2010, 02-23 Regular Meeting MinutesMINUTES
City of Spokane Valley
City Council Regular Meeting
Formal Meeting Format
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Attendance:
City Staff:
Tom Towey, Mayor
Mike Jackson, Acting City Manager
Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor
Mike Connelly, City Attorney
Rose Dempsey, Councilmember
Ken Thompson, Finance Director
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember
Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director
Dean Grafos, Councilmember
Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir.
Brenda Grassel, Councilmember
Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Bob McCaslin, Councilmember
Steve Worley, Senior Engineer
Karen Kendall, Associate Planner
Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Analyst
Carolbelle Branch, Public ]Information Office
Christina Janssen, Assistant Planner
Marry Palaniuk, Planning Technician
Inga Note, Traffic Engineer
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
INVOCATION: Pastor Gary Hebden of The Intersection Church gave the invocation.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Members of Boy Scout Troop 426 led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called roll; all Councilmembers were present.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It
was moved by Councilmember Dempsey, seconded and unanimously
agreed to approve the agenda.
INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS:
COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS:
Councilmember Gothmann: said he attended the City of Spokane's State of the City address which he
said included ideas that perhaps we could use for saving on expenditures; he discussed the funding of the
HCDAC (Housing Community Development Advisory Committee); said he attended the Emergency
Communications Board 911 meeting; went to Olympia on behalf of the Spokane Regional Health
Department; said he sent out a poll regarding televising council meetings and use of the internet; and said
72% people responded in favor of having a city broadcast, 65% favored use of the web, and 80% were in
favor of either method.
Councilmember Dempse. said she attended a workshop with the International Trade Alliance where they
discussed how to raise awareness in the community of what they do.
Councilmember Grafos said he attended a STA (Spokane Transit Authority) Board meeting last week
and said they are dealing with a 2% service level reduction for 2010 and 2011 due to decreased tax
revenues in the cities and rural areas served by the STA, and reported that sales tax revenues decreased
county -wide about 5% with as much as 12% in Spokane Valley; said he participated in this City's finance
committee meeting where they discussed the projected 2014 budget deficient of about $13 million; and
Council Regular Meeting 2 -23 -2010 Page 1 of 12
Approved by Council: 3 -09 -2010
said that Mayor Towey proposed that the council retreat this summer should address the financial
challenge and to ask that each department review their budgets line by line for the 2012 budget so that
essential and non - essential city spending priorities could be identified.
Councilmember McCaslin no report.
Councilmember Grassel said she attended the Greater Spokane Chamber of Commerce business round
table with Senator Maria Cantwell where they discussed how they could better address getting money
such as lines of credit and other small business loans, to small businesses.
Deputy Mayor Schimmels said he met last week with Mayor Verner and Mayor Towey and Mr. Jackson
and discussed the solid waste issues and the governance issue with the solid waste system and what
changes will be forthcoming; also attended the STA meeting and the Spokane Valley's Finance
Committee meeting here last week.
MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Towey reported he met with Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce
President and CEO Eldonna Shaw and discussed common commitments and challenges; attended the
City's finance committee meeting; met with Commissioner Todd Mielke and talked about common
commitments and challenges; met with the Greater Spokane, Inc. and said they have a good program of
supporting and bringing businesses into our area and said members of that group will go to Washington,
D.C. in April, and said he and Deputy Mayor Schimmels will also go to Washington, D.C. in March; and
said they talked about having one voice there and to discuss our challenges with the legislators in
Washington, D.C.; said he addressed the leadership class at University High School; and that today he
met with the Mayor of Cheney and discussed common challenges of the two cities.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments.
Sharon O'Shau hg nessy, 7307 E 9`" Street referred to (and gave the clerk a copy of) a newspaper article
about the Taylor Cottages; said a traffic scoping meeting is set for February 24 to get community input;
she said that this is a highly critical re- charge area, is normally in the flood area and'. the developer wants
to put houses on it; she said the City would be required to do all emergency accessing; they failed to
identify vegetation on the property or locate floodplains; and neighbors are upset about the view; and said
she wanted Council to be aware of this; and said some of the failures on traffic issues resulted in a
lawsuit.
Randy Courchaine, 7203 East 9 Avenue also spoke concerning the Taylor Cottages, and asked if
council has regular business hours as he would prefer to visit with them and show them a map; Mayor
Towey said they do not have regular business hours and suggested he call to schedule a time to meet.
Councilmember Grassel asked if this project is in Spokane County and not Spokane Valley; and Mr.
Courchaine said it adjoins the city boundary line, and the only way fire trucks and police can get there is
from the City; and he confirmed that the housing development would be approved by the County, but said
this Council could lend input. Councilmember Gothmann said that part of the Country's process is to seek
comments from adjacent municipalities, and said this City made comments on those, and since that is
public record, perhaps the City could make that available, and said he is aware that some of the comments
were about traffic.
Marcia Sands, 10618 E Ferret Drive said she is a member of our Planning Commission; that she came to
talk about some of the changes that Councilmember Grafos requested be put on the council agenda; she
said Councilmembers were voted into office because the people believe Councilmembers will govern the
city with the interest of all the residents and businesses in mind; and said she voted for and supported this
City's incorporation because she believes an urban area of almost 90,000 deserves more representation
then two county commissioners; she said prior to this City's incorporation, her neighborhood was re-
zoned, or downzoned as some might call it, without much public process; and she said that was the
impetus for her to get involved; and she said that was one of the reasons she decided to volunteer toward
this City's development; she said during her tenure on the Planning Commission, she observed the growth
Council Regular Meeting 2 -23 -2010 Page 2 of 12
Approved by Council: 3 -09 -2010
and development of the city and of the public process that has continually occurred as part of defining
who we are and what direction we want to go; that the City Comprehensive Plan is an outline of who we
are and what is important; that it provides a basic vision and direction for this City's future; she said the
Comp Plan is based on the history and resources of this area and was compiled through lengthy public
processes with contributions from throughout the community; and said the vision statement is "A
Community of Opportunity Where Individuals and Families Can Grow and Play, and Businesses can
Flourish and Prosper." Ms. Sands said whether Council agrees with what was previously done or not,
that Council should understand that the first seven years of this City's incorporation have been devoted to
creating a community that is directed at making that vision a reality; and that this vision was created
through intensive public involvement, and by asking city residents what was most important to them now
and for their future. She further stated that the Uniform Development Code is a structure by which the
implementation of the comp plan is achieved; that the City of Spokane Valley did not change the zoning
for either the Sprague /Appleway area or any other neighborhood without multiple public meetings and a
thorough public process. She said that the Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Project was also a process
that involved the participation of businesses and residents who all had input, and of what they wanted to
see in this zoning overlay; it was conceived because public input provided direction that the residents of
Spokane Valley view this corridor as the heart of their city and want it to reflect what we are as a city, and
not just a group of disconnected businesses along the highway between Spokane and the State of Idaho.
Ms. Sands said that councilmembers have an obligation to understand the rationale for the decisions and
the choices that went into the development of our current Comprehensive Plan, the Uniform Development
Code and the Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan before choosing to dismantle seven years of
dedicated work by this community and all of the people and businesses who have contributed. She said
she realizes new Councilmembers are likely overwhelmed by the volume of information to understand,
and said it is for this reason that she asks each councilmember to understand the reasons for the decisions
that were made in the past, and understand the consequences of any Council action before fully
undertaking any major changes to what has been accomplished to date. She thanked Council for their
time and contribution to the community. Ms. Sands confirmed that she speaks as a citizen of this
community.
Tony Lazanis: said he came to speak concerning the sewers; that we paid for and have no voice; he said
we paid 75 %, so we should have a voice; and said further down the road he would like to see Council talk
to the County Commissioners and maybe take it over three or four years from now; and he said we can't
be a city without ownership of our own sewers.
Margaret Mortz, 3420 S Ridgeview Drive: distributed a handout to the City Clerk for Councilmembers,
and said she wanted to address videotaping of council and other city meetings; she said the videotapes
should be shown on cable and U -Tube since many people don't have cable; she said citizens would
benefit from using modern audiovisual technology to make meetings accessible to all, thereby giving
citizens more opportunity to be well - informed; she said regarding taxes, that taxes are reasonable when
those being taxed derive direct benefit; that people paying cable charges would receive a high quality
video, far better than U -Tube; and said taxes are also reasonable when people get an indirect benefit as in
enhancing democracy; that archived video on U -Tube would provide verification of what was actually
said in the context in which it was said; she said the cost is reasonable and is even extremely inexpensive;
that the need is timely and is long overdue; and she added that if the quality of the video tape is
inadequate or the faces of the speakers cannot be easily seen, the information transfer is inadequate.
1. CONSENT AGENDA Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any
member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered
separately.
Council Regular Meeting 2 -23 -2010 Page 3 of 12
Approved by Council: 3 -09 -2010
a. Approval of the following claim vouchers:
VOUCHER LIST DATE
WNOUCHER NUMBERS:
TOTAL AMOUNT
02/03/2010
19552 —19553
$1,368.80
02/05/2010
19554
$42,463.81
02/16/2010
19555 — 19573
$167,848.45
02/16/2010
19574 —19626; 129100029, 205100008
$1,739,597.41
02/17/2010
3085, 3089, 3090, 3091
$59,493.22
GRAND TOTAL
$2,010,771.69
b. Approval of Payroll for Period Ending February 15, 2010: $258,808.26
c. Approval of Holcim Amendment to Access and Indemnity Agreement
d. Approval of Study Session Meeting Minutes of February 2, 2010
Councilmember Grassel questioned voucher #19557, Bernardo Wills Architects, for $17,866.26 for City
Hall conceptual site plan, and Mr. Connelly said this was for work done last summer, and said we would
not incur any further costs without council direction. It was moved by Councilmember Dempsey, seconded
and unanimously agreed to approve the consent agenda.
NEW BUSINESS
2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 10 -003 Alarm Resulations — Cary Driskell/Rick VanLeuven
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Dempsey and
seconded to approve ordinance 10 -003. Deputy City Attorney Driskell said he had explained the changes
previously, and is open for questions; adding that these are mostly minor changes to the original
ordinance which was adopted late 2009 with an effective date of January 1, 2010. Councilmember
Grassel asked for a copy of the letter sent to citizens concerning the alarm registration. Mayor Towey
invited public comment. Marcia Sands, 10618 E Ferret Drive: said she has an alarm on her house and
feels this is a legitimate charge; that her alarm system reduces her insurance cost and is a benefit and said
it is reasonable to pay for the service as false alarms are very time - consuming; and that responding to
false alarms stretches our resources and said a fee to help dissuade the cost of the false alarms will likely
result in people making sure their alarm companies have contact information. Vote by Acclamation: In
Favor: Unanimous. Opposed.• None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 10 -004 — Christina Janssen/Mike Connellv
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Dempsey and
seconded to approve ordinance 10 -004. Assistant Planner Janssen explained that this amendment adds
language regarding the option of a development agreement in conjunction with comprehensive plan
amendments; and she briefly gave the background of this proposal as per her February 23 Request for
Council Action form. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by
Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
4. Proposed Resolution 10 -005 Withdrawins from Participation in Cable Advisory Board — Morsan
Koudelka
At Mayor Towey's request, City Clerk Bainbridge read the title of the Resolution. It was then moved by
Councilmember Dempsey and seconded to approve Resolution 10 -005 withdrawing from the Regional
Cable Advisory Board. Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka explained the reasons for the proposed
withdraw, which he said are mostly due to a lack of participation and difficulty in keeping our board
appointments filled; and said once this resolution is approved, it would go into effect sixty days from the
date of notification to the County. Mayor Towey invited public comments; no comments were offered.
Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
Council Regular Meeting 2 -23 -2010 Page 4 of 12
Approved by Council: 3 -09 -2010
5. Motion Consideration: Paveback Financing— Ken Thompson
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to authorize full width pavement above County
sewer lines during the 2010 construction season and to transfer $1.5 million from the civic facilities fund
to pay for the curb -to -curb payment above newly installed county sewer lines during 2010. Finance
Director Thompson said this action will result in $1.5 million less in the Civic Facilities Fund for future
projects, but would reduce street maintenance costs in future years on those streets. Mayor Towey invited
public comments; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed.•
None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
6. Motion Consideration: Paveback Interlocal Agreement — Steve Worley
It was moved by Councilmember Dempsey and seconded to approve the 2010 STEP Memorandum of
Understanding with Spokane County, and authorize the City Manager or designee to sign the agreement.
Senior Engineer Worley gave some background on the issue, as noted in his February 23 Request for
Council Action form, and as was previously discussed with Council during the retreat and other meetings;
and said the funds to handle payment of this would come from the stormwater utility fund; and that the
difference between the $1.5 million mentioned in the previous agenda item and the $1.8 million needed
for these projects is the CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) of $331,000. Deputy Mayor
Schimmels said the point of ownership was brought up by Mr. Jackson concerning the West Farms
Project and full ownership of the right -of -way; and Mr. Worley said that there is a portion of Boone
Avenue, between Barker and Flora Roads, where part of that right -of -way is an old railroad right -of -way,
some of which is owned by Spokane County; that the County is currently going through a process to
review all the deeds on how they acquired that in order to identify what is their property versus what is
public right -of -way; and if public right -of -way with a street improved in it, then it is likely our right -of-
way, and he said we notified the County that we cannot spend city money on paving any roads that are
under County ownership, so until all deeds are reviewed by the County and County property identified as
well as public property, we cannot decide how much paying we pay for on Boone Avenue.
Councilmember Gothmann, for public disclosure, said he has a close relative who owns property along
that right -of -way. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by
Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
7. Motion Consideration: City Hall Negotiations — Mike Connelly
It was moved by Councilmember Grassel and seconded to suspend negotiations with the property owner
for the purchase of property for City Hall, and request that staff notes the property owner of this Council
action. City Attorney Connelly explained that a few weeks ago he outlined the history of negotiations
between our city and the property owner of the University City property, which is currently identified in
our Subarea Plan as the City Center, or the likely location for a new city hall and city center development;
in November when it was clear we would have new councilmembers to consider this topic, negotiations
were informally suspended pending the opportunity to discuss with this council and hear their plans for
the SARP (Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan) and for the development of city center; and said
subsequent to this council taking office, staff initiated conversations with respect to SARP, and this was
discussed at the Council/Staff retreat last month; and because we had received council direction to initiate
negotiations, staff now asks if Council desires to provide direction to suspend those negotiations until we
can resolve the direction of the SARP plan; and said if council wants further action taken at some point
regarding city center property, Council can direct staff on that issue at that time. Mayor Towey invited
public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:
None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
8. Motion Consideration: Law Enforcement Memorandum of Understanding (Precinct Commander
Position) — Mike Jackson
It was moved by Councilmember Dempsey and seconded to authorize the City Manager to finalize and
execute the Memorandum of Understanding which adds an additional full -time equivalent position of
Council Regular Meeting 2 -23 -2010 Page 5 of 12
Approved by Council: 3 -09 -2010
lieutenant, who will he designated as the Spokane Valley Precinct Commander. Acting City Manager
Jackson said that over the last few meetings, Chief VanLeuven has discussed the need for this position,
and he has been before council to discuss the interlocal and the cost involved with this position; and Mr.
Jackson gave the highlights of the memorandum of understanding that change the contract, e.g. changing
from two to three lieutenants (section 3a section 3.2); and the following section b changing section 4 of
the original contract, outlining the selection process involving the Chief of Police and the Spokane Valley
City Manager, and said the Sheriff suggested that the City Manager be involved in the hiring of this
position just as occurs with the hiring of a police chief. Mr. Jackson noted that the financial impacts
would include an additional law enforcement support cost of $15,000 to cover vehicles, forensics support,
etc.
Councilmember Grassel voiced her concern over the sustainability of the position since the information
states that the funds are available in the public safety 2010 budget, but said she is not clear what happens
in future years; she said she feels this could be postponed; in looking at our budget and going back to the
$14 million potential deficit, said if we continue as we are now it would result in a $3 million a year
shortfall; that she wondered how the public might feel adding another position in this economic
downturn; and said she feels that as council goes through the budget process, cuts will have to be made
because we can't sustain our current spending; and said that she believes the position is needed; and she
mentioned that she has not seen a job description and said she doesn't feel comfortable when she doesn't
fully understand what this position would entail. Acting City Manager Jackson said currently there is $1
million in the public safety budget that can cover this cost, but we don't know if there will be other settle
and adjust costs or other unanticipated costs, and therefore it is possible if there is a large settle and adjust
that staff could come before council later seeking additional funds in 2010, but such is not anticipated; he
said we are negotiating a new contract with the Sheriff and hope to have that before council this summer;
and said he believes this will be a position that will be in the final contract even if other adjustments have
to be made to bring us to a suitable budget level for the entire contract. In terms of the position
description, Mr. Jackson said the position fits into the lieutenant description with the assignment of
Precinct Commander. City Attorney Connelly said this is a unique contract in that the Sheriff Office acts
independent of the City of Spokane Valley regarding the daily duties and the performance of the jobs, that
we don't define the job description for any of the officers, and we don't negotiate with them or engage in
any collective bargaining with them, as all that is done through the Sheriff's Office; so any job
descriptions or defined duties for any position other then the Police Chief would be handled by them
independent of us; and the trade -off is we have no liability for their actions.
Councilmember Grassel said if Council were to approve this position, and if they go over the budgeted
amount, would that be left to the Sheriff's Office to sort out and she asked if the Sheriff's Office might
come to this council in the future and state that since this Council funded this position, that we should
increase our budget. Mr. Jackson said if we agree to fund this position, we would be responsible for any
settle and adjust or any increases to the contract that would occur between now and a final, permanent
contract is negotiated; and said he could not say it would be strictly up to the Sheriff or the Chief to find a
way to save these particular funds. Councilmember McCaslin asked if there would be any harm in waiting
until the agreement is finalized. Mr. Jackson said he couldn't say there is harm; Councilmember
McCaslin asked then why the hurry, and Mr. Jackson said both the Chief and the Sheriff requested
Council consider this position; and said as discussed previously with Council when this question
originally came up, that it is part of a larger package that the Sheriff proposed would help offset some of
the costs in the Sheriff's Department; he explained that we were going to move some positions out of the
Valley Precinct and into the unincorporated area; and we were considering if we were to start to pay for
some positions such as the drug and endangered child detective, gang detective, and a meth detective; and
before this was brought to Council, it occurred to the County that scenario would not work for the county,
and rather than not consider the precinct commander position, this request was brought to Council; so
there would be no harm in waiting, but a matter that the Sheriff and Chief had wanted for a long time to
Council Regular Meeting 2 -23 -2010 Page 6 of 12
Approved by Council: 3 -09 -2010
fill that position; and because of their current financial condition, the Sheriff is going to find it necessary
to move some specific positions from the precinct to other patrol duties which will take the qualified
personnel that are able to act as a precinct commander now, out of the valley precinct thus making it
more difficult for the Chief to fill that position with qualified personnel because of the changes that will
happen; but said it is more a matter of trying to move forward and cooperate with request from the Sheriff
and the Chief.
Councilmember McCaslin asked if Mr. Jackson is advocating for this position, and Mr. Jackson said he
supports this position at this time, and said he feels it will be a position that will be in the final contract;
and through the process of negotiation, if other changes need to be made to hold down the cost of the
contract, then that will be addressed at that time; and said he feels the Chief and the Sheriff would place
this position higher than some other positions. Councilmember McCaslin said he is advocating against
this; and said that Mr. Jackson is for it, and Councilmember McCaslin is against it. Mr. Jackson said to be
clear, city staff supports the request, but did not initiate it. Councilmember Dempsey asked if future
economic conditions warrant it, or other unforeseen circumstances occur, could this position be de-
funded; and Mr. Jackson said this is a temporary agreement, and if we want to make changes in the
permanent contract, that would be something to consider in the negotiations. Deputy Mayor Schimmels
said he feels it should be stated that the Sheriff looked at this position and it was highly recommended by
the law enforcement assessment we had last summer or last fall, and said he supports this position.
Councilmember Dempsey said she feels the Chief needs the relief of a second -in- command. Mayor
Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Councilmember Gothmann said whether the
present contract were extended or not, or a new contract were negotiated or not, that this position is still
needed. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels; and Councilmembers
Dempsey, Gothmann, and Grafos. Opposed.• Councilmembers Grassel and McCaslin. Abstentions:
None. Motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments.
Troy Dilley 2400 N Wilbur Road, Apt 150: spoke regarding the Pines and Mansfield intersection; and
asked why there is a blinking yellow light; he said it is confusing; and he asked why not have something
to stop the traffic as he has seen a lot of near misses. Mr. Jackson said it would be best to defer this to our
Public Works Department to prepare a response; adding that the blinking yellow light has been discussed
before and it is a recognized method of traffic control.
Mayor Towey called for a recess at 7:25 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 7:35 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
9. Uniform Development Code Amendment CTA 08 -09 — Marty Palaniuk
Planning Technician Palaniuk explained the proposal via his PowerPoint presentation; that the proposed
changes include requiring a pre - application meeting for all commercial building permits; to restrict the
height of fences in the front yard for all zoning districts and not just for residential; to amend the
clearview triangle distances in Table 22.70; to add exemptions to the clearview triangle regulations so that
those regulations would not apply to living trees provided they are not planted in the form of a hedge and
are trimmed to a specific height; to exempt new retaining walls under thirty inches or those in existence
prior to October 10, 2004; to exempt structures other than fences and signs; and to include as an
exemption to clearview triangle regulations, the intersection of two private streets; and to add provisions
permitting the use of electric and barbed wire for confining animals in a residential district; and added
that these amendments would correct errors and omissions, and resolve any ambiguity while clarifying
standards.
Councilmember Grafos asked Mr. Palaniuk to explain the rationale for the proposed changes in the
clearview triangle and said the distances proposed would exceed the standard in the City of Spokane or
Council Regular Meeting 2 -23 -2010 Page 7 of 12
Approved by Council: 3 -09 -2010
Spokane County. Traffic Engineer Note explained that the reason for the change is that upon
incorporation, we adopted the City of Spokane standard primarily because she thinks the first traffic
engineer was from the City of Spokane; during the process this year of writing our new street standards,
staff reviewed those distances and determined that what we had was possibly not large enough to match
well with what was being used in development engineering for all of the new construction and it did not
match well with the national guideline we are supposed to use, which is the AASHTO (Association of
American State Highway and Transportation Officials) Green Book (a policy on geometric design of
highways and streets); and said it makes it a little more defensible in case we are called into Court; and
she said she worked extensively with City Attorney Connelly on the language of this. Councilmember
Grafos asked if it is against federal law to keep the guidelines used by the City of Spokane, and said since
this addresses a two -way stop controlled intersection, the distance change from 110 feet in a 35 miles an
hour zone, to 160 feet, and on another intersection in looking at those side distances, if someone has a
100 -foot lot, we have used up most of their lot just in the clearview triangle, and he asked why that is
necessary. Ms. Note said we have had some accidents; that she monitors the collision reports as they
come in and said she tries to report to our Code Enforcement Officers if there is a clearview triangle
notation on such collision reports; said it would not be against the law to keep what we have, but the
guidelines she proposes would be more defensible if we were to be sued. Deputy City Attorney Driskell
added that there are risk management reasons why we wanted to look at our initial standards and
determine if we are adequately protecting the public; and regarding what the City of Spokane and
Spokane County had adopted and what they maintain, he said it can be difficult to look at another
jurisdiction's regulations since we don't know when they last updated those standards, or what their
thought process was in any standard or changes; and all we can do is rely on the expertise of our traffic
engineer. Ms. Note said that since we don't know what year the City of Spokane developed their
numbers, there have been several revisions to the AASHTO Green Book that we use, and she said what
she is proposing is in accordance with the more recent revision of that Book; she said clearview triangles
have changed quite a bit in the last ten or twenty years; so what they have could be based off the old
book.
Councilmember Grafos asked if perhaps staff could split the issue of the clearview triangle away from the
fencing issue; and said he feels it is too extensive. Councilmember McCaslin, to clarify, stated that we
hired an engineer from the City of Spokane who set the standards up which were incorrect; and Ms. Note
said we hired an engineer from the City of Spokane, and said that she is not assuming those were
incorrect standards; but the Green Book has been updated recently and the numbers she proposes are
numbers she is more comfortable with as the City's current Traffic Engineer; and what our legal
department has been comfortable with. Councilmember McCaslin asked if we would be liable if we didn't
change our standards, and Deputy City Attorney Driskell said he would not say that we would be liable;
but that it increases the likelihood that we could be found liable, and if the City wants to chart a safer
course from the standpoint of being sued when there are accidents, this is more defensible and should put
our citizens in a safer condition in terms of these intersections. Ms. Note said she doesn't have data
available to state if there have been problems; and Councilmember McCaslin said that data would be
helpful when explaining this change to citizens. Mr. Jackson said if council wants additional information
when this comes back for consideration, staff could oblige. Councilmember Grassel asked if there are
consequences of a citizen not being in conformity. Deputy City Attorney Driskell said while we do not
anticipate any jail time associated with not being in conformance, there would be a financial consequence;
that our code compliance officer would respond generally from a compliant of a fellow citizen, and the
code compliance officer would measure the intersection to determine compliance; and if not in
compliance, the process would be as it is for any non - compliance issue: the citizen would be contacted in
an attempt to resolve the problem, including any corrective action needed and any correction done then
would not involve any monetary fee; but if the citizen decided not to respond, then a warning would issue,
formally advising of the upcoming process if the property it not brought into compliance, and if the
citizen continues to ignore the issue, a Notice and Order would issue along with a $500.00 fine; but that
Council Regular Meeting 2 -23 -2010 Page 8 of 12
Approved by Council: 3 -09 -2010
would be after several opportunities to correct the issue, which most often means trimming bushes or
removing some vegetation. Councilmember Grafos said if he's in compliance under the old rule, and the
rule is changed and someone makes a compliant, would that be a violation; and Mr. Driskell said yes, as
there is no grandfathering as it is a safety issue.
Ms. Note said she can supply more information to allow further understanding of what the impact would
be; she explained, for example, that the two -way stop is the one proposed to be modified; that it has a
triangle for a very short leg on one side and a very long leg on the other; and the proposal is to extend the
very tip of this a little further out; and most of the time that tip would be within the city's right -of -way;
and probably not get into people's shrubbery; and she said that most of the time when she sees a
clearview problem, it is usually within the zone within the corner with a bush right next to where a car
parks; and things further out generally doesn't cause a great problem. Councilmember Grafos said if he
has a 100 foot lot, this would go completely across the frontage of the lot; and Ms. Note explained it
would go across the frontage, but it is measured from the curb or five feet from the pavement, and is not
necessarily measured across the right -of -way as that right -of -way is unknown to the staff out in the field.
Councilmember Grassel said that in reference to 22.70.020, the change is to change the fencing from
residential lot to any lot; and asked if that includes commercial property. Mr. Palaniuk confirmed that
includes commercial anywhere in city limits. Councilmember Grassel said she sees a lot of issues with
that as it is not a very high fence; like the Northwest Fence Company has fencing up which is part of their
display of their business; and she asked if they were included in that. Mr. Palaniuk said they would be
included; and anything existing there now would be legally nonconforming; meaning that the use could
continue; but if they were to take it down; they would have twelve months to replace it, so they would be
allowed to continue without any sort of legal issues; and said that this is twenty feet from the property line
back; and said in some cases a building could be set back forty feet, but it would not be that entire forty
feet but just the twenty feet from the property line back, as that is what is considered the front yard; so
they would be restricted to either a three -foot site obstructing fence, or a four foot see - through type fence;
and at the twenty -foot back mark, they would be able to go up to eight feet and continue the fence.
Deputy Mayor Schimmels asked if most of the clearview triangle issues are complaint driven; and Ms.
Note confirmed these issues are primarily complaint driven; that she'll get calls or she'll notice things on
police accident reports; and occasionally while out in the field, staff might notice an issue and call it in;
that there was some discussion last year about doing a more complete analysis and looking at all the
intersections, but said she is not aware of the status of that. Mr. Palaniuk added that most of the changes
dealing with clearview triangles are corrective in nature; and the only change of any substance deals with
the figure on the table. In response to a question from Councilmember McCaslin if this is our legal
responsibility to change this, Deputy City Attorney Driskell responded that whether there is an
affirmative legal duty to change this, he said he feels Council has some discretion within the bounds
mentioned before, as Council should listen to the advice of the Senior Traffic Engineer and consider in
the decision - making what is the safety aspect to consider for the citizens and at what level of risk do you
want to put the city in the regulations council adopts; whether or not to be more restrictive on the property
owners but safer for the traveling public according to the traffic engineer and the police. There was no
council objection to bring this forward for a first reading March 9.
10. Uniform Development Code Amendment CTA 01 -10 — Karen Kendall
Assistant Planner Kendall explained that this proposed amendment is a citizen - initiated amendment as the
citizen proposes "secondhand stores and consignment sales" be allowed in the light industrial (L -1) zone
with the conditions that the parcel must have frontage on an arterial; the minimum building size must be
15,000 gross square feet; and be limited to a single tenant. Ms. Kendall said the citizen would like this
processed quickly and she mentioned the possibility of council considering at the first reading, to waive
the second reading and approve the ordinance; and said that the proposed business is a large retail,
secondhand store. Councilmember McCaslin asked if this proposed change could be done without the
Council Regular Meeting 2 -23 -2010 Page 9 of 12
Approved by Council: 3 -09 -2010
15,000 minimum gross square footage, or if a change could be made in light industrial without that
stipulation; and Ms. Kendall said council can make a change from what was recommended by the
Planning Commission. Councilmember McCaslin said when you put things in statutes, you create a
problem for people; so if somebody had 14,000 they couldn't do it; and said therefore we are restricting
what people can do in light industrial, and said we should broaden rather than restrict in order to stimulate
people coming up with such things as used furniture stores. Councilmember Dempsey said she would be
leery of taking out the 15,000 as otherwise there could be small 200 square foot shops here and there.
Councilmember McCaslin responded by stating that we would be stymieing business, and he asked if
Councilmember Dempsey is against business. Councilmember Dempsey said she is not against business
but is against a lot of little tiny shacks going up to sell secondhand items; and Councilmember McCaslin
responded that the county was founded on that. Councilmember Grafos asked if this retail use in a light
industrial zone is allowed in Spokane County. Ms. Kendall said she did not know; and Councilmember
Grafos asked her to check on that as he knows that it is; and said they also allow other retail uses other
than secondhand stores, and he asked if this was a downzone, or why don't we allow that; and asked if
there was a zone change that restricted the retail use in an industrial zoning. Ms. Kendall said when
Council adopted the Uniform Development Code in 2007, the schedule of permitted uses was reviewed
extensively; that this is one specific use within that twelve -page document; and Council at that time
determined that retail is not allowed in the light or heavy industrial zones except if it is accessory to a
specific manufacturing business; so there are some retail uses allowed but they are limited; and said the
citizen proposed all of those criteria to keep with the current allowed uses.
Councilmember Grassel asked about changing the wording on the square footage; Mr. Jackson responded
that this is the recommendation from the Planning Commission. Councilmember Grassel said it wouldn't
hurt this particular proposal if the square footage were lowered to 5,000; as it would still meet the
citizen's criteria. Ms. Kendall said the particular applicant is a fairly large secondhand store which is
actually greater than 15,000 square feet. Councilmember Grassel then suggested the square footage be
changed to make a more fair playing field; and said although she mentioned 5,000, it could be 2, 3 or 1.
There was no council objection to changing the square footage to 5,000 and to bring this forward for a
first reading March 9.
11. Panhandling Update — Cary Driskell
Deputy City Attorney Driskell gave an update on the panhandling issue as per the materials included in
the council's packet; he mentioned his discussions with staff from the City of Spokane; that he examined
Seattle's code provisions; the Ninth Court of Appeals cases which ultimately considers panhandling
freedom of speech and expression; and that we sent a draft ordinance to the Center for Justice to get their
input and the accompanying letter from them states their analysis of our draft under existing and new
Constitutional case decisions. Mr. Driskell said we have provisions on obstructing traffic and or on
aggressive panhandling and on disorderly conduct; that he recommends focusing on enforcing those
provisions and proceed with an educational program to let citizens know they can donate to such places as
the House of Charity or any of the Missions instead of giving money to panhandlers, as about 80% of
money given to panhandlers is used for drugs and alcohol. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned the
efforts of the Panhandling Committee and his report of September 26, 2008, and said that the "Card and
Wooden Nickel" program used in Alaska appears to be an effective program (wooden nickels to give to
the homeless for two days of food, clothing and shelter); and he said he would be willing to act as liaison
to proceed with an education program and to report back to council periodically. Council concurred.
12. Property Tax Update — Ken Thompson
Finance Director Thompson said that Council previously expressed interest in reducing property taxes for
the 2010 collections; he said that it is too late to reduce that because deadlines have to meet and we can't
reverse it; but we could set aside the property tax levy coming to us based on growth, and not including
the new construction, which would mean setting aside $110,566 this summer as it comes in to us, and to
Council Regular Meeting 2 -23 -2010 Page 10 of 12
Approved by Council: 3 -09 -2010
use that to reduce the property tax in 2011, which he said would mean there would be a reduction of
$110,566 from the general fund as well if that is Council's decision. Councilmember Gothmann
distributed a handout showing a scenario from two different property owners: one in the Edgeclift area
with an assessed property valuation of $79,500, and the other in the Ponderosa area with an assessed
value of $259,100; and said for property 1 in Edgeclift, total taxes went up even though the evaluation
actually went down; that the percentage of Spokane Valley's allocation went from 12.30% of the total tax
bill in 2009 to 11.54% in 2010; and said the taxes are actually going down by $4.02 in 2010 compared
with 2009. Councilmember Gothmann said the difference in millage rates between 2009 and 2010 was
.0102 or approximately 1¢ per $1,000 valuation; with a percentage different of .6812% or two- thirds of
1 %; so for this first property, the change increased their Spokane Valley portion by .68% or
approximately two- thirds of 1 %; and the dollar difference based on that is 52¢; so based on the action our
Council took in the last quarter, this property pays 52¢ a year more or approximately 1¢ a week so he
said the problem we are trying to solve regarding this first property, is how to prevent them from paying
that 10 per week or 52¢ per year. Regarding property 2 in the Ponderosa, Councilmember Gothmann said
the assessed valuation increased from 2009 to 2010, from $259,100 to $262,400; with the Spokane Valley
portion going from $388.62 to $396.25, he said the dollar value due to that was $1.79; and for this
property, the action before this council would be to figure out how is that owner of that $262,400 home
going to come up with an extra $1.79 over the next year, or approximately 30 per week; and he said the
budget for the next year must be budgeted; and he wished to reserve any comments on that process until
that process actually begins this summer.
Deputy Mayor Schimmels asked Mr. Thompson, if this is such a minute amount, why did we do this; and
Finance Director Thompson replied that we were looking into the future and trying to make sure we
collected as much revenue as possible just to avoid a potential problem down the road, and he said he
believes he informed Council at the time that it was pretty small numbers. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said
he understood that and was on the backside of that issue all the way. Councilmember Grafos said he
voted against that increase initially, and said he would like to set aside this money; that it isn't a lot of
money to some people but the $110,000 is not chump change and he wants to set it aside for the taxpayers
and refund it to them, whether it is 10¢ or 20¢ or $20.00. Councilmember Grassel agreed and said it is
the principle of the property tax; as properties have gone down in value and we put in an emergency
property tax without reducing expenses; and she said she feels that is not fair to the taxpayers to increase
their taxes, even a small amount, without looking at any kind of reduction in expenditures.
Councilmember McCaslin asked what it would cost to refund the taxpayers; and Mr. Thompson said it
would not be a refund to the individual property owners, but would be a reduction in the City's levy
citywide for 2011; and Councilmember McCaslin suggested reducing the levy is better verbiage instead
of refund. Councilmember Gothmann said he assumes in the process of adopting the 2011 budget, council
would review six -year plans, and if this is one of the options, he would like to see the affect of this option
on those six -year plans. Councilmember Dempsey said from what she is hearing about the economy
improving, if times actually do get better and our revenues increase, would this be necessary. Mr.
Thompson replied that would be a council policy decision. Acting City Manager Jackson said staff is
asking if we should bring this back for a motion consideration later, based on Council's preferred
timeline. Councilmember McCaslin said he was told today that the Senate budget came out with $960
million in new taxes, and said if we can reduce a penny or two off our citizens, it would be good press and
good publicity. Councilmember Dempsey said since this won't happen until 2011, she suggested we wait
until we do the budget this summer. Deputy Mayor Schimmels suggested putting this on the agenda at
the mid -year budget amendments. Finance Director Thompson said the budget is often amended in the
spring, and again in the fall if needed; and said we could bring that up then; and said the budget process
for next year starts this summer. There was Council consensus to bring this back in May or June.
Council Regular Meeting 2 -23 -2010 Page 11 of 12
Approved by Council: 3 -09 -2010
13. Surplus Property: Parcel Near 16608 E Broadway — Steve Worley
Senior Engineer Worley explained that the City is in the process of designing the improvements to
Broadway Avenue between Moore Road and Flora Road, and this particular property is on the south side
of Broadway; he said during staff's research of the right -of -way, it was discovered that the owner had
inherited this small triangular piece from her parents and she didn't know she owned it; we approached
her because we needed to purchase ten feet and we asked to purchase the whole piece and she agreed so
we purchased the entire triangular piece; he said we plan to keep the front ten feet as that is needed to
make the improvements to Broadway; and he showed a small hatched area on the map which we now
own but which he believes has no value to the City. Mr. Worley said the City is also purchasing right -of-
way and drainage easements from another property owner of the adjoining property at 16608 E.
Broadway; and the owner agreed to grant those drainage easements so that we can build a water - quality
treatment swale to treat the runoff from the roadway; and said that tonight's proposal is to come back at a
future council meeting for council to consider declaring the small triangular piece of property as surplus,
which would allow us to trade that property to the owner of the other property to help offset the cost for
purchasing the right -of -way and the drainage easements; he said we have not heard of any interest in that
property. Councilmember McCaslin recused himself from any vote on this and said that property owner
donated to his campaign about twelve years ago. There was council consensus to move forward as
proposed.
14. Advance Agenda — Mayor Towey
Councilmember Grassel said a few months ago there was an article about the Open Public Meeting Act
regarding some councilmembers having coffee at the Yokes public area; and there was some concern by
the Spokesman review report and by citizens that there may have been some violations to that because of
the requirement that no four councilmembers be together; and in light of that article, she mentioned the
meals available on Tuesday nights prior to Council meetings; she asked for a copy of the resolution which
granted that, and she proposed that we have staff look at eliminating those dinners and perhaps consider
having council meetings at 6:30 or 7:00 p.m.; she said Liberty Lake and Millwood start their council
meetings at 7 p.m. and none of them have such meals. Councilmember Dempsey said that a later starting
hour would be difficult for her due to her Wednesday schedule. Mayor Towey said he and Mr. Jackson
discussed this matter and it will be put on a future agenda for discussion; and Mr. Jackson said we could
put this on an agenda if council desires, but eliminating the regular meals prior to a council meeting only
takes a nod from council; and said he assumes council would like to retain the ability to provide meals for
such things as retreats. Mayor Towey said he prefers discussing this issue at the March 9 meeting.
Deputy Mayor Schimmels said he would not suggest discussing the council meeting time change at this
point. Councilmember Grassel said her proposal to start the meeting later was to give staff and council
opportunity to eat prior to the meeting; and said due to her work schedule, she has difficulty arriving at
6:00 p.m. for the meetings.
INFORMATION ONLY: The department reports, Spokane County Library District Fourth Quarter
Report, and Transportation Benefit District were for information only and were not discussed or reported.
13. EXECUTIVE SESSION Pending Litigation [RCW 42.30.110(i)]. There was no executive session.
It was moved by Councilmember McCaslin, seconded and un ' ously agreed to adjourn. The meeting
adjourned at 8:52 p.m.
A
T omas E. Towey, Mayor
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Council Regular Meeting 2 -23 -2010 Page 12 of 12
Approved by Council: 3 -09 -2010
SIGN -IN SHEET
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DATE: February 23, 2010
ENERAL CITIZEN COMMENTS
OUR SPEAKING TIME WILL GENERALLY BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES
Please sign in if you wish to make public comments.
NAME
PLEASE PRINT
TOPIC OF CONCERN YOU
WILL SPEAK ABOUT
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
(
1 0
3o �
U7-147
U
C4
�!
�( qI
n
I
l � / � ' L • L
d r
V A
l lwl�(l
0
19
Feb. 23, 2010
Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members:
I wish to address the issue of videotaping council meetings and other city meetings where decisions are made. The
videotapes should be shown on both cable TV and on YouTube. Since many people, including myself, do not
have cable, the city channel on YouTube would make it possible to view the meetings, allow archiving of
meetings, and allow free captioning of the meetings for hard of hearing people (like myself).
A summary of my reasons:
1. Thomas Jefferson makes it clear that informed citizens are essential to American democracy.
"Whenever the people are well- informed, they can be trusted with their own government. Whenever things
get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights." — Thomas Jefferson
-to Richard Price, 1789. ME 7:253
"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think
them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take
it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional
_power." -- Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/Auotations/eeff0350.htm
All citizens would benefit from using modern audiovisual technology to make meetings accessible to all. We
would then have more opportunity to be well- informed citizens.. Many people either work during meeting
times or have other commitments. I, personally, used to be employed during the meeting times.
2. Taxes are reasonable when:
2.1 The people being taxed derive direct benefit. People paying any cable charges would receive high quality
video, far better than YouTube. Since much of the costs would be from the general fund, the general public would
benefit from all process that strengthens democracy.
2.2 If there is indirect benefit to the persons being taxed. In addition to enhancing democracy, archived videos
on YouTube also verification of what was actually said, in the context in which it was said. This can minimize
out -of- context misstatements being attributed to officials, and minimize misunderstanding. It can make for a fairer
process.
2.3 The cost is reasonable. Yes, given the value to democracy and fair politics, it is extremely inexpensive.
2.4 The need is timely. In my opinion, it is long overdue.
3. Please provide very high quality videotaping. If the audio is inadequate or the faces of the speakers cannot be
easily seen, then the information transfer is inadequate.
In summary, I believe that Thomas Jefferson would approve of using modern technology to enhance our
governance in Spokane Valley.
Margaret Mortz
3420 S. Ridgeview Dr. Spokane Valley WA 9920 893 -1472
December 29, 2009
Memo from:
Sharon O'Shaughnessy
7307 E. 9 th Street
Spokane Valley, WA 99212
To: Spokane County Building and Planning Department in Response to Notice of Application Type II
File # PE- 2024 -09 /PUDE -03 -09
I have just reviewed your Notice of Application and the Environmental Checklist (EC) submitted by South
Park land Dev elopement LLC for their proposed Taylor cottages Preliminary Plat /PUD.
There appears to be a number of answers that were incomplete and /or may have been minimized to
insure the passage of this plan. Some of these answers concern clean water (aquifer recharge), water
supply, wildlife habitat and wetlands, and city of Spokane Valley and Spokane County Services and
financial responsibilities.
Critical Aquifer Recharge Area — High Susceptibility:
The developer answered question 13 on Page 5 YES — and then stated that the area lies within the
"CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREA — HIGH SUSCEPIBILITY ". This throws up an immediate large red
flag to me. The soil in the area is highly porous and during a heavy rain event would quickly transmit any
contamination to our "sole source" aquifer, which would endanger the health and lives of not only
district residents, but to most of the residences to the west and north of the area. The latest aquifer
study shows how runoff from the hills south of the sandy basin (project site) collects in the basin then
flows North West into the mainstream of the aquifer. A contamination event would immediately affect
East Spokane Water District wells, and immediately move to Carnhope's single supply well, Spokane
County Water District #3 well, and then northward to one of the City of Spokane' primary wells, and
most of Whitworth Water District potable water wells.
As we all know, it does not take much — one gallon of gasoline renders 500,000 gallons of water
poisonous. During the construction phase of the project, it is stated that potential spills are expected.
Who will be responsible for clean -up? With all of the many chemicals and equipment that are possible
the developer states that only "standard" or required precautions will be used. Therefore many spills
will not be reported, or cleaned up and because the developer is using only swales and dry wells (which
are not permitted within a Critical Aquifer Recharge Area) contamination will not be detected until the
contamination reaches the wells and residences.
As we all know, it is not a matter of if there is a contamination event, it is a matter of when. I am sure
everyone is aware of the Burlington Northern contamination that is currently moving towards MOAB's
wells. The City of Houser approved the refueling station because it would bring 2 or 3 jobs to the area.
But they did require that the Railroad put in monitoring wells and used the latest and best construction
procedures and materials. The Railroad assured the City that NO contamination event would occur.
Less than two years after beginning operations, water in one of the monitoring wells showed major
deadly contamination. We all have to live with that one — but the railroad has lots of money, and can
pay for mitigation and medical bills. Does the City and County have those types of resources?
1
I feel that the City and County have the responsibility of notifying all stakeholders, i.e. water districts
that will be affected by the future contamination. Additionally, the City, County, and East Spokane
Water District need to protect local residences. They can do so by requiring the developer to revise his
project to use state of the art monitoring wells and construction practices, and to post a bond in excess
of Ten Billion dollars for future aquifer clean -up. Additionally, the developer must be responsible for
water quality monitoring in the area and throughout the district for a period of no less than 50 years.
This may appear to be extreme, but it is actually a minimal requirement. Spokane County's muni code
"11.20.075 Critical aquifer recharge areas" states that it's goals for "Critical Aquifer Recharge Area "s are
"1. Prevent degradation of groundwater quality in the county and improve water quality of aquifers
that do not meet state standards.
2. Protect groundwater quality from development impacts.
3. Secure adequate water quantity for the residents of the county."
The City and County should review water resource clean up costs, and then rezone the area for non
development.
Water Supply and Water Rights:
The Developer states that water will be supplied by the East Spokane Water District. Does the District
have adequate water rights to supply this size development? My understanding is that the District is
currently operating at capacity for water rights. Obtaining additional water rights for this property may
present a problem, even if the land has an agricultural water right. The Washington State Department
of Ecology is delaying processing conversion of agricultural water rights because domestic supply is year
round instead of May to October. Additional pumping during winter months (little or no recharge) could
dangerously lower aquifer levels. Since the Department of Reclamation has designated our area (the
Spokane Aquifer) as a critical water supply area, new water rights are not being issued. Has the
developer obtained sufficient water rights, or is the District expected to pay. Currently water rights cost
in excess of $800 per acre foot, an intertie or new well could cost more than $250,000 plus the cost of
water, and the conversion of a water right could cost as much as $30,000. Who would be responsible
for these costs? If the District is responsible, this will impact all of the District's customers. The same
holds true for future aquifer contamination clean -ups, which could run into billions of dollars.
Wildlife habitat and wetlands:
The proposed project is in close proximity to the Dishman Mica wildlife area. The EC stated that only
songbirds, deer, and elk were in the area. 1 personally know that a breeding pair of Red Tail Hawks,
numerous quail, woodpeckers, and last summer took note of a bald eagle in the area. There are a
number of other bird species in the area and should be identified by professionals, especially since the
area is within the Central Flyway for Migratory Birds. Additionally we have a few moose, coyote, and 1
have observed some VERY large cat paw prints in the sandy area at the end of Coleman. I feel that a
complete professionally prepared wildlife, wildlife habitat, and wetlands study is needed prior to
approval.
City and County Services financial responsibilities:
Roads in the area are small two lane roads. And even though the developer implies that no road
improvements will be required, the stated traffic figures show that many areas will need new stop signs,
signals, and many road improvements and improved storm water drainage. Will the developer be
responsible for these improvements? Or will the City of Spokane Valley and the county be responsible.
If we are responsible, the potential tax revenues will be gobbled up by these improvements alone.
Combine this with a single small aquifer contamination event, and the city could face bankruptcy.
2
a
I found other items that concerned me, such as the 70% grades when only 30% are allowed in critical
areas. But as stated above, contamination of our "sole source" aquifer and the potential clean up
financial responsibility are paramount. I realized the importance of this valuable resource when I
worked on the original Wellhead Protection Program for the Spokane Aquifer Joint Board.
Because of the "critical" designation of the area, and the developer's incomplete and possibly
misleading answers; I hope that the County and the City of Spokane will delay processing this
application, notify all stakeholders, and require that the developer submit a professionally prepared
comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prior to any further review or conditional
approval of this project.
Thank you for your attention to our local concerns.
Sincerely,
Sharon O'Shaughnessy
(509) 927 -1887
e -mail: soshaugh @comcast.net
3
) 1. ,
�.
S U C C E S S
FOOD
Truffles require
trifle of patience
PAGE C1
All A,
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2010 1 PARTLY CLOUDY 40 V29 I WWW.SPOKESMAN.COM
C @m[?Ro 0
o p a p o
� o 0
o�
Neighbors' By John Craig Dempsey's decision to require county officials to extend the de-
)ohnc @spokesman.com, (509) 4595429 an environmental impact study cision to another Ponderosa -
evacuation of fire evacuation issues was area subdivision.
COriCerriS An appellate court says Spo- "well- founded in both fact and The ruling applies to develop -
kane Valley's hearing examiner law, the Washington Court of er Lanzce Douglass' Ponderosa
prompted was right to rein in development Appeals ruled late last week. Planned Unit D 1
in the fire -prone Ponderosa
appeal neighborhood.
Now the Ponderosa Neigh-
borhood • Association,
plans for 81 single - family homes
Traffic heads Into and out of the Ponderosa area m
Hearing Examiner Michael
which
mounted the appeal, wants
See DEVELOPMENT, Al2
via Bowdish Road, one of only two ways to access
the neighborhood, on Tuesday.
UTPJTION MISSION
- N� �
eL
LEGISLATURE
Dne.M.. 7 n..___„ . _.
BUCK, PIRATES STRIVE FOR TITLE$, 81
PAGE Al2 - WEDNESDAY • FEBRUARY 10, 2010
FROM THE FRONT PAGE/ BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT
Continued from Al
on 17 acres along the south side of
44th Avenue, west of Farr Road.
That project is at the edge of
Spokane Valley. Just across the ci-
ty boundary, at the southeast cor-
ner of 44th Avenue and Schafer
Branch Road in unincorporated
Spokane County, Douglass plans
to build a 100 - home, 28 - acre proj-
ect called Ponderosa Ridge.
Ponderosa Ridge relies on the
same traffic study as Ponderosa
PUD.
Dempsey, who is also Spokane
County's hearing examiner, ap-
proved Ponderosa Ridge in Au-
gust 2005 - before he received the
traffic study data that changed his
mind.
The Court of Appeals upheld
Dempsey's Ponderosa Ridge de-
cision. The January 2009 appel-
late ruling became final when no
one petitioned the state Supreme
Court for review.
Last week's Ponderosa PUD
OFFENSIVE
Continued from Al
December that he was
sending 30,000 reinforce-
ments to Afghanistan and
will serve as a significant
test of the new U.S. strate
for turning back the Tali -
ban.
About 400 U.S. troops
from the Army's 5th Stryker
Brigade and about 250 Af-
ghan soldiers moved into
nnaitinna nnrt�hPaaf of Mar-
ruling doesn't directly affect Pon-
derosa Ridge. However, state law
says the county shall withdraw its
declaration of environmental
nonsignificance if it was obtained
through "misrepresentation or
lack of material disclosure."
The law also applies if there is
"significant new information"
about "probable significant ad-
verse environmental impacts."
Last week's decision provides
such evidence, according the
Ponderosa Neighborhood Associ-
ation. Spokane County must start
over on Ponderosa Ridge, associ-
ation attorney David Mann said in
a letter Monday to county offic-
ials.
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
David Hubert, who advises the
county Building and Planning De-
partment, said he'll need a few
weeks to study the issue.
Meanwhile, Douglass is free to
proceed on Ponderosa Ridge, for
which site preparation recently
began.
A three -judge appellate panel
Impending attack
U.S. and Afghan forces have
launched a preliminary
operation, in support of a
planned attack on Marlah, the
largost Tali ban-controlled
town in sou A
U.S. and Afghan
forces
for attack
said Dempsey properly conclud-
ed, based on his own analysis, that
a traffic study significantly under-
stated the difficulty of evacuating
the three- square -mile neighbor-
hood with only two exits.
The court said Dempsey used
the same statistics and computer
software as Whipple Consulting
Engineers, the Spokane Valley
company that prepared the traffic
study.
. Neither company President
Todd Whipple nor Douglass re-
sponded to requests for comment.
"The neighborhood is ecstatic,"
said Janice Cooperstein, a mem-
ber of the Ponderosa Neighbor-
hood Association board. "It's a
public safety issue. We're an is-
land surrounded by railroad
tracks and mountains, and the on-
lyway out rightnow is two roads,"
The two exits are where Schaf-
er and Bowdish roads intersect
Dishman-Mica Road.
Cooperstein cited the 2008 Val -
leyviewfire thatdestroyed 11 Pon-
derosa -area homes and the 1991
winning their support.
Many Afghan Pashtuns
are believed to have turned
to the Taliban, who were
driven from power in the
U.S.-led invasion of 2001,
because of disgust over the
ineffectual and corrupt
government of President
Hamid Karzai.
"The success of the oper-
ation will not be in the mili-
tary phase," NATO's civ-
ilian chief in Afghanistan,
Mark APrlwill_ tn1A r,--
"firestorm" that burned 14 homes
and threatened 105. Firestorm
flames reached the first home 30
minutes after residents were told
to evacuate.
Dempsey discovered that the
Whipple traffic analysis - which
said the neighborhood could be
evacuated in 30 minutes - was
based on "ideal conditions."
It made no allowance for snarls
such as stalled vehicles, traffic ac-
cidents, smoke - reduced visibility
or downed trees, Dempsey said.
Even with emergency person-
nel controlling intersections,
Dempsey found only 20 percent
of the existing 1,281 homes could
be evacuated in 30 minutes. His
analysis was sound, according to
the Court of Appeals.
The court reversed Superior
Court Judge Greg Sypolt's de-
cision in December 2008 that
Dempsey was wrong to require
more study of fire - evacuation is-
sues.
Dempsey said Spokane Valley
planners incorrectly decided
TOYOTA
Continued from A10
Toyota representatives
visited his offices seeking
to learn all they could.
"They're probing us.
'What are you going to ask
us, where are you going
with this whole thing?' "
said Stupak, who is chair-
man of a House subcom-
mittee looking into Toyo-
ta's problems.
Tnvnta. which rAnnrfoA
THE SPOKESMAN• REVIEW
Ponderosa PUD would have no
significant environmental effect
except for archaeological issues.
Less than a month after Sy-
polt's decision, Superior Court
Judge Kathleen O'Connor issued
an opposite ruling in a nearly
identical case.
O'Connor's decision involved
developer Bryan Walker's pro-
posed 45 -lot Ponderosa Estates
North subdivision on 15.2 acres at
3310 S. Ridgeview Drive.
In October, Walker dropped his
appeal of O'Connor's ruling. He
said he wants to redesign his proj-
ect to satisfy neighborhood and
fire district concerns.
"At some point in time, there
will be solutions to this problem,
and right now we've just decided
to wait," Walker said.
He said a third access .road
could be routed across his prop-
erty, but it would require the co-
operation of other landowners.
"This is the perfect storm fora
third access, and we're willing to
build most of it," he said.
an e -mail to the-Associated
Press.
Rough headlines for
Toyota continued Tues-
day. In other develop-
ments:
e State Farm, the lar-
gest U.S. auto insurer, said
It had informed federal
regulators late in 2007
about growing reports of
unexpected acceleration
in Toyotas. That disclosure
raised new questions
irhrnatarhdtAPr the arnvPrn_
ified. A staff memo from
the House Oversight and
Government Reform
Comtnittee, which had
planned an oversight hear-
ing for today, said there
was substantial evidence
that remedies such as re-
designed floor mats have
failed to solve problems.
The hearing was post-
poned until Feb. 24 due to
snow in Washington.
e Federal safety offic-
We CAi P Vaenin:
TRAFFIC SCOPING MEETING
about
TAYLOR COTTAGES PUD DEVELOPMENT
FEBRUARY 24, 2010
7:00 PM
at
SHERIDAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LIBRARY
3737 E. 5 TH AVENUE
TAYLOR COTTAGES IS A 251 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AT THE END OF PARK
ROAD. THESE 251 HOMES WILL CREATE AN ESTIMATED 2,294 ADDITIONAL
CAR TRIPS ON STREETS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL
USE EXITS AT PARK ROAD - SOUTH OF 12 COLEMAN AT 12 AND ON 14
WEST OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.
THIS PUD WILL AFFECT YOU AND YOUR
CHILDREN'S SAFETY, ABILITY TO EVACUATE
IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY, AND YOUR
NEIGHBORHOOD'S PEACE AND QUIET!!
WE NEED YOUR INPUT ABOUT, AND YOUR SUPPORT
AT THIS MEETING! PLEASE COME!
If you have any questions, input, or would like a copy of the planned
development design- please contact 11 and 12 Street Coalition members:
Kim Barling- 892 -5468 garde nserenity(a,Q.com
Georgette Betzer 924 -9091 mikeandgeorgette(i),comcast.net or
Dianna Leslie 922 -8462
Chryse Kaufman 927 -9080 chrysek a►,comcast.net