15091 4556000
TRI- CITIES OFFICE:
7601 W. CLEARWATER KENNEWICK, WA 99336
PHONE (5091 582 -4060
December 7, 1981
67
LAURENCE R. HAMBLEN 119501
ALAN G. PAINE 11950)
R. E LOWE 11972)
W. 5 GILBERT 119601
FRED W. GILBERT (RET. 1900,
EDWIN R ROBERTS (RET. 1981)
PHILIP 5. BROOKE. JR. I RET. 1981)
OF COUNSEL
PHILIP S. BROOKE. 5R.
HAROLD W. COFFIN
H. M. HAMBLEN
HORTON HERMAN
ASSOCIATES
DAVID J. MEYER
SHAUN M. CROSS
FRANKLIN J. SLAGLE
JOHN C. RISEROROUGH
DIANE M. HERMANSON
NANCY L. KAGELE
WILLIAM J. SCHROEDER
GARY R. ENGLISH
This is to acknowledge receipt of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement circulated by the Central Valley School District with respect
to the construction proposed on 15.9 acres in the vicinity of 16th
Avenue and Sullivan Road in the Spokane Valley.
While I have not had the opportunity to circulate .the Draft En-
vironmental Impact Statement among the approximate 1,000 residents of
the School District opposing this project, pursuant to WAC 197 -10 -480,
we would formally request a public hearing on the School District's
proposal as required by law. A petition is being circulated and should
reach your office with the appropriate fifty signatures.
In reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement provided to
me, I would submit that the proposed draft provides insufficient data
from which to evaluate your conclusions regarding negative environ-
mental impact. Similarly, the lack of Lest. data does not permit adequate
foundation for any analysis by engineering experts. Accordingly, a
request is made for the opportunity to inspect and copy relevant mater-
ials or test results utilized in your Draft Environmental Impact State-
ment.
Mr. David Jackman
Page 2
A review of the materials submitted to us does confirm that our
principal concerns of noise, traffic, air and water pollution, and ex-
plosive hazards are well founded. The location of your proposed fa-
cility adjacent to residential areas, and in an area designated as urban
residential for purposes of the County's comprehensive plan, and your
proposed use of the facility as a warehouse, commercial laundry facility,
commercial cooking facility, and bus barn demonstrates a lack of com-
patibility with existing and anticipated future use of the area.
Using your proposed analysis of noise pollution impact as a start-
ing point, I would submit that the District's analysis of dBA ratings for
buses is erroneous. Reference to the manufacturer maximum standards
enunciated in WAC 173 -62 -030 indicates maximum sound level, dBA, at
86 dBA, with a reducing standard with respect to new motor vehicles,
to include buses, to as low as 80 dBA. While I recognize that the
District's buses may or may not produce in a given circumstance a
maximum sound level less than the amount reflected in these regulations
affecting manufacturing standards, I would sincerely question your
assessment that the noise from your existing buses would produce
maximum sound levels in the range suggested by the Impact Statement.
Accepting your test data, and admission that bus departures may 61
generate noise levels ranging from 60 dBA to 75 dBA, I sincerely
question the assessment that peak acceleration noise levels can be
reduced from a range of 73 to 75 dBA to 60 or 62 dBA through the
mitigation measures referenced in your draft Impact Statement.
First of all, to place the problem in perspective, a "dBA" is a unit
of sound, based upon a logarithmic scale. Hence, a unit of one in
reality equates with a factor of one, such that a 10 dBA variation
actually refers to a sound increase of a factor of 10. Hence, you are
looking at a sound increase of ten times the previous sound condition,
accepting an increase of "only 10 dBA. I sincerely question the
reliability of a mitigation measure dependent upon instruction to your
bus drivers to minimize acceleration and acceleration rates to reduce
this impact upon the residences adjoining this proposed facility.
You also suggest that the higher the proposed berm, the better 0
the noise reduction, which in itself has negative environmental impact.
Anyone who has any familiarity whatsoever with the vicinity of your
project knows that Sullivan Road frequently is closed because of snow-
drifts in that area. The particular area causing the most problem. is
immediately south of your proposed site, where Lhe surrounding land
raises above the grade level of the road, permitting drifts to accumulate
during the winter. Use of your proposed berm or bunker will only
operate to permit additional snow accumulal.ions Lo occur, limiting access
to your proposed site and posing a substantial traffic hazard in the
vicinity.
68
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mr. David Jackman
Page 3
On the availability of services to the District's proposed facility, 1O
would submit that you rely extensively upon the proposed widening of 65
Sullivan and 16th to accommodate the traffic generated from your fa-
cility. While your Environmental Impact Statement is in conflict as to
the amount of proposed trips generating from this facility, it is common
knowledge that the introduction of even 48 buses, four times a day,
particularly during peak traffic hours, will serve to congest existing
road facilities.
Besides being concerned about our children, and other pedestrians
customarily utilizing the existing area, we would submit that construc- 66
tion of the road facilities is part of the "cost" of your proposed pro-
ject. The only solution you suggest is that these roadways are sched-
uled for improvement at some time in the future, which may or may not
equate with your development of the area. We find that the proposed
use of this facility in generating substantial amounts of truck and bus
traffic substantially alters the existing use of this area, and that your
proposal contains no mitigating components other than ultimate reliance
upon the availability of . county funds to expand services to your fa-
cility.
In addressing the necessity of this development, the map provided
O
of district facilities to be served by this site confirms what we have 6 .
asserted previously to the effect that the great majority of locations to
be served are located to the west of your proposed and alternate sites.
While the Sullivan corridor may form the geographical center of the
district as it extends to the state line, it is not central to existing
sites. Even assuming proposed sites to the east are developed, the
majority of development remains to the west. What the Environmental
Impact Statement ignores is the effect that such cross - traffic servicing
the east and west will have on existing streets, lights and traffic
patterns, particularly if. Sprague Avenue and the freeway will not be
utilized as the main travel route. If the latter route is to be used, we
feel that your present site on Bowdish, • or an alternate site in the
commercial zone adjacent to Sprague, is most compatible for your pro-
posed bus barn and commercial complex.
There are numerous other objections to your proposed Impact 66
Statement, to include the admission that the proposed site has potential
for accidental spillage of chemicals and fuels into the aquifer, along
with no provision for waste water and sewage management. Your cover-
ing of the property site with pavement and buildings by a factor of 79%
leaves us with substantial question as to whether adequate disposal has
been provided for protection of the Spokane aquifer. Use of sedimen-
tation ponds; drainage of rooftop runoff into dry wells, and limited soil
69
Mr. David Jackman
Page 4
absorption does not take care of this problem. To the contrary, it may
create attractive nuisances to children, foster the breeding of insects,
and invite further accumulation of pollutants into the aquifer. While I
do not understand the extent of "berm" • proposed for this facility, I
also question why the School District concludes that such would be
capable of absorbing groundwater runoff, or for that matter, why the
District anticipates no soil erosion' problems by grading a four to eight
foot hill around the perimeter of your property.
We realize that the principal purpose of providing the berm or
bunker is to minimize the site pollution associated with this project.
While your report recognizes this as an objective, it provides no spe-
cifics from which we can evaluate the site pollution of the proposed
facility. As we understand it, all is dependent upon the availability of
funds and building plans yet to be completed.
You have specified that "tilt up concrete" construction is antici-
pated of varying heights, and that such will be painted in earth tones;
however, you fail to indicate the amount of metal material to be utilized.
You also fail - to state how such building materials assist in absorbing
sound.
You fail to indicate whether the existence of a chainlink fence with
triple barbed wire at the top will be utilized for security of this pro-
posed facility, and how that will appear to residents of the area, as
well as to members of the public traveling in this vicinity. While we
know that security is a problem due to vandalism to school property,
even as experienced with your existing facility, which is located in a
highly non - visible area, members of our organization do not look for-
ward to introduction of a facility of this type in a residential neighbor-
hood. It not only invites vandalism, but. produces the appearance of a
detention facility. We also assume that it will have to be lighted on a
24- hour -a -day basis, which will produce glare into the area; however,
your report reflects no development of a lighting plan and suggests no
adequate mitigation for impact of this on the surrounding community.
Your proposal regarding odor existence and lack of mitigating
measures suggests only that the community must endure the diesel �� ®
pollution expected from your operation area. Further, it says nothing
regarding the likely odor emissions from the proposed commercial
kitchen for the entire School District, the commercial laundry, and the
proposed warehouse which will likely be frequented by large trucks. It
is of little comfort that you suggest that the non - attainment area is
approximately one and one -half miles from the site of your proposed
facility, when we consider the impact of the air pollution likely asso-
ciated with this use in a residential area.
70
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mr. David Jackman
Page 5
We predict that as acknowledged in your report, the introduction 13
of this facility will have substantial impact on housing in. this area.
Your suggestion that it will have no impact on housing virtually ignores
the pattern of development in other areas of the County. More spe-
cifically, your commercial use of the area will invite others to seek
commercial zone applications. Housing introduced to the area will then
suggest the need for a "buffer" zone of multi - family housing (apart-
ments) to minimize the negative visual impact of your facility on resi-
dences to be built in the future. • It provides little solace when you
suggest that such is dependent upon the actions taken by others when
it is your proposal which opens the door to this type of development in
the future.
We would request your action in making the appropriate test data
available to us at your earliest opportunity. For once, we would also
appreciate as much advance notification as 'possible regarding the public
hearing, and `would propose an evening hearing at the Central Valley
High School in order to give the working people and people with child-
ren the opportunity to attend. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
DGS:bw /W
Donald G. Stone
71
Responses to letter from Donald G. Stone
62. Based on monitoring results of actual bus operations and automobile
acceleration, there is a relatively significant difference in the
noise levels generated by rapid acceleration as compared to slow,
gradual acceleration. As an example, most individuals have experi-
enced the noise level generated by a driver "gunning" his engine and
rapidly accelerating from a stop sign as opposed to a normal, gradual
acceleration from a stop sign. The effectiveness of such a measure,
as your suspicions point out, is dependent on the individual driver in
adhering to this type of mitigating measure.
63. This is true when discussing relative sound energy, but not true when
referring to relative loudness. For example, an increase in sound
level from 60 dBA to 70 dBA (an increase of 10 dBA) will result in a
ten -fold increase in relative sound energy while the increase in rela-
tive loudness is approximately doubled. The relative loudness is the
sound perceived by an observer. An average individual can just detect
a change in sound level of two decibels under ideal laboratory condi
tions where one sound stimulus is presented after another. Under nor-
mal listening conditions it might be expected that a change of from
three to five dBA would be required for the average listener to per-
ceive a change (Chalupnik, October, 1981). Also, see response 62.
64. See response 20.
65. See response 23 for total trip generation projected for the proposed
project. The school bus operations through the Sullivan /16th inter-
section would take place primarily during the off -peak traffic hours.
According to the DEIS (page 70), morning traffic peaks between 7:00
a.m. and 8:00 a.m. with a short peak between 6:45 a.m. and 7:00 a.m.
then a greater peak beginning around 7:30 a.m. Morning bus operations
are presently scheduled for departures between 6:30 a.m. and 7:15 a.m.
and returns between 8:30 a.m. and 8:50 a.m. This might result in a
short conflict with existing traffic between 6:45 a.m. and 7:00 a.m.
during departures with no conflicts with peak traffic during the morn-
ing recovery period.
Midday bus departures and recoveries are projected to be low in volume
and will not affect the midday traffic peak (which is significantly
lower than the morning and afternoon peaks). The afternoon bus depar-
tures (2:00 p.m. to 2:15 p.m.) and recoveries (3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.)
will not conflict with the peak traffic period (5:00 p.m. to 6:00
p.m.). It should further be pointed out that the bus storage facili-
ties will not be constructed until Phase II of the proposed project.
By the time this phase is constructed, it is fully expected that the
proposed improvements to Sullivan Road and the 16th and Sullivan in-
tersection will have been completed.
It should be noted tnat the District presently does not operate 48
buses, but 33, on a daily basis. See page 71 of the DEIS which states
that 28 buses operate in the morning, 10 at noon, and 32 in the after-
noon.
72
66. These improvements to the Sullivan corridor are planned to be complet-
ed regardless of the District's use of the site. At present, con-
struction of these improvements is planned to begin in early 1983. If
this schedule is held, the road improvements should be completed prior
• to the operation of the Phase I facility.
67. The services center is sited to serve District needs for an indefinite
future - -50 to 70 years at least. Population is moving to the south
and east. The District i5 purchasing sites in these areas. School
• population in the north and west parts of the District is declining to
the point that fewer school sites are likely to exist there in the
future. The critical intersection when considering traffic impacts is
the 16th and Sullivan intersection. Cross - district traffic will not
be heavily concentrated either along a single corridor or during a
specific time period. Several routes are expected to be used by east/
• west traffic. ' These include 32nd, 24th, 16th, 8th, Sprague, and
Broadway. No significant impacts will be created by District traffic
in the use of tnese streets.
68. As with any project or activity over the aquifer, there is potential
for spillage of contaminants that would potentially reach ground
• water. This potential hazard can be mitigated by appropriate control
procedures. Please see responses 6, 7, and 28 for a discussion.. Pro-
vision tor storm water. runoff will be made in accordance with the
county's "Guidelines for Stormwater Management" as discussed on pages
28 -29 of the DEIS. (In both cases, disposal and control of liquids
will be.significantly better than that now occurring.) Sanitary waste
• will be disposed of by septic tank and drainfield until sewer is
available. Septic tank and drainfield location, construction, and
maintenance will be completed in accordance witn county environmental
health guidelines and under county approval (see pages 36, 89, and 90
of the DEIS).
• 69. The construction of a landscaped earth berm varyng in height from four
to eight feet will be completed in the first phase of the proposed
project. The funds necessary to complete the berm have been allocat=
ed. A model of the project showing the proposed berm in relation to
proposed structures has been available in the District administrative
office for public inspection since July of 1981.
70. The major components of the proposed structures will be concrete or
masonry material. Metal will most likely be used in minor components
such as door and window frames and possibly roofs. The total amount
of metal to be used in the exterior construction of the structures
will not be determined until working drawings and materials specifi-
• cations are developed. The exterior materials proposed for the struc-
tures are not intended to absorb sound.
•
71. At the present time, the project architect does not feel that a peri-
meter security fence will be necessary. All equipment, materials,
vehicles, etc., will be housed within a building or inside interior
fenced areas. If such a fence is constructed, it is the intent of the
District to design it to minimize visual intrusion on the surrounding
land uses. The District can reduce the threat of vandalism by limit-
73,
ing potential window access, providing secure doors and providing
sound monitoring devices to detect unwarranted entry. Access can also
be made available to county Sheriff's vehicles so that patrol is fa-
cilitated. The location of a fire station at the northeast corner of
the site will place fire personnel adjacent to the proposed services
center on a 24 -hour basis. The project design with respect to door
and window security, sound monitoring, lighting, and traffic patterns
to facilitate observation of potential entry points will be coordinat-
ed with the Crime Prevention Unit of the Sheriff's Department.
The facility will be provided with limited security lighting (high
pressure sodium). Such lighting will be designed to incorporate low
glare light sources located so as to illuminate specific areas of the
site without creating excessive glare that would intrude upon adjacent
residences. The use of low -level lights with shades to control glare
emitted to off -site sources as well as screening vegetation can effec-
tively limit glare intrusions to off -site properties.
72. Diesel odor rapidly diffuses within a short distance of its source and
will not be concentrated in the vicinity of existing residences. Die-
sel powered buses which will produce potentially odoriferous emissions
will be those exitng the site. Residents engaged in outside activi-
ties near the exit points along 16th and along Sullivan may notice
diesel odors of short duration during periods of bus operation. There
are no mitigating measures proposed for this potential impact, except
that idling time be minimized at the exit points. This, however, is
beyond.the control of the drivers in that entry to the streets will
depend on traffic conditions.
The District now operates major preparation kitchens on three sites.
To the District's knowledge, no complaints of odors from kitchen oper-
ations have been noted in the past and, therefore, such odors are not
anticipated in the future and they are not perceived to be an adverse
impact should the District ultimately centralize food preparation ac-
tivities at a central site.
The District currently operates laundry facilities at most secondary
schools. No adverse odors have been reported as originating from
these operations. The District has no reason to believe odor would be
created if these operations were on a single site.
73. The proposed project will not alter the existing provision of housing
in the site vicinity. It will, however, preclude the use of the site
for future housing. The general impacts relating to land use of the
proposed project are discussed on pages 55 -58 of the DEIS.
74
B. ALTERNATIVE SITE LOCATIONS (p. 103) "Prior to purchasing the proposed site the
District completed an.. extensive site search." May we remind you, Mr. Jackman, that
• it was only after residents demanded a search for alternate sites, was it investigated
at all, and then poorly so.
LETTER FROM ROY BAUMAN, PUPIL TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR (p. 138) Page 6 of letter O
under "Other site Alternatives ": "Although no other specific site locations were eval-
uated during the study, it was noted that there are other parcels of undeveloped
• property in the general area of the Sullivan site. No effort was made to determine
availability, cost of acquisition, or other factors. However, based on location alone,
all of these parcels of sufficient size, and located within one mile of the,Sullivan
site, could be considered as viable options." May we suggest that you investigate
these "viable options ".
• B. IMPACTS (p.1) AIR: "Slight odor from diesel bus operations." Slight is an inter 71 ,
esting description for the odor that will be generated by some 25 - 30 diesel buses, '
minimum.
FAUNA (p.2) '!Existing habitat (which is periodically disrupted by cultivation) will 78
be replaced by domestic lawn grass, shrubs, trees, and native grasses over landscaped
• area, which will be more diverse and stable than what presently exists." We feel this
statement is totally erroneous, in that the land as it exists now has been an enjoy-
able sight for us,to watch the natural farming of the land, and our appreciation of
its value in our community.
•
Dave Jackman- Director
Facilities and Planning
Central Valley School District No. 356
S. 123 Bowdish Rd.
Spokane, Washington 99206
DEIS on Educational Services Center
Dear Mr. Jackman,
The following comments are made and require realistic responses, as we feel that the
DEIS is in error in many of its statements, and therefore inadequate for anyone to
evaluate the true and realistic impact on the proposed site at 16th and Sullivan.
Will reference each comment with title and /or sub - title, and page.
AESTHETICS (pp. 92 -93) The DEIS states that "the residences between Newer and ]4
Sullivan roads are oriented east -west and will not view the site directly." What the
DEIS fails to state, as is consistent throughout, is that those residences between
Newer and Sullivan, all have backyards, sun decks, pool, hot tub, etc. which when
utilized during the warmer months of the year, will be looking directly at the "Bus
Barn." They also fail to mention the residences facing south on 15th between Newer
and Progress, who will also have a view of the "Bus Barns." Therefore the statement
noted above in quotations is in error.
75
NOISE (p.2) "Temporary increase in noise levels during construction." �9
"Increase of overall noise levels from on -site operations."
"Slight increase in overall traffic noise levels."
"Increase in peak noise levels during departure and return of buses at
access points and along 16th Avenue and Sullivan Road."
Taken individually, anyone of these may be tolerable, but when putting them together,
and together they will be, it is absolutely intolerable, and this degree of noise
level is totally inappropriate for a residential area. This section in particular,
must certainly be addressed thoroughlY, completely, and realistically.
RISK OF EXPLOSION OR HAZARDOUS EMISSIONS (p.2) "Fuel and other potentially hazardous
materials stored on- site." Surely, a possible threat such as this, in the middle of
a residential coe.munity, must be responsibly addressed and discussed.
TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION (pp. 2 - 3) "Increase in accident potential between throug 81
vehicles and turning .traf£ic:'. "
"Increase in accident potential between vehicles
and bicycles and pedestrians."
Most of the children in this area attend Adam's Elementary. They are not allowed bus
service, and therefore many of the children walk or ride bicycles to and from school.
There are no side walks. The traffic on 16th is already a major concern of all the
parents. What do you propose our children do when this "bus barn" is completed and
the influx of traffic is at a very dangerous level for a residential area? Has this
high priority concern been honestly addressed?
We could continue to respond to the rest of the titles and sub - titles of the Summary,
but feel that we.have raised some very pertinent questions concerning the lack of ad-
equate and concrete information of many phases of the LEIS.
As taxpayers and property owners in the Central Va]ley School District we beleive
that it is your responsibility and obligation to adequately address realistically the
questions and concerns raised herein.
Brett / IL. Weidman
Sue M. Weidman
76
( �..'t l t.l : L.
•
i
•
Responses to letter from Brett and Sue Weidman
74.' This comment i5 noted. Residents of the area in addition to those
• directly facing the proposed project may be able to view the site from
rear yard decks, rear and side windows, and rear yards. A purpose of
the proposed landscaped berm is to screen the interior of the site
from potential viewers in this area. The use of the site recently
purchased by Fire District 1 for a fire station will also provide a
visual buffer.
• 75. See Appendix B to this FEIS.
76. Alternative site locations investigated by the District are shown on
page 105 and discussed on pages 103 -109 of the DEIS. Also, refer to
Appendices B and C to this FEIS.
• 77. See response 72.
•
•
•
•
78. The present use of the land is mono -crop cultivation. The'introduc-
tion of various landscaping species will provide greater diversity
over the existing use.
79. Noise impacts were discussed on pages 43 -47 of the DEIS. As discussed
in the DEIS, the major permanent noise impact of the proposed project
will be that of buses exiting and entering the site, primarily accel-
erating buses. These buses will generate noise directly opposite ex-
isting and future residences as they enter the street. Activities
within the yard area will be buffered by the proposed earth berms.
With the acquisition for the one -acre site along 16th Avenue, the bus
storage facilities will be moved further from 16th.. While this will
not reduce the noise generated by buses entering and exiting 16th, it
will further reduce off -site noise levels of idling buses. As dis-
cussed in the DEIS, these noise levels will not be continuous but Will
occur during three defined periods of the day during school days.
80. See responses 6; 7, 28, and 31.
81. Measures that can be implemented to reduce pedestrian /vehicular con-
flict include marked pedestrian crossings at intersections, sidewalks,
and pedestrian zone warning signs. In addition, the District monitors
traffic conditions that would potentially affect the safety of its
students. If the District feels, that. a hazard exists, attendance
boundaries can be adjusted or students can be bussed across the haz-
ardous streets. •
77
The following pages include the comments received during a public hear-
ing on the Educational Services Facility draft EIS. The hearing was held
• by officials of the Central Valley School District on December 21, 1981.
The purpose of the nearing was to allow verbal commentary on the draft EIS.
A transcript of the hearing is reproduced in the following section.
Appropriate comments to which responses are given are numbered. The re-
sponses follow the hearing transcript. Generally, only comments which
• specifically address the draft EIS are given responses. Comments express-
ing opinion either for or against the proposed project but not specifically
addressing the EIS are not given a response.
••
•
IV. HEARING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
79
SERVICES CENTER DRAFT EIS HEARING - DECEMBER 21, 1981
Dave Jackman
It's 7:00 P.M., Monday December 21, 1981.
(Hearing Officer's Comment)
I'm Dave Jackman, Director for Facilities with Central Valley School District. I
am also the designated District official responsible for the site development under
the State Environmental Policy Act.
Central Valley School District is considering locating an Educational Services Cen-
ter on a 15.4 acre parcel lying south and west of 16th Avenue's intersection with
Sullivan Road. The Services Center will support operations at each of the District's
various school sites. The Center is described as follows:
The development, upon final completion, will consist of a 74,000
square foot core structure housing central warehousing, building
and grounds maintenance and administration, transportation main-
tenance and administration, a curriculum library, potential kit-
chen and laundry functions; a 20,000 square foot central adminis-
tration building; and four vehicle storage buildings (two each
for 38 buses and two each for 40 small vehicles). The site will
also be developed with a four to eight- foot -high landscaped earth
berm around its perimeter. The site is 15.4 acres in area. The
project will be developed in phases.
The District has prepared a Draft. Environmental Impact Statement, otherwise known
as a Draft EIS, outlining the effects of using the 16th and Sullivan property for
the Services Center. The Draft EIS was published November 3, 1981 and was distri-
buted to various agencies and individuals. Since its distribution, we have rece-
ived several written comments. We have also scheduled tonight's hearing in accord
with Washington Administrative Code 197 -10 -480. Notice of the hearing was mailed
to each recipient of the Draft EIS, and was published in the December 16, 1981
Valley Herald.
Tonight's hearing is for the sole purpose of receiving additional comment on the
Draft EIS. My role is limited to conducting the hearing in an orderly manner. I
cannot respond to questions unless they relate to the conduct of this hearing.
In line with the Washington State Environmental Policy Act, questions or comments
made at this hearing regarding the Draft EIS will be answered in writing when the
Final EIS is prepared. Copies of the Final EIS will be mailed to all of those who
received the Draft EIS, and also to those testifying tonight.
Tonight's proceedings are being recorded. It is important that everyone present
who desires to speak have a chance to do so, and also that an accurate record of
these remarks be kept. I will therefore ask that the audience not comment while
a speaker is speaking, and that the speaker:
- 1. Use the floor microphone.
- 2. State your name and address. Please spell your name if you
feel that would be helpful.
80
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
- 3. Confine remarks or questions to the Draft EIS.
- 4. As a courtesy to others who wish to speak, please confine
your remarks to 10 minutes. You may wish to indicate ag-
reement with points raised by previous speakers rather than
to fully develop each point yourself.
If you feel your comments will extend beyond 10 minutes
please wait until others have had a chance to speak be-
fore you begin your remarks, and
- 5. If you plan to present written material, please do so
at the beginning or at the end of your testimony.
We are now ready to receive your remarks at . the floor microphone.
(Testimony Begins)
Don Stone - Mr. Jackman, for the purposes of the record my name is Don Stone and
• as the sole recipient, I should say individual recipient, of the Draft EIS of the
School District, I feel it only appropriate that I take the opportunity to first
address the record in this matter. I should point out as well that the only other
individual recipient of the EIS was Attorney Stan Schultz, who I'understand is re-
presenting, is acting, in the capacity as attorney for Pir. Tupper or Tupper Realty.
I am not positive of this fact, but other than that to my knowledge and other than
• potentially the couple of copies that were given to Mr. Trunkenbolz, who requested
them through your office, I believe that we are the only individuals prior to this
evening who have had the opportunity of reviewing this particular document.
Now, at the onset, I would note that this document is 145 pages long. It is now
eight minutes after the hour and unfortunately, I understand, that two of the.ra-
• dio stations who were involved in publicizing this particular hearing, incorrect-
ly announced the time as 7:30. Accordingly, I would feel it appropriate to re-
quest that perhaps we take 5 minutes to give the other people in the hearing room
the opportunity to examine the particular document. I believe you did provide 5
or 6 copies at the table, some of which are being circulated at the present time.
If that would be permissible - otherwise I'll be forced to proceed.
Dave Jackman - Mr. Stone, that is certainly fine with me. In the matter of the '
proceeding of this hearing the guidance that we'll follow will be whatever is
convenient for the audience, and gives each of you the maximum opportunity to make
81
your remarks. If the audience in general would like a five minute period to review
the document, that is certainly fine.
Don Stone - Thank you. Just for the purpose of the people in the audience. There
are two copies remaining of the EIS over there, there are a couple being circulated,
and somebody is welcome to my copy. I'll tell you it is 145 pages long and recog-
nizing even if you are speed readers, you're not going to see it in five minutes,
but if you'd like to take a look at it while some of the other speakers are talking,
feel free to do so.
(A five minute intermission occured).
Dave Jackman - We have had a five minute review period for those of you who had not
previously seen our Draft EIS. For the benefit of those folks who joined us in the
last five minutes, I would ask that anyone this evening who would like to offer tes-
timony on this Draft Statement use the microphone. Please give us your name, your
address, please do confine your remarks to the EIS, and also please try to be con-
cise in offering them, because there are a number of folks here who may wish to tes-
tify. Would you please begin your testimony on the statement?
Don Stone - Thank you Mr. Jackman. I don't propose in ten minutes to be able to
discuss in full detail 145 pages of proposed environmental impact, with respect to
this facility. I would first of all point out as the beginning speaker, the scope
of this particular hearing, is provided under the State Environmental Policy Act
and specifically under the Administrative Code of the State of Washington that a
public hearing shall be held when requested by the appropriate number of people re-
siding in the community to be effected by the proposed project.
Incidental to preparation of the EIS, the leading agency in this case, which happens
to apparently be the School District, is required to research in detail various as-
pects of the so called environmental impact that will result from a proposed facility.
The public is given the opportunity to comment not only as to what the effect might
be, say on air and water pollution within the area, it's invited to address every as-
pect of the environment; every aspect of the proposed facility; every aspect of the
proposed need of the facility. Now, as indicated in my written commentary that has
been submitted to the School District previously, I would submit that on behalf of
the citizen group of the area, and specifically that so called the group is the
Concerned C.V. Taxpayers Association. There are several principal concerns which we
feel have not been adequately addressed by the impact statement and which we would
like to comment on here this evening.
82
•
Now, in not any particular order preference, I think we can start off by saying that
the EIS, as submitted, is totally lacking in sufficient detail regarding the test;
the studies conducted by the School District to support the rather conclusory state-
ments as to a negative EIS. Now, specifically, I realize that a provision of the
Washington Administrative Code provides that engineering drawings and technical data •
should be avoided. However, this information is to be kept by the School District
and is to be supplied upon request of any of the requesting agencies, or for that
matter the individuals concerned. Such a request was made by myself on December 7,
to the School District, for any and all relevant data relied upon by the School
District in the formulation of their conclusions regarding noise impact, regarding
any other environmental impact relied upon in the statement. This is for simple •
purpose of referring to this matter to engineering experts who can then try to sort
out the conclusions relied upon by the School District in asserting a negative en-
vironmental impact. To date, there has been no response whatsoever to that. The
•
provisions of the Washington Administrative Codes specifically provide that such
information is to be kept, and such information is to be supplied, at the cost of
reproduction and the cost of mailing and to date nothing has been provided to us
from which we can then derive the basis for the various conclusions.
Now, beyond that principal point, there are a number of specific concerns we have
regarding the impact of this proposed facility on the area where we live. Specifi-
cally'we draw your attention to the provisions of the EIS detailing the noise des/
velopment that will occur in this particular area. We would address the traffic
conditions; we would address the proposed air and water pollution problems likely
to result from the facility; we will point to the fact that it's indicated in
your EIS in excess of 12,000 gallons of fuel,' gas, explosive materials will be
stored in this particular facilities, next to our homes. (I might point out the
present facility stores approximately 5,000 gallons of such fuel); problems affec-
ting light and glare, problems affecting housing development in the area, and fi-
11 nally the site pollution.
I think that we can draw upon first of all, the general statement provided on pag
58 of your EIS stating that "the proposed project will be in contrast to existing
residential land uses adjacent to the north of the site. Additional vehicular
traffic and noise events, as well as the visual character of the site, may be per -
il ceived as adverse impacts by adjacent residents ". Well, Mr. Jackman I would sub-
mit to the School District that first of all it's not just the residences to the
north that will be effected, it's the residences to the east, the residences to the
south and the residences to the west of the proposed site. Anyone familiar with
the site is very familiar that it does contain agricultural land, and that for pur-
poses of development its prime residential use.
In terms of the proposed Comprehensive Plan, or the Comprehensive Plan that was 83
adopted, the area specifically is categorized as Urban under the proposed Compre-
hensive Plan. Under existing zoning ordinances it is required to be agricultural
use. Now, its not to say that the new zoning ordinance will not have additonal
provision for utilization of this area; however, what it does say is that in the
• impact statement submitted there are some very interesting characteristics of this
property which we do feel is adverse to the interest of the people living in the
vicinity.
I would like to address the subject of noise first of all. As pointed out to you O
in the comments submitted and, again, a lot of people in the audience have not had 84
• the opportunity of reviewing this data, but with reference to the noise character-
istics it's anticipated by the School District that the noise level in the area
will increase by a factor of 10 decibels. Now, for purposes of people who are not
familiar with decibel ratings, a decibel is a unit of sound measurement which is
on a logarithmic scale. It does not mean that an increase factor, of 10 means that
• it's simply an increase of sound level of 10 points. That's not'what it means at
all. It means, just for an example, that if you have an increase of 10 decibels,
it's literally a doubling of the existing noise level in the vicinity. A' three
decibel increase results in a doubling of the acoustic energy emitted from the
site. However, because of the so called weighted DBA utilized by the School Dis-
trict, it takes a 10 decibel increase to literally double the noise level as it
• would be perceived by area residents.
Now just to get this in proper comparison, assuming an average, now I would point
out that the EIS indicates that with rapid acceleration the peak level noise from,
say, a bus departing your facility would be between 70 and 75 DBA. To get this in
83
perspective, the average, and I might point out the average noise level as indica- 85
ted in your report was 65 DBA. To get this in perspective, a DBA level of 65 is
sufficient to awake an average person. That means that the people living in the
vicinity of this development can well expect, at 6 a.m. in the morning, to have
sufficient sound produced from the area to literally awake them from their sleep.
Now to some this might be a very desirable alarm clock but I would submit that for
most of us it's not. I would submit that the mitigation factors that you proposed
such as this berm, or I'll call it a bunker, around your proposed facility of any-
where from 4 to 8 feet in height do not adequately reduce the sound characteristics
of the area to make it acceptable to the area. It's indicated in your EIS that
this berm will reduce the sound level DBA's of 5 to 15 levels - 15 points.
I would submit that in a recent similar EIS for the Creston Coal Fired Project de- 88
veloped by the Washington Water Power Company, a noise expert by the name of Tom
Arnold specified that in terms of DBA reduction that a 3 to 5 decibel reduction
would be produced by a planting, literally, of 100 feet depth of trees. Now to
give you an example, that means of 100 feet of trees,and that is even depending on
the type of tree and considering that they are fully developed, it will take a
depth of 100 feet of tree growth to reduce a decibel rating of 3 to 5.
Now your EIS also fails to indicate the net effect of combining sound levels of
multiple buses operating from the facility. It's indicated that you used some sort
of sound measuring device and literally measured the sound as buses 'were departing
from your existing facility. I would submit that in terms of sound, their:acous-
tical engineering, that the net effect of even having two vehicles side'by side
emitting the same sound increases the decibel level by an additional 3. So, if you
take all of these things into consideration and the concept that there may be 48
buses right now operating out of this facility, as many as four times a day, you're
going to be talking about a sound level generation approximating 70 to 75 DBA. I
would submit that for a residential area that's totally unacceptable.
Beyond the noise to be generated from the facility, there is a factor of. traffic. 88
As pointed out in your EIS, it's your assertion that under the six year plan, sup-
posedly, for the Spokane County, which is already behind schedule, the development
that you propose at 16th and Sullivan would require expansion of Sullivan Road to
four or five lanes from the area of Sprague and south to 32nd. It's further indi-
cated in your EIS that you would anticipate the widening of 16th Avenue to four
lanes from Sullivan Road clear to Mica- Dishman Highway. Now we submit that that
type of development, simply to accommodate your facility, is not justified. We
feel that the introduction to traffic to the area which will result from your
buses, the introduction of cross traffic to the area and specifically in an area
which is not designed to accomodate that, is an infliction of detriment to the
entire development of the Valley.
Those of us who have lived here for a period of time, and I submit that I've only
been in the Valley since 1965, we're well aware of the traffic patterns that have
evolved over the years and specifically the area of Sprague. The County has look-
ed at that area for a long period of time and presently is considering even a de-
velopment along 4th Avenue to provide a parallel route to Sprague with the princi-
pal purpose of confining traffic to those particular areas. The other arterial
development in the Valley has primarily been in the area of Argonne and the area
of Pines Road which intersects with State Highway 27. Sullivan Road has been re-
garded as an arterial and is, in fact, designated as an arterial and is, in fact,
used quite extensively from the area of 16th and proceeding north to the freeway.
84
However, beyond 16th it's been traditionally an agricultural suburban area; an 89
i area that does not provide access to the hills that extend to the south, and we
would like to keep it that way in terms of the traffic and congestion that is like -
ly to develop. We don't want to have another Maple Street, another Monroe, for
that matter another Argonne or for that matter another Pines in adjacent to our
homes. As far as the cross traffic, we certainly don't want any more Sprague Ave-
nues extending right across the heart of the residential area of the Valley, name-
ly, 16th and, potentially, even 32nd. We feel that your EIS indicates that at the
time this facility is to be fully constructed and at the time that it is to be
0 fully utilized, that you're going to have approximately 1800 vehicles going in and
out of that facility on a daily basis. We feel that is unacceptable. We feel that
is an intollerable infliction upon our community and we don't want it.
Now I know that there are a lot other things and I suppose the thing that gets to O
me the most is the fact that there in the EIS it's clearly obvious that the School 9U
10 District does not have a plan to deal with the various other problems likely to re
sult. As a for instance, light and glare. Pages 48 of your EIS indicates that
light produced by 24 hour lighting, or at least evening lighting, will produce light
in the area. On a night like tonight when we start about 4:30 with darkness, it will
be a lighted area there throughout a good portion of the day. There is also the
glare to be emitted from school buses and trucks entering the facility and exiting
• the facility.
Your only mitigating force in that particular impact, to mitigate that impact, has 91
to do with telling us that if a proper plan is devised it should have a minimal im-
pact. Well, what does that tell us? It tells us absolutely nothing...In_terms of
effect on housing of the area; it's stated on page 67 of your EIS that it will have
• no effect on housing in the area other than precluding the housing development on
the site. Well, I would submit Mr. Jackman, that that is a total deregation of the
intent of the EIS, as it is devised, under the Washington Administrative Code. It
will have effect on housing in that area, it will have effect of commercial develop-
ment, and your only response to that has to do with the fact that well - that will
be something that somebody will have to consider at a later date.
•
•
•
•
Our objection to the introduction of your bus barn and, for that mater, the ware= 92
house facility, or the commercial laundry facility, or, for that matter, the com-
mercial kitchen facility is that that is of the type that can be easily regarded
as commercial development and will be used as a source for others to seek appli-
cation for commercial development in that zone. In essence, you opened the door.
In terms of housing in the area, it's no great secret that already there are pro-
posals in mind to develop what is known as "buffer zones" around your proposed
facility. Now a buffer zone to the uninitiated has to do with apartments and con-
dominiums and things of that nature, multi - family housing or, for that matter,
commercial complexes which are used to buffer an industrial or commercial area
from residential use. We who live in this community do not want that kind of de-
velopment. We want orderly development. We want places where our kids can grow
up and live in a fashion where we are not concerned about their personal safety
every time they get close to the main arterial where we have a great deal of traf-
fic with no provision for sidewalks; where there is really no provision for regu-
lation of traffic; where, in point of fact, it's not very well patroled and any-
body who drives that daily knows that there are cars passing each other right in
front of your proposed facility.
85
Now there are lots of other things that I can't even begin to talk about them in
10 minutes. I would propose that in terms of specifically addressing your impact
statement that you provide me with the necessary detail, the necessary data, whet-
her it be perculation test, whether it be decibel data as to your sound emissions,
and the test that you did so that we can have them appropriately evaluated by en-
gineers who are capable of fully responding to your statement. You know, it doesn't
do a whole lot of good to sit there and present us with a 145 pages of material, a
lot of which is literally stock material and which really tells us nothing other
than that the School District finds, either that there is no environmental impact
or, for that matter, that there are mitigation factors available to reduce the ne-
gative impact.
About those buses, specifically, the only mitigating measure other than this bunker 93
around your facility has to do with telling your bus drivers not to accelerate and
decelerate in a quick fashion. You propose that by doing this you can reduce the
sound level generated from 70 to 75 decibels dowito 62. Precisely, Mr. Jackman,
that's the problem. We feel that with however many buses are going to go in and
out of there everyday that bus drivers will not have adequate concern for either
the safety of our children or, for that matter, the noise that will have to be
endured by members of the community. We feel that your study is inadequate as to
the noise factor; we feel that it's inadequate as to the traffic flow factor; we
feel that you have not made proper measures for storing of explosive hazards, or,
for that matter, to insure us that we don't have further pollution into the aqua -
fier.
I know that I have probably exceeded my 10 minutes by a few minutes and I will cer-
tainly stay around to say my two bits worth after other people get the opportunity.
Thank you.
Dave Jackman - Thank you, Mr. Stone. Do we have others who care to comment on the
statement?
Jerry Trunkenbolz - Good evening Mr. Jackman and members of the audience. For the
record my name is Jerry Trunkenbolz. I live at 15307 E. 16th. I am currently a
cospokesman for the Central Valley Concerned Taxpayers group. I previously submit-
ted a letter dated December 1, 1981 concerning several points that I felt the.Draft
EIS was in error or inadequate on. I have a few additional points tonight to make
regarding that EIS.
The first point concerns pages 39 through 47. This is a paragraph relating to noi-
se. The Draft EIS states on page 41 that the noise levels at 16th range from 53 to
65 decibels with an average of 60 decibels, and that the individual noise peaks
were from 61 to 76 decibels with the average being 65. The Statement goes on to say
that existing bus yard only experiences an early morning warmup noise level of be-
tween 58 and 60 decibels, and that these readings were inflated due to reflection
from metal buildings. Many citizens live on or near 16th and Sullivan and cannot
understand how a fleet of 20 to 40 school buses warming up in the early morning
hours, at high revolution per minute on the engines, can make the same or less
noise than the average of one automobile every 3 to 5 minutes that currently tra-
vels 16th. This seems incomprehensible to us and we therefore feel that the data
in the Draft EIS is in error and should be recomputed. Additionally, it is stated
on page 45 that the total bus departures from the proposed site will be 75 to 90
per day, including the evening traffic. But on page 73 the table shows that the
anticipated departures to be a total of 180 departures per day. Whichever figure
86
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
C
•
•
is erroneous should be changed to reflect the true amount. Also, page 45 states 96
that only 12 to 15 of these 180 departures will use 16th street. Surely this fig-
ure is in error since the stated purpose of placing the buses at 16th and Sullivan
is to give a more direct and centralized access to the remainder of the District
population that lies to the west. Therefore, to obtain the economies that the
Draft EIS claims, far more buses will need to travel 16th in a westward direction.
Please reevaluate this number and change it to reflect the true number of buses
that will probably travel 16th so as to allow for a proper analysis of the project
impact.
Under mitigating measures for this section we question the possibility and feasi-
bility of limiting the construction hours. This is the hours that the construction O
workers will work, on the proposed project, to 8 a.m: to 6 p.m. I myself know of
no contractors or construction workers that work those hours. A typical starting
time seems to be somewhere between 5:30 and 6:30. How will this 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
curfew be made possible and supervisied? Also, how much will the portable noise 96
barriers cost the District? The Draft EIS indicates that portable noise barriers
will be posted around the construction area. I haven't seen what portable noise
barriers look like so please let us know through the Draft EIS. Also, we feel that 99
you need a more detailed analysis on just how the District plans to police the bus
drivers to see that they. accelerate "gently" on 16th. This seems an insurmountable
task, thus, its reduction of noise should probably not be taken into account in the
Draft EIS.
The next point is.on page 47, paragraph 7 relating to light and glare. The Draft
EIS is totally devoid of data concerning exactly what kind of lighting system
proposed project -is going to employ. How can a true environmental impact of light-
* ing and glare be assessed without this information?
Next point regards pages 48 through 58. This is a paragraph concerning land use.
This section of the Draft ES has several omissions that I feel should be included.
They are: The first point - the discussion of density possibilities in the urban
and suburban classification of the comprehensive plan as stated in the Draft EIS
• is actually correct. However, the Draft EIS does not take note of the policy and
guidelines stated by the County in its Final EIS for the comprehensive plan. I
reference specifically to the response by Mr. Gary Fergen to Item 10 of the Sep-
tember 24, 1980 letter by Mrs. Joan Honnican to Mr. Fergen. The question posed
Mr. Fergen was whether density determinations were to be made in the future based
on existing densities or allowable densities. Mr. Fergen responded by saying that
• the guidelines are intended to relate to "maintaining existing environmental con-
ditions '.' This policy is necessary to insure that the Comprehensive Plan is not
seen as a tool to avoid a large history of past Washington and Federal case law
and statutory law making spot zoning unconstitutional. Therefore, even though
the plan allows for eventual densities, up to the maximum stated, this cannot be
read to mean that these maximum densities are allowable at once, at any point
• within the classification. Such request for maximum or increased density will
still have to be compatible with "existing environmental conditions." .Further
since there is absolutely no similar high density, commercial or light industrial
usage closer than nearer Sprague Avenue, isn't a proposed project asking for high-
er density usage than is available under the existing Comprehensive Plan? Thus,
necessitating an amendment to that Plan, to be in compliance with it? How much
• will it cost to get the Plan amended and what are the chances that this amendment
ill be granted?
87
My next point: This section of the Draft EIS speaks to the probability that im-
provements to Sullivan and 16th will exert a pressure on nearby landowners to con-
vert usage of their land to higher density and commercial uses. This theory is
very true in most cases; in those cases however, the existing low density usage is
generally older and rundown single family residences, where street improvement soon
cause the highest and best use of the land to become a higher density, as a result
of low revenues being generated by these homes and the low total cost experienced
by the demolition of these homes.
The situation between 4th and 16th on Sullivan is uniquely different than the usual
situation described above. Much of the property here involves large, new expensive
residences that are generally owner lived in. Therefore, the cost to demolish these
homes and construct new commercial buildings is going to be very high for many years
to come. The total loss will be so great that the highest andJbest use of the land
will remain single family residences, so to allow commercial and light industrial
uses of the proposed site will not provide the alleged pressure to convert to high
density. The Draft EIS should be rewritten to cover this, which will allow for a
proper analysis of this lack of positive impact.
Point 3. The Draft EIS states that County approval of the proposed project can
have sufficient conditions attached concerning that property so as to remove the
precedent setting impact to the nearby area. Conditions such as these can be es-
tablished by the County, but it is essential to note that these conditions have
no legal effect on nearby property.
The fact that a project of this size and magnitude may exist on the subject proper
ty immediately causes the highest and best use of nearby vacant land to become high
er density. In other words, multi - family, light industrial and commercial, since
a feasibility of building single family residences nearby is drastically reduced.
In other words, who would want to build a new home of average cost of $80,000 to
$120,000 next to a high density user, such as the proposed project? Thus the fact
that the Educational Services Center would be where proposed, creates a stong pre-
cedent that can hardly be overlooked by County decision makers when nearby owners
of vacant land applied for permits for apartments, commercial and light industrial
usage. In effect, what is probable to then happen is that this area of the Central
Valley will become a new commercial and industrial park. Shouldn't the Draft EIS
be changed to include this dramatic impact of such an increase in high density
usage to be able to more probably evaluate the true environment impact?
My next point relates to pages 100 through 112 of the Draft EIS, and this is a
paragraph relating to alternatives. On page 103 of the Draft EIS, it is stated
that the expansion of support facilities can be accomplished in three ways, in-
cluding: 1) the use of existing facilities and expansion by means of satellite
locations; 2) acquisition of the new site to contain the entire proposed project;
3) leaving certain facilities where they currently are and acquiring new sites
for the remaining facilities in need of expansion. According to these alterna-
tives the District recognizes that various possibilities are present, however,
the remainder of the section indicates that the District only chose to evaluate
those ' sites that could contain the entire proposed project and discarded sites
that were not seen as large enough for the entire project.
Why has the District not analyzed those sites that may be large enough to accommo-
date certain facilities in need of expansion, yet not large enough for the whole
project? How can the District properly analyze the possible alternatives when it
has set its criteria this high? Shouldn't the District investigate the availabi-
88
lity of such smaller parcels of property to get a proper perspective? Further,
why were there no figures relating to the cost of upgrading present facilities for
maximum utilization and the addition of small sites for the excess? The Draft EIS
seems to take it for granted that the 16th and Sullivan site is the only feasible
site with disregard for viable alternatives; since the Draft EIS is nearly devoid
of data concerning these alternatives. On page 104, and in numerous other refer-
ences throughout the Draft EIS, references made to the fact that "present parcels
of land used and owned by the District for transportation and other functions have
a large potential for commercial value ", and I put that in quotes.
ID It seems to be the plan of the District to sell off this commercial land for a tidy
profit, then place these essentially commercial uses in an agriculturally zoned
area, next to existing residences and pocket the profit. Why is the District en-
gaging in land speculation with taxpayers' dollars? Why is it forcing a few land-
owners in the District to suffer the consequences of this profit taking through
lower property values to these landowners? Isn't this essentitally a violation of
1 due process and unconstitutional due to their being a taking of private property
without full and just compensation? Shouldn't these problems be discussed in the
Draft EIS so that their impact can be ascertained?
On pages 104 through 106 the Draft EIS indicates that the effect of impact of the
proposed project will be essentially the same whether the land in question is cur-
• rently zoned agricultural or restricted industrial or commercial. The Sprague
corridor, which includes the site of 4th and Conklin, has slowly experienced a
natural transition to higher density usage. With this in mind, how can it be said
that the impact of such a project would be the same as it would in the middle of a
purely residential and agricultural area? Surely such statement is in error and
needs to be corrected. The Draft EIS goes on to state, on page 109, that the envi-
• ronmental cost of consolidating all facilities on site "would not appear to be sig-
nificantly different under either approach," and this was contrasting that to sa-
tellite sites. This statement is totally contradiced on page 111 where the Draft
EIS states, "Separating the various facilities on different sites would have two
advantages from an environmental aspect; first, it would reduce the concentration
of impacts on a single area; second, the most traffic and noise intensive facili-
• ties could be located in an area where fewer residences would be impacted." Cer-
tainly the concentration of impacts theory seems more realistic. Shouldn't the
Draft EIS be changed to eliminate this inconsistency?
That is the sum of my comments and I choose to submit that also in written form
so that it could be of the record and be analyzed in the Final EIS. Thank you.
Dave Jackman - Thank you, Mr. Trunkenbolz. Do we have others this evening who
would like to comment?
•
John Barrett, Sr. - My name is John Barrett, 2306 S. Vera Crest, Veradale, The
• thing that I would like to talk about and bring out is that no where have I seen
in the newpapers, radiio, television or anywhere else what this project is costing.
We have never had a chance to look at whatever you have. So far, I don't know of
any figures. I am sure from what I have heard about it; what I've read about it
is that the buildings there - by the time you get through your three or four
phases, whatever it's going to take to complete this, you're talking about several
. millions of dollars. Which in turn, if the funding is proper, I don't know how
much of the money that the Board has already set up for this building, but I'm
sure its under a million dollars. This being true then there is going to have to
be at least two bonds probably set up and passed to be able to fund this project.
89
We're asking that the total amount of money that's going to be expended for this
be released to the newspapers, radio and television, so that we can have some idea
of what it would cost.
The next thing I would like to bring out is that for the past year, year- and -a -half
the enrollment of students has been going down, not up. With the present site that
you folks have and the administration building that you folks have, that you have
taken care of the strongest enrollment that probably this Valley is going to see
for a number of years to come. This also brings out the question as to why you have
to have new buildings to be able to take care of something that you can already take
care of with your present buildings. The next thing is talking about the adminis-
trators building a bigger administration building to take care of the administrators.
This would indicate that there is going to be a number of more administrators hired.
Why is this taking place when the school teachers have been laid off and the other
school employees have been laid off? Now we have finally found money to where we
can go ahead and build a building and hire more administrators and still cut the
teachers when we're in a depression. I would think that if the facilities that you
do have now are competent: then this thing should be put off for at least a number
of years before going ahead with this new site. Thank you very much.
Dave Jackman - Thank you, Mr. Barrett. Other Comments?
Frank Mutton - My name is Frank Mutton. I live on E. llth, right off of Sullivan.
(E. 15622 - llth)
Dave Jackman - Sir, could you spell your name for me please.
Frank Mutton - Frank Mutton, M- U- T- T -O -N, just plain old sheep. I recently moved •
here, back to Spokane, from Olympia, Washington. I went into and looked for resi-
dence throughout this area and I picked that area because it was residential far-
ming area. Later on this school bus situation on 16th came up. Well, I called the
School District at that time and I talked to a. gentleman:, I forget his name now,
and I said what if the people don't want it? He said, "Well, we'll buy the proper-
ty anyway, it's a good investment ". At that time I had no knowledge that the School •
was in an investment type situation. Now, the thing that I would say, being a re-
tired deputy sheriff, I know what school boards and bus barns and that bring a lot
of unsavory individuals into a neighborhood. I remember many cases of gas siphoning
from school buses and this and that and the other thing. I don't know, being a tax-
payer and that, and not having any children going to school I'm willing to pay my
50% of my taxes for the School Board. I don't believe in a bus barn in a residen- •
tial area and what I have understood and what I have received from the individual
telephone calls and things, it seems like to me that no matter what the individ-
ual who are paying taxes, the School Board is going to put that bus barn there.
I don't see what the difference between 16th or over on the other side of Sprague
near the Industrial Park where there are industries. Why do they have to come into
a residential farming community and put a school bus barn? •
The other things that they are contemplating on putting in there...there is going
to be traffic from that along with the school buses and I just don't think the tax-
payers should have to put up with widening Sullivan and thingsof that nature just
because of that industrial type situation out there. I know that law enforcement.
You put up that type of facility and there are going to be more incidences within
that area. I know it. I don't know why the School Board didn't attempt to find
some other place where there are no residences, like over by the Humane Society.
90
•
I'm sure there is some land over through there that could be a bus barn. They say
they do not wish to come across Sprague, but yet they will come across Sprague to
get over on that side of the town anyway. I just don't see anything, or why it
has to be in that or has to be put in that area. That's my whole comment. I know
that if the school bus barn goes there, which I'm sure it probably will the way
they're going about it, that my taxes are not going to go for school anymore as far
as I'm concerned, because I won't pay for that because that's not an educational
thing. I would rather see more teachers in the classroom with the children than
seeing a bus barn or a laundry facility or an administrative facility that all
they're doing is going and sitting in an office and not putting any input whatso-
ever to that child's education. I cannot see it. That's my view of it and I'm
sure my County Commissioner will find out about my view. Thank you very much.
Dave Jackman - Thank you, sir. Do we have other comments?
4D Linda Tompkins - My name is Linda Tompkins. I live at S. 1411 Century Road. I
personally requested a copy of the EIS and spent a day reviewing the measures that
the District is proposing and I also have some concerns about some deficiencies
that I see in the EIS. This is also in regard to a letter that I did write to the
Board and it's just in the way of a reiteration. I am concerned about the storage
facilities that are proposed on site,for not only fuel, but hazardous chemicals.
• The EIS states that appropriate storage facilities will be provided but does not
go into any detail, which I believe would be absolutely necessary before we can
evaluate the impact of the area. Further, if the County is not able to improve
Sullivan and is not able to improve 16th, as provided by the EIS, it would appear
that it would be necessary to see the mitigating factors that the District would
be going through reduce the traffic, the noise and the hazards on current streets
• that are plainly inadequate for the proposed use of the site. .
In addition, the possibility of "wire fencing around the area" has been included
in the EIS, but no specific clarification as to actual placement of the fencing.
Will it be on top of these bunkers; will it be close to the warehouses? Visually
what sort of, if any, effect are these fences going to have.
No actual on -site air quality monitoring was done at 16th and Sullivan to evaluate
the existing carbon monoxide levels. Extensive discussion was undertaken with re-
gards to the University City area and the comparison between University City, now
and later. In order to get a valuable measurement of the existing on -site condi-
tions, now and after the proposed development, I would say that an actual on -site
• air quality monitoring is absolutely necessary. Further, traffic resulting from
this project was sited as per 1995 conditions and yet, according to the EIS, Phase
II could be in effect as early as 1984, in which case that leaves half of the buses
proposed would be in full operation. It would appear that the EIS in order to be
adequate, would have to indicate the impact of the traffic and the noise from 1984
not 1995.
•
•
•
•
Finally, and of highest concern: Is the reduced fuel consumption that is purpor-
ted to meet a net savings of less than $1000 annually at the completion of the
project? Again, as it was mentioned earlier, there is absolutely no projection as
to the final cost of the project. We have approximately $70,000 to $100,000 pro -
jected or necessary to complete Phase I and according to the EIS, $2,000,000 is
IP estimated for Phase II, with no projection for Phase III. We're at least talking
in the multi - million dollar price range the cost of the total project land it
would seem to me that a reduced fuel consumption of less than $1,000 annually is
91
hardly a justification for a project of this cost.
Further, I believe that the citizens that you have before you now, are vitally
concerned with education, and are vitally concerned with economic planning, and
very responsible planning on the part of the Board and, as such, we would request
that the Board take a look at the study and not use it as some sort of a post hoc
rationalization or decision that has already been made. Please do spend some
time and in good faith listen to our comments. Thank you.
Dave Jackman - Thank you, Mrs. Tompkins.
Ed Ranniqer - My name is Ed Ranniger, I live at 2306 Carnine Court. I see by your
EIS, which I got ahold of tonight, that you're basing a lot of this on the recon-
struction of Sullivan. I'm in the road construction business and am aware of how
difficult it is to get money to rebuild roads in the whole State of Washington.
Mr. Turner informed me that it would probably be 5 to 10 years before Sullivan
would be rebuilt at this present time because of the lack of money to finance it.
I drive downSullivan Road two or three times a day back and forth to work. The
traffic there now on the rush hour is unbearable, especially around the school be-
cause of school buses. Another thing that hasn't been brought out is the fact of
the smell from diesel smoke. I also have a fleet of trucks and equipment that is
quite large and when these trucks start up, mainly the trucks, they do emit a
large amount of black smoke and a heavy diesel smell. I don't think very many
people realize how bad that is because diesel is now coming into its own. It's
coming into car engines, they are finding a lot of trouble with it as far as
health purposes. I don't think anybody has looked into that, I think it should be
looked into. -
Richard Solberg - I'm Richard Solberg, I live at 2210 S. Vera Crest Drive. First,
I want to support what the knowledgeable people have said ahead of me. I picked
up my copy of the Impact Statement during the day. I was overwhelmed by its.mag-
nitude. Very briefly and quickly I looked through the thing trying to find what
this was all about. Most of my prior information came from the news sources and
I was certainly expecting to see information in here concerning the necessity of
a bus garage, because this thing was initially presented to us as a need of a bus,
maintenance, storage facility. I have not identified in here yet where it speci-
ficallyladdresses the need of bus storage other than stating that they will be
able to use the added facility when it is available to them.
As I note on page 13, Phase I has nothing to do at all with bus storage. What I
am standing to address is the credibility of the Administration and leadership
of District 356 in passing this off to us as a bus facility and that is not real-
ly what they have done. When I think back, we have lived in the Valley 16 years
now, and during that 16 years I can recall the building of the current Adminis-
tration Building on south Bowdish. I would submit that if their long range plan-
ning is good for only 15 years we better check our hold card. That was given to
us as along range facility. We would not be coming back to build a multi - million
dollar facility in what has become prime residential area. I think the time has
come for the Directors and the Administration to call spades spades. If they want
to say "we messed up," let's say we messed up but don't tell us we need a bus ga-
rage and then show me on page 13 where they're building another administration
building. I was - I have been in the Administration Building before today on both
the business and also personal school - related business and I've never seen a need
experienced to me that they did not have sufficient to take care of the demands of
the time. If all we are trying to do is build one more ivory tower in this day
92
L
and age. Business has had to cut back, everyone is cutting back, personal families
are cutting back. I think maybe it is time that the School District also consider
where their dollars are coming from and address it from that standpoint. Thank you.
Dave Jackman - Thank you, sir. Any other remarks tonight: Anyone else?
Don Stone - Mr. Jackman, I wonder if we again can take about a 5 minute recess at
this point.
Dave Jackman - Certainly.
(A five minute recess followed during which Mr. Stone spoke to the audience en-
couraging those present to address the record,) Dave Jackman - It is now 8:18. I'd like to call our hearing back into session
ID please. May we have any other remarks that you would like to make on this Draft
EIS.
Bob Gustafson - My name is Bob Gustafson. I live at S. 1904 Vera Crest Drive.
I recently moved into that area, so I'm not probably as well, informed as
some of the other, people here tonight. There seems to be a couple major points
that need to be made. One is that it seems that this has been not well conceived;
not very well planned and put together and thirdly, it would seem that there is
gross arrogance on the part of the School Board to continue to pursue this parti-
cular location and the facility in general. Thank you.
Dave Jackman - Thank you, Mr. Gustafson.
O
Dave McDermott - My name is Dave McDermott, I live on 1203 Progress. I would just
like to comment the fact that I moved to Veradale to get into a residential area
and to get away from large buildings and large concrete structures and whatnot.
It would upset me greatly to think that I would 'have to pay taxes to have a build-
ing built that I feel would be an eyesore and would personally upset me to have
O next door to me. Thank you.
Dave Jackman - Thank you, sir.
Andrew Lynch - My name is Andrew Lynch and I live at 14913 E. 20th in the Valley.
While I'm new to Spokane - we've been here for five years - let me offer an ex-
* perience of living in California. I think what you people are doing today is the
same thing that those folks did thirty and forty years ago. I think you're very
short sighted in urban planning and it will come back to haunt you. I've only
had about 3 or 4 minutes to read your EIS but what comes to my mind is my seven
year old daughter. She's extremely precious to me and it seems that not too long
ago on the corner of Pines and Sprague a young man was killed. Now it was his
• fault clearly, he was 11 or 12 years old and he ran under the tandem wheels - on
his bicycle - of a very large truck. I have yet to see that kind of information
addressed in your study. You take Sullivan Road, which is not frequently used,
as it will be used when you put your bus barn in. Thank you.
• Bert Ewers - My name is Bert Ewers, N. 206 Adams Road. I would like to say this,
that I hope that the School Board does give careful consideration to everything
that has been said here tonight. I think that there is a great deal of depth to
it and much consideration has to be dealt with before a decision is made. The
first thing that I heard when I first heard about this; I heard, of course, the
93
figure of $10 million dollars. Looking at this I see you're talking about 46
vehicles and that figures out to $200,000 dollars per garage. In reading fur-
ther, though, I see that you are going to put up a warehouse too and some offices,
so that relieves me there. A $200,000 garage is a pretty good garage. One other
thing that I don't see in here is this: Has the - I don't expect you to answer
this but I would like it answered - In a quick review of this there has been no
consideration given, as far as I see, to having a contract services for bus pick-
ing up children and delivering them to and from school. I would imagine there
are some businesses in the area who would be happy to accept a contract to do
that and provide these same housing or bus or garages for the buses and their ve-
hicles too. Thank you.
Dave Jackman - Anyone else?
Jeff Waters - Jeff Waters, at South 1519 Limmerick. We decided to move to the
Valley. We wanted someplace that had half -way clean air. I'm an asthmatic - my
children are. We've had circumstances of taking her to the emergency room sever-
al times. So this climate or this area was ideal, plus I grew up around range.
I want someplace where my kids could have animals. The house where we live is on
a little over an acre property. We have chickens, rabbits, and a horse. My un-
derstanding of all this pollution of noise as well as the air, I'm going to have
some dead animals and sick kids. I would definitely like to go on record as being
dead set against this.
Also, the cost. Everybody is cutting back, all businesses, school enrollment is
dropping, with Kaiser having problems and other big businesses in our area there
is quite a few people moving out. I can't see where we need an additional facil-
ity. I can't see where our tax dollar needs to go there, and in their study I
know they're looking at this land was cheaper then buying an already commercial
property of the north side of the river. But did they take into consideration
the law suits they're going to get by going into this residential, the delays
they're going to have? I think it was totally ill planned, looking for specula-
tion figuring they could ramrod it past the people. It's not going to be done.
Thank you.
Dave Jackman - Thank you, sir. Other comments?
Dan Carlson - Dan Carlson, S. 1419 Century Road. I object very much to having to
live next to a facility like this and I object to the eventual depreciation of my
property. If I would have wanted to live next to a commercial development facility
like this I would have saved myself a lot more money and mortgage payments and paid
a lot less taxes to the School Board. It's ironic that the taxes that I pay in the
higher property value of my property goes to a facility that in turn depreciates
for the values of my property. .
Dave Jackman - Thank you. Other comments.
Delores Solberg - My name is Delores Solberg our address is S. 2210 Vera Crest
Drive. We've lived in Central Valley School District for 16 years, we've had our
fourth child graduate from Central Valley High School. We travel Sullivan Road
two and three times a day back and forth from work and I violently resent the
School Board trying to ramrod this down our throats when obviously the residents
of the area are totally against it. Thank you.
Dave Jackman - Thank you.
94
Joann Day - Joann Day, S. 1113 Rothchford Drive. I'm very emotional about this
issue, both for all the reassons that are being stated, the cost, the higher traf-
fic, but on a more personal level for me, we've lived in the Valley for 15 years
and we were just recently forced out of our home, over off of Pines Road. We
lived there, we moved there in 1970, and it was a lovely residential area at that
time. The County changed the zonings. The first thing you know we had "Resident-
ial Office ", they called it, up and down Pines Road, which meant doctor offices,
very loo level type of usage. The first thing you know there were commercial en-
terprises moving in. They were against the zoning laws, but the County does not
lb have the power, nor the time, the men, the man hours needed to police these kinds
of things. Even though we called and complained they said, "we're sorry, we're
vertually -- -our hands are tied to do anything about this." So, we had these kind
of commercial businesses very soon following on the heels of this zone change.
The next thing that happened was because it was such a nice wide four lane road
lb now, instead of two, that there was a good arterial access for - apartment hbuses
to go in. The next thing we knew we had a nice lively complex at the end of our
street. We were very upset because we were not notified. It just kind of surrep-
titiously started construction one day. You put up with these things and you
think, "Oh tisk, that's too bad, I wish I had known, I might of said something ",
but it was too late, it was already under construction. The next thing we knew
they were down on the corner arresting men for assault and rape and I have school
aged children. I have a teenaged daughter. These are the kinds of elements that
were brought in. It was one insidious little thing, after another. It's a very
deep concern for me because we moved into our acre lot over here, we too, have
the animals. I want to keep that kind of a country. essence. You can't do it with
the creeping and croaching commercial establishments that will follow your bus
barn. I've lived through it once and I don't want to be forced out again. Thank
you.
Dave Jackman - Thank you, Mrs. Day. What else do we have?
Don Stone - Mr. Jackman with your permission. I indicated that I'd like to get my
• final two bits in, and I don't mean to cut everybody off, but, I think I'd like
to review a little bit just where we are in terms of this particular facility as
it was proposed.
Dave Jackman - For the record this is Mr. Don Stone.
95
ID Don Stone - Excuse me, yes, my address S. 1812 Vera Crest. Now, in terms of the
facility itself, I somewhat regret that the model is not here for examination by
the people who came out on this cold night so they can see what this thing looks
like. It is down at the Administration Building and I would submit that of course
it's just a model and there's no guarantee that what you see there is what you get.
In terms of what is proposed at this particular facility, if you could envision
• for a moment a 15.1 or 5 acres, whatever it is; of land at the corner of 16th and
Sullivan which has a portion of it sort of cut out, it's around the area, I think,
of that little house, if anybody's been out there, a portion of which that land
belongs to Vera Power. Around this proposed facility it's indicated that the
School District is intent upon building a 4 to 8 foot berm of earth, which then
411 of will be covered with various types of ornamental shrubs and that sort
of thing with access points on 16th and on Sullivan Road. In terms of what this
thing is going to look like, its been proposed that the buildings constructed on
the site would be of concrete construction, and that with the combination of buil-
dings and parking lot, that a total of 79% of the surface of that 15 point what-
ever acres would literally be covered with asphalt or building. Around this pro-
posed facility, in addition to this bunker, will be a security fence. The School
District most recently, at its existing facility, constructed at taxpayers ex-
pense, a similar type of fence. Its a high chain link variety and, if I recall,
it has some wire around the top of it but I can't be absolutely certain
of that. However, I don't think it takes a great deal of imigination to see some-
where on this proposed facility, whether it be on top of the bunker, in front of
bunker, or behind the bunker, a steel fence of the chain link variety at least 10
to 12 feet and perhaps with the usual three barbed wires around the top of it.
The facility as it's proposed, of course the concept has been pointed out, has
changed from the time of the initial proposal. Our understanding was that the
School District had initially proposed a simple bus barn which would be inserted
on agricultural land in this vicinity and the purposes of this bus barn was to
supplement, or actually replace the existing facility which, again, if people
haven't seen it, because I would submit there are a lot of people who haven't
seen this site right now because it's totally out of the view of the average per-
son. You'll see that it's located immediately adjacent to the present Adminis-
tration Building and that this is where the buses go in and out at least four
times daily. When it became apparent that the, some sort of an application had
been made for acquisition; well first of all for proposed use of this land for
a bus barn and for that matter when it became apparent that the School. District,
for the first time, was announcing the purchase of this proposed land, a noon
meeting was held by the School Board, on a work day without notice; essentially, .
to people in the area, of the fact that what was going to take place. At that
point in time, I know I took off from my day of work and went before the School
Board to, basically, to tell them that as far as what had been advised regarding
the use of this particular land for this type facility, that they did not comply
with existing zoning law. Of course, Mr. Jackman you, in turn, had indicated to
the Board that you had spoken with Mr. Gary Thomason and had obtained tentative
approval of this particular site and, of course, it was advanced at this point in
time that was being built here was not just a bus barn but a so called Educational
Services Center. Specifically, the Center as it was now known or for that matter,
"the campus;" as the School Distict would like to refer to this now, consist not
only of the bus barn but a central kitchen facility, a curriculum library, a com-
mercial laundry facility, a central warehousing facility, a building maintenance
facility and a district administration building. In course of talking this over
with appropriate personnel in the Planning and Zoning Commission, it became ap-
parent that as far as precedent for the type of project that was being proposed,
that the only precendent existing in Spokane County was in the Cheney area, where
the (Cheney) School District had constructed a bus barn immediately adjacent to
the administration building. There was no provision anywhere in the County for
construction of a bus barn facility on the type of acreage that was being proposed
in this particular instance. We feel it doesn't take a great amount of deduction .
that the so called "need" that was generated by the School District was, in fact,
to support the building of the bus barn and not to build facilities which it in-
deed needs for present use or for that matter future use.
I'm not just talking off the top of my hat in terms of what the facility either is
going to be or for that matter what the need is. If you look back, I have before
me some staff studies that were done by the School District dating back, I believe,
I don't know when you first joined the School District Mr. Jackman, but at least
let's just take the warehousing facility.
96
Now, the warehouse, for people who don't know what that is, this is a place where
the School District's supplies will be centrally stored. We will have truck traf-
fic visiting the site, probably daily, and this will be the place where trucks, in
turn, will then distribute the various supplies that are now stored in the various
t schools to the sites around the District. As late as 1979 the subject of central-
ized warehousing was, in fact, discussed, and it was stated at that time - and the
date of this staff study, I might add, just for the pruposes of the record, April
17, 1979 - it was addressed to Mr. David Jackman and Plr. Mikesell from Mike Gordon,
who is the Purchasing Agent for the District warehouses that presently exist. Sum-
mary of the opinion page 3: "It is obvious that there would not be a sufficient
dollar savings in the cost of supplies to pay for the acquisition cost of a cen-
tral warehouse, as well as the operational cost - at best. The dollar savings
and supplies would only offset the operational cost."
Now, that just deals with the central warehouse facility. We're also faced with
the central kitchen facility. In terms of the EIS there is nothing said really
>o about the central kitchen facility. There is supposedly some odor that will be
distributed to the area but we don't know whether its going to smell like baking
bread or for that matter rotting garbage. All we know is that there is supposed
to be something there and surely there will be some odor emissions, there will be
some traffic generated by this facility as purportedly the School District seeks
to take the food that is produced and again distribute it around the District.
It will take trucks to do this, it will take people to do this, it will take traf-
fic and this will, in fact, add to the congestion of the area.
On the subject of the central laundry facility, I have not seen, exactly, what
this is supposed to be and again it's not really addressed in the EIS at all.
I presume that with any commercial, as with any commercial laundry facility of
ID any magnitude, whatsoever, again there are steam emissions, there are various
types of emissions into the atmosphere to say nothing of the truck traffic
associated with this facility, again, as it distributes items throughout the
School District. In terms of service to the School District I thought it inter-
esting to note on page 82 of the proposed EIS, for the first time, I saw what I
• considered to be at least an accurate reflection of the sites to be served by
this facility as it's been proposed. Now way back when the needs of this facil-
ity were first being discussed and when the bus barn was the principal issue, the
School District relied upon a study that was done and it's mentioned in the EIS
indicating the cost savings to be effected by running these buses out of one
place at 16th and Sullivan as opposed even to just down the road to the 4th and
• Conklin site or in commercial areas adjacent to Sprague to include the existing
school facility in the vicinity over in Greenacres. I thought it interesting.
Of course, we have not been able to see this particular document. I sincerely
question the cost savings to be effected when I looked to the map. Those of you
who perhaps have it in the audience, its on page 82. On there, the School Dis-
trict lists not only their existing site facilities, but their so called propos-
ed site facilities. Now we recognize, and I've heard the term utilized by the
School District that they're looking at the so called "70 year window," as it's
being expressed, and visualizing the need for the facility as proposed 16th and
Sullivan. If you look to that diagram, you'll see that it's true that the site
of the proposed facility is in the approximate geographical center of the Dis-
trict. Remember, that the Central Valley School District extends all the way
to the Idaho border. When you look to that map, and it's not exactly in the geo-
graphical center, but if you look to the existing sites and proposed sites, you
will see that the present site facility at, on Bowdish, is in fact more central
to those existing sites than is the proposed facility. If you'll also look to
97
the same diagram, with respect to development of the - to the east - and I'll re-
cognize that certainly perhaps when times get a little better there will be some
development in the Saltese Flats and Greenacres area. But, if you look to the
proposed school sites, there is only one that even arguably is off the main tra-
veled road of Sprague. The rest of them are right down on Sprague or in that
vicinity, or for that matter, located in Liberty Lake.
Now, anybody who's driven around here at all knows that you gotta go down to
Sprague to get to Liberty Lake, you don't drive over the mountains. Maybe there
will be a road someday, but it isn't in, at least in the County plan at this junc-
ture, so I think we all have got to ask a logical question and that's if this thing
is so central and if there is so much money to be saved, why is it that when we
look to that map that in all reality there are about three sites to the east of
this proposed facility with by far majority, some 85 %, of the proposed sites loca-
ted to the west of the facility and indeed surrounding the present location of not
only the School District's bus barn, but its administration complex.
Lot of us in this area are greatly disturbed with what is taking place with the
School District. In terms of cost, we know that costs are escalating. We also
know that as business men, or women and indeed as families that what it costs to
live in this world and to maintain any kind of a standard of living to which per-
haps we've become accustomed, that this takes money and it takes effort and any-
body who's running a business knows that right now is not the time that we're
making personal expenditures which down the road are going to require us to pay
large amounts of money. Anyone of us who's in business realizes that the tax
burden that we're all having to bear is substantial. Particularly to those people
who are facing declining incomes.
In terms of people who have been translating this into so many dollars and cents,
the School District, of course, in Central Valley, even before your time Mr. Jack-
man, has enjoyed one of the best budgets of anywhere in the State. We have also
enjoyed one of the higher per capita tax expenditures to maintain the type of
schools that we desire in this particular location and, personally, I don't have
any trouble with that. But, what I do have trouble with is when I see the develop -
ment of building programs which don't really take in to account the truer needs of
the District. I get disturbed when I read in the newspaper and find that the.num-
ber of teachers we have, were having to cut back on because we can't afford them.
I get concerned when I find that our schools, as they exist, are not adequately
insulated. I look to the operations in maintenance budget and I find that our
existing school facilities lack adequate funding to even open the doors on a
daily basis. I get concerned, Mr. Jackman, when I wee that the School District is
intent on building a facility which will not add anything in terms of cost savings;
at best, will realize only an offset and which indeed will require the taxpayers
of this community to make additional expenditures for operations and maintenance
just to maintain what they've built. Why is it, Sir, that the School District
cannot rely upon existing facilities and particularly at a time when, indeed; the
budget, as it exists, is tight for all of us? Why is it that the School District
at this present time is considering the closure or alternate use of two existing
facilities in this School District to accomodate the growth, in fact, the building
of two additional facilities that are presently taking place? In other words,
translated, why, Sir, does the School District not use existing facilities and why
is it that the School District again is electing to build buildings and fill them
with people at a time when the real need of the School District is one of educa-
tion for our children; in seeing to it that we have teachers in the classroom, and
98
seeing to it that the numbers of students don't over burden the existing facilities
and the teachers that we have? Why is it, Sir, that existing facilities cannot be
utilized for what you propose with this bus barn and its tangents?
I can rattle on a little bit here about my feeling about the District administra-
tion. I am not a member of the School Board, and frankly I think it's one of the
most God -awful things to ever heave to go to, as to sit through a school district
board meeting, particularly on Tuesday night. For those of you who haven't attend-
ed, it is kind of an exercise in what I would consider the total opposite of democ-
racy. The input there is very limited. The people there are dedicated, they're
there for a variety of reasons and some of them are there for a genuine interest
and concern for the education system of this community. But we would submit, Mr.
Jackman, that with respect to this so called proposed Educational Services Center,
the School Board and the Administration has; in fact, lost sight of not only the
public's needs in this community but the public's wants in this community.
I want to say one thing, and that's that we're not going to give up. In terms of
what has been set forth in the EIS, again, I point to the lack of data from which
any accurate conclusions can be drawn by either side. When the real test comes,
in terms of going before the Planning and Zoning Commission, and in terms of'what
is in your final proposed EIS; I' would hope that in addressing not only the envi-
• ronmental concerns, but the human factor analysis, which you are required to do,
that you take into account that there are people out there who have to fund what-
ever it is you get the right to build. When it comes to the ballot box it's a
lot easier to vote than perhaps it is to walk up here in front of a room full of
people and talk on a microphone, particularly when you're not used to it. So,
when the time comes, Sir, when the School District does have to face a voter,. we
• submit that this facility, as it's proposed, will not be approved. And then, Sir,
it will be the option of the School District to look to alternative capabilities
in terms of either contracting with somebody at Spokane Industrial Park; as for ,
instance, a warehouse or for that matter continuing the lease arrangement that is
presently utilized by the School District, continuing the use of the proposed bus
barn facility, continuing the use of the existing administration building which
• just this past year was improved - I forget the dollar figures - it was approxi-
mately $50,000. Take into account that the voters of this District cannot afford
what is being proposed. Just as our environment cannot afford it - we can't af-
ford it and I hope the message gets through. Thank you sir.
Dave Jackman - Thank you, Mr. Stone. Do we have any other comments?
Bill Schwiqer - My name is Bill Schwiger and I live at S. 2018 Vera Crest. I
was going to avoid coming up here, but after considering just one of the propo-
nents of this DEIS, I felt compelled to come forward'and I also feel compelled
after reading this to question the competency of our School Board, Mr. Jackman -
yourself, and let me tell you why.
On page 60, and maybe you would care to turn there, something very interesting
shows up. They are talking about the probable impacts of the fuel storage. Let
me just read this to you. "The proposed project will house various types of ac-
tivities that will use potentially flammable and explosive chemicals. None of
these chemicals poses unique or unusual hazards when handled in accordance with
• proper storage and use procedures," further down it says, "the proposed fuel stor-
age facilities would include 2,000 gallons of unleaded gas and 10,000 gallons of
regular gas and diesel "; now catch this, "it is anticipated that these tanks would
be refilled one or two times per week by bulk tanker." So that means truckin' down
•
•
99
Sullivan now, you have a tanker truck. O.K., now let me just tell you what hap-
pened when I was a kid. Six years old I hear the fire engines and I go riding
down where the fire engines are. In the middle of a residential district is an
overturned tanker, spilling gasoline. How do you put it out? It's running down
the gutter,there's kids running around. What happens if that ignites? A little
kid runs across the street, the tanker truck puts his brakes on. What's going
to happen, can you answer that? Then it goes on to say under Item D, "Unavoidable
Adverse Impacts - None." That's incredible, this is idiocy. Can you answer that?
Would you care to? My kids are going to be using Sullivan to drive as well as ride
up and down. This is incredible. .I would say that if we buy this, we're selling
ourselves. I think we should use all possible means to make sure that this doesn't
get any further. Thank you.
Bob Gale - Bob Gale, E. 15814 - 14th. In answer to that question you had on what
happens when they explode, go back a few years to Burland, New York. One of those
tankers exploded, took half the village out, plus hundreds of lives and when we
had that snow storm the other morning, the traffic was lined all the way from Sul-
livan to 16th. You couldn't even make a left turn into 14th. So, for my informa-
tion and what I've seen in California, when you're ramming this down our throats,
in a few years that will be idled and they'll be selling it. Thank you.
Dick Sable - Dick Sable, 14920 E. 17th Court. I lived in this area approximately
20 years - transplanted from Chicago. I chose to live in the Spokane Valley due
to the fact that it was wide open spaces.not wall to wall houses. I am firmly
against commercial development in a residential area. I fail to see how the School
District can propose this project when they are laying off teachers and parents of
the District have to pay for the school sports. I guess what I want to say is: -I
don't want your school bus barn out in the Valley, I don't want a 7 -11, and I can-
not and will not support any operations where it's going to cost me money in the
future. Thank you.
Dave Jackman - Any other comments? Anyone else?
Steven Nelson - Steven Nelson, S. 1418 Limmerick Drive. A number of things have
been stated I firmly agree with, and that is I think cost are going through the
ceiling in a lot of areas. I firmly believe that the economic situation is one of
a downturn and it probably won't get better in the near future. With the reduced
population in the Valley I feel that as far as students are concerned that exist-
ing facilities should be reevaluated, maybe upgraded; but not an additional faci-
lity created at this time which would mean maybe a little bit further planning on
the School Board's part - better projections. I feel that to establish a commer-
cial facility out there at this time would be negative impact upon taxpayers. I
would also like to sort of summarize - maybe I shouldn't - but I will anyway, and
that is that since I've been sitting here and, I believe, since I got here a half
hour late in discussing the subject, it appears that no one is in favor of the
facility. No one has come to this meeting to voice affirmative reaction to the
EIS and voice a position that they firmly believe that this is the answer to the
District's problems. It would then appear to me that the District School Board
should look at this community reaction and say to themselves - we should look at
other alternatives. Thank you.
Dave Jackman - Thank you, Mr. Nelson. Do we have any other comments this evening?
E. J. Zeleny- My name is E. J. Zeleny, I live at S. 1319 Timberlane. I'm agin'er.
I don't see any positive effect of this bus issue, nor do I see where it's been
100
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
exonerated at all by this proported EIS. I have, however, one over - riding concern.
As long as I can address the School Board on tape I'd like to be able to do that.
I don't see that it will happen by fiat so I feel compelled, somewhat, to implore
the Board and Administration to be responsible when it comes to funding for this
bus issue, as well as for teaching our kids something. I don't see the two have
anything to do with each other. I would like the taxpayers here to at least con-
sider a responsible attitude about funding, and to separate these . two when it comes
time to lay the bucks down and make this a separate issue. I don't have kids in
school here, maybe fortunately or unfortunately, but I would hate to see my money
go tied up to a bus issue when it really should be to teach the kids something.
For Gods' sakes Board Members, keep any funding for this bus barn out of meaning-
ful programs for the kids. Thank you.
Dave Jackman - Anyone else?
(Testimony Ends)
Dave Jackman - I appreciate the comments that each of you have made this evening.
They will become part of the record as we've indicated to you. They will be re-
sponded to in writing when the Final Environmental Impact Statement is prepared.
Each of you who have spoken this evening will be mailed a copy of that Final'En-
vironmental Impact Statement. The hearing is adjourned.
101
Responses to Hearing Comments
82. See pages 92 -94 of the DEIS.
83. Under existing zoning the site is not required to be in agricultural
use. Page 52 of the DEIS discusses a variety of uses allowed within
the Agricultural Zone.
84. This comment is noted.
85. This noise level is an exterior noise level. The noise level received
within a home will be reduced by 13 to 21 dB with windows open and 25
to 30 dB with windows closed (page 46 of the DEIS). It is entirely
possible that sounds generated by buses exiting the site and accel-
erating along 16th (and Sullivan if homes are constructed east of the
site) will be of sufficient level to awaken residents opposite the
exit points. As noted in the DEIS on pages 41 -43, departing buses can
generate noise levels in the range of 75 dBA and over 80 dBA if air
brakes are engaged. These noise levels will not be steady but will be
in the form of noticeable peaks. These noise peaks can awaken sleep-
ing individuals.
86. The District is proposing as the primary noise barrier an earth berm
with landscaping. The earth berm will provide an effective noise bar-
rier. The landscaping is not intended to be provided as a sound bar-
rier.
87. The noise levels generated by buses warming up ana departing the yard
area are discussed on page 41 of the DEIS. These levels were derived
from actual monitoring. The noise generated by departing and return-
ing buses is based on monitoring of individual buses. The noise lev-
els generated Dy these buses constitute momentary events as the buses
accelerate or decelerate and pass by an observer. While it is true
that two buses generating identical noise levels and located side by
side will generate a composite noise level 3 dBA higher, this 3 dBA
level is not additive for each additional bus. As the difference in
noise level between the existing and added noise source increases, the
amount to be added decreases (with 3 as a maximum). This is because
of the logarithmic nature of the decibel unit.
It would take 10 buses each generating a noise level of 60 aBA to in-
crease the composite noise level to 70 dBA, for example. Each addi-
tional bus generating a 60 dBA noise level would add less than 0.5 dB
to the total. This would decline to an increase of 0.1 dB for each
additional bus after 20 buses. This increment would be true if the
individual level of each bus was 60 dBA, 70 dBA, or 100 dBA. While
several buses may be running engines side by side at one time in the
yard while warming up in the morning or afternoon, the distance from
existing residences as well as Deming would attenuate the perceived
noise levels (5 dBA decrease with each doubling of distance. Sound
intensity decreases inversely with the square of the distance from the
source.) The primary generation of noise which would affect existing
and future residences will result from buses entering 16th Avenue and
Sullivan Road. This will result from idling buses waiting to enter
102
•
•
91. See response 73.. The potential land use impacts of the proposed pro-
ject are discussed on pages 55 -58 of the DEIS.
• 92. The Comprehensive Plan Map for Spokane County designates the area to
the west and south of the site as Urban which (as discussed on pages
53 -55 of the DEIS) would allow multi- family development as well as
commercial use at appropriate locations. Thus, it is possible (also
depending on future zoning) that multi - family developments could occur
in the vicinity of the proposed project.
•
•
these streets and acceleration of these buses. The idling buses will
not generate noise levels that will be additive to the degree of sev-
eral ouses running up side by side in the yard area. Each succeeding
bus in the line will generate decreasing levels of noise as the dis-
tance from the observer increases. In addition, two buses will not be
entering the street at the same time, thus, the composite noise levels
will also be lower than in the yard: As stated previously, however,
individual accelerating buses can potentially create noise .peaks that
will be in the range of 75 dBA.
The primary operations Which will involve buses departing the site
will take place for a 45- minute period during the morning and a 30-
minute period in the afternoon. Other operations will involve only a
portion of the bus fleet departing around noon and in the late after.-
noon. Further, these buses will, not all depart at the same instant,
nor will they all depart the same entry /access point.
Please note that the District presently operates 33 buses daily, not
48. Also, see page 71 of the DEIS which provides the 1980 -81 bus
operations- -the maximum number of trips was 32 during the afternoon
routes.
88. The proposed improvements to Sullivan Road or possible future,improve-
ments to 16th Avenue beyond that in the present county proposal are
planned.to take place regardless of the District proposal.
89. The area south of 16th along Sullivan Road and the hills to the south
and east have been developed in areas for residential use. Numerous
plats are approved for additional residential development south of
16th, including the area opposite the District site east of Sullivan
Road. Finally, the District has no control over county policy with
respect to arterial designation or widening. (Also, see page 73 of
the DEIS - -total projected trips are 1,372.)
90. See response 71 regarding light and glare.
The proposed improvements of Sullivan Road and 16tH Avenue provide for
signalization at the intersection of 16th and Sullivan as well as
sidewalks along Sullivan Road. At the present time sidewalks are not
likely to be constructed along the entire length of 16th Avenue, but
only along the portion west of Sullivan Road that is improved under
the presently planned road project.
• 103
93. Other measures for yard operations have been discussed on pages 46 -47
of the DEIS. Once the buses are in position to exit the facility and
are on the street, the measures to mitigate are limited. Sound emis-
sions can be reduced either through mechanical means (reducing noise
output by engine, wheels, fan and exhaust systems) or. by operation
(driver techniques). Driver techniques related to acceleration and
deceleration can reduce the level of noise emission. This measure, as
stated previously, will depend on individual drivers. An additional
measure that may be utilized is to schedule early departures so that
they use the Sullivan Road exits. This would reduce early morning im-
pacts on 16th Avenue residents.
The District is strongly interested and concerned about student safe-
ty. Bus drivers are required to participate in a qualification pro-
gram prior to certification. A driver's manual is provided to outline
procedures relating to operation and safety. The District has a safe-
ty committee. Each driver is required to participate in annual safety
meetings as well as other periodic safety meetings. Individual in-
struction is provided as required. The District can dismiss drivers
who do not abide by operational guidelines.
94. See page 41 of the DEIS for clarification. The 53 to 65 decibels with
an average of 60 decibels refers to L or peak noise levels. The
average noise levels (L as stated in the sentences previous to this
statement during the day range from 42 to 44 dBA with the average of
approximately 44 dBA. The noise levels of 58 to 60 dBA was in refer-
ence to.initial start and warm -up. After this initial period, idling
buses generated noise levels in the range of 48 to 50 dBA.
95. The first full paragraph on page 46 (which immediately follows the
referenced paragraph) states the following: "The above projections
approximate the impacts of the initial operation of the bus storage
facility on -site (Phase II). At full build -out of the facility it is
estimated that 70 to 75 buses will be departing and returning to the
site for morning and evening routes ". For purposes of clarification,
the table shows 74 departures for the morning routes and departures
for the afternoon routes. The 82 afternoon departures also include
activity bus operations which will not take place at the same time as
normal afternoon routes.
96. Given the locations of existing District facilities, Sullivan Road is
proposed to be the primary feeder from which east /west routes will be
accessed. These east /west routes in addition to 16th Avenue include
32nd, 24tH, 8tH, 4th, Sprague, and Broadway. As the District develops
new facilities they will be located in the eastern and southern por-
tions of the District. The use of 16th Avenue, once the Phase II fa-
cility is operational and routes are established, is not expected to
receive additional bus routes. The new added routes will use Sullivan
Road to feed east /west routes accessing the southern and eastern por-
tions of the District.
97. The requirement to limit the hours of constructionm in which noise
creating activities (which would impact local residents) are taking
place can be stipulated by contract as set forth by the District.
104
•
99. This measure can be implemented in the following manner: (1) place the
requirement in the driver's manual; (2) brief drivers as to the re-
quirement and driving 'techniques; and (3) periodically monitor and
remind drivers to ensure that the measure is being followed. Drivers
who do not comply can be dismissed by the District.
100. The lighting system has not been developed at this time. The purpose
ot the DEIS is to identify this as a potential problem and recommend
that measures be taken for mitigation. The District architect, at.the
direction of the District, can be instructed to develop a lighting
plan which will use lighting types of a low -glare character, avoid
lignting placement that would directly intrude on nearby residences
(or future residences), and provide screening that will reduce glare
emission to off -site properties.
101. The Comprehensive Plan as discussed on pages 54 -55 of the DEIS states
that light industrial uses and commercial uses can be located in the
Urban Category near heavily traveled streets and major intersections.
It is not anticipated that a comprehensive plan change will be - re-
quired in order to develop the proposed project.
102. The DEIS may have been unclear on this matter. The intent of this
discussion is not to imply that existing residences'along .Sullivan
• Road will be demolished in order to develop more intensive residential
or commercial uses. The primary point of the discussion was to point
out the possibility that the vacant lands along Sullivan Road could be
developed into more intensive land uses than presently characterizing
the area. The DEIS also stated that such development might occur as
Sullivan Road is extended further south from the 16th intersection.•
• As with the development with any scenario relating to future develop-
ment, this may or may not take place.
103. While it is possible that county decision makers would view the devel-
opment ot a public use facility as presently being proposed by the
District in the same light as a privately proposed commercial project,
• it is unlikely. The purpose of the proposal is not to engage in com-
mercial enterprise, but .to provide educational services. Thus, the
precedent may not oe as 'strong as perceived by some. As stated in the
DEIS it is possible that. higher density developments may take place in
this area. Tne Comprehensive Plan, arterial system, and future sewer-
trig of the area also establish precedents that would favor development
• at higher densities than nave historically been developed in the imme-
diate vicinity of the site.
•
•
98. Portable noise barriers can consist of movable panels to which sound
absorbing material has been attached. Essentially, it would be in the
form of a temporary solid fence. Also, refer to page 46 of the DEIS
(under C. Mitigating Measures), which states: "The following noise
abatement measures may be used ..." This statement prefaces the list
of recommended mitigating measures which includes the one referenced.
Further, it is not likely that this particular measure would be re-
quired since the landscaped berm (which would serve the same purpose)
will be in place. '
• 105
104. See responses 33, 41, and 56 -58. Also see Appendices A through C to
this FEIS.
105. The District is not engaged in land speculation. The purpose of Dis-
trict land purchases is to provide sites for anticipated future fa-
cilities. Existing properties which are surplus to District needs are
sold in order to dispose of excess property. There is no evidence to
indicate that property values in the project vicinity will be devalued
as a result of the proposed action.
106. It is assumed that the reference being cited is the following: "As
discussed above, the physical environmental impacts of this site will
be essentially the same as for the proposed site (16th and Sullivan)."
This statement is in reference to the following statement: "Since the
soil, topographic conditions, ground water (Spokane Valley aquifer),
flora, fauna, natural resources, energy, utilities, and public ser-
vices characteristics are basically the same for the alternative site
the differences in impacts will vary little from the proposed site."
The impacts that will vary from site to site will be related to traf-
fic circulation and its related impacts and noise impact on receiving
properties. Given the existing land uses within the immediate vicini-
ty of the 4th and Conklin site, the impacts on existing residences
from traffic and noise will be lower than for the proposed site be-
cause there are fewer affected residences. This is so stated at the
end of the cited paragraph: "Given this land use and zoning situa-
tion, it would appear that this site [4th and Conklin] would have
lower potential land use conflict than the proposed site, at least at
this time."
The sentence following that referenced on page 109 states that: "The
environmental difference is primarily a function of location. " - This
aspect of the discussion is also reiterated on page 110 of the DEIS.
The statement on page 111 of the DEIS is not inconsistent with the
above statements when taken in context ot the entire discussion. The
statement that "separating various facilities on different sites would
reduce the concentration of impacts on a single area" does not contra-
dict the statement on page 110 which states that This concentration,
on the other hand, places the burden ot the greater cumulative impact
on the residents near a specific location rather than placing lower
impacts over a more widespread population." The second point, that
the most traffic and noise intensive facilities could be located in
an area where fewer residences would be impacted" is also consistent
with the preceding discussion. Concentrating the facilities on one
site will place the impact of the total project on a single neighbor-
hood. By separating the facilities in different sites, the most in-
tensive uses (such as the bus storage facility) could be placed on a
site which has similar existing uses while the administrative facili-
ties which have lower noise impacts could be placed on a site such as
the one proposed.
107. See response 58.
108. The District is planning a facility that will meet the long term (50
to 70 years) demands of providing educational services in Central Val-
106
ley. With continued growth and enrollment increases, the District
will require expanded facilities. Further, the project will provide
facilities that the District presently does not have or are leased.
These are the facilities presently under proposal. It is not intended
that all of these facilities be developed at the same time. The pro-
ject is phased for this reason. Facilities will be developed as the
need arises and existing facilities become outmoded and overcrowded,
and in view of operational economies. In order to provide these fa-
cilities in better than a Haphazard manner; the District must plan to
anticipate future demands and facilities requirements. The funding
sources for facilities construction and the employment of administra-
tors and teachers are separate and are allocated under independent
criteria.
109. The District feels that'this is the most suitable site for the pro-
posed project taking into consideration factors such as location,
size, price, and availability. Furthermore, the industrial park is
not within District boundaries. •
110. The widening of Sullivan will take place independent of the proposed
District project. A major criteria for locating the project at the
proposed site is its location relative to existing and future District
facilities to which service will be provided.
111. See responses 6, 7, 28, and 31.
112. At the.present time, the county has scheduled the completion of the
street improvements prior to project development.
113. The use of security fencing is, as stated in the DEIS, a' possibility:.
However, the specific type fencing to be used (if installed) Apr its
exact location has not been determined. In any case, it is the intent
of the District to minimize potential aesthetic impacts on neighboring
properties if such fencing is used.
114. Since existing traffic volumes along Sullivan in the site vicinity and
future traffic volumes generated by the proposed project' are below the
magnitude that would create violations of air quality standards, no
monitoring was completed. It should also be noted that the Spokane
County Air Pollution Control Agency was on the distribution list for
the DEIS and made no comment.
115. The DEIS analyzed the impact of the proposed project at full build -out
in order to provide a worst case condition. The noise impacts of the
project at completion of Phase II would be less than at full build -
out.
116. The objectives of the proposed project are outlined on page 1 of the
DEIS. Although reduction in fuel costs from bus operations is a con-
sideration in the construction of the proposed project, it is not the
primary criteria. The total project cost is identified in response
58. Also, see responses 34 and 55 -57.
107
117. The proposed improvements to Sullivan Road are presently planned to
begin in 1984. This will depend on the length of time required for
right of way acquisition which is underway.
118. Emissions from engines burning petroleum -based fuels contain whole
engine exhaust, whole particulate emissions, extracts of the particu-
late fractions and gaseous fractions. According to EPA, diesel exhaust
contains a mixture of gaseous and particulate matter consisting of
9,000 to 12,000 different compounds. Polynuclear aromatics, alde-
hydes, ethers, ketones, and phenols are organic compounds found in ex-
haust. Inorganic compounds include carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide,
and the oxides of nitrogen and sulfur including sulfuric acid. Benzo-
(a)pyrene, a known animal carcinogen (cancer causing substance), has
been identified as a constituent of diesel exhaust.
Diesel exhaust particles (essentially soot) can cause odor and v.is "i-
bility problems in concentrations. They also have a tendency to re-
main afloat for long periods of time. thus making them prone to atmos-
pheric chemical reaction and joining with other chemical compounds.
These particles are also microscopically fine, thus are capable of by-
passing the bodies filtration system (such as in the nose) and being
inhaled deeply into the lungs where they can lodge for considerable
periods of time. Here they can act as primary irritants to the lungs
as well as carry harmful gases and liquids.
Thus far, the long -term health effects of concentrated diesel exhaust
are uncertain. Although studies indicate that carcinogenic compounds
are found in diesel exhaust, other studies have thus far shown no
evidence of carcinogenic effects from whole diesel exhaust. It is
unknown whether or not whole engine exhaust particles (from gasoline
or diesel engines) are carcinogenic. Neither diesel or whole engine
exhaust has so far been found to be carcinogenic when inhaled by
laboratory animals. However, in EPA- supported animal skin tumor ini-
tiation studies, extracts of diesel exhaust materials have been found
to contain substances that have potencies to cause mutilation and can-
cer similar to extracts.of gasoline engine exhaust, roofing tars, and
coke -oven effluent.
The following is extracted from the report of the Health Effects Panel
of the Diesel Impacts Study Committee of the National Research Coun-
cil. This report (Impacts of Diesel- powered Light -duty Vehicles:
Health Effects of Exposure to Diesel Exhaust, 1981) was commissioned
in order to study the known information related to diesel emission as
a result of increased use of diesel- fueled vehicles.
The Health Effects Panel has examined the health effects
of exposure to diesel exhaust in four areas -- mutagenesis,
carcinogenesis, pulmonary and systemic effects, and epidemi-
ology. No epidemiological studies have been conducted on
the mutagenicity of diesel exhaust. The available epidemio-
logical information does not reveal an excess risk of human
cancer of the lung or any other site in the population
groups studied. This information is based entirely on occu-
pational studies that have numerous deficiencies in research
108
design. Only two studies approach even the minimum require-
ments of an adequate epidemiological study, and neither of
these accounts for smoking habits. There is similarly no
convincing evidence that inhaled whole diesel exhaust is mu-
tagenic or carcinogenic in laboratory animals. However, in
animal cell and whole animal skin - application tests, organic
extracts of diesel exhaust particulates have been found to
contain substances that have mutagenic and carcinogenic po-
tencies similar to extracts of gasoline engine exhaust,
roofing tar, and coke -oven effluent.
The apparent discrepancy between the effects of exposure
to whole diesel exhaust by "inhalation and the effects of
diesel exhaust extracts on laboratory specimens may be due
to the absence of environmental and physiological factors
(dispersion, transport, transformation, bioavailability, and
possible environmental synergistic, potentiative, or addi-
tive interactions) in the laboratory studies with extracts.
It mmay also be due - to differences in the amounts and routes
of exposure. In the epidemiological studies, exposures to
the exhaust constituents were likely to have been lower -and
the route of human exposure (inhalation) less direct than
application of the exhaust extracts to cells, tissues, or
the skin of laboratory animals. Thus, in spite of the nega-
tive evidence that has been accumulated from epidemiological
studies, it is possible that diesel exhaust is carcinogenic
or.mutagenic in animals or humans exposed by inhalation, but
at a level too low to be detected in studies conducted to
date.
From available epidemiological, clinical, and laboratory
animal studies, no firm conclusions can be drawn about pos-
.
sible pulmonary and systemic effects of diesel exhaust ex-
posure. Although a comparatively large data base exists for
pulmonary and systemic effects of certain individual gas -
phase exhaust components- -e.g., nitrogen oxides - -there is
little basis for making judgments on the cardiopulmonary ef-
fects of whole diesel exhaust - -even though' some of the indi-
vidual components are known to exert adverse effects. How -
• ever, evidence based on laboratory animal studies suggests
that inhaled diesel exhaust affects the lung clearance mech-
anisms, produces nonspecific histopathologic changes in the
lung that may or may not be reversible, and adversely af-
fects the pulmonary defense mechanisms.
• 119. Page 84 of the DEIS in the final paragraph prior to. the discussion of
probable impacts, discusses the present inadequacies of the existing
transportation facility.
120. The objectives of the proposed project are discussed on page 1 of the
DEIS. The proposed project envisions serving District needs over a
long period of time and the present administrative functions will not
be moved for a few years.
109
121. Existing traffic hazards and probable impacts of the project are ad-
dressed on pages 77 -78 of the DEIS.
122. Tne District has considered contract busing. Most Washington State
districts which consider contract busing share one or more of these
characteristics: (1) inability to satisfactorily maintain their bus
fleet; (2) inability to purchase new buses; or (3) relatively small
proportion of students dependent on, bus transportation.
The District's present transportation ,department has provided satis-
factory service, even operating from marginal facilities. Central
Valley is a semi -rural district and relies on buses to transport a
relatively large proportion of its students. The District's transpor-
tation system thus affects many of its patrons.
Since the District must rely on patron support of levies to operate
and maintain its schools, the transportation system must, therefore,
be responsive to needs of those patrons. It is felt by the District
that this responsiveness can be best assured by self operation of the
system.
123. Neither the noise levels nor the vehicular exhaust emissions are ex-
pected to create such an impact.
124. This comment is noted. . The project is intended to meet the long -term
needs of the District.
128. This comment is noted.
110
125. This comment is noted. There is no evidence to indicate that property
values will be decreased by such a project.
126. This comment is noted. Future planning and land use guidelines and
decisions affecting the area are the responsibility of the County
Planning Department and Board of County Commissioners. •
127. The purpose of the proposed project is to provide sufficient area to
house facilities required as a result of the future growth of the Dis-
trict. The bus storage facility is but one of seven such potential
services presently envisioned for the site. The project objectives
are discussed on page 1 of the DEIS.
129. The odor emissions from the proposed kitchen will be similar to exist-
ing District kitchen facilities. To the District's knowledge, no com-
plaints of adverse odor have been made regarding existing kitchen op-
erations. The projected trip generation rates for the proposed kit-
chen facility are shown on page 73 of the DEIS.
130. Given the route structure of the District, even with most of the ex-
isting school facilities in closer proximity to the existing site than
the proposed site, the total mileage driven by the buses would be less
from the proposed site than from the existing site. This was dis-
cussed in the DEIS on page 86. As stated previously, the purpose of
the project is to serve long -term District needs. Population trends
0
indicate a relative shift to the southern and eastern portions of the
District, away from the northwestern portion.
131. The objectives of the project are outlined on page 1 of the DEIS. It
might be noted that additional objectives' of the project aside from
transportation cost savings include planning for the long range fa-
cilities needs of the District, replacing outmoded facilities and de-
veloping facilities that the District presently lacks. Further, the
entire project is not intended to be constructed in a single effort.
The project is planned to be phased: The various phases will be de-
veloped as need arises and funding becomes available.
132. This comment is noted. Refer to the Educational Services Center Task
Force Report on pages 115 -128 of the DEIS. A minority report of the
same committee is included on pages 140 -142 of the DEIS.
133. This comment is noted. The District, in its improvement to the admin-
istration building four years ago,' spent 'approximately $20,000.
134. Such impacts are avoidable if prescribed safety measures and normal
precautions are taken. In the event that such an accident does occur,
there is potential for fire and explosion.
135. This comment is noted.
136. This comment is noted. The staff budget is entirely.independent of
capital _costs (construction of new facilities), except that new fa-
cilities can increase the efficiency of District operations. This
increased efficiency can, in turn, free up money for staff and program
needs.
137. This comment is noted. See response 136.
138. The purpose of an EIS is to provide information to decision makers
regarding the potential impacts of a proposed project. It is tb sol i-
cit information which would be of value to decision makers. The pur-
pose is not to exonerate a project. Support services such as the
seven potential services proposed for this site, are necessary in
order to operate programs for the students and maintain the school
buildings where educational programs take place.
111
APPENDIX A
PROJECTED COSTS OF MAKING EXISTING FACILITIES
COMPARABLE TO PROPOSED PROJECT
Facility
1. Administration — Immediate
Expand present building to in- $370,000
clude printshop, space for
itinerant personnel (5,000 sq.
ft. x $74:00) and 15 additional
parking spaces
Long Range (estimated)
Expand presently needed facili-
ties by an additional 5,000 sq.
ft. (5,000 sq. ft. x$74.00),
add 37 additional parking
spaces $3CO
Total to meet projected administrative
needs $750,000
2. Maintenance - Existing leased maintenance
facility cannot be economically
fitted to adequately serve main-
tenance needs. It might however,
be remodeled and enlarged to
serve the District's storage
needs. See cost under "Storage ".
Estimated cost of new maintenance facility.
Building
Immediate $686,078
Long Range $468,000
(additional)
113
Estimated present dollar
cost to make comparable,
disregarding location
Estimated present dollar •
cost to make comparable,
Facility disregarding location
2. Maintenance - Continued)
Land •
2.0 acres @ .75 /sq. ft. (assumes
maintenance facility is not built
adjacent to an administrative or
school site) $ 65,340
Total to meet projected maintenance
needs $1,219,418
3. Storage - .Immediate
Purchase existing leased maintenance
facility $ 300,000
Minimal remodel of existing maintenance
facility $ 125,000
Expansion of existing maintenance
facility to 32,670 sq. ft. (16,670
sq. ft. x $29.69/sq. ft.) $ 494,967
Long Range (estimated)
Expand facility to 46,080 sq. ft. (13,410
sq. ft. x $29.69/sq. ft $ 398,143
Total to meet projected storage needs $1,318,110
114
•
•
•
•
•
4. Transportation - Immediate
Demolish existing transportation
maintenance building $ 5,000
Build new transportation maintenance
building on existing site (building only) $ 578,573
Purchase adjacent land as site for bus
storage to accomodate 10 busses and 40
small vehicles (1.85 acres x $3.00 /sq.ft $. 241,753
(Estimated Value of existing improvements
on adjoining land is included in the land
cost).
Build additional storage for 10 busses $ 90,875 •
Build additional storage for 40 small vehicles $ 249,360
Site improvement $ 219,245
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Estimated present dollar
cost to make comparable,
Facility disregarding location
4. Transportation - (Continued)
Vehicle washing & fueling facilities $ 175,265
Long Range
6. Central Kitchen -
Purchase adjacent land for additional
bus storage (3.6 acres x $3.00 /sq.ft.
including estimated value of improvements $ 470,448
Build storage for 38 busses and 38 small
vehicles $ 601,217
Site work $ 200,000
Total to meet projected transportation needs....$2,839,741
• 5. Curriculum Library -
Immediate
No substantial changes needed in physical
facility.
• Long Range (estimated)
Might use more centralized District �.
space. Estimated remodel cost for
access and shelving $ 15,000.
Total to meet projected Curriculum
Library needs $ 15,000
Immediate
No major changes needed in present operation.
Long Range
Establish central kitchen at Central Valley
High site.
Enlarge existing C.V. kitchen by 1,000 sq.ft..$ 80,000
Total to meet projected central kitchen
space needs $ 80,000
115
Facility
7. Central Laundry - .Immediate
Does not apply - no central facility
now exists. Do not envision central
laundry in near future.
Long Range - (estimated)
Enlarge Central Valley High building by
500 sq. ft $ 40,000
Total to meet projected central
laundry space needs $ 40,000
Estimated cost of making present facilities comparable to
the proposed project $6,262,269
11A
Estimated present dollar
cost to make comparable,
disregarding location
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
APPENDIX B
POTENTIAL SERVICES CENTER SITES CONSIDERED BY DISTRICT
Parcel
A. Present sites
B. 4th & Conklin
C. 4th & Conklin
Maintenance Site
D. Barker Center
Parcel
A. 4th & McDonald,
NW corner
B. 4th & Evergreen,
NW corner
C. 4th & Adams,
SE corner
D. 4th & Sullivan
NE corner
E. 4th & Sullivan,
SE corner
Properties Considered Prior to December 1979
Comment
Inappropriate location, restricted size,
District does not now have sites for
some needed support services.
Not geographically central, too small
for projected needs, costly (informally
offered at $32,670 per acre), poor ac-
cess, not suitable for administration
site.
117
See "8" above; leased maintenance
building not suited to long term main-
tenance use, costly (offered at $351,000 -
substantially over appraised value).
Geographically remote, site too small,
adjacent owners not willing to sell.
Existing structure not suited to long
term central services needs.
II. Properties Considered December 1979 - April lg, 1980
Comment
Geographically remote, too small,
limited access.
Not geographically central, too small,
limited access.
Property not available for sale, too
small, limited access, not geographically
central.
Not geographically central, poor east -
west access, costly, awkward access to
Sullivan.
Not geographically central, too small,
substantial improvements already on
property, poor east -west access, awkward
access to Sullivan.
Parcel Comment
F. 16th & Sullivan,
SW corner
G. 16th & Sullivan,
SE corner
H. 24th & Sullivan,
NE corner
I. 32nd & Sullivan,
NW corner
J. 32nd & Sullivan,
NE corner
K. 32nd & Sullivan,
SE corner
Parcel
III. Properties
A. Valleyway & Sullivan,
NE corner
B. North of Valleyway,
West of Conklin
C. South of Valleyway,
West of Conklin
D. North of Sprague,
south of Valleyway,
west of Conklin
Good east -west and north -south access,
irregular shape, ample size, geographi-
cally central, adjoining "Public" use.
Good east -west and north -south access,
potentially ample size, geographically
central, westbound busses would have
to cross Sullivan.
Good north -south access, marginal east -
west access, ample size, geographically
central.
Very good east -west and north -south
access, not geographically central,
marginal size, part of property already
improved, legal problems involved with
sale.
Property not available for purchase in
12 -15 acre parcel, access good. Not
geographically central.
Not geographically central, some im-
provements•on property, access good.
Not available for sale in 12 -15 acre
parcel. -
Considered After April 15, 1980
118
See "B° above.
Comment
Not geographically central, marginal
east -west access, costly, awkward
access to Sprague.
Poor access, too small, multiple owner-
ships, potentially costly, not geographi-
cally central.
Good east - west access, adequate north -
south access, not geographically central,
costly.
Parcel
E. 32nd & Sullivan,
NW corner
F. NW of Vera Crest Dr.
G. Directly east of
C.V. High site
H. East of Conklin Rd.,
south of railroad
right -of -way
I.. 4th & Sullivan Rd.,
SE corner
J. South of 24th Avenue,
West of Best Road
K. 17th "& Adams Rd.,
NW corner
Comment
See II - "I" above.
No direct arterial access, geographically
central; relatively costly, restrictions
on development.
Very poor access, not geographically cen-
tral, not available for sale.
Ample size, poor access, not geographically
central, costly (priced at $30,492 per.-
acre). •
See II - "E ", costly (priced at $35,330±
per acre).
Poor access, not geographically central,
substantial improvements on property.
Insufficient size, improvements already
in place, inconvenient access to major:
arterials.
119
4_
APPENDIX C
EFFORTS. TO CONSIDER OR NEGOTIATE ALTERNATIVE SITES
(4th and Conklin, near Central Valley High School, and Renz Property)
4th and Conklin Property
120
4/24/79 The School Board asked Gottschalk to evaluate this site for
maintenance, transportation, and warehousing.
6/18/79 Gottschalk's report said 4th and Conklin was preferable to
the Barker Center site because it was closer to the District's
geographic center.
6/25/79 Gottschalk recommended considering purchase of 4th and.Conklin
& and the adjoining maintenance building. Scope of the Services
7/2/79 Center project did not include the District administration
building at this time.
7/18/79 . The District administration recommended to the Board that'the
District consider. purchasing 4th and Conklin and the leased .
maintenance building.
7/24/79 District Board authoriied negotiations for purchase of 4th
and Conklin and the leased maintenance building as the site '.
for maintenance, transportation, and warehousing.
7/24/79 District retained Walt Peterson to negotiate for purchase of •
4th and Conklin property and leased maintenance facility.
8/79 Owner of 4th and Conklin and Peterson negotiating. Owner was
interested in long:term lease rather than sale.
12/10/79 School District approached owner of leased warehouse main-
tenance facility rei a sale price.
12/11/79 At District's request; T. J. Meenach appraised 1) 4th and:,
Conklin at $,40 /sq. ft.', and 2) land under maintenance...'
facility at $83,5001
12/12/79 Owner offered 4th acid Conklin property to District at $.75/
square foot. .
12/16/79 Owner`of leased maintenance facility offered it for $351,000. ,
12/20/79 Value of.structures;on maintenance site was appraisedr
& appraisers at $204,000 and $129,750, respectively
12/24/79
7/19/80 Grant Person, Ralph Rice (owner), Paul Mite (owner's atto
Wes Sodorff, and Dave Jackman met to discuss possible purchase
of Rice property. 4th and Conklin was among sites discussed.
8/80 Wes Sodorff worked with Rice to discuss purchase Of property.
8/28/80 Rice.'s attorney said that Rice was not interested:in selling •
at this time.
•
•
•
•
• a_
•
•
•
10/7/80 Grant Person approached Rice re. purchase of property -
Rice 'quoted $.75 sq. ft. ($32,670.00/acre) for 71/2 acres
at 4th and Conklin.
12/29/80 Grant Person communicated his belief to CVSD that Rice
did not care to sell any property.
1/6/81 Bob Jayne and Chuck Stocker, School District administra-
tors, talked with Rice re. purchase of property.
1/7/81 CVSD administrators inspected Rice's property, including
the 4th and Conklin site.
1/12/81 Chuck Stocker tried to get an appointment with Rice - `failed..
1/13/81 CVSD Baord asked administrators to approach Rice re. sale .
of property.
1/26/81 Chuck Stocker tried to get appointment with Rice - failed.
2/3/81 Chuck Stocker tried to get appointment with Rice - failed.
121
Property Near Central Valley High School
District considered two sites between December 1979 and April 1980.
Site Comment
4th & Sullivan, NE corner Not geographically central, poor east -
west access, costly, awkward access to
Sullivan.
4th & Sullivan, SE corner Not geographically central, too small,
substantial improvements on property,
poor east -west access, awkward access
to Sullivan.
The District did not consider a site east of Central Valley High at
that time because such a site would suffer poor road access and po-
tential conflict with State's shoreline laws.
6/80 Ad Hoc Educational Services Center Task Force requested
that the District pursue land east of Central Valley High.
Wes Sodorff, a citizen member of the Task Force, contacted
Mr. Rice. In July 1980 Rice, White, Sodorff, Person, and
Jackman met in Sodorff's office to consider sale.
7/7/80 Ad Hoc Task Force discussed Rice property.
7/80 Mike Vantine, citizen member of the Task Force, talked with
Rice re. availability of property.
8/80 Wes Sodorff was in contact with Rice during August 1980.
8/28/80 P. White said Rice was not interested in selling.
9/12/80 Sodorff called saying Rice might be interested in selling to
District but would not name a price.
10/8/80 Person approached Rice re. sale of land by Central Valley High.
Rice quoted prices for land elsewhere.
12/22/80 Rice told Person he did not want to sell land near CVHS.
12/29/80 Person said Rice not motivated to sell.
1/81 Stocker and Jayne talked with Rice re sale. Rice said he
might sell.
1/7/81 CVSD administrators 'inspected property east of the Central
Valley High School site.
1/12/81 Stocker tried to meet with Rice - failed.
1/13/81 Board asked that administration approach Rice again.
1/26/81 Stocker tried to meet with Rice - failed.
2/3/81 Stocker tried to meet with Rice - failed.
122
The following'Renz properties were considered•between December 1979
• and April 1980:
•
•
•
•
•
•
1
Site
Renz Property
Comment
A. 16th & Sullivan,. Good- east -west and northLsouth access,
SE corner ;.• potentially ample size;. geographically
central.,.westbound traffic would need to '
cross Sullivan.
B. 24th & ;Sullivan; Good north - south access, marginal east -,
NE corner west access, potentially ample size,'geo-
graphically'central
In June 1980 Ad Hoc Educational Services; Center Task Force requested.
that we pursue Renz's land.
School District asked G. Person to inquire re. Renz property.
7/7/80 Ad Hoc Task Force discussed Renz property:
7/11/80 Person talked with Tupper re Renz property.
7/24/80 .Person reports Tupper'offer of i and at inside of Renz
ownership just below Ridgemount for $13,500 /acre and
subject to several restrictions.
7/28/80 Ad Hoc Task Force discussed Renz property with Person.
8/4/80 District wrote letter'to Tupper;,(Renz's agent) rejecting
Renz's property on terms offered and asking for Tupper'
to, contact us if the terms could be changed.
123,